Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School. His most recent book is “God in the White House: A History: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush” (HarperOne). The “On Faith” panelist has written ten other books, including Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America and Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America, which was made into a three-part documentary for PBS. Balmer was nominated for an Emmy for his script-writing on that series. His second documentary, Crusade: The Life of Billy Graham and a two-part examination of the creation-evolution debate, In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy, also aired on PBS. Balmer has lectured at the Chautauqua Institution, the Commonwealth Club of California and the Smithsonian Associates and been a visiting professor at Rutgers, Yale, and Princeton. He has published widely in academic journals and his syndicated commentaries on religion in America have appeared in newspapers across the country. He is editor-at-large for Christianity Today. A spiritual memoir, Growing Pains: Learning to Love My Father's Faith (2001) was named spiritual "book of the year" by Christianity Today. He is currently at work on a history of religion in North America.
Close.
Randall Balmer
Columbia University professor, author
Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School. His most recent book is “God in the White House: A History: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush” (HarperOne). The “On Faith” panelist has written ten other books, including Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America and Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America, which was made into a three-part documentary for PBS. Balmer was nominated for an Emmy for his script-writing on that series.
more »
Mr. Balmer,
Are we to jettison the rest of the New Testament which the majority was written by the Apostle Paul. Is not Jesus the same Lord that inspired these men to write the Holy Scriptures that make up the Old and New Testament Canon. Paul was certainly concerned with homosexual behavior such as in the book of Romans, and his concerns to the Church of Corinth!
All these comments are intellectual. A true Christian inhabited by the holy spirit just KNOWS homosexuality is wrong, and it is disgusting! Their practices are so filthy--but you just think the euphemism "gay". If it was an abomination to the Lord, why isn't it to you? Because your fogged by heartless intellectualism.
Romans makes it clear: first we have a reprobate mind (mind is NOT on God) and THEN God gives them up to sensuality in all its forms--homosexuality is all about sex sex sex sex and 500 lovers a year!
You see a homo bishop--doesn't he look nice? LICE! Think what he does at night, that's my advice. It is THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY DISGUSTING AND YOU GUYS JUST TALK BUT KNOW NOTHING
anybody who has to make such a "raging" statement about their "heterosexuality" sounds terribly insercure, and to top it all off, to base it on a MYTH just makes me
laugh uncontrollably.
Added references for your libraries on the historical Jesus and the historical Paul:
1. JD Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus, In Search of Paul and Excavating Jesus.
2. Ray Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament. (includes reviews of authorship and date and place of origin of the gospels and epistles of the NT)
See Amazon.com for prices and availability. Most local, county and state library book holdings are on-line so you can search for book location and availability from home. If your local library does not have the book, they can get if for you on interlibrary loan at no charge for library card holders.
Actually, you may not be correct on Eusebius after all. He says what you say he says, but then in book three of his Church History he starts waffling on Paul. In book six, ch. 25, he waffles some more.
Metzger (Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987), holds that he waffles away the Pastorals, but I don't have the patience to run down the proof myself.
This will teach me to quote from the first book that comes to hand, especially Freke and Gandy. Not all Christians reject the pastoral letters; just all but the most conservative. The Catholic Church is fighting a rearguard action to preserve them, but they’re using dirty pool (more on this later).
And you are correct on Eusebius. It was Marcion, around 130-140, that didn’t include them, which suggests he didn’t know of them. Most scholars hold that they were written around 100-120.
As for the computer study, neither you nor I have seen it, but there is no wisdom in insulting the computer. A textual analysis of this kind is merely a matter of counting things, and, as you very well know, you can’t beat a computer for counting. Of course, one can question the assumptions and methodology of the programmer, but not without seeing the program.
A couple of books that delve in detail:
Miller, James D., The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 1997, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521560489 (argues that the Pastoral Epistles were written by more than one author, over a period of as much as one hundred years);
Fee, Gordon D., Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Hendrickson Publishers (March 2007), ISBN: 1598560352 (contains 60 pages of analysis on the Pastoral Epistles).
As for the reference to dirty pool, if you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm), you will find a discussion of the disputed words in the Pastoral Epistles. They analyze some of the words, and manage to make their opponents look silly, but when the going starts getting tough, they say, “But we need not weary the reader by going through the entire list.” I even believe they cheat on individual words, but I’ve lost my reference for that.
One other comment: "They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries."
No Christian that I know regards the pastoral epistles as forgeries. I simply do not see how the authors make such lofty claims.
Thanks again for your comments. I truly mean it this time; have a good weekend!
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate very much the fact that you cited sources instead of just providing blanket comments without any support.
I would like to address some of the statements from your cited quote.
"[T]he so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are universally regarded as fakes." Although the authors may like to think that they are universally regarded as fakes, the fact that the pastoral epistles are still included in the canon easily dismisses this claim.
"Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul." Placing your faith in the results of computer studies is a very risky endeavor. I have experience in computer programming and a degree in statistics, and would never put my ultimate trust in the results of a computer model/program. They may have some predictive analytic power, but they can never "confirm" anything of this magnitude.
"Even the great orthodox propqagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible (c.325)"
This is simply not true. Eusebius does include the pastoral epistles. Quoting from his "Ecclesiastical History", he states, "At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These, then, [are to placed] among the recognized books."
Further in this work, Eusebius states, "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." Obviously here Eusebius is attributing the book of Hebrews to Paul. However, that is beside the point. The fact is Eusebius in his own words states that Paul's epistles are well known and undisputed (which includes the pastoral epistles of 1&2 Timothy and Titus). Therefore, the authors' claims are in error at this point as well.
Regarding this and other alleged objections, John MacArthur in "The MacArthur Bible Commentary" says this: "The idea that a 'pious forger' wrote the Pastoral Epistles faces several further difficulties: (1) The early church did not approve of such practices and surely would have exposed this as a ruse, if there had actually been one. (2) Why forge three letters that include similar material and no deviant doctrine? (3) If a counterfeit, why not invent an itinerary for Paul that would have harmonized with Acts? (4) Would a later, devoted follower of Paul have put the words of 1 Tim 1:13, 15 into his master's mouth? (5) Why would he include warnings against deceivers if he himself were one?"
In light of this, I do not find any validity to the claims made in the source that you quoted.
Again, I do thank you for taking the time to offer support for your position. It is much appreciated.
"[T]he so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are universally regarded as fakes. Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul. The earliest collection of letters attributed to Paul does not contain the Pastorals. In fact we do not even hear of the Pastorals at all until Irenaeus (c. 190). They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries. Even the great orthodox propqagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible (c.325)."
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries_, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999, p. 160.
See also
Wilson, I., _Jesus: the Evidence_, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984
Pagels, E., _The Gnostic Paul_, Trinity Press International, 1975
Thanks for the reference. I am currently working on my Master's Degree and have many required books on my reading list, but I would like to read this sometime to understand some of these textual criticisms.
In return, I would like to suggest that you read "Scripture: Its Power, Authority, and Relevance" by Robert Saucy, 2001 in which he addresses many of the questions that I find on this website such as:
How did we get the Bible?
What makes it authoritative?
In what sense is the Bible inspired?
