One of the things that I frequently do when discussing disagreements - especially biblical disagreements - with others, is to sort of systematically go down a list and, with each item, ask, "Can we agree on this?" or, "Is this rational?" It's something that has been complained about more than once, as if my constant asking if we can agree on a point is some trick.
I can assure you, it's no trick. It's just one way that I do these sorts of studies with myself. I look at a series of arguments that might be made in support of a larger point and, as I go down the list of arguments, I ask myself, "Is that reasonable? Is that a justified conclusion? Can I agree to that?"
I guess it's sort of the socratic method way of thinking through things by asking questions (although I never have thought of it in those terms, before stopping to put these thoughts down).
I bring that up because that is what I'm preparing to do here now, to re-address the question, "How did I go from a traditionalist, conservative biblical literalist opposed to any and all gay behavior to where I am now?" I'm doing this not so much for the ones who've heard me say this before, but for the benefit of someone relatively new to my opinions who is asking how this happened.
I KNOW I've done this before in a fairly systematic way and I thought I had done so here at my blog, but for the life of me, I can't find it. I am guessing I must have done it elsewhere and have now forgotten where.
So, without further ado...
1. I was starting from the position that the Bible clearly said any and all gay behavior is wrong. I loved gay folk, in my own way, but I thought that any gay behavior was wrong and harmful for them, spiritually.
[In hindsight, I fully recognize how hateful I was in my words about gay folk. Even though it was not my deliberate intent, I said some awful, hurtful things. I am sorry. It was where I was.]
2. I'm often asked (accusatorially) "well, what changed? Did you decide you were gay? Did you find out a loved one was gay? Did you have a crisis of faith and were questioning God, in general?? SOMETHING must have happened for you to change from 'accepting God's Word' [they'd say] to rejecting it!"
3. The ONE and only thing that was different was I had met some Christians who I KNEW to be Christians, based upon their obvious Christian lives and testimony, and these fellow Christians thought I was wrong in my position. Well, I was blown away by this. I'd never met a Christian who'd suggest such a thing.
I wanted to question their Christianity, but there it was, in their testimony and lives, there was no debating that they were Christians. And so, I did the only thing I could do: I accepted them as Christians who were just horribly, terribly wrong on this one point. I'm comfortable with disagreement and while, ideally, it would be cool if all Christians agreed on every point and were thus unified, I recognize that in this fallen world, we won't all agree. Even on important matters.
4. But, it got me to wondering, "HOW IN THE WORLD could they possibly in a million years think some gay behavior is okay?" And so, I looked at the Bible and what it did and didn't have to say about homosexuality, and did so with fresh eyes. I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT do so with the expectation that I would change my mind, nor the desire to, I was just wondering how in the world they could even BEGIN to justify disagreeing with me and the traditional interpretations I held. To be honest, I would say I went into it with at least a little intention to be better informed to better REFUTE their crazy hunch!
5. I can't emphasize enough that merely finding some Christians who disagreed with me would not be enough to make me change my mind. By that point, I had already begun identifying with anabaptism and their pacifism. I was very use to being in a minority position as it relates to others within Christendom and I am fine with disagreeing with other Christians, even on important topics. That I had happened upon some "real" Christians who disagreed with me was in NO WAY something that I would make me want to change my mind. It just did not happen like that in the real world.
6. And so, I looked at what the Bible had to say, again. But what could there defense possibly be? I wondered. The Bible is abundantly clear on the topic with plenty of evidence in support of the position that any and all gay behavior is wrong! Why, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, I thought. How could it be more clear?! Two whole towns were DESTROYED because of their acceptance of homosexuality!
Right?
And I looked at the passages about S/G. And you know what I found? NOT ONE WORD saying or suggesting that S/G were destroyed because of homosexuality. Still, clearly, all the men of Sodom wanted to bring out the male visitors to rape them... gay behavior, right?
7. In trying to answer that question honestly, I had to admit, "Well, they were trying to RAPE other men. And we don't condemn ALL heterosexuality just because some males rape women, do we? In fairness to those who disagree with me and the Bible, we can't really condemn all gay folk merely because some men in S/G wanted to rape men, can we?"
And, much to my dismay, I had to answer, "No."
8. In fact, I found out that the Ezekiel passage about S/G says specifically WHY S/G were destroyed:
this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
The very closest that I could get to some gay behavior is "did detestable things," but that's sort of a leap. Rape, after all, is the detestable thing that we find in the story. To suggest that S/G were destroyed for supporting homosexuality is just not justified in the Bible.
Oh, sure, there is the Jude passage about Sodom going after "strange flesh," but that's not exactly a compelling argument in its vagueness, either.
9. Still, at this point, all that had shown me was that S/G were not destroyed for homosexuality, nothing more. I still was quite convinced the bible clearly condemned all forms of homosexuality.
10. Nonetheless, this DID put a big dent in my package of Bible verses against homosexuality. IF we eliminate passages about behaviors that are wrong/bad for gay OR straight people (and that includes prostitution, rape, licentiousness, forced child prostitution, etc), then that eliminates the bulk of Bible passages potentially dealing with all gay behavior.
11. In fact, that left me with less than five-six passages in the whole Bible that appeared to likely be on the topic.
12. Nonetheless, something being condemned "only" five times is PLENTY of condemnation, so I looked at those five passages to find support for my position against homosexuality.
13. At this point, I had these five passages: Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, Romans 1, 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Corinthians 6: The entire biblical argument against homosexuality, it would seem.
14. In only TWO passages was the word, "homosexual" used in the whole Bible (although, that depended upon your translation - in most translations, it does not appear at all). Those two places are 1 Tim 1 and 1 Cor 6. So, I jumped to those, since they had the advantage of being New Testament teachings.
15. In both of those passages, you have Paul offering a list of behaviors that are not part of God's kingdom. These behaviors included fornication, idol worship, greed, stealing, etc, along with homosexuality. Clear enough! This behavior (I assumed all homosexual behavior) is NOT part of God's kingdom, any more than greed or stealing!
16. But why, I asked myself, did homosexual appear in only some translations, but not most? What is the Greek word being discussed there, "homosexual," right?
17. In looking into it, I saw that the word was NOT translated "homosexual" because that was not the word being used. There was a Greek word for homosexual, but Paul did not use that in either of these passages. Why is that? I asked myself...
18. It turned out that there are two words here that APPEAR to have some homosexual connotation. In the NIV, the words used are translated, "Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offender." I learned that these are a translation of the words "malakoi" - literally meaning "soft," and arsenokoites (and don't think I didn't notice that "arse" in there!), which is literally translated "men - bed," or maybe even, "men - penetrator," since "koitus" had a sexual connotation. I also learned that there is no consensus on how the words ought to be translated (and you can see this in the many different translations of these words).
19. Well, now that may or may not have helped my argument against all homosexual behavior. Why wouldn't Paul have just used the word for homosexual if he wanted to condemn homosexuality? I wondered. I had no good answer. Ultimately, that Paul did NOT use the normal word for homosexual when a Greek word existed, made me discount these two-three passages that I had previously considered so "obvious."
For me, then, at this point, these two passages were a wash. MAYBE they were condemning all gay behavior, but I honestly could not justify saying, "Yes, these are definitely talking about all gay behavior."
20. So, from there I moved on to the three remaining verses, which CLEARLY were speaking of gay behavior and condemning it. So, it doesn't matter if there are "only" three passages condemning a behavior. If it is wrong and that is only said so once, then that one time is enough. After all, bestiality is only condemned one time in the Bible, right? So, confident that I was still right, I turned to the three remaining passages: Two in Leviticus and one in Romans.
21. Looking at the OT:
Do NOT have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable, says Lev 18.
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death, says Lev 20.
"Do NOT do this..." "Detestable!" Clearly these two passages are condemning gay behavior and from a straightforward reading, they are condemning ALL gay behavior (well, at least all GAY MALE behavior, since no lesbian action isn't mentioned. I thought it was safely implied, though).
22. Clear, I thought, but at the same time, there was the whole OT problem. Having been raised in a traditional Southern Baptist background, I had it drilled into me repeatedly, "We are NOT under the LAW of the OT." Christians today in no way are obligated to obey all the OT rules. As Paul says in Romans 6...
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
And again, in Romans 8...
because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.
23. Beyond that, clearly, NONE of us Christians would give a second thought to the notion that we ought to obey all the laws in the OT. After all, the VERY VERSE that condemned "men lying with men" said we ought to KILL THEM, and NO ONE today believes that is a good or moral teaching that applies to us. In fact, most of us would agree the second half of that verse would be horribly IMMORAL.
24. Beyond that, there are verses in the same section of Leviticus that condemns growing hair on the side of your head, wearing polyester and other behaviors that NONE OF US believed were sinful in the least!
25. So, how should I handle these two passages in Leviticus, I asked myself. I looked at them further and in context.
26. Growing up Southern Baptist, for all of its problems, gave me a very rich familiarity with the Bible. The Baptists, at least in my experience, took Bible study seriously. Because of that, I was familiar with the notion that Leviticus chapters 17 through 26 were part of what is called the Holiness Code. All of Leviticus was written specifically for Israel and the HC in particular were rules specifically for the Israelites at that time. The purpose of these rules were at least two-fold: To help the Israelis know how to rightly deal with one another in a new land and to encourage Israel NOT to adapt habits and rituals that were part of the surrounding (and often hostile) nations.
No Christian biblical scholars that I knew of at the time suggested in any way that these rules were eternal rules for all people and all times.
27. Nonetheless, there WERE rules in the HC that reflected what we might call Universal morals - behaviors to avoid that are always in all times and with all people immoral. In fact, I had heard growing up that there were three sorts of rules found in the HC: Universal rules, Ceremonial rules and Civil rules.
28. Universal rules are morals that are always to be heeded. The ceremonial rules had to do with washing your hands, not touching the dead and other ceremonial "clean-ness" issues. The civil rules were to tell Israel how to adjudge one another.
29. Of these, obviously only the "universal rules" would apply today. Okay, I thought, now I'm getting somewhere. Obviously, I thought, killing, rape, "men laying with men," these all fall under the "universal rules" of the HC, right?
30. Looking into THIS angle some more, I found out (I think I knew this, but it didn't sink in right away) that the whole notion of dividing the HC up into three categories is a modern device. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says, "These passages are to be considered universal, THESE passages are to be considered ceremonial..." Is there an objective source or way to determine which of these rules were universal? I asked myself.
Not that I could find anywhere in the text.
That angle took me nowhere.
31. Still, "Men shall not lie with men, it is detestable!" "An abomination!" in some translations. That seemed pretty strong condemnation. Wouldn't such a condemnation ONLY be used with universal morals/rules? I asked myself.
Turns out, no. That sort of condemnation was used with other behaviors that obviously aren't what we would consider "an abomination." Eating shrimp and pork, for instance (both of which I consider to be the OPPOSITE of "abomination..."). So, the whole "Wouldn't that term be used only to condemn the worst behaviors" angle didn't work out, either, to support my position against homosexuality.
