Misleading Claims about David and Jonathan
Posted: March 9, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized 1 CommentI’ve come across the following arguments a few times now, claiming that the Bible illustrates David and Jonathan as basically married –
Looking at Biblical marriage practices is certainly interesting. Those who say they want to get back to the Biblical view of marriage will have to accept wives being bought as part of a deal including the purchase of a packet of land (Ruth) and wives being selected via a beauty contest (Esther). There’s a huge amount of polygamy throughout the OT too. Biblical marriages were nearly all arranged marriages too – which are ok when all parties agree but I doubt that the bride got much of a say most of the time. Then there’s the highly praised wife in Proverbs who does all of the work while her husband sits at the city gate talking to his friends. Or you could win a wife by doing well in battle (David).And, of course, divorce is generally out even if you are abused by your husband or wife. Or there’s Jabob / Israel who married two sisters and gad sex with both their servants too – presumably they didn’t get much of a say being mere women. Abraham thought it was fine to have sex with his wife’s servant just because his wife hadn’t borne him any chidren. No, let’s not get back to Biblical marriage please!
To be fair, there is, however one relationship in the Bible that is much closer to our idea of a good marriage today. It’s between a couple who we are told love each other very much. They exchanged covenantal promises just as we do, and also exchanged valuable personal items to seal the vows, just as we do with rings today. They remained together until one died. Who were this amazing, loving, modern sounding couple with the nearest thing to our idea of marriage in the Bible? David and Jonathan.
But I don’t think Proverbs mentions a husband who sits talking with friends while his wife “does all the work”? It sounds like a misrepresentation of Proverbs 31.
And im not sure that David and Jonathan exchanged covenantal promises “just as we do” or that they exchanged valuable personal items to seal their vows “just as we do with rings today”. The Bible does not explicitly detail their initial covenant. David and Johnathan both fought the Philistines (1 Samuel 13:3, 1 Samuel 17) and David became a war hero. Jonathan gave David his clothes and armour, possibly suggesting that their covenant related to their common war enemy. Im not aware of David giving anything to Jonathan as an ‘exchange’, so how is this like exchanging rings? Later in 1 Samuel 20:16, “Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, ‘May the LORD take vengeance on David’s enemies’ ”
After the defeat of Goliath, Saul offered his older daughter Merab to David as a wife. David felt unworthy of this honor, and Merab was given to a man named Adriel instead (1 Samuel 18:17).
David’s first wife was Michal. First Samuel 18:20 says; “Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased.” They married AFTER David became close with Jonathan and seemingly before Jonathan died in 1 Samuel 31. So what basis is there to claim that David and Jonathan “remained together until one died”? It was when Jonathan died that David spoke of his strong love for Jonathan. People often speak strong words like this at the time of someone’s death, without inferring romance.
2 Samuel 11 tells us that “One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her.” Her name was Bathsheba. David then committed adultery with her and she consequently became pregnant. Another sign that David wasn’t romantically dedicated to Jonathan.
Some have responded that since David also have wives, perhaps he was bisexual. However, David did say that his love of Jonathan exceeded the love of women. So if that was a romantic reference as gay activists suggest, this implies David being more attracted to Jonathan, than towards women (2 Sam. 1:26). IE not being equally sexually attracted to men and women, but finding Jonathan more attractive. If David was more attracted to men than women, I would expect his romantic relationships to be primarily with men. But the Bible indicates the opposite.
Evangelical Reflections on the 2019 UK Methodist GILUU Report, Regarding Gay Marriage
Posted: March 8, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentIn 2019, the UK Methodist Church released a report named God In Love Unites Us (GILUU), which contained the findings of an internal Task Group who were given the job of revisiting and reconsidering the definition of marriage, and their stance on same-sex marriage. The report was presented to the UK Methodist 2019 Conference, who by a vast majority endorsed the report and approved various recommendations from the report, such as the following resolutions, which broke new ground for UK Methodists –
- “…the conference consents to the marriage of same sex couples …” and to use any Methodist building in England and Wales capable …
- “… the conference resolves that Methodist ministers in Scotland … to be registered to solemnise same sex marriage and that same-sex marriages may be solemnised on Methodist premises in Scotland …”
Like other denominations who have taken a wrong turn on this topic, the authors of the relevant documentation express some high and honourable aims in writing the Report. EG the authors of the GILUU Report state that they “all find our primary identity in Christ” and they state “We have brought to our encounters what we discover about God through prayer and the Bible…” (both quotes from section 0.3.1). And they state that they “have identified the principles of belief which we will bring to inform this task. These include … God’s holiness and righteousness …” (section 0.3.4). They even say “As a Task Group, we have noted that our primary calling is to be a disciple of Christ.” (section 2.3.2).
So what went wrong?
Poor Foundations
- Compromise Built on Compromise
The context, is as report states, that UK Methodists didnt all agree about whether gay marriage is appropriate for Christians, for example section 4.3.8 of the report states “The Task Group is aware that some members of the Methodist Church would he happy to see the Conference authorising forms of service which enable same-sex couples to exchange vows … [but] Others opposed any sort of formalised same-sex relationship”. Along similar lines, the Report notes in section 4.3.14 that UK Methodism encompasses 7 different (and apparently conflicting) attitudes towards biblical authority. The Task Group have responded to this division within the denomination, by seeming to aim for a middle ground that appeases both sides, by recommending that churches with leadership who are comfortable with gay marriage, be allowed to conduct such marriages, and that churches with leadership who feel that gay marriage is sinful, be allowed to abstain (section 5.3.4 and 5.3.8). That is their current attempt at compromise.
But their work is built on a history of compromise. Previous UK Methodist conferences had already taken a position of some level of approval of gay marriage. Section 0.4.6 of the GILUU report says that “Conference has already decided that there is no reason why any member ordained or lay may not enter into a (same-sex) civil partnership or same-sex marriage” while footnote 88 states “…while Methodism has come some way … it has not yet agreed to same-sex couples marrying in Church.” So UK Methodists were already on a downwards spiral, before this report began, and as they stated in section 0.1.2, the GILUU Task Group built on recent Methodist history. They also note (EG in section 3.1.8) that these days the UK Methodist Church rejects some of it’s past historic doctrines. The report illustrates that the Task Group wanted to keep current church members happy, and they seemed to prioritise this over maintaining God’s standards. EG in section 2.6.3 & 2.6.4 they wrote “The Task Group has noted that in recent years, cohabitation and various other forms of intimate personal relationship have become well-established and generally accepted. … As a Church we wish to celebrate that the love of God is present in these circumstances …” And in section 2.5.2, they wrote “As a Task Group we have been open and honest in recognising the reality of many people’s experiences. We would urge the Methodist Church likewise to recognise the lived realities of the way relationships are practised today. A failure to do so may ultimately be regarded as hypocrisy, if it simply ignores how its members and adherents are actually leading their lives …” The Task Group seem oblivious to the fact that if they are living their lives contrary to Biblical principles, then they are not properly adhering!
