What more can I add that wasn't covered so well by Bill? Nothing, except Amen!

23 comments. You are a courageous young woman to have the guts to discuss homosexuality in the context of scripture. Thanks for encouraging the dialouge.

"What’s a Christian to do?"

1. Be what you are the way your god made you. Do it with some zest.

2. Judge not.

3. Throw away that evil book.

Either we take all of Scripture at face value or we don't. E.g., slavery is okay; divorce is out; polygamy is fine; if our children diobey us, we stone them to death; murder is wrong but killing in the name of God seems to be fine and dandy, but whose God -- yours or mine? Terrorists welcome, I guess. The greatest sin of all is poverty but no one seems to be taking that seriously, certainly not as seriously as what some people do or do not do -- we don't know, do we? -- in their own bedrooms. Does it not seem wondrous that many of those who condemn homosexuals are themselves once or twice divorced?

Further, given, as I believe, ones sexual orientation is defined at birth, and given that Scripture condemns unnatural sexual acts -- which is what all the cited verses really do, then it would be unnatural and thus wrong and sinful for a heterosexual person to have sex with someone of the same sex. It would be just as unnatural and thus wrong and sinful for a homosexual person to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

Of course the real issue here is that as long as we can spend our time and energy on issues that are quite private and personal, we do not have to expend that time on the really moral issues of our day: poverty, war, injustice. We can blog and moralize till the proverbial cows come home, and 30,000 children will die each day from preventable diseases and starvation. What are we bloggers doing about that?

hey folks,

not sure how much difference this comment will make, esp. since i seem to have much less intelligence than some of our other scholarly friends, but here goes.

the Bible is God breathed, the Truth of the Lord. it is not condradictory because God by his nature will not lie or cause confusion...the former and the latter are both products of the Enemy. God's message is not "lost in translation." it is only our own brokeness that distorts his message. things like slavery, polygamy are never condoned nor encouraged in Scripture, but simply discussed and given guidelines. the rules of the Iraelites (sacrifices, food, dress, cleansing) are replaced by the new covenant of Christ (Hebrews). Scripture is clear, our fallen interpretations are the problem.

homosexuality may be genetic, and it may not. there is no conclusive proof either way. it has been proven that alcoholism (one of many examples) is genetic. in fact, i carry this predisposition. i can choose not to get drunk and resist the temptation to sin with the grace and healing power of Jesus. homosexual people have the same choice, whether or not their sexual orientation is "who they are." the stronger the desire or inclination to sin, the greater our strength, conviction, and trust in the redeeming power of Christ must also be.

to our "one liner" friends above, Scripture can be taken to mean whatever an individual wants if they look at an individual verse, sometimes several. to illustrate, many homosexuals point the the relationship of Jonathan and David as "intimate friends." the problem with any single/several verse interpretation is that is doesn't take the rest of Scripture into account. though it seems a difficult task, all of Scripture and its principles must be considered on contraversial issues such as these. as a heterosexual male, i suffer from lust, and it is clearly a sin in any form. just as homosexuality is clearly a sin... in any form. every one of us is a sinner, and regardless of what we struggle with we must love each other as Jesus loves us, regardless of the sins we commit. we do not have agree with someone or condone their actions to love them.

last and most obvious, our biology gives us a "general revelation" as to how we are to live. We are created male and female, as suitable halves of one flesh (Genesis 1,2). the only way our species was designed to exist was through the union of a male husband and his female wife, a conception, pregnancy, and birth. on extremely rare occasions, some people are born with traces or full development of both sexual organs. these situations should be treated with much care, prayer, and professional expertise, but outside of these rarities, our individual genders/roles are clearly defined with our birth and Scripture.

serving sincerely

shaun

ANGELA WROTE: Commentary by A.W. Pink

I, personally, agree with A.W. Pink ... 100%. His commentary makes an important distinction that is, I believe, at the heart of the debate regarding homosexuality.

"From these and similar verses well-instructed scholars of the Word of God have been led to draw a sharp distinction between the absence of natural faculties and the lack of moral ability, the latter being the essence of moral depravity. The absence of natural faculties clears one from blame, for one who is physically blind is not blameworthy because he cannot see, nor is an idiot to be condemned because he is devoid of rationality."

It is natural for humans to be sighted, The blind are not blameworthy.
It is natural for humans to process (at least some level) of intelligence. The "idiots" are not blameworthy.
It is natural for humans to be heterosexual. The majority of the people walking the earth can see and think and have an attraction to the opposite sex.
For me, it is natural to be homosexual. To be anything other would be 'unnatural'.