32. There were probably some other thoughts I may have had about these two OT verses, but it didn't worry me, much. In short, the problem with OT passages is that they are OT, and they just don't apply en toto to us today. There are certainly great wonderful morals taught in the OT, but not every moral taught in the OT is applicable today and we have no way from the OT itself to say, "Yes, this is a moral applicable today and that isn't!" It just does not exist in the OT.
33. Didn't matter. EVEN IF there were only one verse condemning a behavior clearly, that was sufficient to say the behavior IS wrong. And I had at least one clear passage in the NT: Romans 1. Speaking of sinful humanity - those who ignored God's will and became increasingly depraved, Paul saysÉ
God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Pretty clear, huh? AND it is a condemnation of both men AND women engaging in homosexual acts - any and all homosexual acts, it seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? Men "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another!" Even though that doesn't use the word, "homosexual," it is clearly condemning gay and lesbian behavior!
Or does it?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Marriage Equity: My Journey I
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
Merely a question.
Dan Trabue: "There was a Greek word for homosexual"
In the research I've done the Greeks had no such word. According to this article, "In ancient Greece, there never was a word to describe homosexual practices: they were simply part of aphrodisia, love, which included men and women alike." Plato used malakos to describe effeminate males (who would be expected to be sexually abused by their masters). Current thought is that arsenokoites is a term actually coined by Paul or, perhaps, a term that was in use in Corinth at the time. It has been located in other Greek texts as a connection to male-male sex and linked to paiderastia (specifically man-boy sex). The term we use, "homosexual", is derived from Greek origins ("homo" + "sexual"), but our term wasn't coined until 1869. So what was the Greek word for homosexual that Paul did not use?
"NOT ONE WORD saying or suggesting that S/G were destroyed because of homosexuality."
NO ONE ever said homosexuality was the ONLY reason for the destruction. But sexual immorality of all sorts was commonplace based on traditional understanding. I've only begun to read this "journey", so perhaps later there is something of a definitive refutation of thousands of years of understanding. We'll see.
"Still, clearly, all the men of Sodom wanted to bring out the male visitors to rape them..."
There's noting in the text that suggests that is their intention until AFTER Lot refuses their "invitation". You seem to think that if Lot's visitors were willing, they'd all have turned away because they didn't get the chance to take them by force. Nice try, but it won't work. If you want to pretend you seriously studied, you'll have to do better than project meaning that doesn't exist. All we have is the words on the page. Those words do NOT suggest rape was what they came for as a preference over willing compliance of the visitors.
"In fairness to those who disagree with me and the Bible, we can't really condemn all gay folk merely because some men in S/G wanted to rape men, can we?"
A bit arrogant, don't you think, to put yourself in the same sentence with the Bible as regards those who disagree with YOU? That is, disagreeing with you does not equate to disagreeing with the Bible, especially on this subject where you are in total disagreement with Scripture.
What's more, NO ONE condemns "gay" fold at all, except for God condemning those who ignore His clearly revealed intention. For us, it is only the act of men having sex with men that is condemned and that because God does as well, not because Sodomites were willing to rape if they didn't get the preferred answer to their invitation.
More later, as I labor through the rest.
To be completely honest - if we're going the way of testimony here - my process was different, because I started out being non-bigoted about gay folk (by and large), and wondered what, exactly, some folks in some churches were carrying on about.
After perusing the texts from Leviticus and Romans (the latter of which always seems fuzzy anyway; St. Paul was a master of the multiple qualifying clause, and in this case, the idea that he is talking about sex with temple prostitutes seems as good as any other; honesty should compel most people to admit the Romans 1 passage just isn't that clear), I said, "Is that it?"
Well, there are the lists of things some of the epistle writers make that include "sodomy", but, again, the Greek is more equivocal so it could refer to pretty much any sex act that people disapprove.
A whole case made out of Biblical proof texts like these has never impressed me. Struggling with the matter of a call to ministry, having to answer questions that don't have final answers, struggling with the far more powerful, and thoroughgoing, doctrinal concepts of grace, of Divine love, and of God's desire for justice and loving community - what were these few verses lifted from scattered texts against the great weight of the Biblical narrative about God, God's Kingdom, and the Incarnation?
To this day, the only answer that satisfies me is this - yes, there are texts that condemn man-on-man sexual relations in the Bible. In harsh terms. There are all sorts of things in the Bible that are questionable from a variety of standpoints. How to fit these pieces in to the puzzle of faith (to use one metaphor) is a struggle - whether it's Balaam's talking donkey, or Joshua getting the sun to stop moving in the sky (hint: it doesn't really move!) - and one should not abandon texts that are odd, or troubling, or give offense.
One also should not build an entire set of beliefs and practices on a few scattered verses, either.
Marshall, you are welcome to make comments here about my POINTS. I will not abide much in the way of ad hom attacks and strawmen fallacies.
Got it?
To help you out, saying, "There's noting in the text that suggests that is their intention until AFTER Lot refuses their "invitation"." and then make your case with some support, that is fine.
On the other hand, saying, "If you want to pretend you seriously studied, you'll have to do better than project meaning that doesn't exist." is an ad hom distraction and I won't abide or respond to that sort of grade school "debate" (and I ask others on my side to do likewise: Just ignore any ad hom distractions, as they are not meant for adult nor Christian consumption, anyway).
On the points you made...
1. In the world that I grew up in, people DID associate S/G with homosexuality. So, yes, someone HAS said that. I grew up with it. But it's not in the text. That is my point. It's just not, that was my first example on this issue of realizing that many people were reading something into the text that was not there.
2. I suppose you can read those lines about the "invitation" to come out for sex as not an attempted rape, but contextually, that sounds pretty clearly implied to me. We can't prove it one way or the other, but that's how it reads to me. Regardless, if they were inviting them out for consensual licentious random sex, that is not a condemnation of all gay behavior, either.
Nonetheless, I think the text is pretty obvious that there is a rape attitude in the crowd.
Look at the text, and say you can't see that...
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
["bring them out..." - a demand, not "would they be interested in coming out..." a question. -dt]
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
Seriously Marshall, looking at the text ("treat you worse than them," "Bring them out!" "surrounded the house..."), this is an attempted gang rape. Do you really suspect otherwise? You don't really consider these the words of group courtship, do you?
3. Responding to one ad hom: When I said, "those who disagree with me and the Bible," I was referring to OLD "me," the one who thought the Bible was obviously opposed to all gay behavior. And yes, the Old me was a bit arrogant, as well as the latest me. The "those" in question, were the liberals who disagreed with my position that all gay behavior was wrong.
So, yes, I was pretty arrogant when I held that more conservative position, Marshall. Do you really agree with me on that, Marshall? Cool!
Thanks for the testimony, Geoffrey. At this point, I can't see it any more, but I cannot tell you how convinced I was back in the day.
Stan, in my earlier days of trying to find out the definition of those words, I read somewhere that there was a Greek word for homosexuality, but I don't recall right now and a quick search did not turn anything up. I'll let you know if I find it and I'll make a correction if I can't.
My research DID confirm what you are saying, though: That the term Paul used appeared to be referencing man/boy sex practices, not "homosexuality" in general.
There's so much here to address that there is no doubt it will get bogged down if I respond to every, shall I say, "less than important" statement (how to proceed in Dan's world without being accused of bad behavior is a total mystery to rational man). There was no "ad hom" whatsoever. This statement:
"If you want to pretend you seriously studied, you'll have to do better than project meaning that doesn't exist."
...is based on your own. You say you've studied seriously, but your words show you've merely projected what the text doesn't imply. Thus, claims of serious study are hard to take...seriously. To wit:
If they had said "Bring them out so we can meet them formally...", I suppose that would imply to you an aggressive action? You don't like the choice of words so you assume rape is on their minds? This is projection. They only got surly after Lot rejected their "request". You say "demand", but "bring them out" isn't necessarily a demand in the sense of an aggressive command. "Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!" Yeah, the folks were frightened into bringing out their dead.
Oh...it's the "surrounding the house" bit? Are you sure this should be taken literally, or is this simply another case of selective literalism on your part?
I won't debate every nuance but to say that you can't come to your conclusions about this story in the way that you do without help. How can thousands of years of Jewish and Christian understanding have insisted homosexuality was rampant in these towns if it wasn't true? What REAL evidence could you provide to show that ONLY rape of strangers was the extent of their homosexual activities? Why would heterosexual men not imprisoned without women for lengthy periods of time find raping other men to be a good time? Your conclusions are not sound or based on the real world, modern or ancient.
Marshall...
I won't debate every nuance but to say that you can't come to your conclusions about this story in the way that you do without help.
And yet, Marshall, I DID. So, stick to the facts of the story and explain your opinions/support your statements with something other than guesswork.
You don't think that story is an obvious rape/malicious intent story? Don't believe it, then.
However, if you want someone else to believe that attempts at knocking down doors, demanding access to people, pleas to not harm people, promises of causing harm are NOT aggressive behavior and are mere courting practices, you'll have to mount a more substantial case than just saying, "it's not an attempted rape."
How can thousands of years of Jewish and Christian understanding have insisted homosexuality was rampant in these towns if it wasn't true?
1. I don't know that there are thousands of years of understanding that homosexuality was rampant in this town. That might be the case, but I don't know it. Do you have anything to support it?
2. I do know that in my southern baptist world in the 1960s-1980s, that was the widespread conclusion, but in that case, I'm inclined to think it was for cultural reasons, since the text does not support it.
3. And that is what I'm speaking about: The TEXT, not what people read into the text. In the TEXT, there is nothing suggesting that they were destroyed because of "rampant homosexuality," is there?
Marshall...
What REAL evidence could you provide to show that ONLY rape of strangers was the extent of their homosexual activities?
That was not my argument. My argument is THE TEXT does not support the conclusion that S/G were destroyed for homosexuality in general, since it is NEVER MENTIONED in the text.
I mean, we could guess that they had gay pride parades and flounced about in tutus, but THE TEXT does not support such hunches.
Again: THIS sort of READING INTO the text what isn't there is exactly the thing that logically and biblically began driving me away from my old position. For the longest time, I would say the exact same things and NEVER REALIZE that I was reading into the text what was not there.
Eisegesis: Not a good Bible study method.
Why would heterosexual men not imprisoned without women for lengthy periods of time find raping other men to be a good time?
? I'm not sure of your point here. Clearly S/G were violent and depraved towns. Their lack of hospitality and depraved behavior (as attempted rape could certainly be considered) are mentioned specifically to support their sinful ways. I don't know why any rapists or gang-bangers would find that to be a good time, do you?
There are several reasons why this post - yet another in a series - creates more heat than light. First, we will read the same thing on all sides. We have been down this road so often, we all know what each person will say, which Bible verses will be dredged up, and at which points each person will throw up his or her hands and walk away.
Second, while Dan is merely explaining the thought process that led him from Position "A" to Position "B", this sounds like an invitation by Art to point out not only how wrong Dan was at each stage of the process, but that his recitation is not only erroneous but disingenuous. It doesn't matter what any of us say; not being conservative, our honesty and integrity is already a matter of opinion. Edwin Drood once posted a comment on something I'd written in support of the troops: "Stop pretending to care about the troops!" How could he write that? Because, being a lefty, I obviously don't care about the troops, so anything I say in support of the troops is a lie. QED.