What happened to the Task Group’s stated intention of aligning with God’s principles of holiness and righteousness? (section 0.3.4). Christians should follow Biblical doctrines, rather than creating unbiblical doctrines to reflect the poor ways they are living! The Task Group turned a blind eye to advice about this in 2018 from Methodist Evangelicals Together (MET). METs advice was in part; “A further question is whether our Conference Statements ought to reflect only what is currently happening in the church or whether they should set standards of belief and practice to which we should aspire even if our best efforts fall short.” The Task Group dont seem to recognise they are lowering standards though, because they see it as coming “to understand more about the God of grace who loves us and leads us into greater truth and love” (section 3.2.7). The Task Group
have dressed up their compromise as a “theological principle” in various ways. IE in section 2.6.2 they state “People live together for a variety of reasons. Because we have increasingly recognised and emphasised that all people are made in the image of God, we need to express in practise the theological principle of respecting the otherness (distinctiveness) of every human life.” Imagine if the local football team assessed their members and noted that some dont like training, and decided that because of a need to respect otherness, they will compromise by making training optional. Or what if the local cafe noted that some staff dont like cleaning, and decided that because of a need to respect otherness, so they make cleaning optional and leave the cafe to get dirtier and dirtier? Dropping standards like this can be disastrous. - An apparent liberal bias.
The GILUU Report Task Group were not homogenous and describe themselves as being “of different genders, sexualities, cultural backgrounds and ages” (section 0.3.1). Yet reading the footnotes of the Report, which indicates external books and other sources they have drawn from to inform their thinking on the topic, you find a lot of liberal names and very few conservative names. So were the Task Group too theologically homogenous, and only liberal? EG they cite from James V. Brownson, Rachel Starr, Patrick S. Cheng, Jack Rogers, Robert Song, Jeffrey John, but never mention conservative authorities such as Robert Gagnon, Michael Brown, or James White. This raises the question of whether the Task Group properly understood the conservative position on the topic. Sometimes the Report cites a source as the substantiation for a statement in the Report, without offering any further comment on why that statement is reasonable, eg the last sentence in section 4.3.10.
Liberal Christians have a tendency to focus on topics such as love and away from topics such as holiness. I think we see this in the GILUU report. EG in the opening pages of the report it says “This report continues the work of developing, and more wholly applying, our understanding of God’s grace to all our relationships and to our sexual relationships in particular” (section 0.1.1). The content of that quote is great, but it’s one-eyed. God is more than grace. The authors of the report do not give as much priority to the question of what God requires from us. - A Worldly, Narrow View of Sexuality
Some readers may find the following paragraph distasteful, but it’s reflective of the Bible and reality.
Early on in the report, we are provided with a glossary of modern terms used to describe sexuality and gender. The glossary is sourced mainly from secular sources, and brings with it, contemporary worldly and narrow secular perspectives, implying that sexuality is all about which gender a person is attracted to, and which gender/sex a person identifies with. Sexuality is far broader than that, because in a fallen world, people are sexually attracted to all manner of things and ages of people. The Bible acknowledges a broader reality, eg by declaring it sinful to have sex with animals (Leviticus 18:23). Common secular language on sexuality, including terms such as “sexual orientation” reinforces an assumption that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the only two categories of sexual attraction, and implies that each of those are merely different and basically morally equivalent orientations. That’s not a Biblical perspective, and it’s not reflective of reality.
The report arguably gets stuck in a secular perspective, when it states at section 1.5.7 “The question then is how can we as Methodist people enable God’s generous gift of relating and being sexual beings to be better celebrated by everyone?” From a Biblical perspective, is that a wise goal? The Bible to a degree encourages Christians to remain single (1 Corinthians 7), discourages sex before marriage, discourages lust (Matthew 5:28) and sexual immorality (Mark 7:21) and encourages marriage for life. Although the Bible celebrates sexuality in some ways (eg in Song of Songs), the New Testament largely encourages restraint.
In section 2.5.1, the Report talks of “contemporary sexual relating” and makes no distinction between worldly culture and church culture. Again this is secular thinking. The New Testament perspective is that church culture should conform to Biblical standards, and differ from worldly standards.
A Lack of In-depth Analysis of the Bible Verses that are Historically Regarded as Referring to Homosexuality
Various parts of the GILUU report go into surprising depth, and as I read through the tracks of thought taken, sometimes I wondered if they were going so deep that they were actually loosing their way. EG section 1.1.1 states “As human beings, we are made in the image of God. Therefore, in order to understand what it means to be human, we need to understand what God is like.” Is that logic sensible? Maybe, or maybe not? Similarly section 1.4.9 says “as a Task Group we have come to understand that it is vital that we take seriously what it is to be made as sexual beings in order that we can experience more of God’s love …” Huh? And in section 2.6.4 they write “The Church recognises that the love of God is present within the love of human beings who are drawn to each other, and who enter freely into some form of life-enhancing committed relationship with each other, whether that be through informal cohabitation or a more formal commitment entered into publicly.” What is the basis for believing that? And if you want another head-scratching example, consider the last sentence of section 2.1.8, which overall is a bit lengthy, so I wont quote it here. I think those unusual lines of thinking were not very productive, sometimes sound invalid, and made the report longer than it needed to be, which is a shame, because long reports are less likely to be widely read by UK Methodists.
But when it comes to examining the verses in the Bible which are at least historically understood to refer to homosexuality, the GILUU enthusiasm for examining things in depth, seems to dry up. This shallowness is foreshadowed back in section 2.1.1, where they write “God has made everything and loves everything that is made, showing that love by calling the creation ‘good’.” While that is technically true (at the time that God said it), it’s also very misleading. Did the Task Group not read the story of Adam & Eve and the Fall? Have they not read of Noah’s global flood and why God orchestrated it? Have they not read of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah? Have they not read Jesus criticism of the society and religious situation of His era? Have they not read Paul’s condemnations of immorality? Have they not read God’s condemnation of certain churches even in the last book of the Bible; Revelation? How can the GILUU Task Group possibly report that God declares creation ‘good’, without noting that most of the Bible doesnt align with that initial statement? The GILUU Report is similarly biblically shallow and misleading in section 2.3.3, writing as though 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 were never written, despite Methodist Evangelicals Together having pointed out 1 Corinthians 7 to them, in their 2018 report.
