Difference between revisions of "Homosexuality and biblical interpretation"

Revision as of 13:39, December 21, 2008

Homosexual misinterpretation

This page (under construction) is a evangelical, fundamental type conservative Christian response to the issue of Homosexual misinterpretations.

Conservative versus Liberal

It is not presently within the scope of this article to detail differences between the two basic types of Christians, except that of a fundamental distinction supremely relevant to this page, which is that a conservative, fundamental, evangelical Christian believes the Scriptures to be the inerrant, infallible word of God, in which are given immutable absolutes and incontrovertible commands and essential truths that that are basically without debate, while critically narrowing the parameters in areas where their may be a limited amount of variance in views. In contrast, the liberal camp tends to hold the Bible as less than fully inspired of God and widely debatable even in it's basic doctrinal teaching. And as manifested in homosexual apology, this results in being their being easily given to claiming or postulating validity to vast degrees of disparate interpretations, from employing a hermeneutic that essentially invalidates the transcendence of immutable moral laws, to even more extreme eisegetical flights of fancy, in which a boy sneezing is an allusion to a sexual act (such as presently seen in Wikipedia's "Bible and homosexuality" page).

Consistent with their commitment to the Bible as God's word, conservative Christians hold that the source of the title "Christian" (Acts 11:26) is what must define a Christian, and which disallows the class of "liberal Christians," as the terms "conservative" and liberal," are typically commonly understood today (though in many other countries and times, that is not true).

Goals

The position of this page is that the homosexual apologist, referred to for now as a HSA, in essence has three goals. The first is self-justification (or self-deception), whereby the homosexual apologists seeks to overturn the plain meaning of scripture and substitute a soothing interpretation which permits him to do the dastardly deeds he already decided upon. The second is to fool other people into going along with this confusing charade. A third is to undermine the religious position by suggesting that religious devotees know less about their scriptures than outsiders.

Ways and Means

This is accomplished by basically two ways and different means.

1. That of "hath God said" (Gn. 3:1), in which attempts are made to negate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations and censure of it, as well as the evident unique sanction of marriage only between man and women.

This involves basically 2 errors,

A. That of confusing evident distinctions between basic immutable moral laws verses modifiable culturally applied laws, and of judicial/civil laws, as well as typological ceremonial laws (in order to relegate the Biblical injunctions against homosexual relations to the latter category), and

B. Reading a radical significance or meanings into inconsequential words, as well as dismissing consequential grammatical evidence and any real significance to the singular sanction of heterosexual marriage.

2. That of "it is written" (Mt. 4:6), in which laborious attempts are made to force sex into passages where is belongs not.

Effects

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12) )

The latter way, as in , even more than first means, requires the use of a hermeneutic which effectively disallow the Bible from even being a coherent moral authority.

A prime example of the latter is one Prof. Walter Wink (one or the authorities Soul Force has used), as evidenced in his work (which is among the top responses to Google searches) "Homosexuality and the Bible (refuted here. Professor Wink's stated conclusion is that the Bible offers "no sexual ethic," and instead this must be achieved by subjecting the Bible to his type of "enlightened" San Francisco type morality, as "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," (Rom 1:22). This type of proffered enlightenment has often been referenced to what the prophet Isaiah charged, that of exchanging "darkness for light" (Is. 5:20). History past and present testifies that while such souls may profess that that bringing male homosexual behavior into the mainstream will tame it, in reality it is moral anarchy working the destruction of basic societal norms.

A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology ^[1] (refuting a pro homosexual Catholic priest named Helminiak) makes this point:

"Make no mistake. The question is not really over what the Bible says or means with respect to the issue of same-sex acts. What it says and what it means are clear. The question is over what the Bible is and how much authority it has. Once the Bible is viewed as the error-filled writings of ignorant (relative to us), socially conditioned individuals, it is not at all difficult for positions, such as the one Helminiak holds, to arise. Once the Bible is no longer viewed as having normative authority, its contents are seen through the autonomous presuppositions of the modern culture. With such a worldview used to filter its contents, it is no surprise that the Bible is viewed as teaching us principles that are in accord with modern-day humanism. If, however, the Bible is allowed to speak on its own terms, something very different arises. If the Bible is what it claims to be (i.e., God's infallible revelation to His creation), Helminiak's position refutes itself, and same-sex acts are indeed sinful."