Finally, Art won't get that this series of posts is not a matter for argument or discussion. By their very nature, they are describing actual events in Dan's life. Whether or not any of us agree or disagree with where Dan was, intellectually and otherwise, at the various points along the way, one cannot argue that in being at these points he was, somehow, "wrong". There is not value-laden content here. There's just a description of events.
Yet, of course, Art has to come along and claim that Dan has been, and always will be, wrong about this or that or the other. Instead of reading in silence, and carrying away in contemplation, he stands up and says, "Well, you're just wrong, and here's why."
I offered my own little testimony - very incomplete and hardly exhaustive - because this was, I felt, more in keeping with the spirit of the posts. Anything anyone writes by way of "response" or "rebuttal" to anything I wrote will be devoutly ignored, because it is descriptive. You may not agree with the positions I take; you cannot argue that the journey I took as described didn't happen, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.
So, Geoffrey, no matter how stupid, outrageous, impossible or just plain goofy a person's "journey" is, it is not to be critiqued in your opinion. Fine. I disagree, especially since he invited us to read the damned thing.
Furthermore, I have been asking for him to justify his position and he is doing so. Now I can see what he did and comment on why he is indeed the goofy fool his previous years of comments have presented him as.
Better than that, if I can detect a flaw in his thinking, and that shoudln't be too difficult as my initial comment have shown, then perhaps Dan can be enlightened as to the gross error of his ways. I won't hold my breath, but all things are possible.
Dan,
I am indeed going my the text as it is written and the first flaw is in the first statement of the men, "Bring out..." This doesn't suggest anything more than an invitation to join in their depraved homosexual practices. You suggest rape because of what follows, but the initial request ("demand" in your pro-homosexual mind) doesn't suggest that unless you want it to, which apparently, you do.
As to whether or not they were destroyed for only homosexuality, I've already submitted that no one has ever said that was the only, or even the main reason for their destruction. I hope you'll have the spine to reject that argument as worthy of comment since there is no one who uses it.
But try to find any commentary not composed within the last 50-100 years that does NOT regard S/G as being a place where ALL SORTS of sexual immorality was rampant.
More later..
Art, if Dan wrote a post about a family journey from their home in Kentucky to Los Angeles, I wouldn't be a bit surprised that you would tell him his decision to take old US Route 66 once they hit St. Louis was goofy and wrong, and spend quite a bit of time criticizing each and every step from that point on.
These posts are little different in kind. He isn't looking for you, or me, or anyone else to explain to him where he may or may not have erred. He is talking about, as the title quite clearly states, his journey. He is being honest, clear, and whether or not you or me or anyone else approves or disapproves, setting out how he came to accept marriage equality.
Yet, you somehow believe it necessary to tell Dan how wrong he is. Based upon . . . nothing. I find it rude, disrespectful, and arrogant to presume to pronounce judgment upon a simple description of events in the life of another person.
Like Alan always says, busybodies and fusspots . . .
Dan,
I would like to thank you for finally giving folks a glimpse into your thought process.
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions, but I appreciate your documenting it.
I could have sworn I'd done this before here, but it must have been elsewhere.
Geoffrey, Marshall, thanks for your thoughts, but from hence forward, if you have a comment about my thinking in my journey, comment on that. Not about each other or about Dan. About the POINTS, not the person.
Marshall...
I've already submitted that no one has ever said that was the only, or even the main reason for their destruction.
Good for you. I know you said that.
And I said quite clearly that your pronouncement that no one has ever said that, that people HAVE said that. People I know and heard first hand. So, as Geoffrey pointed out, you can't really say, "It didn't happen." You can say that this is not a major argument being made, but you can't say it doesn't/hasn't happened.
Marshall...
try to find any commentary not composed within the last 50-100 years that does NOT regard S/G as being a place where ALL SORTS of sexual immorality was rampant.
I'm not talking about modern commentary. I'm talking about what the Bible doesn't say: It does not attribute S/G's fall to homosexuality. That's all my comment was. Respond to my comments about points I made, if you wish, but don't make up stuff and argue against that.
Marshall...
You suggest rape because of what follows, but the initial request ("demand" in your pro-homosexual mind) doesn't suggest that unless you want it to, which apparently, you do.
As I stated, that is what the text suggests clearly to me. It had nothing to do with me "wanting it to" say that. The text says what it says and I can't imagine any reasonable interpretation that does not say that looks like an attempted assault/rape.
Do you truly disagree and, not only disagree, but don't even think it's a possible, plausible interpretation?
As to my purpose of this post: It was specifically in response to a couple of people outside the regular commenters here. Probably folk who won't even post here. But they asked me how I reached this conclusion and I have got the same question in times past. And so now, I can just point them here.
As to Geoffrey's thought that this may post may not generate any light, I guess I have to believe that we don't know how much light it may generate. Some more stuck in their beliefs may respond only harshly and without regard to my actual points. But I know others who read and don't comment who find it important that someone would state this case.
So, the purpose for this post is for their sake, moreso than Marshall's.
Where I said...
I said quite clearly that your pronouncement that no one has ever said that, that people HAVE said that.
I meant to say...
I said quite clearly that DESPITE your pronouncement that no one has ever said that, that people HAVE in fact said that.
I am only concerned with the actual points made, and how poorly made they are. That you prefer to take any criticism as a personal attack requires professional intervention. But as your points come from you, it is far too difficult to spend time finding just the right words that will not lead to such an overly defensive response on your part.
"The text says what it says and I can't imagine any reasonable interpretation that does not say that looks like an attempted assault/rape."
The story begins with all the men surrounding the house and bidding Lot to bring out the visitors so that they can have sex with them. Stop there. Where's the intention for rape? You support the "inhospitable" argument, do you not? What could be more hospitable than the whole town coming to meet the two visitors? What's to say that having sex with visitors isn't their cultural means of welcome?
The point here is that you are engaging in your own eisegesis by jumping to a conclusion regarding the intentions of the men of Sodom. It was only after Lot refused them did they get surly and THAT is the way the story proceeds. It is only THEN that any case for rape can be made. But YOU jump right to the rape scenario as the only possible one, ignoring previous verses speaking of their rampant wickedness.
What's more, you speak of "detestable" based upon your own biases regarding the word, not God's. This is commonplace with you. You like to pretend that conservatives regard God's will on sexuality based on cultural prejudices (which, by the way, are based on Biblical teachings regarding human sexuality), but your own biases regarding the meaning of words like "detestable" are blatant in your "interpretations". It would seem to me, and other honest readers of Scripture, that detestable practices would be that which is counter to God's intention. His intention for human sexuality has only been described as what occurs between a man and woman within a marriage. No other sexual practice is ever noted as acceptable to him. None. Thus, anything outside that parameter would be detestable TO HIM, regardless of what YOU feel is detestable to you and/or most other human beings in our culture.
As to what is understood about S & G throughout the ages, it would seem to me that anything in Scripture, during your "serious study" would provoke an inquiry of someone more knowledgeable and scholarly. (For example, to this day, I still search out any insights into gambling, among other things.) I find it curious for one who demands from me all sorts of data to back up my positions that you sought none for your own. Yet, you wish others to believe an understanding so removed from thousands of years of tradition is in any way a "possible, plausible interpretation".
What's more, regarding the story itself, as Lot offered his daughters, it seems pretty clear that whatever they had in mind for the visitors, they would likely do to the daughters. Some have claimed that women were so insignificant that to throw one's daughters to the wolves would be a likely thing in that day and age. This flies in the face of human nature (regarding the average man toward his children) and what Scripture tells us about Lot's character. But it does tell us that what the Sodomites had in mind was worse in Lot's mind than what they might do to his daughters. Thus, if homosexual rape is worse than hetero rape, how can we suppose that homosexual behavior is equal to hetero behavior in the best of circumstances? If loving homo relationships are just as righteous and loving hetero relationships, then homo rape can't be worse than hetero rape.
And the visitors being under Lot's protection is a lame argument here, because aren't his daughters also under his protection?
The issue of this story isn't rape, but homosexual desires that are so strong they are willing to take the visitors by force. THAT is the reasonable interpretation. And it is an example of just how wicked and depraved the Sodomites were.
More later.
One more thing:
"Why would heterosexual men not imprisoned without women for lengthy periods of time find raping other men to be a good time?
? I'm not sure of your point here."
The point is that anyone not into homosex behavior would not participate in a homosex rape (unless they were convicts imprisoned without a woman for a long, long time). How could they if they if they were not so "oriented"? Would they even enjoy watching someone so degraded if rape was the point of the encounter? It doesn't make any sense. Homosexual practices had to be commonplace if the story is to make any sense even by your interpretation.
On topic, Marshall, you say...
The story begins with all the men surrounding the house and bidding Lot to bring out the visitors so that they can have sex with them. Stop there. Where's the intention for rape?
Throughout the TEXT of the story, as I've already pointed out.
surrounded the house.
"Bring them out."
But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.
"Get out of our way!"
"we'll treat you worse than them."
Break down the door.
These are the words in the story that suggest an assault and sex against their will. More than suggest.
But okay, you think that is normal courting procedure. That's fine. I disagree and find the suggestion that this is not an attempted rape to be contrary to a plain reading of the Bible.
What now? Can you prove your case to me? Can I prove my case to you?
I don't think so.
So, what now?
Marshall, to help again to clarify the difference between conversation and ad hom/strawman distractions:
Asking, "do you really think this is an attempted rape scene? What of ...?"
That is respectful dialog and intelligent conversation.
Saying, "What's more, you speak of "detestable" based upon your own biases regarding the word, not God's. This is commonplace with you"
This is an ad hom distraction.
You SAY that I speak of detestable based upon my biases, but you offer no support for it, because there is no support for it.
Don't do that.
Take my positions and reference them and give a reason why I should agree with you and, if you think yours is the one and only possible explanation, you'll have to make some sort of much more astounding case than, "I think so."
As I said, knowing the specifics of how you arrive at your suspicions of ad hom attacks is mystifying. More on that later.
"But okay, you think that is normal courting procedure. That's fine. I disagree and find the suggestion that this is not an attempted rape to be contrary to a plain reading of the Bible."
No. I don't think any such thing. My point was that you jump to a conclusion based on your own bias. I said to stop at a certain point and tell me how rape was intended based on the text. YOU jump to the following verses which, if you were honest and/or reasonable, would have to agree that Lot's response plays a roll in what then follows. There's nothing in the text that suggests that the men are thinking of rape, even if I concede that their plan was to rape if necessary. But even then, it is a backup plan. There is nothing to suggest that they would not have been perfectly satisfied with willing participants, had Lot and his visitors been so.