When we get to section 2.2.6, the Task Group even seem to discourage discussion of what the Bible says about LGBT matters. They write “It is noticeable that when matters of sexual intimacy are talked about in our Church, it is in the context of same-sex relationships far more often than mixed-sex ones (particularly with regard to the application of biblical texts and insights). The Task Group would suggest that a shift to focusing on the qualities of good relationships, and good sexual relationships in particular, would help to enable all of us in the Methodist Church to flourish.” Instead, that second sentence could have said something like “The Task Group would suggest that also focusing on the qualities of good relationships, and good sexual relationships in particular, would help…” But instead they discouraged talking about one thing, to instead talk about the other thing. I think that discouragement from talking about something, is sad.
The report focuses on the question of the holiness or lack thereof for same-sex sexuality, most closely in sections 4.3.9 to 4.3.21. In section 4.3.10 the Task Group cite one Jeffrey John, and write “So far as the ordinances about sexual conduct are concerned, it is noticeable that the emphasis of Jesus and Paul “is entirely on the quality of the relationship, and in particular that it should be a covenant of total sexual fidelity and indissoluble union.”” But this statement and citation seems to ignore everything that Paul wrote in the Bible at about sex between men, so it makes no sense!
Section 4.3.12 reviews 7 of the classic verses cited in regards to homosexual practice, but they are reviewed very poorly. Lets look at these one by one.
- Genesis 19:1-29 and Judges 19:1-30.
The report offers merely 3 sentences of analysis of these two passages. It claims that the passages “are about the violent rape intended to subjugate and humiliate foreigners or strangers in a way that breaches God’s law of love and hospitality.” Well, that’s at least partly true. The Judges passage refers to a violent rape and the Genesis passage refers to a failed attempt at violent rape. What the rapes were intended to achieve though, is a matter of conjecture, since the Bible does not state what the rapists intended to achieve, other than the fact they wanted to violently rape, and who they wanted to rape. The last point in the Report about theses verses is, “When Jesus is reported in Matthew 10:11-15 as referring to Sodom and Gomorrah it is in the context of a discussion about the rules of hospitality.” This claim seems to imply that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is primarily a lesson in hospitality. But is that the primary lesson? Jesus theme in Matthew 10:11-15 is in regards to how towns respond to evangelists, including whether the town is welcoming, and whether the town listens to the evangelists. So Jesus may have been commenting on hospitality, but he might instead have been focusing on the question of whether towns will embrace the message of the evangelists. The report fails to mention that elsewhere in the Bible, we are told what the problems were in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Ezekiel 16:49-50 it says “this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor an needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.” Jude 7 says “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of external fire.” So Sodom and Gomorrah had various sins, some of which were sexual. A close look at the passage reveals something interesting about the gender of those involved.
Genesis 19 tells us that the men of Sodom demanded to have sex with the male visitors (verse 5). In verses 6-8, a man named Lot responds that this idea is wicked, and offers his own virgin daughters to the towns men instead, for them to do “as they wish”. Later God destroys the towns but saves Lot (verses 16-25). So Lot is treated well despite offering his daughters to be raped instead of the visiting males. This seems to say that the rape of males is regarded by God as worse than the rape of women. And since the rape of women carried the death penalty (Deuteronomy 22:25), it’s hard to imagine a worse punishment. So while the story is not specifically depicting the average or typical homosexual act, the story does seem to illustrate one form of sex between males as worse than the corresponding form of heterosexual sex. - Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
The Task Group note that these verses are within the Holiness Codes, containing various policies for God’s people, and they comment “It is hard to pick some out some of them as still binding and dispense with others …” With those words, the Task Group raise a commonly made point about this. To those who are not deeply familiar with Leviticus and the New Testament, the claim of picking and choosing, does sound random or as though it may arise simply from prejudice. But the reality is complex. Jesus words in Matthew 12:31 imply obeying Leviticus 19:18. And Jesus words in Matthew 5:27 imply obeying Leviticus 20:10. So even Jesus affirmed elements of Leviticus, while still rejecting some elements, such as his Mark 7:19 rejection of Leviticus 11:12. This does leave many Christians scratching their heads over which elements of Leviticus and the Old Testament to regard as remaining valid for Christians. Scholars have suggested separating the moral policies of the Old Testament from the policies about religious ceremony and sacrifice. The following article explains this more: https://rts.edu/resources/do-the-old-testament-commands-apply-today/
However the Task Group exercise hypocrisy in their examination of these two verses from Leviticus. Their commentary extends further than the point above, saying “It is hard to pick some out some of [the Holiness Codes] as still binding and dispense with others without importing other criteria from outside the texts themselves.” And in their next breath, the Task Group seek to … import other criteria from outside the text, themselves! They write “Moreover, in Matthew 15:10-11, 17-20 Jesus says that holiness is not so much a matter of external act, as of inner disposition, in other words whether what is being done is done to love God and love one’s neighbour.” But Jesus doesnt say that, and the Task Group should be ashamed for misrepresenting what Jesus said. It’s true that Jesus describes holiness in Matthew 15. He says that eating certain things does not make you unholy (verse 11). Then when the disciples ask Jesus to explain further, Jesus replies “Dont you see that what ever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart and these defile them, For out of the heart come evil thoughts – murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft …” (verses 17-19). Yes Jesus himself says that sexual immorality makes people unholy! I dont know how anyone who is aware of this, can maintain confidence in the GILUU Task Group or their report. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10
The Task Group claim that it’s hard to be certain of the exact meaning of some Greek words used in the original languages of these verses, and claim that it’s not possible to be confident that they refer to honorable same-sex acts. In regards to these two verses, the Task Group simply offer their opinion, without indicating that others disagree with this opinion, and without really indicating that it is merely an opinion. Rather they present their opinion, as though it’s factual. This raises the question of whether they are qualified to present their opinion as factual. We can see from Conference 2021 Agenda Volume 3 that the Task Group was comprised by different members at different times, but the full list provided is of 8 individuals. Their names below are linked to pages that provide details such as their careers, simply found by a Google search:
Mrs Susan Howdle, Miss Elizabeth Ovey, Mrs Louise Wilkins, the Revds Dr Nicola Price-Tebbutt, Kenneth Howcroft, Dr Roberta Topham, Revd Keith Reed, Mrs Joanne Anderton. This googling reveals that some members are or were Methodist ministers, while others were merely lawyers. And while some have theological qualifications, none have bios that portray them as experts in Greek. Other authorities disagree with their assessment of the Greek words, EG Dr Michael L Brown, who holds a Ph. D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. Why do the Task Group not acknowledge that more informed experts disagree with their position? They are misleading. - Romans 1:26-27
The Task Group write of various possible lines of thinking that the author of Romans 1 may have been employing. They even suggest he may be misinformed, which is an odd suggestion, because if the Bible cannot be trusted on matters of human function, how can it be trusted when it speaks of the spiritual world and life after death? However, the Task Group do not entertain the possibility that Romans 1 addresses all forms of homosexual sex. Why not, given that many believe that? Why was the Task Group so remiss in their task?