Why were 66 books included and others excluded?
How accurate is the Bible we read? Does it contain contradictions?
I suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman,2005. According to the back flap of that book, "he is an authority on the history of the New Testament, the early church and the life of Jesus."
There's another book I've only heard about, called "God's Secretaries."
"We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus."
The genuine letters of Paul were written within 30 years of the supposed death of supposed Jesus. The Gospel of Mark 40 to 50 years later. The rest 70 to 100+ years later. As I point out on another thread, some of the New Testament (the forged letters to Timothy and Titus) wasn't even included by Eusebius, circa 325CE.
You stated in your rebuttal that "If you want to believe, I suggest you consider taking it on faith, because the proof isn’t there."
My post was in response to your accusation that the Bible was full of "copyist errors". I merely cited the evidence that dismisses this accusation. However, in your response I do not find any "proof" that justifies your original accusation. Therefore, I suppose I could suggest that you take your belief that the Bible does contain copyist errors on faith, because the proof isn't there. Please forgive my sarcasm...I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
It's always a pleasure to have a friendly debate with you. Have a nice evening.
Hi, Ambassador: You say, “The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus. (This doesn't leave much room for errors since many of the people of his day were still alive.)
I say, we may have fragments that old, but not a full set of gospels. In those days, the average life span was about 50, so not many people from Jesus’ time would have been alive 30 years later.
Regarding Homer and Plato, maybe so, but they are not on a par with Jesus, whom many venerate and worship as savior and son of God. People have fought and died for him – can’t say the same for Homer and Plato.
You conclude: “Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the Old and New Testament that we have now is reliable.” I know you’d like to think that, but asserting it doesn’t make it so.
If you want to believe, I suggest you consider taking it on faith, because the proof isn’t there.
"Please go ahead and have sex with each other if your must. But don't ask me to celebrate with you. I won't. Instead I'll weep. Weep that two grown adults are taking their genes, and all that society has given them to the grave instead of passing it on."
Tom Blair, I reject the idea that each human has an obligation to reproduce for the good of society. Why? Because what is truly important to society is not the individual's genes, but the individual's actions and accumulated knowledge. I have no clue whether Archimedes or Hippocrates or Galileo or Huygens ever had children, but their contributions to humankind would be immense either way.
Keep letting your light shine! It is nice to see another believer addressing the issues with civility and clarity.
E.Favorite-
Good to converse with you again, and thanks for your comments. Regarding the Bible, you said, "Not so cool, though, that it hasn't been updated in 15 centuries (since the printing press precluded further copyist errors)" which clearly implies that you believe that the Bible contains errors by the work of the scribes. If you will permit me, I'd like to examine that claim for just a moment. First, let's look at the Old Testament and then the New Testament.
Old Testament:
The most reliable Hebrew text is the Masoretic Text which was composed around 100 A.D., with the oldest known copy of the text to be around 1000 A.D. The Masoretes (a group of scribes in the early church) worked to preserve the Old Testament text precisely because they believed it was the Word of God. They took three steps to ensure textual accuracy. (1) They developed a system of writing vowels. Until this time, written Hebrew contained only consonents. The Masoretes developed the vowel system to preserve in written form the oral tradition. (2) The Masoretes developed a system of accents for the Hebrew text, which assisted the reader in pronouncing the text and helped to clarify many difficult passages. (3) The Masoretes developed a system of detailed notes on the text, which provided a means to check the accuracy of a copied text.
The manuscripts which offer the most confirmation are the Dead Sea Scrolls, composed between 200-100 B.C. Parts of every OT book except Esther are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the reliability of the other manuscripts such as the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (early Greek translation of the OT composed around 300-200 B.C.).
So, by placing everything on a timeline: the Dead Sea Scrolls (manuscript is between 200-100 B.C.) confirms the oldest known copy of the Masoretic Text (manuscript around 1000 A.D.). Within that timeframe is when you claim that the copied errors supposedly occurred. However, the evidence of manuscripts does not suggest errors; it confirms the reliability of the Old Testament.
New Testament:
We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus. (This doesn't leave much room for errors since many of the people of his day were still alive.) The fact that we have 6000 manuscripts, which are in agreement with each other further proves that there weren't copy errors. The second most manuscripts is Homer with 100 copies, and the first is not until 500 years after his life. After Homer, you have Plato, Socrates with even less copies.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the Old and New Testament that we have now is reliable.
I used to be a Christian, but right wing Christianity made me look at religion and come to my senses. A God as vile as the God of the religious right does not deserve to be believed in, much less worshipped.
Tyler - seems to me the book might have been pretty cool when it was written many centuries ago and it's also pretty cool that we still have copies of it and can still find some wisdom in it.
Not so cool, though, that it hasn't been updated in 15 centuries (since the printing press precluded further copyist errors.
You said, "Being Gay is not a sin. Hating someone BECAUSE they are gay is a sin."
I agree with you but with a few qualifications.
First, there are few people who would argue that one's "orientation" is sinful (i.e. "being gay"). The Bible is much more interested in attitudes and behavior than labels, and thus prohibits certain types of sexual activity (including but not limited to sex between members of the same sex).
Second, why do you say that hating someone because they are gay (or anything else) is a sin? I agree that it is, but only because the Bible teaches that it is. What is your rationale? Who told you that it was a sin? And a sin against what or whom? If you say, "well it just makes sense", then I would point you to the numerous examples in human history and contemporary life where hate is so prevalent that the "haters" are blind to their own awful condition. So are they stupid? Unenlightened? If so, who are what should enlighten them? You? Me? Pat Robertson? Osama bin Laden?
The cool thing about having a book--one that Christians believe to be written by both God and man, and thus completely authoritative--as our moral standard is that every person--male, female, rich, poor, white, black, clever, simple, you name it--every person is subject to the same standard. That is true freedom. It is the opposite of having to figure it out on your own only to be put in your place (oppressed) by some guy with bigger guns than you. The Bible (and the God who reveals Himself therein) is the rule of life for all people, regardless of how powerful or smart or sophisticated they are. That is the only hope for those of us that didn't get born with stacks of raw wisdom and talents. That is what levels the playing field. Again, that, and only that, is true freedom.
As a Christian I don't feel bound by most lifestyle laws of ancient Judiasm. As Christ said, he came to fulfill the law not to erase it. Before Christ, believers kept the law as a way to profess love and be loyal to God. Christ improved all that and showed a new way. Still in the age of Christ we find gay sex condemned.
I don't subscribe to Leviticus as the basis for the condemnation of gay sex, or more accurately sex outside of conception. But it is still there to be filed away as an expression of the Jewish morality.
Why should it invalidate Christianity or subsequent teachings on sexual morality.
In that vein of selective literalism that you are having such trouble with, you've missed some of the best parts of the bible. Here is one of my favorites.
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)
Based on the above passage, you'd better kill me.
I wonder what would happen to you if you practiced the type of slavery condoned in the bible?
Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery?
Yes. The situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).
Whom does God say should be enslaved?
The people of other tribes living around them "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).
What effect does God say warfare has on slavery?]
Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
The above quotes are from http://www.landoverbaptist.org
Papal, the following applies to you and your ilk.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16).