But Lot's response is the key here. Even then, with his response, one cannot assume rape is the issue, but only homosexual behavior. THAT is the issue to which Lot is responding, the desire to have sexual relations with the visitors, who are assumed by the Sodomites to be men. You must keep in mind that Lot is considered a righteous man, if not the smartest dude in the ancient world. Why would he refer to their request in the negative if it was in any way a permissible behavior or a behavior of no moral concern? Would you suggest that it is because it was outside a loving, committed and monogamous relationship? That makes no sense as it was before God handed down the Law. Are you going to go with the protection argument again? There is nothing in the story that suggests such a sexual encounter would be something from which protection would be necessary. Not until AFTER Lot refuses their request.
Now, I do not say that this is the truth of it. But if you are going to talk about "serious study", you cannot suggest that by merely and exclusively going by the text that your conclusion is the more reasonable. For going by the text step by step, the notion of rape or force of any kind does not, CAN NOT be suggested until AFTER Lot responds to their request. Otherwise, you'd have to assume that the men would have turned away if the visitors came out willing to engage, rather than satisfy themselves with pretending to rape two guys who were not really denying them. The issue here is homosexual behavior, not rape, though rape would have resulted had not the visitors intervened. And Lot was referring to homosexual sex as wickedness.
more...
As to your charge, it was you who suggested what might be considered detestable or depraved...
"...depraved behavior (as attempted rape could certainly be considered)"
Here, you give an example of what you believe could certainly be considered depraved. And to most human beings of conscience, rape would be considered depraved. But that doesn't mean God's idea of depraved or detestable is equal to ours. You are projecting YOUR notion of what constitutes depraved behavior. Lev 18:22 shows what God's notion is. Apparently Lot agreed with God even before God handed down the Law.
So, please stow the overly sensitive defensiveness. It's nothing but a ploy to inhibit counters to your conclusions.
Marshall...
My point was that you jump to a conclusion based on your own bias.
No. I don't. That is just YOU reading into my conclusion something that is not there, apparently based upon your own bias.
Remember: I WAS OPPOSED TO ALL HOMOSEXUALITY. My bias, such as it was, was in opposition to any gay behavior. So, suggesting against all facts that my bias against gay behavior caused me to "read" a rape scenario into this is just bizarre, Marshall.
I said to stop at a certain point and tell me how rape was intended based on the text. YOU jump to the following verses which, if you were honest and/or reasonable, would have to agree that Lot's response plays a roll in what then follows.
Okay Marshall, here's another story:
Some men walked into a bar. They saw a woman. They approached her. They talked with her some. Then, when no one was watching, they forced her into the alley and assaulted her.
Now, Stop at the first line, or even the second line. Based on those first two lines, is there any reason to think their intent was assault?
I'm looking at the whole story because THE WHOLE STORY IS THERE IN THE TEXT. Why would I stop at the first line to draw a conclusion?
So, no, I DON'T "have to agree" that Lot's response has anything to do with the attempted gang rape described in the story. And I am reasonable and honest and I was the first time I was looking at this story in my study described here. That is, unless you think being conservative and holding a traditional position = dishonest and unreasonable.
Is that your point?
But I would return to an earlier question I had of you, Marshall:
So what now?
You find your position reasonable, whether I do or not. I find your position less than reasonable and mine to be reasonable.
Now what?
Should we pick and snip at each other or should we say, "We disagree. I think you're wrong on this non-essential point and you think I'm wrong. May God grant us all wisdom and grace and may it be evident in our lives as we continue in fellowship, even though we disagree on this point?"
In your usual fashion, you submit a scenario that does not match in the least the one we're discussing and expect it to win you debate points. I can just as easily compose a tale that waits until the third chapter before a rape occurs and demand you explain how anyone could foresee it.
But I don't play that game. I'm dealing with the text. You're saying it is all about rape. I'm saying it's about homosexual behavior specifically and sexual depravity generally. If you're going to read the story honestly, you can't say it's all about rape when no suggestion of rape occurs until well into the story and ONLY after a request to indulge in homosexual activity is rejected by Lot. There's a reason why it becomes a rape situation, and that's because the request of sex is denied and described as wicked. THAT seems to piss off the men of the town as Lot was not a native and telling them what was right vs wrong. THEN they get insistent about their intentions. The request itself demonstrates the depravity of the Sodomites and their reaction to Lot's rebuke furthers that demonstration. Once again, you have to keep in mind that at this point no Law of God was revealed that would make ANY sexual behavior sinful. Yet, Lot knows the truth (based, I would insist, on a rational and honest look at nature, there being two compatible and complimentary sexes after all).
So what we have is an example of Sodomite depravity. First, they want homosexual sex. Second, their depravity is at such level that they'll rape a person who won't comply. You'll note that no other sexual proclivity is offered to illustrate their depravity but homosexual behavior.
Now, you certainly aren't forced to agree with anything, and it's plain you won't agree to anything that conflicts with your chosen interpretation (rather than an actual interpretation), but what you prefer to believe is based on incredibly lame and lazy reasoning.
"...unless you think being conservative and holding a traditional position = dishonest and unreasonable."
That depends on what you want to call "conservative and traditional". To say that you opposed homosexual behavior as sinful does not give a clear and precise description of your so-called conservative and traditional beliefs. Given that your current beliefs are incredibly wacky when you don't reduce it to the most generic of bullet points, I'm not confident that your understanding of what is truly conservative and traditional was ever an accurate one.
more...
Let's go back to your little story. I would answer "No, there is no reason to suspect a rape is intended until you state that they took her by force." There is no reason to suspect that they wanted anything but to talk to her based on your story, up until that point where they took her by force. Unlike the story we're discussing, your loaded attempt doesn't provide any info beyond that they approached a woman and began talking. Up until the time they took her by force, they could have been asking her if she'd like to make extra money in her free time in network marketing. The Lot story clearly explains they were there for sex with two visitors they took to be men. Their intentions were clear: sex with the visitors. Homo sex with the visitors. THIS is what Lot denied them. THAT is what led them to try to take the visitors by force. This does not take a lot of deliberation and genius to see. But it takes something far less than reasonableness and honesty to ignore the manner in which the situation progressed in order to come to a conclusion that it was only about rape.
So what now? What happens now is that I continue on with your "journey" to see what other laziness and projection led to your unBiblical position on homosexuality. It is not "non-essential" when the result is your taking a clearly revealed commandment and altering it to your satisfaction.
It would seem if you were the open minded person you as you pretend to be, then despite the quality of your "serious study", you'd still be open to other, more reasoned explanations. It seems you have no intention of a continued search for truth as you cling to such poor understandings so strongly. We'll see, I have no doubt.
Marshall...
If you're going to read the story honestly, you can't say it's all about rape when no suggestion of rape occurs until well into the story...
HERE, Marshall, is where you divert from just having a Bible study/conversation to engaging in ad hom attacks.
I AM reading it honestly. I WAS reading it honestly when I was more conservative. There is no reason to break down into this ad hom attack, it's a distraction from the argument at hand and can only be rejected as irrelevant, off topic and reflective of poor conversational skills.
Marshall continuing...
...and ONLY after a request to indulge in homosexual activity is rejected by Lot. There's a reason why it becomes a rape situation, and that's because the request of sex is denied and described as wicked.
And that is a FINE HUNCH you have there, Marshall. Unfortunately for you, I find your hunch to not be supported by the text. YOU SAY that the intention was (and can only reasonably be considered) an afterthought after they were denied mass sex freely. But the text does not insist on that. This is an example of you reading into the text something that isn't there. As is this...
You'll note that no other sexual proclivity is offered to illustrate their depravity but homosexual behavior.
The example offered seems clearly to me to be a gang rape attempt. YOU ARE READING INTO IT that the only possible interpretation of the story is that it was initially speaking ill of group sex.
I don't think you are getting that this is not something the text is demanding, only you.
But, setting that aside, Marshall, EVEN IF it is condemning group sex, that is no more relevant than if it was condemning rape, as I think the text clearly demonstrates. Since Christians such as myself are not defending group sex, the guess that this was first of all a condemnation of gay group sex is not relevant to the notion of supporting responsible sexuality in the context of a committed, respectful, mutual adult relationship.
So, unless you have some reason to say that a condemnation of group sex is a condemnation of all gay behavior (which, again, is NOT found in the text re: S/G), then I am not sure why you would go on down this road.
Further, since you can't prove your hunch is any more relevant or rational or biblical than mine, we still seem to be at a stalemate.
So, what now?
Marshall ad hommed...
What happens now is that I continue on with your "journey" to see what other laziness and projection led to your unBiblical position on homosexuality.
You have offered no support for the false charge that my interpretation is somehow lazy or a projection. THAT, Marshall, is false and just an irrelevant ad hom.
IF you think that you can somehow SUPPORT that charge, maybe (MAYBE) it would be relevant. But as it is, you have offered, "Here is what I think. What you think is impossible to get to with an honest interpretation - that's what I think - and is indicative of lazy reasoning - I think - and suggests you had an ulterior motive - I think. I think all this based on nothing more than just that I'm saying it because it seems right to me..."
"Seems right to me" is not evidence of anything other than your opinion, Marshall. I may well begin to excise any unsupported ad hom attacks, except that I think there is some purpose in leaving them there to demonstrate the bad reasoning you are offering.
Ad homs = bad reasoning. Straw men = bad reasoning.
Stop that. Make your case to my words, not your hunches.
I'm supporting everything I say, including that which you weakly describe as "ad hom" attacks. The very statement that your study had been serious is in question and I dispute that as well as the arguments in favor of deviant sexual behavior itself. Taking this story step by step shows that your claim of serious study is not credible, or, that the claim that your conclusions are reasonable are not credible. This position of mine is strengthened by your shifting to Lot rebuking a group sex situation as a likely alternative, ignoring the fact that it is homosexual sex being denied. The offer of his daughters suggest just how heinous the prospect of such an affair is considering what they would do with the daughters (regardless of whether or not the daughters were themselves willing). Group sex, rape, whatever, replacing the visitors with females indicates a definitive problem with the participants of the sexual encounter. If it was a "rape is bad" situation, how is it better raping the daughters? If it was a "group sex is bad" situation, how is in less bad with the daughters? If it was a "protection of Lot's guests" issue, how is giving up the daughters a better choice, even in that culture? What evidence can you offer that would make that make sense?
"YOU SAY that the intention was (and can only reasonably be considered) an afterthought after they were denied mass sex freely. But the text does not insist on that."
Do we have to go through the story verse by verse yet again for you to see the plain chronology of events? There is absolutely no indication of rape until after Lot denies their request. Until that point, it is YOU who are reading into the text that which the text does not suggest. Just because they try to force their intentions, doesn't mean a force was part of their intentions initially. You're denying the chronology of events in order to legitimize your preferred explanation. That, among other things, is what makes your explanation lazy.
As to what seems right to me, there's no "seems" about it. The text says what it says, means what it means and neither is reflected in your interpretation. That's not a matter of what "seems" to be true, but plainly is by virtue of simply reading the story. You also continue to ignore the fact that this occurred well before Moses' time when the Law was handed down and the specifics of human behavior were moderated by it.
When you think you can demonstrate how my reasoning is bad, feel free.
I've been doing that, Marshall. Once more?
Ad hom: is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
"Jeff's argument on LeBron James' failures in the NBA finals aren't worth reading, everyone knows he is a "LeBron" hater."