The majority of the world's population have dark or blond hair. The redheads are not blameworthy.
The majority of the world's population have dark eyes. The blue-eyed are not blameworthy.
The majority of the world's population are right-handed. The left-handed are not blameworthy.

A small percentage of us are homosexual. Why are we, because of who we are, blameworthy?

Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of immoral homosexuals. However, to suggest that ALL homosexuals are immoral is like suggesting that all heterosexuals are saints. The posting of this commentary presupposes that I am, by virtue of WHAT I am, inherently immoral and motivated solely by sexual desire. This position can only be supported by a literal reading of Scripture. So, I find us where we began ... Erin's question.

Commentary by A.W. Pink
When a servant of God does press this unwelcome truth on his hearers, the fertile mind of unbelief promptly replies with one objection after another. If we are totally devoid of spiritual ability, then assuredly we must be aware of the fact. But that is far from being the case. The skeptic says we are very much aware of our power to do that which is pleasing in God’s sight; even though we do not perform it, we could if we would.
They should be told the fact that it is impossible for them to “fulfill all righteousness,” but also the cause of this impossibility. Their - selfsufficiency cannot be undermined while they believe they have it in their own power to perform God’s commands and to comply with the terms of His gospel. Nevertheless they must not be left with the impression that their impotence is a calamity for which they are not to blame, a deprivation for which they are to be pitied; for they are endowed with faculties suited to respond to law and gospel alike. A mistake concerning either of these truths—man’s impotence and man’s responsibility—is likely to have a fatal consequence.
On the other hand, as long as men imagine they have it in their own power to perform their whole duty or do all that God requires of them in order for them to obtain pardon and eternal life, they feel at ease and are apt to neglect to diligently apply themselves to the performance of that duty.
They are not at all likely to pray in earnest or to watch against sin with any anxiety. They neither see the need of God’s working in them “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” nor the necessity of their “working out their own salvation with fear and trembling.” To wak 9 men out of this dream of self-sufficiency the Savior has given such alarming declarations as these: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” ( John 3:3); “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” ( John 6:44).
And to cut off effectually from the unregenerate all hope of obtaining mercy on the ground of the supposed acceptableness of anything they have done or can do until created in Christ Jesus unto good works, His apostle declared, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God” ( Romans 8:8).
On the other hand, should the unregenerate be allowed to suppose they are devoid of those faculties which are necessary for knowing God’s will and doing those things which are pleasing in His sight, such a delusion is likely to prove equally fatal to them. For in that case how could they ever be convinced of either sin or righteousness: of sin in themselves and of righteousness in God? How could they ever perceive that the ways of the Lord are just and their own unjust? If in fact the natural man had no kind of capacity any more than has the horse or mule to love and serve God, to repent and believe the gospel, then the pressing of such duties upon him would be most unreasonable, nor could their noncompliance be at all criminal. Accordingly we find that after our Lord informed Nicodemus of the necessity of man’s being born again before he could “see” or believe to the saving of his soul, He declared that he was “condemned already” for not believing ( John 3:18). Then He cleared up the whole matter by saying, “This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” (vv. 19-20).