That "book" won't save me, unless I lose a leg on my couch. The Bible is a far cry from the way Christianity was meant to be seen. Why follow this book? What about the parts of the Bible that were left out? You know, the ones that described the daughters of Adam and Eve marrying Their brothers, or would that be bad? Yet incest is still in the "Good Book".
Maybe its not so much the Word of God as it is the ideas of men trying to bring together a fragile Roman Empire. That's what it was. The Bible was a group of already written books brought together to tell a story in order to unify the Roman Empire under one Religion.
The only problem with it, is that it is faulted by the opinions of man, although it was written by man. Man sees it as he sees it, and sometimes sees it in the wrong way. Being Gay is not a sin. Hating someone BECAUSE they are gay is a sin.
All: While scrolling down this blog, God put a verse in my heart to share with you:
In Ecclesiastes 12.14 Solomon says: For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
Homosexuality, marriage/divorce, adultery, fornication are subjects discussed by many in an emotional and visceral way. God will judge, then we will all know. Meantime, the Apostle Paul admonition that we look through a "glass darkly" and to work out our own salvation with trembling, is the best we can hope for. I am confident that I am on the way to heaven. Leave the rest to God. thanks
Papal, Papal, Papal - what about Miggs point about Balmer's point:
"that if you're going to heed the anti-gay passages in the Hebrew law, you have to heed all the other passages, too? So please tell me: what should be the legal punishment for people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of cloth?"
Or is your response another example of overlooking biblical passages that stand in ythe way way of making a point?
Miggs, Miggs, Miggs... the author is completely suffocating the text of the bible with his new fangled theology of love.
Okay here's just a sample:
1 Genesis- multiple passages
2. The laws of Moses- honor mother and father
3. Leviticus- prohibition on gay sex
4. Christ at the wedding feast of Cana
5. Paul's - prohibition on homo sex
Forget about Leviticus (its not even needed to see this) and face this fact:
Any reasonable reading of the bible shows 1) a prohibition of gay sex in 2 places, 2) no validation of gay sex anywhere 3) And multiple, strong validations of the union of man and woman from the beginning to the end of the bible.
Thousands of Bible verses? You have no clue. You can count the gay-related verses on one hand. In any event, what about Balmer's point -- that if you're going to heed the anti-gay passages in the Hebrew law, you have to heed all the other passages, too? So please tell me: what should be the legal punishment for people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of cloth?
Are you aware that Biblical scholars, including Christian ones, generally agree that Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are forgeries that didn't appear until about 190 CE? They are not the words of Paul or of Christ or of any of the Apostles. They seem to have been written to combat certain heresies, and, in my none-too-humble opinion, should not be considered the inspired word of God.
Of course, I don't think anything should be considered the inspired word of God, because I'm a non-believer. But you know what I mean.
Truly, this guy is WHY the Episcopalian church is in descent. This fellow cites Leviticus, as if that is the totality of the basis for a moral conviction of the one flesh union. Truth be told, marriage and the complementarity and suggested union of the sexes is found throughout the bible, from Genesis to Paul and beyond. Speaking of, even Paul prohibits gay sex in the New Testament and Paul was Christ's apostle.
This defense of homosexuality is so INCREDIBLY light weight and misleading. But he goes further suggesting that those conservatives who don't agree with him tolerate divorce. Then he suggests that adhering to the sum total of the biblical teaching on sexuality somehow precludes us from ministering to the poor. How unfounded and dishonest!
Seriously, why would anyone join the Episcopal Church?
What a stupid conclusion this author comes to. If I hear one more idiot liberal try to suffocate 2000 years of Christianity and 1000s of verses of the bible with a stupid all encompassing hippie "Love Ethic" I'm going to puke!
I'm not so sure that "Many of the Christians here who condemn homosexuality do it for no other reason than a book of 2500-year old fairy tales says they have to."
I think it might be that they look to the Bible for affirmation of their pre-existing belief that homosexuality is icky.
However, I tend to agree with you, regarding "humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables."
Individuals who practice homosexuality commit an act which God-Almighty (Allah) abhors. The people of Lot (Peace be upon him) were destroyed because a large number of them were open practicing homosexuals and their society had allowed this practice to occur in the open. This is the situation which our society is facing today. This act is one of many acts of error which are occuring today in our society which is leading to moral decay. We should enact laws which ban homosexuality and we should enact punishments to deter individuals from practicing this act openly. God has given us intellect and made us as humans and not as animals. In addition, God has placed numerous tests in this life for each and every individual. Those individuals who succumb to these lower desires which many individuals are tested with, fail the test, and their ultimate destination for this failure is the abode of the hellfire.
And who can forget Jeremiah 23:14 as he describes Rush Limbaugh:
"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah."
I like that story too, and your interpretations and extensions. Of course, Lot's children by his daughters were said to give rise to the great nation of the Moabites. I can picture a bunch of drunken Judeans laughing so hard wine comes out their noses when that old story about the origins of their neighbors is being told by the local bard. (In those days they didn't have Mel Brooks movies).
Of course, we also have this:
Ezekiel 16:49
This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Of course, we don't here much about this one from the likes of Cal Thomas or Jerry Falwell.
Canyon Shearer,
You leave out the best part; “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
-Genesis 19:5-8
In Sodom, Lot is visited by angels and warned to get out before god destroys the town. Meanwhile, a gay mob shows up at his door and demands the angels for a gay train. Instead he hands over his virgin teenage daughters (a substitute for the angels) to placate the gay mob. This really pisses the mob off because they don’t want nubile young virgins, but angels they can have depraved sex with, and so after some prodding by the angels, Lot flees Sodom with his family.
According to Genesis 19:26, on the way out of town, God turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back toward Sodom. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt, if she was following behind him like any good dutiful wife. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too, yet he managed to escape her fate.
I think what actually happened was that when his wife complained outside of town about having to leave the cozy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt and then said god did it. Most likely, his wife liked Sodom because all the men were into having gay sex and basically left her alone. Her husband obviously left her alone too, because she was an old hag.
After having clobbered his wife, he impregnates his daughters because they got him drunk and took advantage of him in a cave. In reality, Lot, even though he was a god-fearing man, now had two beautiful virgin teenage daughters instead of an ugly old wife. If his daughters did get him drunk, it was probably so that he would fall asleep and leave them alone. Instead he was probably one mean-ass drunk who self-medicated to keep the demons at bay that apparently afflicted the lineage of Abraham with mental illness. Not only was the lineage schizo, but their god was too. (e.g. Abraham almost barbequed his son because god told him to in order to test his love for god. Moses is plagued by a god who loves him and then tries to kill him, gives him visions of burning bushes, laws, a bad sense of direction, and finally discourses on what to do to non-believers).
Regardless, Lot was going to have his way and history is written by the victors; i.e. his daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. I’d like to see how that defense would fly in a modern court of law.
Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."
The Judge, looking incredulous, asks, "How old are your daughters, sir?"
Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and virgins, not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"
The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions."
Russel D. You'd like to think that that "outdated book written by a bunch of bigots" is what prevents us from celebrating your marriage. But you ought not be so sanguine.