In each example, you can SEE the argument being dismissed (Her proposal about zoning is ridiculous..."), but instead of attacking the argument ("Because she is proposing... 'quote' and that won't work because... [explanation, WITH supporting evidence]...")
The latter example I gave shows how one needs to address the ARGUMENT, not the person making the argument. This is an ad hom attack.
Now, in OUR case, my argument was...
1. The text shows how ALL the men of Sodom "SURROUNDED" the house (thus preventing escape - as opposed to "met in front of the house..."), demanded the visitors be brought out, would not take no for an answer, tried to BREAK DOWN THE DOOR to get to the men... all of these components of the story shows how this is an instance of attempted gang rape, not consensual, loving monogamous sex between two adults...
2. Thus, this story does not serve as a condemnation of all gay behavior, not in the least. It DOES clearly condemn the awful behavior of ALL the men of the town for trying this attempted gang rape, but there is NO correlation to all gay behavior here.
THAT is my argument. Your response, in part, includes this ad hom...
If you're going to read the story honestly, you can't say it's all about rape...
and...
The very statement that your study had been serious is in question
Is in question by whom? For what reason? Based upon WHAT that I have said?
No, you are attacking my honesty - my character - and not the content of my arguments. Saying merely, "I disagree with your conclusion, therefore, you are questionably honest" is not a rational adult conclusion from the argument made.
So, Marshall, IF you want to continue this dialog, then I really insist that you stick to rational, logical, point by point addressing of what I've SAID, not attacks upon my honesty.
Like this:
Dan, when you say "direct quote - (I must insist on this point)" that is a poor conclusion because [rational explanation]. I think this because 1. supporting point. 2. supporting point and 3. supporting point (or however many supporting points you have.
That is a logical, rational, respectful way to address a point that someone else has made. Please stick to it.
Continuing to point out your faulty reasoning, you said...
As to what seems right to me, there's no "seems" about it. The text says what it says, means what it means and neither is reflected in your interpretation. That's not a matter of what "seems" to be true, but plainly is by virtue of simply reading the story.
This is question begging. The QUESTION that I have raised is:
Does this story indicate - as I had always been taught and thought myself - that any and all gay behavior is bad?
Your answer above is saying, in other words, "Of course it means that. It can only mean that because that's what it says, so that's what it means..."
You can't answer a question about a text by saying "we can know that it condemns all gay behavior because the text condemns all gay behavior..." THAT is the question. You're engaging in circular reasoning here, presuming the answer in the very question.
You're begging the question. Poor reasoning.
You try to explain "ad hominem", seek to give examples of what you think it means, but fail in showing I've been engaging in that action. I have not attacked you without any explanation and have shown that your explanations of the story support my contention that your "study" has neither been serious or honest.
For example, you say the men surrounded the house "(thus preventing escape - as opposed to "met in front of the house...")". This is a projection on your part. You assume the intended to prevent escape. The text doesn't suggest that. You also say they "demanded" that the men come out, but the lack of a "pretty please" doesn't equate to a demand. Another projection.
But this isn't the key part. The key part is Lot refusing their desire for sex with the visitors and offering to substitute his daughters. Nothing else about what the Sodomites may have had in mind is denied them except that they wished to have homosexual relations with the visitors. It is you who assumes the Sodomites weren't expecting complete acquiescence from the visitors, or that they intended that their request would be viewed as abhorrent or something that would not be thought a good idea on a Saturday night by the visitors. YOU assume that they knew their request would be denied by ASSUMING the fact that they surrounded the house was only to prevent escape. Escape from what? Why would they assume the visitors would bolt? Even atheist and pro-homo scholars admit that no other culture so completely prohibited homosexual behavior as the Jewish culture did so that it would make more sense that the Sodomites would assume compliance on the part of the visitors, not denial. And here, before the Law is given, we see Lot denying their homosexual advances. You want to focus on the numbers, the way they arranged themselves around the house and the resulting attitude following Lot's rebuke. And you want to say that I'M reading into the text that which is not there!
more...
You also ignore the fact that the only example of Sodom's depravity and sinfulness is one of homosexual desire. Other Biblical verses speak of Sodom's lack of hospitality and compassion for the poor, but the only story of Sodom shows homosexuality as an example of how depraved they were, almost as if to say, "They were so depraved they even engaged in homosexual behavior!"
You assume the intention you need to see in order to make your case. I only focus on what the text says. Lot refers to their intention of having sex with the visitors as a wicked thing. Truly, it doesn't even guarantee that they intended to take turns with the visitors. The "we" referred to could have been the two dudes who got to partner with each of the visitors while a homo orgy took place. Who knows? We sure don't as their specific intentions are not made known, but only that they wished to have them come out for sex. How that sex would take place is not revealed to us aside from the fact that it would entail homosexual activity.
"Does this story indicate - as I had always been taught and thought myself - that any and all gay behavior is bad?"
First of all, this question is dishonest because I don't believe that the common position is that this particular story makes that case, but only lends to the crystal clear conclusion that the Bible teaches that any and all homosexual behavior is sinful.
I also don't care much for your claims of what "people you've spoken to" have said, because, 1) you could say anything and then insist that we take it as truth without any evidence but your word, and 2) your understanding of Scripture does not lend itself to proof that you could understand anything else as it intends to be understood, and that would include the words of people with whom you've spoken.
In any case, a serious study would have to include more possibilities for what is unsaid in the text than that which only supports the position you wish to hold. I've shown how other possibilities are equally valid despite your refusal to accept them. Your refusal is far less supported than my examples of alternative possibilities supports my position. You simply deny because it throws your position into the realm of the ridiculous.
The bottom line here is that this story does NOT support your contention that the Bible does NOT condemn all homosexual behavior as sinful. But it does give credence to the traditional position that it is.
Wait, wait, wait, Marshall. THIS is where you're way off...
You also ignore the fact that the only example of Sodom's depravity and sinfulness is one of homosexual desire. Other Biblical verses speak of Sodom's lack of hospitality and compassion for the poor, but the only story of Sodom shows homosexuality as an example of how depraved they were, almost as if to say, "They were so depraved they even engaged in homosexual behavior!"
The "fact?" There is no fact there, Marshall. Homosexual behavior is NOT mentioned specifically in the Sodom story. An attempted gang rape of men on men IS mentioned, but that IS NOT "homosexual behavior."
You presume too much and I'm guessing you don't even see it. I know I certainly couldn't see that I was reading things into the story that simply weren't there when I believed as you do, but the FACT is, Marshall, "homosexual behavior" as a class is NOT mentioned in the story any more than "heterosexual behavior" as a class is.
Yes, Lot (foolishly, terribly) offers his girls off to be ravaged by these men, but THAT is not a blanket reference to all heterosexual behavior any more than the attempted gang rape is a reference to all homosexual behavior.
You are still begging the question, Marshall.
Marshall, let's put this ad hom to bed...
I have not attacked you without any explanation and have shown that your explanations of the story support my contention that your "study" has neither been serious or honest.
What is your evidence that my study (or "study" as you call it) was not serious? Give me the point by point bullets: Dan's study was not serious because...
1.
2.
3...
What is your evidence that my study (or "study" as you call it) was not honest? Give me the point by point bullets: Dan's study was not honest because...
1.
2.
3...
But know this: If you simply say, "I, Marshall, think this passage is not about gang rape, not at first. And anyone who disagrees with that hunch that I, Marshall, have is neither serious nor honest..."
And that is the extent of your "argument," I will be forced to think that you just can't see how irrational that is and, if you're that irrational, I can't see how answering any of your questions/addressing any of your points will be worth anything. I fear it will only serve to embarass you and I don't want to see that.
So, here's your chance. Make your ad hom case. Attack my honesty and sobriety/serious-ness, but make an actual case for it with actual evidence/support. If you can.
Conversely, Marshall, you could do the right thing and admit, "ya know, sometimes in conversations with those we disagree with, the rhetoric gets away from us and we say things we can't really support and don't really mean. That's what happened here. I'm sorry about that..."
And move on. That would be a brave, wise and wonderful step to take, rather than getting bogged down in petty personal attacks.
No harm, no foul.
I'd love to move on, but you're so hung up on this "ad hom" crap, you won't let it go. I don't believe any serious/honest study can result in your conclusions and I've given reasons why. You simply ignore them. To wit:
You continue to say the story is about rape. It isn't UNTIL AFTER Lot denies the men of Sodom. There is NO indication that rape is their intention, but only that they wish to have sex with the visitors. THAT is what Lot describes as "wicked". You refuse to acknowledge this FACT.
And what are your arguments against this FACT? That they surrounded the house? All the men of the town could assemble in front only? Do we know that's even possible without some description of the layout of the town, neighborhood or exact location of Lot's house relative to surrounding structures? No. I don't think we do.
Could it be that the men didn't say "Pretty please" when saying, "Bring out the men..."? Do you think that perhaps it is certain that because they didn't use etiquette to your liking then they HAD to be making a demand as would a mugger to a victim? Seems to me you're injecting your own cultural biases here in insisting that they were making a demand rather than a request. Don't forget that Lot had lived there for a time and I don't believe even in our culture such formalities are required in every instance between people familiar with each other.
But to get to the point,
"There is no fact there, Marshall. Homosexual behavior is NOT mentioned specifically in the Sodom story. An attempted gang rape of men on men IS mentioned, but that IS NOT "homosexual behavior.""
The first sentence is patently false. That is ALL that is mentioned until AFTER Lot's rebuke. They didn't say, "Bring out the men so we can rape them." Not at all. It is YOU who reads into the whole of the story a case of attempted rape, when the FACT is that rape was only a possibility because of Lot's refusal to hand over the men for sex. He did that because he saw men having sex with men to be wicked. Lot regarded it as so wicked that he "foolishly, terribly" offered up his daughters as an alternative. (I'd suggest that given more time, not being under such pressure, he'd have come up with a different alternative.) THAT is what the story says and it could not do so much more clearly, though for those like yourself, it apparently needed to.
To come up with YOUR conclusions is, by comparison to mine, totally lacking in honesty or seriousness. That you'd gloss over the chronology of the events and simply say it's a story about attempted rape is neither serious or honest and not true consideration of the context. I'm surprised you haven't used your "epic writing" gambit.
So, Marshall, the totality of your "support" for my alleged dishonesty is, "I, Marshall, don't see how you could think that reasonably, therefore, your reasoning is dishonest and not serious..."?
Really? That's it?
And do you really not see how whimsical, emotional, subjective and ridiculous that is, from a logical point of view?
Come on. You're not serious, are you?
No. It's dishonest because what you say isn't expressed in the text. What you say is wrong. What you say is not true and plainly so. An honest representation would NOT include a charge that it's a rape story from start to finish because it clearly isn't. So thus, it can only be serious in the sense that you are seriously pushing a clearly false and dishonest interpretation of the story. There's no hunch required when the words on the page so clearly contradict your personal version of the story.
I'm moving on from the Sodom story unless there is any other lame arguments you care to put up in defense of your poor interpretation. (this is not an "ad hom" as I've explained more than once why your arguments are lame--it is a factual statement whether you agree with it or not)
I wish to move on, though I may jump around a bit as things come to mind.