From these and similar verses well-instructed scholars of the Word of God have been led to draw a sharp distinction between the absence of natural faculties and the lack of moral ability, the latter being the essence of moral depravity. The absence of natural faculties clears one from blame, for one who is physically blind is not blameworthy because he cannot see, nor is an idiot to be condemned because he is devoid of rationality. Moral inability is of a totally different species, for it proceeds from an evil heart, consisting of a culpable failure to use in the right way those talents with which God has endowed us. The unregenerate man who refuses to obtain any knowledge of God through reading His Word is justly chargeable with such neglect; but the saint is not guilty because he fails to arrive at a perfect knowledge of God, for such an attainment lies beyond the reach of his faculties.
Some may object to what has just been pointed out and say that this is a distinction of no consequence; inability is inability; what a man cannot do he cannot do; whether it be owing to a lack of faculties or the absence of a good heart, it comes to the same thing. All this is true so far as the end is concerned, but not so far as the criminality. If an evil disposition were a valid excuse, then all the evil in the world would be excusable. Because sin cannot be holiness, is it the less evil? Because the sinner cannot, at the same time, be a saint, is he no more a sinner? Because an evil-minded man cannot get rid of his evil mind while he has no inclination to do so, is he only to be pitied like one who labors under a misconception? True also, this distinction affords no relief to one who is dead in sin, nor does it inform him how he can by his own effort become alive to God; nevertheless, it adds to his condemnation and makes him aware of his awful state.
For vindicating the justice of God, for magnifying His grace, for laying low the haughtiness of man, moral inability is a distinction of vital consequence, however hateful it may be to the ungodly. Unless the line is drawn between excusing a wicked heart and pitying a palsied hand, between moral depravity and the lack of moral faculties, the whole Word of God and all His ways with man must appear invalid, shrouded in midnight darkness.
Deny this distinction, and God’s requiring perfect obedience from such imperfect creatures must seem altogether unreasonable, His condemning to everlasting misery every one who does evil (when doing evil is what no man can avoid) excessively harsh. But let men be made aware of the horrible plague of their hearts, let the distinct difference between the absence of moral faculties and the sinful misuse of them be seen and felt, and every mouth will be stopped and all the world become guilty before God.
Though at first it may seem to the preacher that the proclamation of human impotence defeats his ends and works against the highest interest of his hearers, yet if God is pleased to bless his fidelity to the truth (and faith may always count upon such blessing), it will do the hearer good in his latter end, for it will drive him out from the hiding place of falsehood, it will bring him to realize his need of fleeing for refuge to the glorious hope set before him in the gospel. By pulling down strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against God, the way is paved for bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
To see oneself “without strength” and at the same time “without excuse” is indeed humiliating, yet this must be seen by the sinner—before either the justice of the divine law or one’s utter helplessness and conviction of guilt—as the chief prerequisite for embracing Christ as one’s all-sufficient Savior.
It will thus be seen that there are two chief dangers concerning which the preacher must be on his guard while endeavoring to expound this doctrine.
First , while pressing the utter inability of the natural man to meet the just claims of God or even so much as perform a single spiritual duty, he must not overthrow or even weaken the equally evident fact of man’s moral responsibility.
Second , in his zeal to leave unimpaired the moral agency and personal accountability of the sinner, he must not repudiate his total depravity and death in trespasses and sins. This is no easy task, and here as everywhere the minister is made to feel his need of seeking wisdom from above. Yet let it be pointed out that prayer is not designed as a substitute for hard work and study, but rather as a preparative for the same. Difficulties are not to be shunned, but overcome by diligent effort; but diligent effort can only be rightly directed and effectually employed as divine grace enables, and that grace is to be expectantly sought.
Probably it is best to begin by considering the fact of man’s impotence. At first this may be presented in general terms and in its broad outlines by showing that the thrice holy God can require nothing less than holiness from His creatures, that He can by no means tolerate any sin in them. The standard which God has set before men is the moral law which demands perfect and perpetual obedience; being spiritual it enjoins holiness of character as well as conduct, purity of heart as well as acts. Such a standard fallen man cannot reach, such demands he cannot meet, as is demonstrated from the entire history of the Jews under that law.
Next it should be pointed out that the Lord Jesus did not lower that standard or modify God’s commands, but uniformly and insistently upheld the one and pressed the other, as is unmistakably clear in Matthew 5:17-48; nevertheless He repeatedly affirmed the moral impotence of fallen man ( John 5:44; 6:44; 8:43). This same twofold teaching is repeated by the apostles, especially in the epistles to the Romans and Corinthians.
From the general we may descend to the particular and show the extent of man’s impotence and depravity. Sin has so ruined the whole of his being that the understanding is darkened, the heart corrupted, the will perverted, each detail being proved and illustrated from Scripture. Then in summing up this solemn aspect, appeal may be made to that word of Christ’s where He declared not merely that there were many things (or even some things) man could not do without His enablement, but that without Him man could do nothing” ( John 15:5)—nothing good, nothing acceptable to God. If man could prepare himself to turn to God, or turn of himself after the Holy Spirit has prepared him, he could do much. But since it is God who works in us “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” ( Philippians 2:13), He is the One who first implants the desire and then gives the power to fulfill it. Not only must the understanding be so enlightened as to discern the good from the evil, but the heart has to be changed so as to prefer the good before the evil.