Perhaps "outdated book written by a bunch of bigots" is what keeps you from being treated the way you'd be treated in Islamic societies - or treated the way you'd be treated in nature.
I don't know what the big deal is. Seems to me this point will never be solved so long as people keep going back to an outdated book written by a bunch of bigots, but maybe that's just me. And Canyon, welcome back to the fray.
You make a good point when you say, “During the 18th and 19th Centuries, pro-slavery forces were able to use scripture (including the Pauline letters) to support slavery. Other Christians rejected this proof-texting and based on reason and yes, experience (Jon Newman of Amazing Grace fame being the leading example), put the apparent pro-slavery parts of the Bible in proper context.”
The moral zeitgeist continually changes. In western culture, the moral zeitgeist has tended to change towards a more tolerant view of behavior that relies less on scripture. In addition, our idea of cruel and unusual punishment has changed as well. For example, in 17th century London, highway men (thieves) were hung, drawn, and quartered, their heads put on pikes and their remains hung from the gates at the entrance of the city as a warning to other would be lawbreakers. In 1661, after the restoration of the monarchy, Oliver Cromwell was dug up from his grave and hung again. Such behavior today would be considered barbaric. The attitude towards gay rights is in the process of changing and will be protected in the future in much the same way that the rights of minorities and women are now.
'John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come…….'
This is an interesting quotation. It argues against a literal interpretation of the bible, indicating that not all truth is to be found there, and that subsequent generations might learn new things.
"As a raging heterosexual, I confess that the notion of same-sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me.
Like many Americans, I react to the issue viscerally."
This is actually an interesting reaction and one a number of people have remarked upon. It is often presented (falsely) in terms of nature or nurture. Is this visceral response due to cultural indoctrination or part of some innate, biological response?
I've talked to a lot of men who consider two men kissing revolting; a very visceral response. Of course, many men find two women kissing titillating. Heterosexual women seem to have a weaker negative response. I've also talked to gay men and when I first heard them (many years ago) say that they found a man and woman kissing to also be revolting, I was initially shocked. Thinking on it subsequently, a negative reaction by gay people to heterosexual sex is not really all that surprising.
Regardless, this strong visceral reaction on my part and many others might indicate that the negative response, though probably mediated by culture, might have some biological basis. However, this opinion of mine is based primarily on anecdote. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no one has systematically studied this response to determine the influence of biology and/or culture respectively.
In my musings I am not advocating any moral stance (good, bad, etc.) towards homosexuality. I am primarily interested in these strong responses that appear unconscious. As far as my own personal beliefs, I think a person’s sexual orientation or preferences are no one’s business but their own, regardless what scripture says. As such, they should not concern the government, unless it is to protect their rights as citizens against discrimination.
To be clear, I agree with you that we need to ground our understanding of the meaning of scripture based on what the text and scholarship tell us what the original author was intending to state. I therefore do not deny that Paul intended to state that homesexuality is a sin. (But that Jesus was silent on the issue). I simply think that this is not the ending point. Once we come to a conclusion about what the author intended to say, I think we need to ask the question: does this reflect the will of God or merely the cultural circumstances of the times. In my view, the starting assumptio should be the former, not the latter, in light of the selection of the book for the canon and 1500 years of tradition, but nonetheless the question must be asked--what does reason and experience tell me.
During the 18th and 19th Centruties, pro-slavery forces were able to use scripture (including the Pauline letters) to support slavery. Other Chrisians rejected this proof-texting and based on reason and yes, experience (Jon Newman of Amazing Grace fame being the leading example), put the apparant pro-slavery parts of the Bible in proper context.
Tyler, thanks for the civil and intelligent response. Like Ambassoador, we make much more we could say to each other. I also suspect that on many issues of faith, you and I would have much in common. I only wish we had more time to dialogue. Sadly, this debate (both within my own denomiation and in the larger Christian Community) has been dominated by name calling (by both sides). I, for one, hav elearned much by our brief dialogue with you and Ambassador.
You said, "...religion is very often an impediment to true moral behavior" and "...humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables."
I understand well that there are those who have used religion and the Bible to support awful hatreds, predjudices and other devilish things. But therein lies the problem. What determines then what is devilish and what is angelic? Is it our better natures? For every non-believer who believes in, say, assisting those in need, I can show you one who believes that you only get what you deserve in life. And who is that arbitrates between them? The fickle majority? Opinion polls?
You see, the reason that many Christians think they have a lock on morality is because it is based in something concrete (what you call "fables") outside of themselves. I'm afraid that what you call morality must come from somewhere--or else it's only up to you what is good and evil. And that might change depending on whether you're having a good day. Frankly, I don't want to live in a world of people who woke up on the wrong side of bed deciding what is right for them based solely on their experience. Give me Scripture-based morality any day. It is far, far less oppressive.
I want to throw in one comment that it always intrigues me when we fall into the, "Why are you basing your doctrine on the opinions of one author?" Christians don't do that, that would be exceedingly foolish; in fact it's a good comeback for Muslims when they claim Paul wrote Christianity.
Moses;
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
- Genesis 2:24
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
-Genesis 13:3;19:5-8
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
- Leviticus 18:22
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
- Leviticus 20:13
David;
Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the very heart of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your table.
- Psalm 128:3
Solomon;
Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
-Proverbs 9:18
Who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies.
-Proverbs 31:10
Jesus;
But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
- Mark 10:6-8
Paul;
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselv
All Comments (95)
Mr. Balmer,
Are we to jettison the rest of the New Testament which the majority was written by the Apostle Paul. Is not Jesus the same Lord that inspired these men to write the Holy Scriptures that make up the Old and New Testament Canon. Paul was certainly concerned with homosexual behavior such as in the book of Romans, and his concerns to the Church of Corinth!
September 19, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2007 13:08
All these comments are intellectual. A true Christian inhabited by the holy spirit just KNOWS homosexuality is wrong, and it is disgusting! Their practices are so filthy--but you just think the euphemism "gay". If it was an abomination to the Lord, why isn't it to you? Because your fogged by heartless intellectualism.
Romans makes it clear: first we have a reprobate mind (mind is NOT on God) and THEN God gives them up to sensuality in all its forms--homosexuality is all about sex sex sex sex and 500 lovers a year!
You see a homo bishop--doesn't he look nice? LICE! Think what he does at night, that's my advice. It is THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY DISGUSTING AND YOU GUYS JUST TALK BUT KNOW NOTHING
trueChristian.
June 15, 2007 8:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2007 08:36
oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib
June 6, 2007 1:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 6, 2007 13:20
oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib
June 6, 2007 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 6, 2007 13:19
oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib
June 6, 2007 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 6, 2007 13:18
oaui mudg nrtkoi bzan whjfi izpetfc uqfjonib
June 6, 2007 1:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 6, 2007 13:17
anybody who has to make such a "raging" statement about their "heterosexuality" sounds terribly insercure, and to top it all off, to base it on a MYTH just makes me
laugh uncontrollably.
May 22, 2007 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 22, 2007 23:07
Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.
May 16, 2007 8:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 16, 2007 20:45
Thanks for the info.