Moving down to this
"I also learned that there is no consensus on how the words ought to be translated (and you can see this in the many different translations of these words)."
From whom did you learn this? Modern liberal scholars of the last 100 years? Do you have anything from, say, four hundred years ago, three hundred or maybe 1600 years ago that would support this "lack of consensus" belief of yours? So much of the "debate" over the meaning of Paul's words have arisen in this "enlightened" last 100 years by people looking for ways to make "some form" of homosexual behavior good enough to be worthy of God's blessing, despite no example of any such blessing for anything outside the traditional marriage of a man and woman. As such, I remain convinced that your position was indeed influenced by liberal enablers of the behavior as it is only within this last 100 years (possibly quite less) that anyone dared suggest the previous 1900 years worth of understanding were flawed. When you say you arrived at your conclusions only by serious study of the Bible alone, this isn't truly the case if you can speak of a consensus of understanding. This shows you looked outside the Bible, which isn't a problem for me, except that it contradicts your insistence that it was only through study of the Bible alone that led you to believe as you now do.
I look outside the Bible myself when confronted with troubling portions, this subject included. But unlike yourself, I didn't leave anything off at, "there's no consensus". That doesn't mean anything except that some disagree. So which side makes the most sense?
I looked at both sides of the issue, and there is no honest way to conclude that the enablers have all the bases covered. Robert Gagnon refers to pro-homo scholars who agree that the Bible does not abide ANY homosexual behavior and clearly so. I've sat at the net while people like him and enablers volley back and forth and YOUR side so frequently fail to return volley.
You apparently ignore the poor track record of pro-homosexual apologists and pretend there is merely a lack of consensus. That doesn't smack of honesty to me. Seriously!
Gotta go. Next I'll be addressing point 22. Good gosh! are you goofy on THAT one!
Thanks for your thoughts, Marshall, but I think I'm done responding for now.
You're being too far from rational - your whimsical and subjective approach to discussions with those with whom you disagree is just approaching delusional and I don't know how to respond to delusion but with a smile and a "thank you."
I guess you just can't see that it's one thing to say, "I think this," and another thing altogether to say, "...and anyone who DOES think other than me or God on this point is obviously dishonest."
That is not reasoning, that is whimsical ranting without regard to reason.
So, peace to you, and be careful out there.
"Delusional"? Talk about "ad hom" attacks! I've made no accusations without supporting arguments to go along with them. You have yet to counter any of them except for leveling charges of "ad hom" attacks, and then proceed to launch your own.
Frankly, lack of honesty and seriousness on your part has been easy to establish with the exception of the likely possibility that you are just not very bright. There is no third option because you have not provided any evidence for one.
The basic premise has always been that nothing in the Bible supports your opinion that "some forms" of homosexuality might be tolerated by God or worthy of His blessings, or that anything in the Bible supports the incredibly weak proposition that He would tolerate or bless a "marriage" of two people of the same sex.
You insist that you've reached your conclusion through serious Bible study alone and without going very far into your list, we can easily see that it isn't the case...that is, that the study was neither serious in the sense of considering the text objectively and comprehensively, or that you could not do without outside help as evidenced by your referring to "consensus".
So claims that I'm "delusional" or "whimsical" or "irrational" in my argumentation would have more credence if backed up by some counter argument to that which I've presented. You've done nothing but call me names and reject out of hand any alternative explanations to yours, not because they aren't feasible, but just because they lead to exposing your arguments for the tripe they are.
For whatever reason you chose to provide this "list" of yours, it is quite clear that a true search for God's intention is not on your itinerary.
Art's last comment can be filed under "Can't take a hint".
At least I was right.
Strange how you spend time writing a post that is obviously intended to spark debate then get mad when it sparks debate.
Where you really just looking for a pat on the back?
Good for you, Geoffie. I'm so happy for you and your "victory". I'm not surprised you take a "every opinion is valid" position. Too bad that's so incredibly untrue. Dan's "journey" is plainly misdirected as evidenced by his destination. I'm merely hoping that he'll for once use whatever real power of reasoning he might possess to see how he took the wrong road. Apparently he refuses, as if God has given him over.
Drood...
Strange how you spend time writing a post that is obviously intended to spark debate then get mad when it sparks debate.
1. Not intended to spark debate. Intended to describe my journey and how one can rationally and biblically get from where I was to where I am.
2. I'm not mad.
3. If you have a rational and/or biblical point to make, I'll rationally and biblically consider it.
4. If you just want to say, "I don't think one can honestly hold that opinion because that's what I think, therefore, you're not honest," I still won't be mad. However, that is not a rational or biblical defense of a point. It's just someone offering an ad hom attack with no support. That, I'll tend to ignore, because there's not much else to do with it.
I've tried to reach out and explain WHY this is not a rationally conclusion. I've offered some tips on how to make a rational case (Dan, I think that this is a dishonest position. I think this because... A, B, C - and offer some logical support).
Simply saying, I think this is dishonest because I think one can't honestly hold that position is just grade school thinking.
With apologies to many grade schoolers.
So, do you have an actual point to make related to the post? I'd love to hear it, if so.
Marshall...
I'm not surprised you take a "every opinion is valid" position.
I will just point out that Geoffrey has not taken that position. You can tell that he has done so because in his words, he has not stated anything like that. Nor have I.
Stick to our actual positions, please. Strawmen fallacies are just as bad as ad homs and do nothing to support your case.
No, I don't take "every opinion is valid" as a correct statement. Quite the contrary.
What I DO subscribe to is the ability to predict, based on years of interaction, exactly how this discussion would go. Including your refusal to understand that Dan was explaining what happened. Whether or not you, or I, or anyone else, agreed with him. Ed Drood is wrong - this wasn't written to "spark debate". It was written to provide information and, perhaps, an opportunity to find a new thought, a new possibility.
Not everything written on the internet is written to be debated. One does not debate whether or not it rained last night. One does not debate whether Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated for a second term as President on March 4, 1865. Finally, one does not debate whether or not Dan thought (a), then thought (b), then (c).
Let me be clear - at this point I don't know for sure if you really believe the things you say you do, or even the things you write. At this point, you seem to enjoy just showing up and carrying on, even long after such carrying on serves any useful purpose. The comment to which I linked makes that clear, I think, when I said you would criticize Dan's choice of route for a cross-country drive, and each and every stop along the way. This post is no different, and your actions are EXACTLY what I said they would be.
I take little solace in being correct. It's a sad state of affairs that Dan cannot even write a post like this without someone questioning his integrity, his honesty, and as usual his faithfulness.
I no longer question any of that. It's pretty clear and no longer requires questioning. At this point, I only offer more logical alternatives that would indicate truly serious and honest study. I point again to the chronology of the Lot story and how if one was to be honest and serious, one could not disregard that chronology as Dan has and still come away with the opinion that it speaks of rape and only rape as its main point. This is ludicrous given the way the story is laid out. It's a point of fact that one simply cannot conclude as Dan does AND insist one's study was serious and/or honest. There is only one other alternative, as I've said, and it's difficult to decide which is worse: that Dan (and any who conclude as he does about the story) is neither serious or honest, or seriously and honestly lacking greatly in intelligence. I'm going with the former.
So, getting to point 22, we see this:
"Having been raised in a traditional Southern Baptist background, I had it drilled into me repeatedly, "We are NOT under the LAW of the OT." Christians today in no way are obligated to obey all the OT rules."
This is a problem for the fact that first of all, Dan's present positions on a variety of issues suggests that no autobiographical anecdote regarding what he was taught or what he understood to be true can be taken with more than a mere grain of salt. If he is so off on positions today, which is obviously is, how can we be confident about what he claims he was taught to believe years ago? We simply can't.
Problem two: Dan has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to muddy the water regarding what is or is not an OT law with validity and importance to Christians today. For example, he will constantly compare the punishment for an insolent child with the behavior of homosexual relations as if it is apples to apples. It isn't. The child's insolent behavior would be. Not the punishment proscribed for it.
Thus, Dan uses such purposely inappropriate comparisons to justify throwing up one's hands in dismay at the pretended confusion over how to distinguish which OT law is applicable for our lives. Paul does not suggest this by his teaching that we are not under the Law. There is no mystery here. Paul's teaching is simply that our adherence to the Law is not what assures our salvation, no matter how perfect that adherence.
Dan goes on in point 23 to solidify this nonsense by suggesting that there might be confusion over holding that homosexual behavior is wrong and the proscribed punishment God mandated that the Jews inflict upon those guilty of that sin. What real Christians understand is that the punishment is not the behavior. Punishments for transgressing the Law were no longer necessary since Jesus died for all of our sins. That is to say, homosexuals do not have to be put to death for the sin of engaging in homosexual relations since Jesus already paid that price. BUT, Jesus' death did not mitigate the sinfulness of the behavior.
But Dan's dishonest/less-than-serious study pretends there is some difficulty in separating what is still applicable today and what isn't. My first blog post presented a comprehensive explanation for why lying is still sinful but not mixing fabrics or eating shellfish or touching bodily fluids or dead animals. Dan said he doesn't buy it. He doesn't say why, because that would entail serious and honest study, as well as the realization that the authors had a point worthy of such consideration. Far easier to simply dismiss that which conflicts to one's preferred understanding. It's typical for Dan and lefties in general to dismiss rather than debate. Up to now, I've spent time and effort describing WHY Dan's position is irrational and illogical. Dan simply counters by calling my position irrational without saying why. This alone suggests dishonesty or a lack of true seriousness.
Marshall, you referenced my points 22 and 23, but other than a bunch of ad homs and strawmen, I don't see where you have anything to say about what I have had to say.
My point 22 was:
"We are NOT under the LAW of the OT." Christians today in no way are obligated to obey all the OT rules.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Do you think we are obligated to obey all the OT rules? I suspect you agree with me that we are NOT to obey all these rules.
You also said a lot that was not directly referencing my point 23, which was...
Beyond that, clearly, NONE of us Christians would give a second thought to the notion that we ought to obey all the laws in the OT.
Do you agree with me that we are NOT NOT NOT to obey all the laws of the OT? That was my point, do you agree or disagree with that point?
I'm not interested in your fantasies about your whimsical hunches about my honesty, or your other strawmen fallacies, but if you would like to comment on what I said, you're welcome to do so.
Another dishonest tactic so commonly used by you, Dan. Ask a question that does not require asking in order to use the answer to make your goofy case. It's not a question of whether we are obligated to obey all the Levitical mandates. The question is whether it is honest to ask the question as if there is confusion about which rules still apply and which don't. If you can get someone to answer "No, we don't have to obey them all now", then you can try to pretend insisting on obeying the sexual prohibitions is uncalled for. Of course we don't have to wear our hair a particular way, or restrict what we eat or dress in the manner proscribed for the people of ancient Israel. THOSE rules are never in question by serious, honest and rational students of Scripture and are irrelevant in a discussion regarding the morality of various sexual behaviors.
Marshall, you keep saying things like...