A Lack of Broad Perspective
A key failing of the Task Group, is that there is no evidence that they evaluated the overall picture of what the Bible says about sex between men. Sure, some of the relevant verses are found in a context that mentions idolatry, and some verses employ words that people like to dispute in terms of definitions. But if each relevant verse is given a ranking of how likely it is that it illustrates all sex between men as sinful, then the results would likely look something like this:
Genesis: low inference
Leviticus: High inference
Romans: Medium inference
1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1: Medium inference
Ephesians 5: Medium inference
Overall finding: High likelihood
The Task Group did consider other verses, primarily in section 4.3.13, but that section comes across as a list of excuses from gay activists. There is no mention of verses relevant to the conservative/historic perspective, eg Jesus’ opposition to sexual immorality Mark 7:21, or the heteronormativity of the early church as illustrated in Ephesians 5. It’s as though the Task Group were not weighing up a way forward, but rather had a goal of affirming same-sex marriage and were disinterested truly evaluating any reasoning to the contrary.
Only a few years later, the UK Methodist church announced they were seriously curtailing their international outreach, and various Facebook comments said this was due to lack of funding. It seems the denomination is falling apart.
An Evangelical Response to Brueggemann’s View of Homosexuality
Posted: March 3, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentThis is a critique of an article by Walter Brueggemann, as sourced from here and saved here.
Walter Brueggemann is very well respected, at least by some, so it’s surprising this article has various flaws. He begins the article by citing a few Bible verses that illustrate sex and lust between men as negative. Then the quotes some other Bible verses, which he describes as “texts of welcome”, and he suggests that these verses illustrate a contrasting message that all are welcome.
So, are all welcome? Many churches have signs out front stating “All are welcome”, or words to that effect. But not all feel welcome, and some claim that churches exclude. So is everyone welcome or not? Well, Jesus welcomed everyone to follow Him. One of the most famous Bible verses says “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, so that anyone who believes in Him shall not perish but shall have eternal life” (John 3:16). But Jesus asked people to follow His ways. IE comply with his morals, behave in certain ways, do certain things and avoid certain other things. So all are welcome to do that, but many people dont want to follow all of Jesus’ ways. Jesus noted that “not all are fit to be my disciples” (Matthew 10:38). When Jesus told a rich young ruler to give away his fortune, the rich young ruler didnt like the idea, and turned away (Mark 7:22). There are others who want to follow Jesus in some regards but not in all regards. The Bible actually teaches that some people, who refuse to sufficiently follow Jesus ways, should be excluded from church (1 Corinthians 5, Revelation 2:20). In summary, all are welcome to follow Jesus, but those who refuse to follow very closely, do loose their welcome. The official policies of basically all denominations are that gay people are welcome, but conservative denominations have policies that say that following Jesus means no gay romantic relationships and no gay sex.
Brueggemann cites various verses as texts of welcome, and seems to imply that in a good church there is never a situation where someone would not be welcome. But if that is what he is trying so say, his claims are flawed. IE –
- Brueggemann cites Isaiah 56:3-8, and comments “This text is a grand welcome to those who have been excluded, so that all are gathered in by this generous gathering God. The temple is for “all peoples” not just the ones who have kept the purity codes.” But is that a fair reflection of what Isaiah 56:3-8 says? Not entirely. Verse 4 illustrates God’s welcome as being addressed to the eunuchs who “keep my sabbaths and who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant …” IE those who dont follow God’s ways, are not necessarily a part of the welcome.
And how can the temple be for “all peoples” AKA everyone, if some people follow other religions or are non-religious? How can the temple be for everyone, given that the New Testament advocates kicking egregious sinners out? (1 Corinthians 5, Revelation 2:20). That’s not including absolutely everyone. Well, a review of how various popular Bible translations render verse 7, reveals that approximately half of translations word it differently to what Brueggemann cited. Instead of rendering it “all peoples”, many translations word it “all nations”. IE the temple is for all nations. That wording makes more sense and is consistent with the rest of the Bible. - Brueggemann cites Matthew 11:28-30, and comments that Jesus indicates “no exclusion.” But as Brueggemann notes a few sentences later, in Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus says “because my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” IE following Jesus, entails carrying his yoke. IE there are requirements. Those who dont comply with Jesus’ requirements, are not true followers of him. And Jesus tells us that one of his requirements is abstaining from sexual immorality (Mark 7:21).
- Brueggemann cites Galatians 3:28, and comments that “all are welcome without distinction.” But Galatians 3:28 mentions specific distinctions as no longer applying, namely ethnicity, slave or free, and gender. It’s specific rather than explicitly saying there are no longer any distinctions at all.
Two chapters later in Galatians 5, it says “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions and envy; drunkenness; orgies and the like. I warn you as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” So obviously all are welcome, so long as they abstain from things like sexual immorality. - Brueggemann cites Acts 10, and comments that this passage “makes clear that the social ordering governed by Christ is beyond the bounds of the old exclusivism.” This is a valid comment, so long as you dont take it too far. As even Brueggemann notes, verse 34 says “…God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.” NB anyone who does what is right, as defined by God.
Brueggemann then writes “It is impossible to harmonize the mandates to exclusion in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 … with the welcome stance of Isaiah 56, Matthew 11:28-31, Galatians 3:28 and Acts 10.” But it is possible. As above.
Towards the end of his article, Brueggemann claims that “the full acceptance and embrace of LGBTQ persons follows as a clear mandate of the Gospel in our time.” Many believe that the Gospels do not mention LGBTQ persons, so it’s a wonder how he sees this as ‘clear’! The Gospels portray Christian marriage as inherently heterosexual (Matthew 19) and oppose sexual immorality (Mark 7:21). Sure Christians should love their LGBTQ neighbour and extend kindness and friendliness. But “full acceptance”? I dont think Brueggemann has provided sufficient evidence to disregard the Bible passages that illustrate homosexual sex as sinful.
Critique of an Article that Claims the Bible doesnt Condemn Gay Marriage.