Next it is well to show clearly the nature of man’s inability: what it does not consist of (the lack of faculties suited to the performance of duty) and what it does consist of. Care needs to be taken and arguments given to show that man’s inability is moral rather than physical, voluntary rather than compulsory, criminal rather than innocent. After this has been done at some length, confirmation may be obtained by an appeal to the hearer’s own experience. If honest he must acknowledge that his own consciousness testifies to the fact that he sins willingly and therefore willfully, and that his conscience registers condemnation upon him. The very facts that we sin freely and that conscience accuses us show we ought to have avoided it. Whatever line a man takes in attempting to justify his own wrongdoing, he promptly forsakes it whenever his fellowmen wrong him. He never argues that they were unable to do otherwise, nor does he excuse them on the ground of their inheriting a corrupt nature from Adam!
Moreover, in the hour of remorse, the man who has squandered his substance and wrecked his health does not even excuse himself, but freely owns “What a fool I have been! There is no one to blame but myself.”
The impotence of the natural man to choose God for his portion is greater than that of an ape to reason like an Isaac Newton, yet there is this vital difference between the two: the inability of the former is a criminal one, that of the latter is not so because of its native and original incapacity.
Man’s moral inability lies not in the lack of capacity but in lack of desire.
One incurs no guilt when there is a willingness of mind and a desire of heart to do the thing commanded but no capacity to carry it out. But where there is capacity (competent faculties) but unwillingness, there is guilt— wherever disaffection for God exists so does sin. Man’s moral inability consists of an inveterate aversion for God, and it is this corruption of heart which alone has influence to prevent the proper use of the faculties with which he is endowed, and issues in acts of sin and rebellion against God.
Even the bare knowledge of duty in all cases renders moral agents under obligation to do it: “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” ( James 4:17).
It is very necessary that the preacher should be perfectly clear in his own mind that the moral impotence of the natural man is not of such a nature as to exempt him from God’s claims or excuse him from the discharge of his duties. Some have drawn the erroneous conclusion that it is incongruous to call upon the unregenerate to perform spiritual duties. They say that only exhortations suited to the state of the unregenerate, such as the performance of civil righteousness, should be addressed to them. The truth is that a perfect heart and a perfect life are as much required as if men were not fallen creatures, and required of the greatest sinner as much as of the best saint. The righteous demands of the Most High must not be whittled down because of human depravity. David did not trim his exhortations to meet the inability of man: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way” ( Psalm 2:12).
Isaiah did not keep back the command “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes” ( Isaiah 1:16) though he knew the people were so corrupt they would not and could not comply.
URGENT INVITATION OBLIGATORY Nor should the preacher have the slightest hesitation in urging the unregenerate to use the means of grace and in declaring it is men’s certain duty to employ them. The divine ordinances of hearing and reading the Word, of praying and conversing with God’s people, are thereby made a real test of men’s hearts—as to whether they really desire salvation or despise it. Though God does renew men by His Spirit, yet He appoints the means by which sinners are to be subservient to such a work of grace. If they scorn and neglect the means, the blame is in themselves and not in God. If we are not willing to seek salvation, it proves we have no desire to find it; then in the day to come we shall be reproved as wicked and slothful servants ( Matthew 25:26). The plea that man has no power will then mean nothing, for then the fact that his lack of power consists only in a lack of heart will appear with sunlight clearness, and he will be justly condemned for contempt of God’s Word; his blood will be upon his own head for disregarding the warnings of God’s servants.
Yet so perverse is fallen human nature that men will argue, “What is the good of using the means when it does not lie in our power to give effect to them?” Even if there were no hope of success, God’s command for us to use the means is sufficient to demand our compliance: “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net” ( Luke 5:5).
I cannot infallibly promise a farmer who plows and sows that he will have a good crop, yet I may assure him that it is God’s general way to bless the prudent and diligent. I cannot say to everyone who desires posterity, “Marry and you shall have children.” But I may point out that if people refuse the ordinance of marriage they will never have any lawful children.
The preacher needs to point out the grave peril incurred by those who spurn the help God proffers. Felix “trembled” ( Acts 24:25), but he failed to act on his convictions. Unless the Lord is sought while He is “near” us ( Isaiah 55:6), He may finally abandon us. Every resistance to the impressions of the Spirit leaves the heart harder than it was before.
After all that has been said it is scarcely necessary for us to press upon the preacher the tremendous importance of this doctrine. It displays as no other the perfect consistency of divine justice and grace. It reveals to the believer that his infirmities and imperfections are not the comforting coverup of guilt that he would like to think they are. All moral infirmity, all lack of perfect holiness, is entirely his own fault, for which he should be deeply humbled. It shows sinners that their perdition is really altogether of themselves, for they are unwilling to be made clean. The kindest thing we can do for them is to shatter their self-righteous hopes, to make them realize both their utter helplessness and their entire inexcusableness. The high demands of God are to be pressed upon them with the design of bringing them to cry to Him to graciously work in them that which He requires. Genuine conviction of sin consists in a thorough realization of responsibility and guilt, of our inability and dependence upon divine grace.
Nothing is so well calculated to produce that conviction, under the Spirit’s blessing, as the faithful preaching of this unpalatable truth.