THOSE rules are never in question by serious, honest and rational students of Scripture and are irrelevant
and make the suggestion that if someone asks these sorts of questions, that makes them somehow dishonest, but you don't say why.
As noted at the beginning of this post, I asked MYSELF those questions. Do you suspect conservative Dan asked himself questions that he deliberately knew were dishonest in order to, what? Trick myself?
The repeated and unsupported ad hom fallacies you are offering are not only ad homs, they just don't make any sense.
I asked myself the question, "Are we under OT laws" NOT as a way to convince myself to change my mind from the position I already held (WHY would I do that?), but just as part of the rational process of Bible study.
Yes, you are right when you answer the question that I asked myself. Your answer is the same as mine:
Of course we don't have to wear our hair a particular way, or restrict what we eat or dress in the manner proscribed for the people of ancient Israel.
Of course you (and I) were right. We are NOT obliged to obey every OT law written for a particular people in a particular time in a particular culture.
And if this is the right answer, then the NEXT reasonable question might be, "Well, how do we know which ones are universal in nature and which ones were for a particular time and place?"
THAT is the reason to ask that reasonable question. NOT in order to trick myself into changing my position. The unsupported charge of dishonesty is just irrational in this context, Marshall.
But what happens next, Dan? You simply move onto the dishonest notion that there is some difficulty in separating which laws are applicable and which are not. This is convenient for those wishing to justify behavior that does not conform to Biblical teaching. We know that dietary and purity laws are not applicable because Jesus spoke of what makes us impure, that it comes from within us, not from without. We know that punishments, such as putting to death the homosexual no longer applies because of Christ's death on the cross saving us from that. And we know that any sexual activity outside of what occurs between a man and woman married to each other is still forbidden because there has been no hint of any other possibility. None. Ever. We have nothing that overturns having sex with the wife of one's father, do we? No. We don't. We have nothing that overturns having sex with one's sister, do we? No. We don't. We have absolutely no indication that anything regarding the laws of sexual behavior have in any way been rescinded, overturned, mitigated or considered "not so bad anymore". All we have is lame attempts by people to justify their behavior, and weak attempts to show how one could go from a bad understanding to a different bad understanding.
If what you've presented constitutes an example of serious study for you, I'm not getting it. And it's hardly honest when you ignore things like the chronological order of the events of the Lot story so that you can justify calling it a rape story. Then, to refer to everything I post as ad homs and straw men does little to correct what you believe is my poor understanding. Indeed, it only serves to support my contention that there is little in your tale that demonstrates either a serious or honest study of Scripture. As if that wasn't enough, you ignore my specific referencing of your own words and continue to pretend I'm not explaining my charges. More dishonesty.
You simply move onto the dishonest notion that there is some difficulty in separating which laws are applicable and which are not...
I don't think there is difficulty in general in figuring out which laws are universal and which aren't. I think they tend to be fairly obvious.
The command to kill gay folk? NOT universal. The command to cut your hair a particular way? NOT universal. The commands about HOW to sell your daughter into sex slavery? NOT universal.
The command to NOT eat shrimp or pork? NOT universal. The command to kill the infants of your enemies? NOT universal. The command to marry the man who raped you? NOT universal.
For instance.
Easy.
On the other hand:
The command to kill people? Universal.
The command not to steal? Universal.
And so on.
As a general rule, I DON'T think that it's hard to see which rules in the OT are rules that would apply today.
Marshall continued...
This is convenient for those wishing to justify behavior that does not conform to Biblical teaching.
But, as you can see, I DID NOT and DO NOT WISH TO JUSTIFY any behaviors. I was conservative on this point. WHY would I wish to "justify" behavior I disagreed with?
Your ad hom and strawman fallacies are making less and less sense, Marshall. There is no internal logic holding your thoughts together and they are collapsing under the weight of their own whimsical and non-sensical nature.
I suggest that you author a book on the subject Dan.
You could call it "How the Christian can accept homosexuality in 54 easy-ish steps."
J/K...
I found the whole enterprise fascinating. I just wonder if your 54 steps can compete against the fundamentalist's three easy steps:
1. God said it.
2. I believe it.
3. That settles it.
Who'd buy that book?
"As a general rule, I DON'T think that it's hard to see which rules in the OT are rules that would apply today."
Oh. As a "general" rule, with just enough doubt to insert the rule change of your choice. And still, the point is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the mandate prohibiting homosexual behavior (Lev 18:22) applies today, which it does.
What's more, this notion of "universality" is also irrelevant, because it suggests that God's Will for human behavior has any relation at all to what is regarded as right or wrong by cultures that do not believe in God or, for that matter, in a supreme being of any kind. In other words, if any law or code of human behavior is universally moral or immoral, it is because of God's Will. The way you put it, some laws are valid regardless of God's existence, and thus, only those laws are applicable today.
It doesn't work that way. Even murder is wrong BECAUSE God has said it is. That non-believers might say the same thing doesn't make it a universal law of morality. "Secularly" speaking, murder is wrong because one is afraid of being murdered and does not want that to happen, as well as one not wishing that loved ones be murdered as well. But God's Law is meant for each of us to realize that WE are not to murder because of what it means to the person we might murder, that the victim is made in God's image. Without God's mandate, murder is merely a matter of whether one is willing to deal with the civil and social ramifications of being known as a murderer. Obviously, there are those in human history for whom murder wasn't regarded as the wrong you and I hold it as being.
With that in mind, dividing God's Levitical laws into universal and non-universal is poor reasoning, especially as regards a given law's application today and whether or not it does apply. The sexual prohibitions of Lev 18 still apply because there is no Biblical evidence that any of them have been rescinded in any way.
"But, as you can see, I DID NOT and DO NOT WISH TO JUSTIFY any behaviors."
Perhaps you did not at one time, but you certainly do now with homosexual behavior. You can't get to the ridiculously titled "marriage equity" without first justifying a behavior.
"WHY would I wish to "justify" behavior I disagreed with?"
A good question indeed. But even if we concede your "journey" is entirely accurate autobiography, your concern about the influence of "some Christians who I KNEW to be Christians, based upon their obvious Christian lives and testimony" and an apparent spinelessness on your part to defend Scripture on this issue. While studying Scripture to get the full story on any issue is laudable, to do so and see full well that nothing exists in Scripture that overturns Lev 18:22 should have put you at odds with those "Christians" regarding this issue. Instead, you meekly went along with the same distortions and misinterpretations.
"
Your ad hom and strawman fallacies are making less and less sense, Marshall. There is no internal logic holding your thoughts together and they are collapsing under the weight of their own whimsical and non-sensical nature."
You continue to say things like this but without any solid refutation of anything I've said besides "That's not true!" or "Ad hom! Ad hom! Ad hom!" or your favorite "whimsy".
In a supreme effort of fairness here, I want to point out that, in his latest comment, Art made a theological point (perhaps without realizing it) that needs to be stressed. That he didn't follow through on it, using it as a through-line in his exegesis of the larger Law, or consider it a working principle for interpreting Scripture in general isn't surprising, but at the very least he said it. As I said before, I have no idea what he believes - not because of lack of clarity so much as my own perception he seems to enjoy tweaking people rather than engaging in mutually enlightening interchange - but I just want to be fair to him and something he wrote.
Ahem.
"Even murder is wrong BECAUSE God has said it is. That non-believers might say the same thing doesn't make it a universal law of morality." That is so marvelous, I can't imagine it flowed from his brain through his fingertips to the keyboard and on to the internet. It's the same thing I've been saying to him, and the rest of the world, about everything from gay marriage to, well, pretty much everything else. He has denied it, insisted I didn't know what I was talking about, called the point - worded differently to be sure, but nonetheless the same - goofy and that he couldn't imagine how anyone could say such a thing, or believe it. Yet, here it is.
Geoffrey, please. You haven't ever come close to trying to understand anything, including that which you think you believe. You are, after all, the reigning grand champion of missing the point.
But as close as you seem to be to getting my point here, in this one small statement, you still miss a larger one, that God has never, in anything written in Scripture, given the slightest hint or inkling that He has changed His mind on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior in any form.
So, if you agree with the statement of mine that you quoted, then you'd have to agree with the one in the previous paragraph. But you don't, and you support corrupting an institution, who cares Who instituted it, to enable the free exercise of that sinful behavior, thus being complicit and a willful partner. Just like Dan.
Ah, the grand champion of missing the point.
As I say, Art, I have no idea what you really think or believe, because your ability for self-contradiction, sometimes within a single sentence, is so fabulous, I refuse to believe you cannot see it.
Being insulted by you is like being licked by an elephant - one prefers it hadn't happened, not because the act itself is bad, but because one feels the need to wash afterward.
As for reading God's mind, I'll leave that to you, since you seem supremely confident you can do so. Me, I have other concerns, not the least of them being loving God and loving others. You want to insist gays are evil and destroying the country? Be my guest, it doesn't hurt me any, and I have yet to meet a single gay person who stayed awake at night worried because you thought they were perverted.
Dan's post has always ever been to explain the process he followed in changing his mind. You, however, as I noted before you even began typing and have since been confirmed by your own words, refuse even to grant Dan the dignity and integrity of presenting this view. Why? My only sincere opinion is because you think it's fun. Like your colleagues - Neil and Mark come to mind - you seem incapable of grasping that other people live happy, healthy, loving, productive, faithful lives and think very differently than you. Since that isn't possible, the only reason can be . . . they are dishonest to the core.
So, I'll leave you to it. I give you a compliment, and you toss it back at me, which shows, along with being hostile and belligerent, you are also ungracious and mean-spirited. God bless you on your journey, Art.
Truly, Geoff. There is really no way for anyone to misunderstand what I think as I've expressed it so plainly so often.
"...your ability for self-contradiction, sometimes within a single sentence, is so fabulous, I refuse to believe you cannot see it."
So I've been accused, but never, certainly not by you, proven to be guilty. In fact, it's never gone BEYOND accusation.
"Being insulted by you is like being licked by an elephant - one prefers it hadn't happened, not because the act itself is bad, but because one feels the need to wash afterward."
Clever. Too bad it wasn't the product of your own imagination.
"As for reading God's mind, I'll leave that to you, since you seem supremely confident you can do so."
Another false accusation typical and common from such as yourself. As I never tire of correcting, I don't need to read His mind, since He's revealed to us in Scripture all we need to know. Indeed, someone who thinks he can read God's mind might say something laughable like "layers of meaning" regarding Scripture. Know anyone like that?
"You want to insist gays are evil and destroying the country?"
No. Would you like me to? It wouldn't be anywhere near an accurate depiction of what I've stated so many times. Well, the destroying the country part isn't totally false, as liberal attitudes of sexuality do indeed harm the culture as is so easy to prove. But to be clear, since you need the help so badly, it is the behavior that is wicked, sinful or evil, as all sinful behavior is. Are there truly evil homosexuals intent on destroying the country? Well, sure, there are evil homosexuals, most of whom lead the fight for their imagined rights, and that fight WILL destroy the country to some extent I won't be so bold as to predict. Do they believe they are destroying the country? Frankly, I don't think they give a rat's ass if it does or not, as long as THEY can get what they want. They certainly don't care what God or His true followers want or believe.