This it is manifest that this degradation of Scripture is not limited to homosexuals, rather it is that of modern intellectualism, and it's adoption by most non-Christians can easily result in statements that are substantiated and evident as true being labeled POV's For indeed, the philosophy of the "Pilate school of professional journalism" is "What is truth" (Jn. 18:36), though it may stand right before them.

Texts at Issue

Here let us consider briefly some of the errors of attempts to justify homo eroticism in the Bible, insofar as I am aware of them.

This often begins with seeking to negate Gn. 2:24, in which efforts must be made to negate God's choice to join man and women together as meaning that this the only kind of marriage that can exist.

(Gen 2:18-24) "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. {19} And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. {20} And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. {21} And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; {22} And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. {23} And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. {24} Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Jesus affirmed this union in Matthew 19, specifically including it was opposite genders that were joined:

(Mat 19:4-6) "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The assertion is made by HSAP's that the joining of only opposite genders would be expected with an empty planet in need of population, and this is true. However, the fact is that God created the women in order to fill the need of man being alone, and which other created beings could not fill (Gn. 2:18-20), which is indicative that women were not simply provided for purposes of procreation, though she was supremely - and uniquely - designed for that (and which itself refutes homosexual union), but to be man's uniquely compatible and complementary mate in more ways than just for procreation, to the glory of God. Furthermore, as Scripture is evidenced to interpret itself, Gn. 2 does not stand by itself. Searching Scripture reveals absolutely zero evidence of any homosexual marriage by God's people. An attempt is made make Jonathan and David's covenant a marriage, though that word is never used for marriage, but there is nothing in the description of their relationship that establishes such, or sex.

Foundational Contrast

This lack of any real evidence for sanctioned homoerotic relations stands in contrast to the abundant and explicit evidence of God's sanction of heterosexual relations by His providence of marriage. Meanwhile, in the places where homoerotic relations are explicitly dealt with, it is condemned, leaving it unconditionally wrong based upon the most explicit evidence. And at the outset it should be said that this problem forces the HAP to foster a view of a God who is either unwilling or unable to provide explicit sanction for such a basic thing as homoerotic relations, and thus in their quest for such sanction, arguments are advanced which militate against the moral authority of the Bible. The HSAP may respond that God did not make the condemnation of homoerotic relations abundant enough or wholly inclusive, by not condemning a positive form of it. However, as concerns abundancy, the significant but relatively few explicit mentions of homoerotic relations is consistent with the nature of the laws of God, in which the more prevalent sins receive the more press, with idolatry - the mother of all sins - being the most mentioned, while such things as rare forms of incest are among the least, likewise homoerotic relations and bestiality. And as sound exegesis shows, the condemnation of such is clear enough.

As for seeking to justify homoeroticism on the basis of a perceived absence of explicit condemnation of "loving, caring" married homoerotic relations, this is both unwarranted and dangerous. The basic injunctions against homo eroticism in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (and most likely in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10) are regardless of motive, while consensual, lustful homo eroticism is condemned in Rm. 1:26, 27, and the lack of an specific condemnation of category of "positive homo eroticism" is confirmative of the unconditional nature of the prohibitions against homo eroticism, likewise with sex with animals. Where something as basic as sexual relations is only conditionally wrong, then God clearly provides the context in which it right, in the case of illicit sex, marriage, and that between opposite genders, and to suppose that a benevolent motive itself sanctifies sex results in sanctioning "loving, caring" incestuous or adulterous erotic relationships with humans, or sex with children or animals. What God has placed sexually asunder, no man is to join together, and what God God joins together are only opposite genders in marriage, and until then any erotic relationship is sin.

To be continued

Links

• Homosexual misinterpretations refuted