Posted: February 29, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentHere are some thoughts on this 2017 article, which some are still circulating –
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826
(1) The article has a photo caption saying “The Bible never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it doesn’t address the issue directly.” Id say that’s true, if you are also happy to believe a statement such as “The Bible never condemns killing someone by running them over with your car, partly because it doesn’t address the issue directly.” The problem of course is that although the Bible doesnt specifically mention same-sex marriage, or cars, the Bible does express principles that indicate that both same-sex marriage and murder by way of automobile, are not Biblically complaint.
(2) The author of the article claims “When it comes to homosexuality there are, at most, six passages of the Bible that are relevant.” Sure there are approx six passages that are usually translated as referring to sex between men or homosexuality, but subject of the article is gay marriage, so there are more than six passages that are relevant. I would add verses about marriage which indicate how Christian marriage is understood, eg Matthew 19:1-12, Ephesians 5:21-33, because if Jesus and the early church were open to gay marriage, I would expect their words to reflect that.
(3) Regarding the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the author writes “what is clear is that sexual violence and rape is harshly condemned, and so God destroys the town with sulfur and fire. Despite the linguistic history of the word ‘sodomite’, Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality or mutually consenting adults of the same gender expressing their desire and love.”
Yes sexual violence and and rape are harshly condemned. But what this author seems to not notice, is that the man who offers his daughters to be raped, is treated very well by God in this story; letting him escape the destruction that the rest of the town suffers. What does that imply? It’s open to opinion, but I suggest that the story implies that God agrees with Lot, that it would be better for Lots daughters to be raped, than the male visitors to be raped by other men. IE it seems to imply that a male raping another man is more sinful than a male raping a female.
(4) The author claims regarding the key Leviticus passages that “We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male.” I dont recall coming across this claim before. Im not aware of evidence that the verses are only about married men, and I suspect the author is wrong about that. Id be happy to hear of evidence that the author is correct.
(5) The author claims; “Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard. As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend). To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical …” No it’s not ‘hypocritical’. Jesus affirmed some elements of Leviticus while overruling other elements. That’s the complexity that Christians have to grapple with. Jesus words in Matthew 12:31 implies obeying Leviticus 19:18. And Jesus words in Matthew 5:27 imply obeying Leviticus 20:10. And Jesus rejected some elements, such as his Mark 7:19 rejection of Leviticus 11:12. This does leave many Christians scratching their heads over which elements of Leviticus and the Old Testament to regard as remaining valid for Christians. Scholars have suggested separating the moral policies of the Old Testament from the policies about religious ceremony and sacrifice. This is a long-held view which seems to be found in the theological teaching EG of Methodist founder John Wesley, when he reviews Matthew 5:17 and talks of Jesus maintaining the moral law of the Old Testamant. The following article explains the concept more: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/leviticus-18-new-testament-believers/?amp
(6) The author claims “These two verses in Leviticus are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities.” No, Genesis 19 and Judges 19 also refer to attempted sex between males. Just because it’s attempted rape, doesnt mean it’s not a same-sex activity.
(7) The author writes “In Graeco-Roman society, there was an acceptance that men might be attracted to other men.” My understanding is that this is an overstatement. Sure there was some acceptance in some strata of the society, but my understanding is that it wasnt widely well accepted.
(8) The author claims “it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation”. As a lecturer, I guess the author is an academic. And I notice that academics are prone to intellectual snobbery. IE Ive noticed that they sometimes talk dismissively about ancient people as though ancient people are stupid. Paul lived in an era without computers, electricity or internet, but if you read what Paul wrote you realize that a 21st century person such as you and I could hold a conversation with him as an equal, on topics such as the human condition, or morality or wisdom and in fact he could likely teach us a thing or two. I think it’s an overstatement to claim that “it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation”. What is sexual orientation? Basically the term refers to which gender a person is sexually attracted to. And we know from Romans 1 that Paul recognised that there are men who are sexually attracted to other men. IE Paul had at least a somewhat basic grasp of sexual orientation!
(9) “Paul … was certainly not describing a committed adult relationship.” This is a common claim. But how do we know whether it’s true? We dont. In 1 Timothy 1, for example, Paul seems to refer to sex between males, and doesnt comment about whether those males are in a committed adult relationship. Logic would suggest that Paul could be referring to any men whether in a committed relationship or not.
(10) “In Romans 1:26-27, Paul condemns people swapping out their usual partner for one of the same gender.” Im not aware of it being a common understanding that these verses refer specifically to men with female partners. I doubt that most experts see it that way.
(11) “Paul … uses it as part of his argument for why one should only follow (his) God.”
Interesting wording, which suggests the author may not regard the God of the Bible as her god. Is she indicating she doesnt regard herself as a Christian?
(12) “Paul shares a stereotypical Jewish distrust of Graeco-Roman same sex activity, but is simply not talking about loving partnerships between people with same sex orientation.”
To which I ask, how do you know? I dont see clear evidence that Paul is addressing activity that isnt loving.
(13) “monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers.”
Yes and no. To mention something 6 times, always negatively, sounds like a reasonable amount of concern as I see it. But if you consider that sex between men carried the death penalty in the Old Testament, it seems very serious. Rape between men seemed to be the straw that broke the camels back for the town of Sodom, resulting in God destroying it. How is that not serious? And 1 Timothy 1:10 seems to say that certain sexual activity precludes people from going to heaven! All sounds like a major concern to me.
By Their Fruits You Will Know … Who?
Posted: February 24, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentI recently read someone write on Facebook –
Whatever happened to Jesus’ only criteria for judgement ‘ by their fruits you shall know them’? …Do you remember, … what criteria Jesus used to divide the sheep who’d go to heaven and the goats? It wasn’t depending on their getting certain doctrines correct or having perfect theological understanding. It wasn’t even specifically said to be those who were Christians … the idea of being a Christian didn’t exist in Jesus’ day, so it couldn’t have been being a Christian he was referring to.) It was the ones who had fed the hungry, cared for the sick, visited prisoners, and so on. That is, those who had borne good fruit, no mention of anything else.
She wrote a bit more, claiming that those who do these things are supposedly Jesus’ disciples, and exhibit “love, patience, kindness, faithfulness, goodness, self control and joy.” Apparently she believes that Jesus’ disciples dont even need to be Christians! This arguably implies that to be one of Jesus’ disciples, you dont need to go to church, read the Bible, pray, be baptised or follow Jesus’ other principles, so long as you feed the hungry, care for the sick and visit prisoners! Yes those are valuable actions, but is that really all a Christian needs to do?