March 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 17:26
Added references for your libraries on the historical Jesus and the historical Paul:
1. JD Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus, In Search of Paul and Excavating Jesus.
2. Ray Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament. (includes reviews of authorship and date and place of origin of the gospels and epistles of the NT)
3. The books on the historical Jesus listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
See Amazon.com for prices and availability. Most local, county and state library book holdings are on-line so you can search for book location and availability from home. If your local library does not have the book, they can get if for you on interlibrary loan at no charge for library card holders.
March 3, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 15:14
Actually, you may not be correct on Eusebius after all. He says what you say he says, but then in book three of his Church History he starts waffling on Paul. In book six, ch. 25, he waffles some more.
Metzger (Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987), holds that he waffles away the Pastorals, but I don't have the patience to run down the proof myself.
March 3, 2007 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 14:02
This will teach me to quote from the first book that comes to hand, especially Freke and Gandy. Not all Christians reject the pastoral letters; just all but the most conservative. The Catholic Church is fighting a rearguard action to preserve them, but they’re using dirty pool (more on this later).
And you are correct on Eusebius. It was Marcion, around 130-140, that didn’t include them, which suggests he didn’t know of them. Most scholars hold that they were written around 100-120.
As for the computer study, neither you nor I have seen it, but there is no wisdom in insulting the computer. A textual analysis of this kind is merely a matter of counting things, and, as you very well know, you can’t beat a computer for counting. Of course, one can question the assumptions and methodology of the programmer, but not without seeing the program.
A couple of books that delve in detail:
Miller, James D., The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents, 1997, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521560489 (argues that the Pastoral Epistles were written by more than one author, over a period of as much as one hundred years);
Fee, Gordon D., Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Hendrickson Publishers (March 2007), ISBN: 1598560352 (contains 60 pages of analysis on the Pastoral Epistles).
For a quick, general rundown of the argument, go here: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm
As for the reference to dirty pool, if you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14727b.htm), you will find a discussion of the disputed words in the Pastoral Epistles. They analyze some of the words, and manage to make their opponents look silly, but when the going starts getting tough, they say, “But we need not weary the reader by going through the entire list.” I even believe they cheat on individual words, but I’ve lost my reference for that.
Hope this helps.
March 3, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 3, 2007 13:09
John,
One other comment: "They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries."
No Christian that I know regards the pastoral epistles as forgeries. I simply do not see how the authors make such lofty claims.
Thanks again for your comments. I truly mean it this time; have a good weekend!
March 2, 2007 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 17:21
John Conolley,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate very much the fact that you cited sources instead of just providing blanket comments without any support.
I would like to address some of the statements from your cited quote.
"[T]he so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are universally regarded as fakes." Although the authors may like to think that they are universally regarded as fakes, the fact that the pastoral epistles are still included in the canon easily dismisses this claim.
"Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul." Placing your faith in the results of computer studies is a very risky endeavor. I have experience in computer programming and a degree in statistics, and would never put my ultimate trust in the results of a computer model/program. They may have some predictive analytic power, but they can never "confirm" anything of this magnitude.
"Even the great orthodox propqagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible (c.325)"
This is simply not true. Eusebius does include the pastoral epistles. Quoting from his "Ecclesiastical History", he states, "At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These, then, [are to placed] among the recognized books."
Further in this work, Eusebius states, "Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." Obviously here Eusebius is attributing the book of Hebrews to Paul. However, that is beside the point. The fact is Eusebius in his own words states that Paul's epistles are well known and undisputed (which includes the pastoral epistles of 1&2 Timothy and Titus). Therefore, the authors' claims are in error at this point as well.
Regarding this and other alleged objections, John MacArthur in "The MacArthur Bible Commentary" says this: "The idea that a 'pious forger' wrote the Pastoral Epistles faces several further difficulties: (1) The early church did not approve of such practices and surely would have exposed this as a ruse, if there had actually been one. (2) Why forge three letters that include similar material and no deviant doctrine? (3) If a counterfeit, why not invent an itinerary for Paul that would have harmonized with Acts? (4) Would a later, devoted follower of Paul have put the words of 1 Tim 1:13, 15 into his master's mouth? (5) Why would he include warnings against deceivers if he himself were one?"
In light of this, I do not find any validity to the claims made in the source that you quoted.
Again, I do thank you for taking the time to offer support for your position. It is much appreciated.
Have a nice weekend!
March 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 17:02
Ambassador for Christ:
A quote from the first book that comes to hand:
"[T]he so-called 'Pastoral' letters to Timothy and Titus are universally regarded as fakes. Computer studies have confirmed that the author of the Pastorals is definitely not the author of the letters to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, which are accepted as genuinely by Paul. The earliest collection of letters attributed to Paul does not contain the Pastorals. In fact we do not even hear of the Pastorals at all until Irenaeus (c. 190). They appear as a part of the Christian canon only after this time, always as a set, and are regularly dismissed by Christians of all persuasions as forgeries. Even the great orthodox propqagandist Eusebius does not include them in his Bible (c.325)."
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, _The Jesus Mysteries_, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999, p. 160.
See also
Wilson, I., _Jesus: the Evidence_, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984
Pagels, E., _The Gnostic Paul_, Trinity Press International, 1975
Ludemann, G., _Heretics_, SCM Press, 1995
(Notes from source quoted.)
March 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 16:18
Dear E Favorite,
Thanks for the reference. I am currently working on my Master's Degree and have many required books on my reading list, but I would like to read this sometime to understand some of these textual criticisms.
In return, I would like to suggest that you read "Scripture: Its Power, Authority, and Relevance" by Robert Saucy, 2001 in which he addresses many of the questions that I find on this website such as:
How did we get the Bible?
What makes it authoritative?
In what sense is the Bible inspired?
Why were 66 books included and others excluded?
How accurate is the Bible we read? Does it contain contradictions?
Thanks for the discussion. Have a wonderful day!
March 2, 2007 8:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:57
Hello Ambassador
I suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman,2005. According to the back flap of that book, "he is an authority on the history of the New Testament, the early church and the life of Jesus."
There's another book I've only heard about, called "God's Secretaries."
March 2, 2007 8:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 08:34
Dear John Conolley,
Thanks for your comments. I would like to ask what evidence you have to support your claim that the Pastoral Epistles are forged letters?
Thanks, and have a great day!
March 2, 2007 7:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 07:54
"We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus."
The genuine letters of Paul were written within 30 years of the supposed death of supposed Jesus. The Gospel of Mark 40 to 50 years later. The rest 70 to 100+ years later. As I point out on another thread, some of the New Testament (the forged letters to Timothy and Titus) wasn't even included by Eusebius, circa 325CE.
March 2, 2007 12:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 2, 2007 00:04
Dear E Favorite,
Thank you for your kind response.
You stated in your rebuttal that "If you want to believe, I suggest you consider taking it on faith, because the proof isn’t there."
My post was in response to your accusation that the Bible was full of "copyist errors". I merely cited the evidence that dismisses this accusation. However, in your response I do not find any "proof" that justifies your original accusation. Therefore, I suppose I could suggest that you take your belief that the Bible does contain copyist errors on faith, because the proof isn't there. Please forgive my sarcasm...I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
It's always a pleasure to have a friendly debate with you. Have a nice evening.