I am gay AND a Christian. I know that some of you may believe that to be an oxymoron. In a strange way, my sexuality has forced me into a deeper and richer faith. There's nothing like hearing other Christians say 'you're going to hell' to make for a strong personal faith. I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church, attended a conservative Christian school (K-12) and went to a conservative Christian college so I had ample opportunity to hear that condemnation.

Accurate translation is only a small piece of the puzzle. We should also read the Word with our hearts and minds.

First, knowing the culture and society of the world in which Scripture was written is critical. As an example, Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. Slavery was an accepted social institution when he wrote these words. It was used for years to prop up the institution of slavery in this county. Would any of us support Paul's admonition today?

Next, we need to read Scripture in the light of our knowledge of God's creation. ALL of us posses more knowledge of science than ANYONE living in that Roman world. The concept of "genetic predisposition toward homosexuality" would have been incomprehensible to Paul or anyone receiving his letters.

Third there is the issue of how the Bible has moved through time and the possibility of inaccuracy. There are biblical historians that believe the first five books of Moses were not written until the Babylonian captivity. They suggest that the Children of Israel saw their culture being dismantled and decided to write their history before it was lost forever. Thousands of years of oral history being written long after the events happened - the possible inaccuracies are endless. This problem continues throughout time. In 397 AD the Synod of Carthage decided which of the hundreds of Epistles and Gospels would be included in what is today the New Testament. In 1611, King James publishes his translation after having the translators alter passages that needed to be more poetic. In 1973, the NIV New Testament includes the word 'homosexual' (for the first time). Ironically, this was the same year the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of disorders.

There are other issues as well. For example, Scripture is many things: literature, history, law (which may or may not apply since we now live in a state of grace), poetry, genealogy, allegory, and perhaps some mythology. Who decides what's what?

So, Erin's question is valid. What's a Christian to do? History, anthropology, science, theology ... who could possibility process all of that knowledge?

Many of us become 'literalists'. We merely read what's printed in black and white. We go to Church on Sunday and listen to pastors that believe as we do. We read books and blogs that support our beliefs. It's just easier that way ... minimum effort with maximum affirmation.

The BEAUTY and the CURSE of Scripture is that it can be used to condone and condemn almost anything you want. There is obscurity and contradiction. There are very few things that are totally cut and dry.
You want to support slavery? It's in there. You want to support freedom for everyone? That's in there too.
You want to support the notion that women are inferior? It's in there. You want to support the dignity of every person? That's in there too.
You want to kill all the fags? It's in there. You want to honor the diversity of God's creation? Guess what? That's in there too.

The curse lies in the fact that there is so much to divide us. Just look at all the churches/denominations out there each with their own beliefs about election, baptism, tribulation, transubstantiation, church government, the number of sacraments, which creed to use ... the list goes on and on.

The beauty of Scripture, however, grows out of that curse. If everything in the Bible was black and white, none of us would be able to achieve salvation. The Bible offers 'something for everyone', I take this as God's call to ALL of us.

What then is cut and dry? The really important things like "I am the way" ... "for God so loved the world" ... "Love the Lord your God" ... "Love you neighbor as yourself".

In closing, and in love, I offer this challenge. If you are one of those Christians that believes that I an an abomination, I challenge you to:
1) rent the film "For the Bible Tells Me So"
2) find a pastor in an inclusive Church and talk to him/her.
3) read the books, blogs and websites that offer an inclusive theology
4) find a gay Christian and listen to them talk about their journey.
If you can do these things with an open mind AND an open heart and still believe that homosexuality is an abomination, then we agree to disagree. If, however, after completing this challenge you have even reasonable doubt, then I hope that you will attempt to love and accept us as God created us.

The Holy Word is the Word of God in human words. The eternal truth is conveyed using the understandings of the time and milieu of the writer.

Does the New Testament contain cultural influences? Definitely. The obvious example is slavery. Jesus Himself tacitly accepts slavery (I find this astonishing). Paul famously sanctions it (Ephesians 6:5-9, 1 Timothy 6:1-3). You cannot base an argument against slavery on the explicit directives regarding slavery in the New Testament.