This lady takes the “by their fruits you will know them” further than most, but many Christians think similarly to her. They say that the key indicator of someone being a Christian is that the person has “love, patience, kindness, faithfulness, goodness, self control and joy.” But does the Bible say this? Some say it does, in Matthew 7 and Galatians 5, but I think this belief is a common misinterpretation. Lets read what those verses say –
Matthew 7:15-20 (NIV) –
True and False Prophets
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Galatians 5:22-23 (NIV) –
But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, forebearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Doubts Over The Validity of This Doctrine –
I see various flaws in this doctrine.
- It’s not a very reliable test of who is a disciple. The Bible says, there are people who think they are Christians, but who Jesus regards otherwise (Matthew 7:21-23) and there are some who are Christians for only a short time before giving up (Matthew 13:1-30) and there are entire churches that God is displeased with and whom he will spit out (Revelation 3). There was a prominent pastor in my city who was widely admired, with a great modern church. But it was later revealed that he had been engaging in an affair for a lengthy period. If the fruit test had been applied to him before the affair came to light, I think most people would have said he would have passed it. But what is the point in a test that isnt very accurate? Various characters in the Bible went through some very tough times. St Paul went to jail. Was that good fruit? By using the fruit test, you might conclude that going to jail results in lack of contact with family, loss of freedom, probable sadness and even despair, and you might conclude that’s bad fruit and that St Paul, the key hero of the second half of the new testament, was on the wrong track. You might even conclude that Jesus being crucified is an example of bad fruit and that we shouldn’t be like Jesus. That’s odd logic!
- There are non-christians who exhibit “love, patience, kindness, faithfulness, goodness, and self control”. Does that mean that non-christians are on the right track? Does it mean that Jesus believes that it doesnt matter whether youre a Christian or not, and that what matters is the fruit? I dont think so, because elsewhere Jesus says it’s very important to be a Christian (IE to follow His principles and do more than feed the hungry, care the sick and visit those in prison).
- When Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 7, Galatians 5 wasnt written. Galatians indicates it was written by someone else (St Paul), after Jesus had been and gone. So initially when the words of Matthew 7 were spoken, how were those listening to Jesus to know about what Galatians 5 says?
- Matthew 7 refers to “fruit” from trees/plants. But Galatians 5 refers to fruit from the Spirit. Are these two different kinds of fruit? Are the two passages actually referring to different things? Are they two entirely separate teachings, with no connection to each other?
- Those who link Matthew 7:15-20 to Galatians 5, often cite the good fruits of the spirit that are listed in Galations 5. But Matthew 7 talks of “good fruit” and of “bad fruit”. Does Galatians 5 talk of bad fruit? Yes it kind of does. It doesnt refer to it as “bad fruit”, but immediately before the list of good fruit of the Spirit, it lists some behaviours that contrast with the good fruit of the Spirit. It lists these bad behaviours as being sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions and envy, drunkeness, orgies, provoking, pride, “and the like” (verses 19-21, 26). Those who link Matthew 7:15-20 with Ephesians 5, often say that the love, joy, peace etc found in their friends’ gay marriage, is good fruit, so the marriage must have God’s blessing. But they tend to not consider the fact that Ephesians 5 also portrays “sexual immorality” as bad fruit, and under New Testament definitions, sexual immorality would include homosexual sex. This suggests that gay marriage has good fruit and bad fruit. So we now have confusion, but we know that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
- Although when the Bible was initially written, it had no subtitles, many modern translations have subtitles. The NIV translation has a subtitle before verse 15 and another one before verse 21. The subtitle for the section we are discussing, says “True and False Prophets”. So the translators believe that verses 15-20 are a discrete section or theme, about prophets. Translators are quite smart, so maybe they are right. So if that section is about true and false prophets, maybe the test is likewise about true and false prophets? Maybe the test is supposed to be applied primarily or exclusively to prophets to determine whether they are valid?
- The Amplified Bible words that verse 20 as “Therefore, by their fruit you will recognise them [as false prophets].”
Is there an interpretation of Matthew 7:15-20 that makes better sense?
Yes there is. The last two points above, seem to indicate that the test is intended to be applied to prophets, and perhaps only to prophets. So how would this work, and is Galatians 5 relevant? I suggest that Galatians 5 probably isnt relevant. So what does Matthew 7:15-20 mean by the fruit and the trees?
Well Matthew 7 talks of fruit from plants/trees. Lets consider that situation. A banana tree produces bananas. An apple tree produces apples. An orange tree produces oranges. What does a prophet produce? A prophet produces prophesies. Could it be that when Jesus talked of the fruit of a prophet, He was referring to the prophet’s prophesies? Could it be that in Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus was simply saying that you can tell a valid prophet by their prophesies? IE a valid prophet produces valid prophesies. I think that interpretation makes much more sense. By their prophesies, you will know a valid prophet. What do you think?
First Thoughts on The Flaws of the 1946 Documentary
Posted: January 6, 2024 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentI think the key problem with this movie, is not so much that it’s pushing lies, but that it misleads by omitting too much truth.
Yes it’s true that prior to last century, English translations of the Bible, didn’t used to contain the word ‘homosexual’. But the movie would have been more balanced if it noted that the word ‘homosexual’ didn’t exist in English until 2 centuries ago.
Yes it’s true that Ezekiel 16:49 lists sins of Sodom. But that verse is only part of the list. By omitting verse 50, the movie misleads the viewer.
Yes it’s true that different English translations of the Bible, provide differing translations of the Greek word arsenokoites. But the movie omits various important points in relation to what the term means, as detailed here: https://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/
The movie claims that their researchers found that the most popular English translations of the Bible, are flawed because they drew from the flawed RSV as their basis for verses relating to homosexuality. But the movie offers no interviews from the authors of those translations, to provide the viewers with a perspective “from the horses mouth”.
Insights from others –
I see a whole book has been written by someone critical of the movie; https://www.amazon.com.au/1946-PROJECT-Mistranslation-Homosexual-Corinthians/
https://wordfoundations.com/2022/09/22/1946-part-1/
Dr James White says here that the creators of the movie refuse to debate him.
A Refutation of Clobbering the ‘clobber texts’
Posted: October 31, 2023 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentThis is a critical analysis of the document titled Clobbering the ‘clobber texts’, by Tony Buglass, which was uploaded to the facebook group UK Methodists in October 2018.
Tony’s Intro
The first two sentences of Tony’s document state –
The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. It refers to certain same-sex activities, but with no understanding of homosexuality as sexual orientation.
This is an overstatement. What is homosexuality? It’s a sexual attraction to members of the same gender. EG Men who are sexually attracted to other men. And what of relevance do we see in the Bible? We see men who are sexually attracted to other men (eg in Romans 1:27) and we see references to men having sex with men.
