Some websites only present one side of the story. That's where we help out...

A Refutation of Sandlin’s Article; “Clobbering ‘Biblical’ Gay Bashing”

The following is simply a refutation of the article Clobbering “Biblical” Gay Bashing.

  1.  The author misrepresents Jesus as having “never said a word about homosexuality“. This is a misleading statement, as explained here.1797982_662850657105309_1830993328_n
  2. The author claims that “it is clear that the concept of people having a sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1800’s“. Yet he admits (in his section further down the page regarding 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy), that the ancient Greeks even had a word for the submissive male in a same-sex tryst! Ancient people clearly had some grasp on the concept of sexual orientation, as explored here. Also see point 6, below.
  3. In his analysis of the sins of the town of Sodom, the author writes off Jude 7 as being irrelevant, despite the NIV translating it to state that part of the problem with the town of Sodom was “sexual immorality and perversion“. Why is it irrelevant? The author does not say. Sounds very relevant to me. The author writes that those who raise Jude 1:7 should be ignored. Well with logic like that, perhaps he should be ignored too.
  4. The author claims that those who lived in the times of Leviticus had no science. That is an overstatement.
  5. The author misrepresents why many of the Leviticus laws are no longer followed. The author claims the reason is that “we understand that they are just flat out silly laws.” The author is clearly uneducated in how many of the Leviticus laws are fulfilled under the New Covenant.
  6. The author argues that we should not follow the Leviticus laws against homosexual sex, largely because “In our scientific age, it is time to let go of archaic perspectives“. Basically the author is saying we should pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. In the conclusion though, the author contradicts this, writing “ if you want to call homosexuality a sin, go ahead. But you are going to have to admit that it is not biblically a sin.” Gosh make up your mind!
  7. The author claims that an interpretation of Romans 1 being about “homosexual people having consenting homosexual relationships” is invalid on the grounds that such relationships are “something of which people at that time had absolutely no comprehension“. This claim is just obfuscation, as explained in point 1, above. Same-sex attraction is not that complicated! Romans 1:27 says the men “were inflamed with lust for one another“. There is no escaping that this is a description of same-sex attracted men, IE gay or bisexual men.
  8. In the continuing analysis of Romans 1, the author claims that Romans 1 teaches that people should act in alignment with how they are made, and that its a sin to vary from that. This conclusion contradicts the fundamentals of Christian teaching that a Christian should fight against their sinful ‘flesh‘, and again highlights a lack of understanding of Christian principles.
  9. The author writes that the Greek word ‘arsenokoitēs’ is difficult to translate, in part because it’s only found in “two places“. This implies that the word was not used outside the Bible. It was, and as such it was used more than twice. The author writes that “scholars can’t agree on a single best translation” of the word. Well this would be true of many words, even some words in modern English. But this does not mean we give up and proclaim a word to be too uncertain to define! The reality is that many translation dictionaries define the word as referring to sex between members of the same sex, EG http://biblehub.com/greek/733.htm apparently with good reason.
Advertisements


Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s