Yet, slavery is clearly contradicted by the message of Jesus taken as a whole: loving one another as Jesus loved us.

Similarly, you cannot find an approval of homosexual union in the explicit directives of the New Testament. But homosexual union is compatible with the message of Jesus as a whole.

I advocate this because of the contradiction between the apparent biblical mandate -- condemning all homosexual behavior -- and the personal suffering of the homosexual people I know and hear about. I urge anyone trying to decide this issue to seek out and listen to homosexual people -- to understand their life from the inside. Truth is not subjective -- but human suffering does matter. It mattered to Jesus; it should matter to us.

Must someone be condemned to a life of loneliness and pain because he or she longs for romantic union with a person of his or her own gender, or should this person be able to live a life of mutual sharing, love and peace? Which truly seems to be God's will? Where the gifts of the Spirit are, there is the Spirit. By their fruits shall you know them.

Revelation comes from God. Interpretation and understanding of revelation comes from us. We can be wrong. Given the burdens we are placing upon the homosexual women and men amongst us, we owe it to them to be certain our interpretation is correct.

New Testament: 1 Corinthians 6-9:10; 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Hi Craig, Yep, I totally agree that we need to be very careful on how God's word is interpreted and lived especially amongst unbelievers. I believe that if we apply the scriptures to our lives in love and even when we don't agree we can speak the truth in love which pleases God.

Hi Angela,

Thanks for answering! I'm not suggesting that the teachings of the bible be "softened", or anything of the sort.

In your last post, you wrote: "Also, Erin believes that the Bible was misquoted or changed. I don't.".

It's not that Erin BELIEVES the bible's original language was changed during translation...it's that it is a fact that ANY documents, regardless of when, where, or who does it, is changed in translation. This is not a "belief".

I am not suggesting that the entire bible is wrong and based on mis-translations!! Please do not think this.

However, I am suggesting that this language/translation issue is something to be taken seriously, especially when dealing with the "details" of the bible.

Thanks,
Craig

Craig, to try and answer some of your questions, some things we can know of God and His ways and what His word says. I never claimed to know the mind of God but again He reveals to us: who He is. Also, my Pastor is a man called by God and I'm grateful that he teaches the whole counsel of God but again, even though I trust my pastor, I have my bible with me during my church attendance which any Christian should do and also I believe the Scriptures to be verbally inspired of God and inerrant, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life. Also, Erin believes that the Bible was misquoted or changed. I don't. I believe that we all need to understand and live out minute by minute God teachings and commands in our modern society but, I don't believe that we should soften down the message or not study Scriptures through hermeneutics, commentaries and of course, Holy Spirit-led prayer. The bible states: we are to live out each day accoding to the Holy Scriptures and God being sovereign, I trust His word over what some would consider intelectual or critical thinking. Lastly, Romans 2:1 talks abour judging others when we do the same which is being a hypocrite but if you read Romans 1 through 16, you would understand clearly what it means and how to interepret the entire Book of Romans and all of scripture.

Angela wrote: "Lastly, my teaching and interpretation comes from the Holy Word of God and yes, I do have a shepherd (my pastor) but He is not God and even when I listen to any a godly person or try to interpret scripture by reading commentaries, I still make sure that it lines up with the word of God.".

I think, though, what it comes down to is this -- God didn't write the bible, humans (men) did. End of arguement, really.

Humans wrote the bible, so why do you trust this any more than you trust your pastor? Why is the word of men long dead and buried more applicable to today's world than the advise of your sheppard...a child of at least relatively modern times?

If you can say with absolute sincerity that the word of the bible is God's word, that's fine...now we come to Erin's fundamental issue - how do you know the translations of the original word of God are accurate? These were also done by men.

Very interesting article, I think.

Craig

Gideon:

The use of the concept of "allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you into the truth" is a convenient argument to disallow the obvious inaccuracies. Essentially what you now claim is that you know the mind of God and you don't need to rely on his gift of rationality, intelligence, and critical thought. You have also said the true word of scripture doesn't matter.

It also puts you as equal to God because you claim to know exactly how he would want those words translated and the message he wants communicated. That is a very dangerous and blasphemous position. "Even Satan can quote scripture to his own ends."

It is documented and accepted fact that the KJV of the bible was purposely altered by the translator to suit King James preferred understanding.

Erin's point is that you accept the Bible is the true word of God but it is established that the words you are reading are in error due to human failing in translation that you are not living according to the word of God.