The document then examines various sections of the Bible, starting with the story of Sodom & Gomorrah in Genesis.
Sodom & Gomorrah
Tony suggests in regards to the story that –
a closer look shows that it has nothing to do with male rape. It is certainly about a serious breach of the customs of hospitality. The men want to ‘know’ the guests … it probably means the men want “to see who you have in there.”
Tony’s claim of the story having nothing to do with rape, contrast with the wording used in popular Bibles such as the NIV, which states for example in Genesis 19:5 –
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Many popular English translations of the Bible, word the above verse to specify sexual intentions. EG The Good News Bible, New King James Bible and the CEV, although many other popular English translations word the verse more vaguely. Tony offers no indication in his document, about why we should trust his advice over professional Bible translators.
To argue his case that it’s a story focused on inhospitality, Tony proceeds to examine a similar story in the Bible, and other references in the Bible that refer to Sodom or Gomorrah. But he doesnt tell the full story. The reality is more complex than many realize, because the Bible refers to multiple and various sins leading to the towns being destroyed. EG Ezekiel 16:49-50 tell us that the towns were destroyed for multiple reasons, including ‘abomination’. Leviticus 18:22 (eg KJV) tell us that in the Bible, ‘abomination’ may refer to sex between men. Jude 7 says “… Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” And in the narrative in Genesis 19 where Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed, one of the last things that takes place before the destruction, was that men talked of their intentions to ‘know’ AKA rape other men, and proceeded to attempt this. So there are multiple indications that sex between men was a cause of the destruction, and was perhaps the straw that broke the camels back.
Leviticus
The next element that Tony examines in the document, is the book of Leviticus, specifically 18:22 and 20:13.
Again, Tony alleges mistranslation as a reason that the verses are often thought to be about homosexuality. But Tony seems mistaken in this area. He wrote seemingly of 18:22 –
Jerome in the Latin Vulgate renders it as ‘masculorum concubitores’ or ‘male prostitutes.’ The cultic link is clear.
But you can look up the Latin Vulgate online, eg at https://vulgate.org/, or https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/ where you see no such thing.
Rather in my first source, they word it much like English Bibles today –
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.
Tony also claims that
The context of this section of Leviticus is Canaanite fertility religion (Lev.18:3,24-30;20:23).
But is it? Many English translations, eg NIV, Good News give little hint of that in 18:3 or 24-30. Rather, it seems to me that the theme of chapter 18 is unsuitable sexual partners. It says not to have sex with your sister, your aunt, your niece, your neighbour’s wife etc etc. Verse 21 complicates it. But consider the wording at the heart of verse 22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman”. It doesnt say “dont have sex with a man before Molek”. How does it refer to the sex? It compares it simply with heterosexual sex. It seems to say the gender mix of those having sex, is central to the problem.
Tony also writes –
It is clear that there are no references in the Hebrew Bible which refer to same-sex relationships
But has he proven that? I dont think he has. With Leviticus making reference to men having sex with men, as you would with a woman, what makes him think that the verse doesnt apply to bisexual men in a homosexual relationship? Or to any homosexual relationship? And his reference to Duet 23:19 is as far as I can tell simply a mistake that he probably didnt intend.
The New Testament
Romans 1
The first of the New Testament that he actually examines is Romans 1:18-32. His analysis provides an example of woolly thinking that we often see from homosexual activists. He writes that –
There is nothing here to suggest committed relationships: it was not unusual for married men to seek sex with other women, men, or boys as entertainment. This is an attack on various kinds of sexual perversion, including same-sex activity, as part of the decay and disorder of an idolatrous culture.
Which raises the question, does he believe that sex as entertainment is the same thing as sex in an idolatrous culture? I dont see them as the same thing.
But more importantly, he seems to acknowledge that Romans 1 does make reference to sex between men. And given that Romans 1:27 talks of men lusting after men, this implies that Romans 1 makes reference to men who are homosexually attracted, who are having sex with other men. IE homosexual sex. When men are inflamed with sexual lust for one another, they are by definition homosexual. So how do we reconcile Tony’s concession with his earlier claim that “The Bible says nothing about homosexuality.” Im not sure, other than to suspect he hasnt thought it all through properly. Or does be believe that homosexuals only engage in committed relationships and never have flings? Either way, his case is rather flawed.
1 Corinthians
Tony then moves on to expound on 1 Cor.5:9-13; but mainly 6:7-11, which he writes off as being –
clearly about sexual activity which is part of cultic or orgiastic prostitution and promiscuity.
But read the chapter 6 section for yourself, eg from the NIV translation –
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Is Paul only condemning thieving or being greedy when it’s done in a cultic context? Is he only condemning adultery when done in a cultic context? If Tony is right, why have most Bible translators not indicated cultic context or promiscuity in their translations of these verses? Could it be because Tony is mistaken?
1 Timothy
Tony then responds to 1 Tim.1:3-11, claiming –
The context is again depravity and temple prostitution.
which is simply a weak claim with a lack of good substantiation. How is the slave trading, telling lies or perjury of verse 10, about temple prostitution?
Jude 7
In addressing Jude 7, Tony writes –
as has already been argued, the sins of Sodom are understood as idolatry and injustice, rather than specifically sexual sins.
This is despite Jude 7 stating (in the NIV translation) –
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Tony doesnt seem to take the matter seriously. Perhaps he’s found the snippets of the Bible that he likes, and he’s disinterested in any counter-evidence?
Revelation
Tony then addresses Rev.21:8; 22:15. But I dont see references to homosexuality or sex between men there, and Ive never come across anyone who does, so I dont feel those are very relevant.
Conclusion
Tony’s concluding paragraph begins –
Which brings us to the point: the real issue isn’t same-sex activity but the context in which it occurs. In OT Israel, the real problem was the continuing presence of fertility worship in the high places.
But Tony didnt convincingly prove that. Sure Leviticus has close reference to fertility worship, but the stronger context seemed to me to be unsuitable sexual partners. Tony then writes –
For the NT writers, it was either the indiscriminate sexual practices of Graeco-Roman orgies or the sexual practices of pagan cult prostitutes.
But again, this isnt clear from the Bible references, which have wording that seems to suggest otherwise. The relevant verses and the surrounding verses in 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 make no reference to Graeco-Roman orgies or the sexual practices of pagan cult prostitutes. And although Romans 1 does make such reference, Paul seems disgusted with the gendered element of the sexual inclinations irrespective of context. Tony continues –
As we noted at the outset, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality (indeed, cannot be aware of what is a very modern concept)
Well it seems like Tony set out to prove that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and then makes claims to back up that argument, but ignores evidence to the contrary. And is homosexuality a very modern concept? That particular word is less than 200 years old, but the concept is very old. Even the Jews wrote of notions such as same-sex marriage, thousands of years ago, EG in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud of the 3rd to 5th centuries (Chulin 92a, b).
Tony finishes with the claim –
a committed and loving same-sex relationship which finds expression through sexual activity is as consistent with biblical principles as a traditional heterosexual commitment.
Which makes me wonder how he concludes that. If Tony is right, why didnt Jesus state affirmation of such relationships? Why did Jesus only talk of following the pattern of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19) ? And when the epistles offer instructions such as “husbands love your wives”, why does it not also say things like “husbands love your husbands”? We know that gay people existed at the time, because we are told there were men lusting after men (Romans 1:27) and getting sexual about it. Yet every time the Bible refers to marriage, it never alludes to including gay marriage. And every time it talks of sex between men, it’s always in the negative. Accordingly Im inclined to conclude that Tony is mistaken.
Since Tony uploaded the document to Facebook in 2018, various new translations of the Bible have been released, eg The Literal Standard Version of 2020, The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE) of 2021, and The Legacy Standard Bible (2022), none of which adopt all of what Tony says in his article, and all of which render Leviticus 20:13 for example as referring to sex between men as sinful. So the broad Bible translation world either dont know of Tony’s conclusions, or they disagree with them. When Tony is asked about raising his thoughts on this with the broad Bible translation community (there are relevant Facebook groups such as Nerdy Biblical Language Majors), he seems disinterested. He has responded about it briefly on facebook, noting at one point; “And I think that must be my last word on this topic, as I have other more pressing concerns.” Some of his other concerns are the messages of welcome to new members of the UK Methodists facebook group, which he posts sometimes almost daily, and jokes which he regularly posts to the same facebook group, sometimes approximately daily.
Tony has some ardent fans though. One of his fans, and also Tony himself, have told me that they dont feel persuaded by the above considerations. One of his fans told me that the translators of published Bibles are indoctrinated and refuse to face the facts. If this were the case though, why dont we hear from people from the lands of the original languages of the Bible, IE from Greece and Israel, accusations of incorrect translation of their languages? Googling the subject finds that the Greek Christian community attitudes to homosexual practice are fairly similar to other countries, and Jews are split on the subject. Why would that be the case, if Tony is right? And if Tony is right, why wouldnt the news media have done an expose on it? And why dont I hear similar complains from non-Christians who critique Christianity; people like Richard Dawkins? Is it because Tony has basically no support from professional translators either religious or secular?
Tony’s document –
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oirtbb0z_aAEku1_snViZaw976gJ9y2Y/view?usp=sharing
Why are University Professors Sometimes so Uneducated?
Posted: July 27, 2023 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentA 2023 MSN article about whether Australia should ban smacking of children, contains the following section –
Australian Catholic University Professor Daryl Higgins, a co-author, said there was a need to question “literalist” interpretations of the Bible used to justify hitting children.
He cited one such passage from Proverbs which reads: “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.”
The Institute of Child Protection Studies director said he did not believe that outlawing corporal punishment was inconsistent with Christian doctrine.
“I do not think it goes against Christian teaching; one of the most consistent and clear Christian teaching is the commandment to love one another,” Professor Higgins said.
So it sounds like this ‘professor’ regards the Biblical emphasis on loving one another, as overruling the Biblical advice that smacking children is okay. This is despite him quoting the Bible as basically saying that smacking is a loving act! Gotta wonder whether this professor would punish his children at all then? Has he not read Hebews 12:5-11 eg
“… we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. … For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”
or 1 Peter 4:1 or Romans 5:3-4 or Hebrews 5:7-9? Why has a Catholic University employed a professor who teaches the opposite of what the Bible says?
Oh The Hate
Posted: June 10, 2023 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentRainbow activists love to portray Christians as “haters” and homosexuality as about “love”. But in private facebook groups, you sometimes see a lot of hate from LGBT people. EG when Pat Robertson died –
That post was facebook liked 19 times. Yes 19 people affirmed the idea of dancing on this man’s grave. One commented –
Should You Really Be Your Authentic Self?
Posted: June 7, 2023 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentWhen the highly popular British TV star Phillip Schofield came out publicly as gay in 2020, he was congratulated for becoming his authentic self (ref #2, ref #3, ref #4).
But in 2023, his world came crashing down and he lost his job, said his career was over and inferred he was suicidal, following scandal around his affair with a young man.
Ultimately, what did he do wrong? As some have pointed out, what went wrong was that he was being his authentic self. His authentic self was sexually attracted to a young male who was in his prime and less than half his age, and he gave in to that impulse. Yes, he did simply went further with what he was congratulated years earlier for doing; being his “authentic self”.
“Wait a minute!” some would likely respond. “That’s not what was meant when he was initially congratulated for being his authentic self!” Sure, it wasnt foreseen by others that he would have an affair with such a young person. But still, he was being his authentic self. He was living what that phrase objectively means.
The phrase is of course just as dangerous to straight people as to gay people; all adults are sexually attracted to people who are not suitable sexual partners, EG bosses, customers and married people. And we all face other dangerous temptations that are best avoided.
The ideology around the concept of being your authentic self, is based on the premise that people are inherently good. A lot of people believe that humankind are inherently good, and that we only go off the rails when we are oppressed. EG that people only steal when they are poor, and people are only mean after they experience hurt through unfair lack of a level playing field. It’s a theory common in left wing ideology.
In contrast, Christianity doesnt teach that people are inherently good. Rather, it teaches that people are inherently bad. Interestingly some church attendees dont realize this. The Bible teaches that people have a natural tendency to steal, to be jealous, selfish, to hate others, to want revenge. If you spend time around young children, you see this. Young children are not generally taught to be selfish or jealous, but if placed with other young children, eg who have a birthday and are given presents, you can often see the jealousy, and you can witness them snatching/stealing things from each other, getting into fights with tears and pulling at each other’s hair. As we grow, we learn to suppress these feelings of jealousy, selfishness etc, because we know it causes trouble, but to some degree the feelings still exist.
The New Testament teaches Christians to suppress those feelings; to turn from selfishness, jealousy etc. It refers to those feelings as sins of the flesh (EG Galations 5, Romans 7:15-20). The last commandment in the 10 Commandments discourages jealousy, referring to it as coveting, and another one says not to steal, and another says not to tell lies. The message of Jesus is instead to love your neighbour, to be generous, supportive, helpful (EG luke 10:25-37). In effect, Christianity says do not be your authentic self; aim higher.
Hat tip to S. McAlpine.
stasis online 