March 1, 2007 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 23:03
Hi, Ambassador: You say, “The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus. (This doesn't leave much room for errors since many of the people of his day were still alive.)
I say, we may have fragments that old, but not a full set of gospels. In those days, the average life span was about 50, so not many people from Jesus’ time would have been alive 30 years later.
Regarding Homer and Plato, maybe so, but they are not on a par with Jesus, whom many venerate and worship as savior and son of God. People have fought and died for him – can’t say the same for Homer and Plato.
You conclude: “Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the Old and New Testament that we have now is reliable.” I know you’d like to think that, but asserting it doesn’t make it so.
If you want to believe, I suggest you consider taking it on faith, because the proof isn’t there.
March 1, 2007 10:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 22:44
"Please go ahead and have sex with each other if your must. But don't ask me to celebrate with you. I won't. Instead I'll weep. Weep that two grown adults are taking their genes, and all that society has given them to the grave instead of passing it on."
Tom Blair, I reject the idea that each human has an obligation to reproduce for the good of society. Why? Because what is truly important to society is not the individual's genes, but the individual's actions and accumulated knowledge. I have no clue whether Archimedes or Hippocrates or Galileo or Huygens ever had children, but their contributions to humankind would be immense either way.
March 1, 2007 10:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 22:12
Tyler-
Keep letting your light shine! It is nice to see another believer addressing the issues with civility and clarity.
E.Favorite-
Good to converse with you again, and thanks for your comments. Regarding the Bible, you said, "Not so cool, though, that it hasn't been updated in 15 centuries (since the printing press precluded further copyist errors)" which clearly implies that you believe that the Bible contains errors by the work of the scribes. If you will permit me, I'd like to examine that claim for just a moment. First, let's look at the Old Testament and then the New Testament.
Old Testament:
The most reliable Hebrew text is the Masoretic Text which was composed around 100 A.D., with the oldest known copy of the text to be around 1000 A.D. The Masoretes (a group of scribes in the early church) worked to preserve the Old Testament text precisely because they believed it was the Word of God. They took three steps to ensure textual accuracy. (1) They developed a system of writing vowels. Until this time, written Hebrew contained only consonents. The Masoretes developed the vowel system to preserve in written form the oral tradition. (2) The Masoretes developed a system of accents for the Hebrew text, which assisted the reader in pronouncing the text and helped to clarify many difficult passages. (3) The Masoretes developed a system of detailed notes on the text, which provided a means to check the accuracy of a copied text.
The manuscripts which offer the most confirmation are the Dead Sea Scrolls, composed between 200-100 B.C. Parts of every OT book except Esther are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the reliability of the other manuscripts such as the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (early Greek translation of the OT composed around 300-200 B.C.).
So, by placing everything on a timeline: the Dead Sea Scrolls (manuscript is between 200-100 B.C.) confirms the oldest known copy of the Masoretic Text (manuscript around 1000 A.D.). Within that timeframe is when you claim that the copied errors supposedly occurred. However, the evidence of manuscripts does not suggest errors; it confirms the reliability of the Old Testament.
New Testament:
We have found approximately 6000 New Testament manuscripts. The earliest copy we have is 30 years after the life of Jesus. (This doesn't leave much room for errors since many of the people of his day were still alive.) The fact that we have 6000 manuscripts, which are in agreement with each other further proves that there weren't copy errors. The second most manuscripts is Homer with 100 copies, and the first is not until 500 years after his life. After Homer, you have Plato, Socrates with even less copies.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that both the Old and New Testament that we have now is reliable.
March 1, 2007 5:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 17:19
I used to be a Christian, but right wing Christianity made me look at religion and come to my senses. A God as vile as the God of the religious right does not deserve to be believed in, much less worshipped.
March 1, 2007 4:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 16:14
Tyler - seems to me the book might have been pretty cool when it was written many centuries ago and it's also pretty cool that we still have copies of it and can still find some wisdom in it.
Not so cool, though, that it hasn't been updated in 15 centuries (since the printing press precluded further copyist errors.
time for a major revision.
March 1, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 16:02
Tyler: Good question bro.
Maybe I shouldn't have referred to it as a sin. It just came across as more dire that way.
March 1, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 12:41
Russell D,
You said, "Being Gay is not a sin. Hating someone BECAUSE they are gay is a sin."
I agree with you but with a few qualifications.
First, there are few people who would argue that one's "orientation" is sinful (i.e. "being gay"). The Bible is much more interested in attitudes and behavior than labels, and thus prohibits certain types of sexual activity (including but not limited to sex between members of the same sex).
Second, why do you say that hating someone because they are gay (or anything else) is a sin? I agree that it is, but only because the Bible teaches that it is. What is your rationale? Who told you that it was a sin? And a sin against what or whom? If you say, "well it just makes sense", then I would point you to the numerous examples in human history and contemporary life where hate is so prevalent that the "haters" are blind to their own awful condition. So are they stupid? Unenlightened? If so, who are what should enlighten them? You? Me? Pat Robertson? Osama bin Laden?
The cool thing about having a book--one that Christians believe to be written by both God and man, and thus completely authoritative--as our moral standard is that every person--male, female, rich, poor, white, black, clever, simple, you name it--every person is subject to the same standard. That is true freedom. It is the opposite of having to figure it out on your own only to be put in your place (oppressed) by some guy with bigger guns than you. The Bible (and the God who reveals Himself therein) is the rule of life for all people, regardless of how powerful or smart or sophisticated they are. That is the only hope for those of us that didn't get born with stacks of raw wisdom and talents. That is what levels the playing field. Again, that, and only that, is true freedom.
March 1, 2007 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 12:34
As a Christian I don't feel bound by most lifestyle laws of ancient Judiasm. As Christ said, he came to fulfill the law not to erase it. Before Christ, believers kept the law as a way to profess love and be loyal to God. Christ improved all that and showed a new way. Still in the age of Christ we find gay sex condemned.
I don't subscribe to Leviticus as the basis for the condemnation of gay sex, or more accurately sex outside of conception. But it is still there to be filed away as an expression of the Jewish morality.
Why should it invalidate Christianity or subsequent teachings on sexual morality.
March 1, 2007 11:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 11:21
Papal,
In that vein of selective literalism that you are having such trouble with, you've missed some of the best parts of the bible. Here is one of my favorites.
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)
Based on the above passage, you'd better kill me.
I wonder what would happen to you if you practiced the type of slavery condoned in the bible?
Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery?
Yes. The situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).
Whom does God say should be enslaved?
The people of other tribes living around them "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).
What effect does God say warfare has on slavery?]
Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
The above quotes are from http://www.landoverbaptist.org
Papal, the following applies to you and your ilk.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16).
I'm Bruce, God of fruits. Are you the destroyer?
March 1, 2007 11:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 11:15
What gave you the idea that I was gay Tom?
That "book" won't save me, unless I lose a leg on my couch. The Bible is a far cry from the way Christianity was meant to be seen. Why follow this book? What about the parts of the Bible that were left out? You know, the ones that described the daughters of Adam and Eve marrying Their brothers, or would that be bad? Yet incest is still in the "Good Book".