My intention was not that homosexuals should be treated in contempt, we should love everyone just as God does but He does hate sin and again, we may change and try to state things are different now as homosexuality and fornication are the norm in society, well, it's still sin and again, God does not change and He hates sin so much He can't he look upon it. When Jesus died on the cross, the Bible states; he turned His face as again, He loves His son but He hates sin. The wages of sin are death (spiritual death). We are repeatedly instructed in scripture the we are not to change the word of God to suit others we are to preach the word in His true form and even if people aren't listening or they are offended, it still says, preach the word. Also, those who preach the whole counsel of God or evangelize the whole counsel of God are called unloving, fundamentalists and of course, bigots. In a word, if you soften the gospel, it isn't the gospel anymore. The bible doesn't state that only homosexuality is sin, it talks about several sins and I'm quite sure God did never intended for practicing homosexuals to be leaders in the church no more than He wants sinful, false converts leading either. The bible states: without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. If you take a look at Christianity, it's a mess; there's no holiness, pastors and preachers are teaching a watered down gospel to please men but not God. The whole counsel of God is to be taught and lived out in the spirit not changing it to please others. We are to love and share the gospel (the good news) or depending upon the unrepentful "the Bad News" in it's full gory. We tend to want to be tolerant of sin in whatever form...We can love all people but it doesn't mean we agree with their lifestyle. You may love your drug addicted family member but you don't agree with their lifestyle. What's more loving to just condone and cottle sin: No, that's not what the word of God states. Lastly, my teaching and interpretation comes from the Holy Word of God and yes, I do have a shepherd (my pastor) but He is not God and even when I listen to any a godly person or try to interpret scripture by reading commentaries, I still make sure that it lines up with the word of God.

First, I would refer people to the writings of Robert Gagnon. Second, in reference to the Rom 1:18-32, was Paul writing to condemn homosexuality? Perhaps not, but he simply states that this is one behavior (which also includes envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice) of people that have turned from God. There are some that argue that Paul was talking about loving, monogamous relationships. No, Paul simply and without qualifications, monogamous or promiscuous, includes homosexuality amongst these other behaviors that "exchanged the truth of God for a lie." Do we as a church bless these other behaviors?

But a more fundamental question to ask, first and foremost: Can any Christian church survive the adoption of blessing of homosexuality? There is much evidence to the negative. To the degree that churches adopt such positions, it is commensurate with their dissolution (see western Europe). This would argue, Gamaliel-like, that the orthodox are correct.

This exposition is silly at best.

You don't need to learn Greek. You need the baptism of the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth.

Angela: Read up on what the Bible says about usury and how Christians for centuries believed about this practice. Today's watering-down of what the Bible clearly says about taking or giving interest loans should give those who claim to be Bible literalists a moment of pause, but somehow I doubt it since modern society would not exist without this.

Hello.

I am not myself a Christian, so I doubt that my opinion will mean much to many people, but I'll share it with anyone who wants to hear it.

It seems to me that when it comes to homosexuality and the bible, that it's only a part of the picture. Allow me to elaborate. God gave us free will. But, then he gave us a set of laws and codes to live by. Then came the bible, a book which teaches us how to live our lives in order to please God and, in the end, lead a good life.

Well, to me it appears that there is an odd contradiction here. God gave us free will, and he also told us how we should live and act. So, on the one hand, you have the power to choose what to do, but on the other you are told what to do. I'm sure that many people would say that this is to separate the sinners from the rest of the flock.

In my opinion, as an outside observer, it is a way for us to choose how to interpret the bible. Let me explain.

The bible tells us that homosexuality is bad (let's just say that for argument's sake and leave that ambiguous fact to another person), but we have the power, the will, to ask, "why?" We have the power to say, "If god wants me to love all people, then why is he telling me that some people do not deserve to be loved, or that some deserve to burn in Hell?"

I have religious conversations with many of my friends, and whenever the bible & anything comes up I always say the following [which Erin said above, but I'll reiterate, if I may]: If you go solely by the bible, then your faith is not put into God's hands, but rather into the hands of humanity. You have to trust that nothing has been mistranslated, that things haven't been added or lost or changed in translation. You have to trust that no one at any point said "I think that's wrong. If I change it, who will know? I'm the only one who can speak both languages!"

As a Unitarian Universalist, I believe in God. I do not listen to the bible at all, for exactly that reason. I know that our god is a benevolent one, and I base my decisions not on ancient text, but rather on that precept. The concept of a god who loves all things and who loves everyone, and that he would never punish someone who did not deserve it.