"I have yet to meet a single gay person who stayed awake at night worried because you thought they were perverted."
Is it your practice to ask each one you meet how my position affects him? That's weird.
"Dan's post has always ever been to explain the process he followed in changing his mind."
No shit, Sherlock. (Clever, I know, but I didn't invent that.)
"You...refuse even to grant Dan the dignity and integrity of presenting this view."
I haven't lifted a finger to stop him as his 54 points over two posts demonstrate.
"Why? My only sincere opinion is because you think it's fun."
Who are you trying to kid? THAT'S not a sincere opinion. It's a slight. I comment on his goofy "journey" for the sake of those who seek the truth. I present the obvious flaws in his thinking and interpretations that led to his so-called enlightenment on the subject. A few alleged Christians questioned his position (faulty at that time as well) and he winds up with the opposing view while never explaining where the loophole exists that gets some people a free pass on Lev 18:22. And this while claiming that he doesn't need more than one verse, one instance of God's mandate, in order to obey. Clearly THAT wasn't honest, as he claims his "journey" to be.
more...
What's more, I am more than capable of grasping that other people live happy, healthy, loving, productive, faithful lives and think very differently than me. So what? Can't you come up with a more irrelevant point? However, to be accurate, anyone who wallows in sinful behavior isn't all that faithful to God, so it is important for those of us who are faithful to spread the Word faithfully. It's my calling.
"...the only reason can be . . . they are dishonest to the core."
The day you can prove this hateful charge is the day I give you a shiny new dime, not to mention credit for actually finding truth. I've no doubt my dime is not at risk.
"I give you a compliment..."
You mean, this one?
"That is so marvelous, I can't imagine it flowed from his brain through his fingertips to the keyboard and on to the internet."
Thanks for nothin'.
"...and you toss it back at me, which shows, along with being hostile and belligerent, you are also ungracious and mean-spirited."
No. It shows that I wasn't impressed with your "compliment". A compliment is empty when followed by a statement of disbelief. But I didn't merely "throw it back", I stated a fact, that you again missed the point. So I'll restate it and expand upon it so that even your small, self-satisfied mind can absorb it. Hopefully.
"Even murder is wrong BECAUSE God has said it is. That non-believers might say the same thing doesn't make it a universal law of morality."
The point, pay attention here, is that God's Word is law. All sense of what is moral or immoral comes from Him. As He has said that murder is wrong, so has He said that homosexual behavior is wrong. Both in all their forms, never granting exceptions, never hinting at them.
When have you ever said anything like that? Had you, you would not find me disagreeing.
Have you not read the Gospel of St. John? The Synoptics? Galatians? Romans? In fact, have you ever actually read anything in the Bible, and connected the dots, as it were, about the overarching narrative? That you could actually write that sentence, while at the same time saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord," indicates either you have not done so, or, again, you don't really believe anything at all, but just enjoy tweaking Dan, and by extension others.
As for whether or not you have questioned Dan's integrity? Here's just one example, from a comment above: "To say that you opposed homosexual behavior as sinful does not give a clear and precise description of your so-called conservative and traditional beliefs. Given that your current beliefs are incredibly wacky when you don't reduce it to the most generic of bullet points, I'm not confident that your understanding of what is truly conservative and traditional was ever an accurate one."
And: "You say you've studied seriously, but your words show you've merely projected what the text doesn't imply. Thus, claims of serious study are hard to take...seriously."
Self-contradiction within the same sentence: "The issue of this story isn't rape, but homosexual desires that are so strong they are willing to take the visitors by force." Last time I checked, the italicized part was kind of the definition of rape, Art. Unless you mean "take" as in "abduct", but then they would still be forcing themselves on these men, which would result in the same thing - again, rape.
Finally, and really, this is a keeper, I'm going to post it on Facebook it's so awesome in its incoherence: ""You want to insist gays are evil and destroying the country?"
No. Would you like me to? It wouldn't be anywhere near an accurate depiction of what I've stated so many times. Well, the destroying the country part isn't totally false, as liberal attitudes of sexuality do indeed harm the culture as is so easy to prove. But to be clear, since you need the help so badly, it is the behavior that is wicked, sinful or evil, as all sinful behavior is. Are there truly evil homosexuals intent on destroying the country? Well, sure, there are evil homosexuals, most of whom lead the fight for their imagined rights, and that fight WILL destroy the country to some extent I won't be so bold as to predict. Do they believe they are destroying the country? Frankly, I don't think they give a rat's ass if it does or not, as long as THEY can get what they want. They certainly don't care what God or His true followers want or believe."
You deny you have ever said the things I claim you have said, then you proceed to say them, and say you have said them.
I'm going to stop now, because it's really late, I'm really tired, and, frankly, this is boring. You're boring. All this talk about how same-sex love is sinful is boring.
"Have you not read the Gospel of St. John? The Synoptics? Galatians? Romans? In fact, have you ever actually read anything in the Bible, and connected the dots, as it were, about the overarching narrative?"
What sentence is it I wrote to which you are making reference? You know perfectly well that I've read the Bible. The issue is always been a matter of which of us is reading it properly and honestly. But I am incredibly interested in your explaining what you think the overarching narrative of the Bible is. I'm sure it will be wrong, another point missed by you. I submit myself to the possibility of pleasant surprise.
"As for whether or not you have questioned Dan's integrity?"
When did you ask that question? What you said was this:
"You...refuse even to grant Dan the dignity and integrity of presenting this view."
But just so there's no confusion, I do indeed question his integrity. The very quotes of mine you highlight explain why I doubt it. And BTW, integrity is not something that I can grant anyone. That is something they must value and demonstrate all on their own. As to dignity, I continue to engage, thus I dignify his wacky points of view constantly. See how this works? Glad I could help.
You're providing me with much fun today, Geoff. I appreciate it. Here's more:
"Self-contradiction within the same sentence: "The issue of this story isn't rape, but homosexual desires that are so strong they are willing to take the visitors by force.""
Follow along now. This MIGHT be a contradiction if read out of context as it is presented here. But it is one comment among many that seeks to explain the difference between Dan's contorted understanding of the Lot story and the actual explanation. But regardless, there is no contradiction because on the one hand, I state that the point of the story was not an issue of rape. On the other hand, I state that it is a story of homosexual desire and that desire is so strong that after their solicitation is rejected, there depravity then compels them to take the visitors by force. But that was a nice try on your part (not really).
Come to think of it, we can take things even further and easily suggest that rape is STILL not apparent because they are only pissed that Lot would not bring the men out. There next move was to try and get around Lot to get to the visitors. They say they will treat Lot worse than them, but they do not say they will treat the visitors badly. The story doesn't give that detail. Perhaps they would first have sweet talked the visitors, hoping they'd be game. See what a serious treatment can bring about? No. The story is not about rape. It's to illustrate the depravity of the men of Sodom by showing their desire to have sex with men, which is what Lot rebukes.
more...
"Finally, and really, this is a keeper, I'm going to post it on Facebook it's so awesome in its incoherence:"
It might be incoherent to you, but you are, you remember, the Master Point-Misser. What exactly do you find difficult to understand? It's OK to ask for clarification, Geoffie. I already know you have a hard time understanding plain English. Let's look again at your goofy question:
"You want to insist gays are evil and destroying the country?"
"Gays are evil". Right there, I would never agree with that statement. But it is NOT a contradiction to suggest that some homosexuals ARE evil if by the question you mean that they are ALL out to do the most wicked things (besides having sex with members of the same gender). I've know a few homosexuals and they were not out to hurt anyone, so I know from personal experience that the "Gays are evil" crap is just you, as an enabler, demonizing those with whom you disagree.
But those homosexuals who are insisting on rights to which they are not entitled, pretending rights they already have are denied them, and worse, forcing compliance by the unwilling to their brand of "morality" ARE destroying the culture, and you, as another liar for the agenda that doesn't exist, ignore the evidence that serves to prove this fact. Why don't you put THIS on FB?
"All this talk about how same-sex love is sinful is boring."
All who support immorality think so.
Why am I not surprised? Again, it's a game to you, and I honestly have no idea what you really think or believe.
No game, Geoff. Just not letting twisted theology stand unopposed. Souls are at stake.
"Just not letting twisted theology stand unopposed. Souls are at stake."
This is precisely what I mean, Art.
Lives are indeed at stake - not souls, Art, but lives, human lives - but not because of what we do with our naughty bits. Lives are at stake because of the age-old reasons of war, famine, pestilence, death - those Four Horsemen stalk the world as they always have, and some folks find it so much more convenient to worry about what others do when in love.
Why can't I take you seriously? Precisely for comments like that, Art. Which is also why I have no idea what you really think or believe.
Yeah, sure, Geoff. Pretend you're more noble because you ignore the ramifications of sexual immorality in favor of those Horsemen, without realizing the role such immorality plays in their ride. You're as much a fraud as feodor if you're going to make such claims. Lives are at stake because of death? Really? Go figure! War, famine, pestilence, death are not reasons lives are at stake. They are the symptoms of the reasons, the results and consequences. Just within the homosexual community alone, with all we've learned in the past twenty years, they still account for the lion's share of new STD cases according to the CDC. THAT is a result of sexual immorality, Geoff. Get with the program and stop pretending you're a deep thinker. You ignore the facts to support the wrong things. What I believe is far less important than the drivel you've forced yourself to believe. What I believe leads to less of the war, famine, pestilence, death about which you claim to be so concerned. What YOU believe leads to more of it, and demonstrably so.
You two: Comment on the topic or move on.
Marshall, if you want to comment on the topic, comment on what I've written, not on what you are guessing about my motives. Just what I've written.
Dan,
I've been commenting on your topic the whole time. Your motives for your "journey" are in question by virtue of the fact that your story is filled with so many poor interpretations and conclusions that fail in the end to justify supporting a redefinition of an institution to include those who indulge in behavior God clearly prohibits, and who have attractions and desires that conflict with God's intention for creating us male and female.
Frankly, at this point, your motives are not important, if they ever were in the first place. Far more important is that some lacking the proper background might read your words and begin to think like you. That would be a bad thing.
If you want to say that these two posts are honest autobiography describing your "journey" from one bad understanding of Scripture to another, fine. If you want to say your conclusions are based on serious study, that's fine, too. But for every reader to simply accept that it a legitimate conclusion derived from anything the Bible might say or suggest on the subject, that's just going too far for you to expect. It's apparent that what passes for serious, honest study in your world is far less of either than I accept in mine. What's more, I am more than happy to listen to the opinions of those who disagree with me on my more accurate understandings, particularly should they actually have compelling arguments, which I've been dying to experience in all the time I've been blogging. Instead, I get "ad hom! ad hom! ad hom!", "hunch", "whimsy", "I don't really know what you believe", "busybodies, fussbudget and wackadoodles", not to mention, "bigot", "hater" and "homophobe". Now, I am compelled by such things, but I doubt as you might think. You can't claim to be serious and honest in your seeking God's Will if you can't engage better than that.
Post a Comment