Maybe its not so much the Word of God as it is the ideas of men trying to bring together a fragile Roman Empire. That's what it was. The Bible was a group of already written books brought together to tell a story in order to unify the Roman Empire under one Religion.
The only problem with it, is that it is faulted by the opinions of man, although it was written by man. Man sees it as he sees it, and sometimes sees it in the wrong way. Being Gay is not a sin. Hating someone BECAUSE they are gay is a sin.
March 1, 2007 9:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 09:17
The Taliban is antithetical to civilized societies, whether the Taliban in question is Christian or Muslim.
The equal protection clause of our Constitution, fortunately, stands without reference to any "Holy" texts.
March 1, 2007 9:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 09:16
But Papal,
Why should we forget about Leviticus? Or more accurately, why should YOU, since I find the whole thing absurd.
March 1, 2007 9:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 09:03
All: While scrolling down this blog, God put a verse in my heart to share with you:
In Ecclesiastes 12.14 Solomon says: For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.
Homosexuality, marriage/divorce, adultery, fornication are subjects discussed by many in an emotional and visceral way. God will judge, then we will all know. Meantime, the Apostle Paul admonition that we look through a "glass darkly" and to work out our own salvation with trembling, is the best we can hope for. I am confident that I am on the way to heaven. Leave the rest to God. thanks
March 1, 2007 7:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 07:54
Papal, Papal, Papal - what about Miggs point about Balmer's point:
"that if you're going to heed the anti-gay passages in the Hebrew law, you have to heed all the other passages, too? So please tell me: what should be the legal punishment for people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of cloth?"
Or is your response another example of overlooking biblical passages that stand in ythe way way of making a point?
March 1, 2007 7:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 07:46
Miggs, Miggs, Miggs... the author is completely suffocating the text of the bible with his new fangled theology of love.
Okay here's just a sample:
1 Genesis- multiple passages
2. The laws of Moses- honor mother and father
3. Leviticus- prohibition on gay sex
4. Christ at the wedding feast of Cana
5. Paul's - prohibition on homo sex
Forget about Leviticus (its not even needed to see this) and face this fact:
Any reasonable reading of the bible shows 1) a prohibition of gay sex in 2 places, 2) no validation of gay sex anywhere 3) And multiple, strong validations of the union of man and woman from the beginning to the end of the bible.
March 1, 2007 1:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 01:28
Papal --
Thousands of Bible verses? You have no clue. You can count the gay-related verses on one hand. In any event, what about Balmer's point -- that if you're going to heed the anti-gay passages in the Hebrew law, you have to heed all the other passages, too? So please tell me: what should be the legal punishment for people who wear clothing made out of more than one kind of cloth?
Miggs
March 1, 2007 1:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 01:12
To people quoting Timothy:
Are you aware that Biblical scholars, including Christian ones, generally agree that Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are forgeries that didn't appear until about 190 CE? They are not the words of Paul or of Christ or of any of the Apostles. They seem to have been written to combat certain heresies, and, in my none-too-humble opinion, should not be considered the inspired word of God.
Of course, I don't think anything should be considered the inspired word of God, because I'm a non-believer. But you know what I mean.
March 1, 2007 1:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 01:05
Truly, this guy is WHY the Episcopalian church is in descent. This fellow cites Leviticus, as if that is the totality of the basis for a moral conviction of the one flesh union. Truth be told, marriage and the complementarity and suggested union of the sexes is found throughout the bible, from Genesis to Paul and beyond. Speaking of, even Paul prohibits gay sex in the New Testament and Paul was Christ's apostle.
This defense of homosexuality is so INCREDIBLY light weight and misleading. But he goes further suggesting that those conservatives who don't agree with him tolerate divorce. Then he suggests that adhering to the sum total of the biblical teaching on sexuality somehow precludes us from ministering to the poor. How unfounded and dishonest!
Seriously, why would anyone join the Episcopal Church?
March 1, 2007 1:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 01:01
CAREFUL: the author is a RAGING heterosexual!! Watch out ladies, he can't control his rage.
March 1, 2007 12:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 00:49
What a stupid conclusion this author comes to. If I hear one more idiot liberal try to suffocate 2000 years of Christianity and 1000s of verses of the bible with a stupid all encompassing hippie "Love Ethic" I'm going to puke!
March 1, 2007 12:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2007 00:48
Ashley --
I'm not so sure that "Many of the Christians here who condemn homosexuality do it for no other reason than a book of 2500-year old fairy tales says they have to."
I think it might be that they look to the Bible for affirmation of their pre-existing belief that homosexuality is icky.
However, I tend to agree with you, regarding "humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables."
Savoir faire -- Brilliant
February 28, 2007 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 22:52
Individuals who practice homosexuality commit an act which God-Almighty (Allah) abhors. The people of Lot (Peace be upon him) were destroyed because a large number of them were open practicing homosexuals and their society had allowed this practice to occur in the open. This is the situation which our society is facing today. This act is one of many acts of error which are occuring today in our society which is leading to moral decay. We should enact laws which ban homosexuality and we should enact punishments to deter individuals from practicing this act openly. God has given us intellect and made us as humans and not as animals. In addition, God has placed numerous tests in this life for each and every individual. Those individuals who succumb to these lower desires which many individuals are tested with, fail the test, and their ultimate destination for this failure is the abode of the hellfire.
February 28, 2007 10:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 22:40
Tom Blair says "you are destroying this church by shoving your sex life down our throats."
Hey, turn me on, baby
February 28, 2007 10:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 22:23
Last post is mine.
February 28, 2007 10:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 22:14
And who can forget Jeremiah 23:14 as he describes Rush Limbaugh:
"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah."
February 28, 2007 10:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 22:14
Maurie
I like that story too, and your interpretations and extensions. Of course, Lot's children by his daughters were said to give rise to the great nation of the Moabites. I can picture a bunch of drunken Judeans laughing so hard wine comes out their noses when that old story about the origins of their neighbors is being told by the local bard. (In those days they didn't have Mel Brooks movies).
Of course, we also have this:
Ezekiel 16:49
This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Of course, we don't here much about this one from the likes of Cal Thomas or Jerry Falwell.
February 28, 2007 10:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 22:11
Canyon Shearer,
You leave out the best part; “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
-Genesis 19:5-8
In Sodom, Lot is visited by angels and warned to get out before god destroys the town. Meanwhile, a gay mob shows up at his door and demands the angels for a gay train. Instead he hands over his virgin teenage daughters (a substitute for the angels) to placate the gay mob. This really pisses the mob off because they don’t want nubile young virgins, but angels they can have depraved sex with, and so after some prodding by the angels, Lot flees Sodom with his family.
According to Genesis 19:26, on the way out of town, God turned his wife into a pillar of salt for looking back toward Sodom. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt, if she was following behind him like any good dutiful wife. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too, yet he managed to escape her fate.
I think what actually happened was that when his wife complained outside of town about having to leave the cozy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt and then said god did it. Most likely, his wife liked Sodom because all the men were into having gay sex and basically left her alone. Her husband obviously left her alone too, because she was an old hag.