In my "book" [please pardon the pun]:
Rapist - Damnable
Murderer - Damnable
Being who God made you - Not damnable.

Obviously the interpretation of the bible is left to the discretion of the specific Christian, but the concept of a benevolent and loving god is more or less accepted as a truth.

As I said before, I do not claim to be of the Christian faith. I do believe in the Abrahamic god (God/Yahweh/Allah), but not in any scripture. I thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope that you may take a few seconds to think about what I have written. In the end, it all comes down to:

"What would Jesus do?"...

Angela:

I don't really understand your argument. You say the Lord does not change, and that's fine. Erin's argument has to do with the incorrect translation used originally. If it was originally translated incorrectly, then correcting it doesn't change the original meaning, it corrects the translations that followed.

I think what Erin is saying is that for all of the people that claim the bible is the truly inspired Word of God, very few people take the time to learn the language in which it is written: Greek and Hebrew.

Her point, and it is well-taken, is that languages very rarely translate easily and exactly from one language to another. Any student who has studied modern languages has encountered the situation where no exact translation exists for a word, meaning or concept. Those are modern languages that are constantly adapting. The problem is only worse with these ancient languages.

Unfortunately, the english words for many concepts in the bible do not fit well. A Jewish friend who spoke Hebrew often said the word abomination is a very poor translation of the original Hebrew. She said it was closer to a "ritual impurity" which the Jews took seriously but from which someone could be cleaned.

One only has to look as the many different english translations and how the meaning of many passages change to get an even greater appreciation for this. Essentially, I think the student's point is if you are going to accept a literal translation of the bible, then exceedingly great care must be taken to make sure that you fully understand the words written and what they mean.

Angela,

You are absolutely right, God doesn't change. That's why we believe that slaves should obey their masters. And that women should never speak or ask questions in church. And that shellfish and pork are abominations. And that we cannot wear clothing with more than one fibertype (no poly-cotton blends). And that we should bring in our grain offerings and our meat offerings to be burnt on a brazier before God.

Or perhaps we realize that man's understanding of God DOES change as we continue to grow and mature as people. We come to see that racism and slavery, rather than being endorsed by specific scriptures, are condemned by God's overall message. We see that women, rather than being owned by men, are equal in God's sight. We see that God sent His son as a sacrifice so that the Law might be fulfilled. But that requires that we see gospel not as a chapter, but as a total message. We can't "read the whole chapter" but instead have to know the whole God. And it requires that, gasp!!, we may be trying to impose our own prejudices and biases on God and reading into Scripture that which He did not intend.

You and I may disagree about the interpretation of a handful of scriptures about homosexaulity. That's OK. We probably also disagree about denomination, baptism, authority of religious leaders, perhaps the Trinity, the timing of tribulation, and a host of other things far more important to doctrine than homosexuality.

It's easy to say that others aren't being obedient to God. Especially when such declarations have no impact whatsoever on your own life. But I would caution that this desplays a less-than-thorough understanding of the Scripture, its history, its context, and its interpretation. (p.s. the Bible wasn't written in the 50's by your pastor)

I think what Erin is saying is that for all of the people that claim the bible is the truly inspired Word of God, very few people take the time to learn the language in which it is written: Greek and Hebrew.

Her point, and it is well-taken, is that languages very rarely translate easily and exactly from one language to another. Any student who has studied modern languages has encountered the situation where no exact translation exists for a word, meaning or concept. Those are modern languages that are constantly adapting. The problem is only worse with these ancient languages.

Unfortunately, the english words for many concepts in the bible do not fit well. A Jewish friend who spoke Hebrew often said the word abomination is a very poor translation of the original Hebrew. She said it was closer to a "ritual impurity" which the Jews took seriously but from which someone could be cleaned.

One only has to look as the many different english translations and how the meaning of many passages change to get an even greater appreciation for this. Essentially, I think the student's point is if you are going to accept a literal translation of the bible, then exceedingly great care must be taken to make sure that you fully understand the words written and what they mean.

Hi Erin,

I really don't understand what you're asking. If you read Malachi 3:6; is states: I the Lord do not change. We as 21st century christians are not at liberty to change the holy word of God just to suit society's desire to sin against a holy and just god. Also, we are taught not to rip one verse out of scripture but to read the beginning and the end of the chapter and if you read Romans 1; it's very clear what God says. We tend to want to soften the message to make people feel good about their sin. Also, it's very clear, homosexuality is no different than any other sin. It's still disobedience against God.