After having clobbered his wife, he impregnates his daughters because they got him drunk and took advantage of him in a cave. In reality, Lot, even though he was a god-fearing man, now had two beautiful virgin teenage daughters instead of an ugly old wife. If his daughters did get him drunk, it was probably so that he would fall asleep and leave them alone. Instead he was probably one mean-ass drunk who self-medicated to keep the demons at bay that apparently afflicted the lineage of Abraham with mental illness. Not only was the lineage schizo, but their god was too. (e.g. Abraham almost barbequed his son because god told him to in order to test his love for god. Moses is plagued by a god who loves him and then tries to kill him, gives him visions of burning bushes, laws, a bad sense of direction, and finally discourses on what to do to non-believers).
Regardless, Lot was going to have his way and history is written by the victors; i.e. his daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. I’d like to see how that defense would fly in a modern court of law.
Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."
The Judge, looking incredulous, asks, "How old are your daughters, sir?"
Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and virgins, not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"
The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions."
February 28, 2007 9:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 21:50
Russel D. You'd like to think that that "outdated book written by a bunch of bigots" is what prevents us from celebrating your marriage. But you ought not be so sanguine.
Perhaps "outdated book written by a bunch of bigots" is what keeps you from being treated the way you'd be treated in Islamic societies - or treated the way you'd be treated in nature.
The Bible Russel - is you best friend.
February 28, 2007 9:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 21:23
I don't know what the big deal is. Seems to me this point will never be solved so long as people keep going back to an outdated book written by a bunch of bigots, but maybe that's just me. And Canyon, welcome back to the fray.
February 28, 2007 8:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 20:54
An Episcopalian,
You make a good point when you say, “During the 18th and 19th Centuries, pro-slavery forces were able to use scripture (including the Pauline letters) to support slavery. Other Christians rejected this proof-texting and based on reason and yes, experience (Jon Newman of Amazing Grace fame being the leading example), put the apparent pro-slavery parts of the Bible in proper context.”
The moral zeitgeist continually changes. In western culture, the moral zeitgeist has tended to change towards a more tolerant view of behavior that relies less on scripture. In addition, our idea of cruel and unusual punishment has changed as well. For example, in 17th century London, highway men (thieves) were hung, drawn, and quartered, their heads put on pikes and their remains hung from the gates at the entrance of the city as a warning to other would be lawbreakers. In 1661, after the restoration of the monarchy, Oliver Cromwell was dug up from his grave and hung again. Such behavior today would be considered barbaric. The attitude towards gay rights is in the process of changing and will be protected in the future in much the same way that the rights of minorities and women are now.
February 28, 2007 8:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 20:07
Ambassador for Christ,
'John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come…….'
This is an interesting quotation. It argues against a literal interpretation of the bible, indicating that not all truth is to be found there, and that subsequent generations might learn new things.
February 28, 2007 8:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 20:02
Mr. Balmer and Norrie Hoyt,
"As a raging heterosexual, I confess that the notion of same-sex attraction has always been a puzzle to me.
Like many Americans, I react to the issue viscerally."
This is actually an interesting reaction and one a number of people have remarked upon. It is often presented (falsely) in terms of nature or nurture. Is this visceral response due to cultural indoctrination or part of some innate, biological response?
I've talked to a lot of men who consider two men kissing revolting; a very visceral response. Of course, many men find two women kissing titillating. Heterosexual women seem to have a weaker negative response. I've also talked to gay men and when I first heard them (many years ago) say that they found a man and woman kissing to also be revolting, I was initially shocked. Thinking on it subsequently, a negative reaction by gay people to heterosexual sex is not really all that surprising.
Regardless, this strong visceral reaction on my part and many others might indicate that the negative response, though probably mediated by culture, might have some biological basis. However, this opinion of mine is based primarily on anecdote. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no one has systematically studied this response to determine the influence of biology and/or culture respectively.
In my musings I am not advocating any moral stance (good, bad, etc.) towards homosexuality. I am primarily interested in these strong responses that appear unconscious. As far as my own personal beliefs, I think a person’s sexual orientation or preferences are no one’s business but their own, regardless what scripture says. As such, they should not concern the government, unless it is to protect their rights as citizens against discrimination.
February 28, 2007 7:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 19:55
Tyler:
To be clear, I agree with you that we need to ground our understanding of the meaning of scripture based on what the text and scholarship tell us what the original author was intending to state. I therefore do not deny that Paul intended to state that homesexuality is a sin. (But that Jesus was silent on the issue). I simply think that this is not the ending point. Once we come to a conclusion about what the author intended to say, I think we need to ask the question: does this reflect the will of God or merely the cultural circumstances of the times. In my view, the starting assumptio should be the former, not the latter, in light of the selection of the book for the canon and 1500 years of tradition, but nonetheless the question must be asked--what does reason and experience tell me.
During the 18th and 19th Centruties, pro-slavery forces were able to use scripture (including the Pauline letters) to support slavery. Other Chrisians rejected this proof-texting and based on reason and yes, experience (Jon Newman of Amazing Grace fame being the leading example), put the apparant pro-slavery parts of the Bible in proper context.
Tyler, thanks for the civil and intelligent response. Like Ambassoador, we make much more we could say to each other. I also suspect that on many issues of faith, you and I would have much in common. I only wish we had more time to dialogue. Sadly, this debate (both within my own denomiation and in the larger Christian Community) has been dominated by name calling (by both sides). I, for one, hav elearned much by our brief dialogue with you and Ambassador.
Yours in Christ
February 28, 2007 5:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 17:25
Ashley,
You said, "...religion is very often an impediment to true moral behavior" and "...humanity will be better off as more people reject these fables."
I understand well that there are those who have used religion and the Bible to support awful hatreds, predjudices and other devilish things. But therein lies the problem. What determines then what is devilish and what is angelic? Is it our better natures? For every non-believer who believes in, say, assisting those in need, I can show you one who believes that you only get what you deserve in life. And who is that arbitrates between them? The fickle majority? Opinion polls?
You see, the reason that many Christians think they have a lock on morality is because it is based in something concrete (what you call "fables") outside of themselves. I'm afraid that what you call morality must come from somewhere--or else it's only up to you what is good and evil. And that might change depending on whether you're having a good day. Frankly, I don't want to live in a world of people who woke up on the wrong side of bed deciding what is right for them based solely on their experience. Give me Scripture-based morality any day. It is far, far less oppressive.
February 28, 2007 5:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 28, 2007 17:19
Ambassador, keep up the good work, as always.
I want to throw in one comment that it always intrigues me when we fall into the, "Why are you basing your doctrine on the opinions of one author?" Christians don't do that, that would be exceedingly foolish; in fact it's a good comeback for Muslims when they claim Paul wrote Christianity.
Moses;
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
- Genesis 2:24
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
-Genesis 13:3;19:5-8
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
- Leviticus 18:22
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
- Leviticus 20:13
David;
Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the very heart of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your table.
- Psalm 128:3
Solomon;
Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
-Proverbs 9:18
Who can find a virtuous wife? For her worth is far above rubies.
-Proverbs 31:10
Jesus;
But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
- Mark 10:6-8
Paul;
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselv