BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE
This is the fifth installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."
Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look
Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegisis
Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'
Part 3 - Understanding the Bible...Or Rewriting It?
Part 4 - Science or the Bible...or Neither?
The next segment which actually deals with what the Bible says is a brief one, about a minute long.
It starts with some interviews on Larry King Live of some Bible-believing Christians and a homosexual man who says that while there is no commandment against homosexuality (obviously referring to the Ten Commandments), there is a commandment against bearing false witness, and he says he will “not bear false witness to who I am.”
This man may be true to the description of his behavior, but he is not true to who God created him to be. God created him a man and God ordained that a man is to have sex only with his wife; therefore, if he is having sex with a man, he is bearing false witness to how he was created to express human sexuality. So by his own assertion, he is guilty of not just one sin, but two.
After more time spent on sympathetic personal stories, the DVD once again returns to what the Bible actually tells us about homosexuality.
The segment on Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the longest examinations in the DVD of what the Bible says about homosexuality, coming in at about five minutes long. It begins with a protester shouting that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality, and we see a brief clip from a 1970s-era Bible movie about this passage from the Bible.
Rev. Keene says Abraham accompanied two angels, who were in male form, to Lot’s house in Sodom. However, Genesis chapter 18 is very clear that while Abraham went some distance with the angels, he did not accompany them to Sodom, much less to Lot's house. This is a small detail, but if there is inaccuracy in an objective detail from this film, how much might there be in subjective analysis made on the DVD?
Keene also says, “It was required among the Hebrew people that if someone came to your door you were obligated to take them in. One of the most serious social breaches was to not entertain a stranger.”
However, there were no “Hebrew people” at this point in history. Abraham was the father of the Hebrew people, but his son Isaac was not even born yet. And there was no Hebrew law requiring hospitality at this point because there was no “Hebrew people.” And even if there had been a “Hebrew people” and a “Hebrew law” in existence at this point in history, the people of Sodom were not of the Hebrew people, but were Canaanites.
Rabbi Steven Greenberg, an Orthodox rabbi who is a homosexual, says “Sodom was an incredibly wealthy community. And they didn’t want to share their wealth, and thought that if travelers passed through and were welcomed, they might want to take our wealth, and so they canceled the law of the welcoming of travelers. And having violated the law of Sodom, they threatened Lot and his guests with violence.”
All of this might have been true, but the biblical text is pretty clear what the men of Sodom wanted to do with the male angels.
Keene says that while one Bible translation says the men of Sodom told Lot to send out the angels so they could have sex with them, another translation says “send them out that we may know them.” Keene says we can’t be sure “which translation is correct” and says that he understands that the men of Sodom wanted the angels to come out so that they could “gang-rape” them as “an act of humiliation.”
This “act of humiliation” is address by Rabbi Greenberg who states ancient armies used to humiliate defeated soldiers by gang-raping them, then says “The story of Sodom is not about license or promiscuity, or even perversity. The story of Sodom, according to the rabbis, is an act of cruelty, it’s about inhospitality.”
While Rabbi Greenberg believes the men of Sodom wanted to “humiliate” the angels due to some unspecified military offense, let's take a closer look at the confusion alluded to by Keene over the passage sometimes translated “to know;” Keene seems to imply the men of Sodom simply wanted to meet and socially “get to know” the angels.
According to James B. DeYoung in his book "Homosexuality," the Hebrew word yada, commonly translated "to know," in the King James Version Genesis 19:5 and translated "have sex with" in the New International Version, is the same yada used in verse 8 where Lot's virgin daughters are referred to as "have never slept with a man." It is the same as Genesis 4:1 where the Bible says "Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth..." And again in verse 17 where it says "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant... " and still again in verse 25 where it says "Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth ..." It seems that by all accounts, linguistically and contextually, the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with these angels.
The contention that Sodom was destroyed at least in part because of the widespread practice of homosexuality is further confirmed in the New Testament in Jude where it says "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
Rev. Gomes of Harvard, a homosexual, claims “It’s not about homosexuality. The city was doomed to destruction before the strangers arrived.”
No one disputes the fact that the city was doomed to destruction before the strangers arrived. In fact, the sin of Sodom was mentioned in Genesis chapter 13, which has been estimated to be about 20 years before it became "so grievous" that God destroyed it and Gomorrah in chapter 19.
But are we to believe that no homosexuality was occurring before the angels came—that this compulsion to have homosexual sex with the strangers just suddenly came on the men of Sodom out of the blue? Are we to believe that rampant inhospitality was going on for 20 years at Sodom, causing God's anger to burn hotter and hotter? And that inhospitality would make God more angry than turning his design for human sexuality upside down?
In Part 6 next week: what does the New Testament say about homosexuality?
Featured Article
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
For the Bible Tells Me So: The Real Story, Part 5
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
From the Bible Gateway link you posted:
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
If these men were homosexual, why would they want to gang-rape women?
Lot didn't seem to care how his virgin daughters might feel about being passed around a group of sex-crazed men, yet he was all too eager to volunteer them. That, to me, is wicked. Yet God seems curiously silent about it.
And the Bible is a source of morality? I think not.
Go back and read the passage again, Anonymous, and you'll find that these homosexuals WEREN'T interested in having sex with women; they flatly rejected Lot's offer.
You're right about Lot's behavior; it was wicked. A good man likely would have moved out of Sodom long, long before this incident.
Whether you read the Bible, a novel, a history book, a letter from a friend, a grocery list or a manual to set up your VCR, you have to read it contextually. Reading contextually doesn't mean you can interpret what is written any way you want to have it suit your fancy; rather the opposite. This incident is a historical account, not a set of instructions on moral behavior. Though you can obviously glean moral lessons from it, God never intended this (or many other passages) to all-inclusively and specifically label every behavior mentioned as "right" or "wrong."
You will, however, find other instruction from God in other parts of the Bible that points out Lot's behavior was wrong--as was the homosexual behavior.
The Bible is the best and ultimate source of morality. However, if you're unwilling to read it with an attitude conducive to learning, it'll be useless to you.
Bob,
I did read the passage, and I'm not denying that the men rejected Lot's offer. But if they really were homosexuals (i.e., not interested in women), why would Lot offer them his daughters? It makes about as much sense as if I set up my lesbian friend on a date with a man.
But if it's in the Bible, it allegedly makes sense, so I'll wait for you to rationalize an explanation.
Have you ever met any homosexuals who've had sex with women? I have. Lot was probably offering them a convenient sexual release. Or maybe they were bisexual, swinging both ways, or maybe Lot thought they might be, whether they were or not. When you're desperate, you'll usually try things that may only have a remote chance of success.
Lot's thought process behind the offers is largely irrelevant to the discussion of whether these men were pursing homosexual sex (it's obvious they were), or whether God approves of homosexual sex (He says repeatedly in the Old and New Testament that He doesn't approve of it).
Actually, I think Lot's thought process is very relevant. It shows that people in his time had a very primitive understanding of human sexuality, and that maybe this story should not be used in a 21st-century discussion.
And it especially should not be used by many Christians to marginalize an entire population of people whose private sexual/romantic behavior is, when you really think about it, innocuous. If you disagree with this, then explain what exactly is wrong with homosexuality?
First of all, Anonymous, on what basis do you assert that Lot had a primitive understanding of human sexuality?
To your second paragraph, you speak of "marginalizing" a "population" that makes up less than three percent of humanity? Homosexuals are, by definition, marginal at less than 3%.
Here are a few of the major things that are wrong with homosexuality:
1. God says it's wrong.
2. God says it's wrong because it turns his design for human sexuality (between a man and a woman) upside down
3. It serves no legitimate function. The obvious function of sexuality is reproduction; reproduction is impossible with two sets of male sex organs or two sets of female organs.
4. It is unable to create a family or family environment. A family environment requires stability, a male role model and a female role mode.
5. Stable families and family environments are necessary for a healthy society and future generations
6. Homosexuality brings with it a host of increased health risks, including AIDS, every other STD, increased domestic abuse, greater risk of anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. This in addition to the injuries common among male homosexuals due to using parts of the body in ways they were never designed for.
7. The legitimization of homosexual behavior makes it more likely that confused people may fall into this dangerous behavior.
8. The more people who get caught up in this behavior, the less stable our society becomes.
Bob,
I assert that Lot had a primitive understanding of human sexuality because he lived thousands of years ago. To put it in perspective, we hadn't formally studied sexuality as a legitimate field of science until the 19th century, and look at the discoveries we've already made. So yes, Lot's understanding was primitive. To be fair, I suppose there's a possibility that this random, uneducated man living in a desert city millennia ago had an exceptionally deep knowledge of human sexuality, but realistically speaking, the odds weren't in his favor.
At what point does a population become large enough for you to justify writing it without quotation marks? I'd like you to cite the source that tells you that homosexuals make up less than 3% of humanity, because that's a pretty bold claim. You mean to tell me that out of the 6+ billion people alive today, only 3% are homosexual? You can only know that if every single human being alive today has been surveyed. They haven't, so your claim is simply wrong. But even if they were surveyed, people can still lie or choose not to answer. So while the REPORTED percentage of homosexuality may be 3%, it is by necessity greater than that.
Notwithstanding, the fact that there are millions of gay people in the United States alone is sufficient, in my opinion, for them to qualify as a population.
As for your other points...
1. Yes, God says it's wrong -- according to the Bible. You're basing this claim on a book that itself claims to be the word of God, with no evidence or third-party corroboration to back it up. So your first point is an assumption, not a fact.
2. Again, this is coming from a book that conveniently states that every word of it is true and perfect. Where's the proof?
3. Your answer implies that sexuality is only legitimate if it produces offspring. If you truly believe this, you must also include all heterosexual couples who physically cannot produce children, whether it's due to infertility or some other cause. They can't make babies, so their sex life is illegitimate, right?
4. You equate family stability with having both a female and a male role model. That's interesting, because this type of marital pairing has a 50% success rate. Also, gay couples can certainly create families -- ADOPTION. Does the fact that there is no blood relation make their love or family cohesion any less legitimate? Tell that to a husband and wife who adopt. Better yet, tell it to a gay couple whose adopted child would otherwise be living in an orphanage.
5. I agree with this point, but it's not really a reason why homosexuality is wrong. It's just kind of FYI.
6. So does heterosexuality. After all, any activity that involves the exchange of bodily fluids is bound to carry risks, regardless of orientation. If you insist that homosexual behavior is especially dangerous, just remember that each person is accountable for his or her choices, so they're obligated to be responsible. Speaking personally, my boyfriend and I are monogamous and therefore at no risk of contracting diseases. As for any injuries we might incur from our mismatched body parts, well, we know our limits.
7. I have to disagree with you here. I think the demonization of homosexual behavior, rather than legitimization, makes so-called "confused" people far more likely to try it. Who wants to have boring, run-of-the-mill homosexual sex, anyway? Where's the thrill?
8. Prove it.
You seem to be asserting that Lot was incapable of distinguishing homosexual sex from heterosexual sex, or recognizing that some people swing both ways. You asserted that in offering his daughters for the sexual gratification of the homosexuals pounding on his door indicated a lack of sexual understanding. It does nothing of the kind, as I've already explained.
A study released a little over a month ago found what several other previous studies have found: that homosexuals comprise less than 3% of the population. The study (http://www.hrc.org/documents/Hunter_College_Report.pdf) was conducted by Hunter College and funded by the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual group. You can choose to believe or disbelieve it, but given that it was funded by a homosexual activist group, you'd be hard pressed to convince any objective person that it was inaccurate--especially in this day of openness about homosexuality.
Besides, it doesn't matter of 50% of people were homosexual; God says homosexuality is wrong, which is the context of this article.
In responding to your responses to my points:
1. The Bible has been corroborated countless times. You will find many of its assertions backed up by other secular historical sources. What's more, the Bible makes assertions that, while once thought to be "errors" in the Bible, are continually being proven true. For instance, the Bible mentions the Hittite people but no other historical record of their existence had ever been found...until a few years ago. The Bible also mentions the House of David, and no archaeological record of the House of David had ever been found...until just a few years ago. Ultimately, nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false--a record that modern science cannot even attest to. Despite any doubts you have about the Bible's veracity, this DVD claims to make its assertions based on an assumption that the Bible IS the word of God, so it would be most relevant to keep discussions within that framework.
2. See #1
3. Sexuality as practiced between males and females is CAPABLE of producing offspring. It does not always do so, due to the use of contraceptives and sometimes biological handicaps in the male or female. Further, females are fertile only a couple of days each month, so the production of offspring will not occur every time sexuality is practiced. However, provided the biology is working properly, reproduction is POSSIBLE for the union of males and females. Reproduction is NEVER possible for two males or two females. Further, a cursory examination of anatomy and biological function reveals that the penis and vagina were designed to function together in complimentary fashion; two vaginas or a penis and an anus were just as obviously NOT designed to perform a useful function with one another.
4. Researchers have pointed out that the commonly quoted statistic of "on out of every two marriages ends in divorce" is based on flawed methodology which assumes that everyone getting divorced in a given year are the same people who are getting divorced, but they aren't. Some unstable people end up getting married multiple times (Liz Taylor?) while many others are married for decades or even (gasp) for life. Even if the 50% figure was accurate, it makes no sense whatsoever to make a bad situation even worse. Studies show that of the relative few homosexual relationships that do last any length of time (most are less than 10 years), the number that remain monogamous are extremely small--which means a procession of strangers coming in and going out of the home.
No, homosexual couples can NOT create a family. They can adopt a child, but they are incapable of creating a family. Heterosexual couples are capable of creating a family, provided the biology is functioning correctly; homosexual couples can NEVER create a family, even if the biology is working perfectly. Further, a home where a child is parented by two men or two women is unbalanced (and not just because of the lack of long-term relationships and lack of monogamy), but because boys and girls need both a mother and father to fulfill the type of nurturing and role modeling that only each is capable of providing. Children who lack this lack a proper demonstration of how they were biologically created to function and how they are supposed to relate to the opposite sex. There is no lack of heterosexual couples waiting to adopt, so placing a child in a home with these critical deficiencies makes no sense at all.
5. This IS a reason why homosexuality is wrong. When children and families lack stability and a healthy environment in which to grow up, society suffers. Children from chaotic home environments suffer academically, which means they don't succeed as well as adults, which means they are less able to meet their own needs, which means society often must provide (welfare) for them. Children from unstable home environments usually grow up angry and rebellious, which means they aren't fit to become productive members of society, which means they often end up in trouble with the law--which again costs society (law enforcement, courts, incarceration, parole, victim costs, and welfare for the family/offspring they cannot care for while incarcerated).
6. Heterosexuality when practice outside marriage does bring increased risk of these diseases. The thing is, homosexual sex is EVEN RISKIER than extramarital heterosexual sex. I agree with you that we all SHOULD be responsible for the risks we take. However, it doesn't work that way in our current world. Insurance costs get passed along to all policy holders, and those who can't or won't take care of themselves get treated on the public dime. And don't forget the incessant drumbeat of "more money for AIDS," despite the fact that we already spend an absurd amount per patient when compared to greater killers like cancer and heart disease.
7. We may have to agree to disagree on this one. While I think, due to the undeniable influences of taboo, peer pressure and group-think, legitimizing something makes people feel more free to do that thing, it's very difficult to quantify with certainty exactly why people do the things they do.
8. It's a logical extension. If instability in the home causes societal instability (and we already know it does, because children from broken homes already commit an inordinate amount of the crime, and broken homes consume an inordinate amount of poverty assistance, and children from broken homes suffer inordinate academic failure), it stands to reason that the more family instability we experience, more societal instability will result. It's bad enough coming from selfish heterosexual couples who put self-fulfillment before the good of children or society; we don't need to add to the damage by legitimizing more chaos from homosexual couples. Cliches like "two wrongs don't make a right" and "out of the frying pan and into the fire" and "throwing gasoline on a fire" seem simplistic, but fit quite well.
Bob,
I read the study you provided, but I couldn't see where it gives the total number of respondents. Saying that 3% of the U.S. population identifies as gay/lesbian is meaningless unless you know how many people took the survey.
As for whether I believe or disbelieve the findings, that's irrelevant. Common sense tells us that no matter how anonymous a survey might be, we have no way of knowing whether people are being honest with their responses. As I said earlier, the REPORTED percentage of adult homosexuals in the United States is 3%, but the ACTUAL percentage is higher. Think about it -- the survey is administered to a closeted gay man who is too ashamed (or in denial) to identify as homosexual, even though the researchers will never know his name. Or, perhaps the survey is given to a lesbian who chooses not to put a label on herself, and therefore does not identify with any of the survey's terms.
I think you are too quick to use this percentage, because it reinforces your argument that gay people are too few in number to be given any kind of legitimacy (the "sinfulness" of their behavior aside), that you lose sight of the fact that no type of survey can ever give us an accurate, definitive count of the gay population.
As for your other points, I won't waste my time continuing this back-and-forth. Look up at one of your comments: you say that homosexuals make up less than 3% of humanity. The survey YOU showed me clearly says that this figure refers to the U.S. adult population only. I hope I don't need to remind you that "humanity" includes a lot more than just 300 million Americans, so naturally the 3% in question could never refer to the worldwide homosexual population. But that obviously didn't stop you from presenting it that way.
Saying that only 3% of humanity is homosexual, when your own source disagrees with you, is a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of data, and it tells me nothing but how truly prejudiced you are, Bob.
But, as you've done before, I'm sure you can rationalize your way out of it.
The report says on page 5 (or the 9th page of the pdf) in the introduction that the dataset was about 43,000 adults. Out of those responding that they were homosexuals, 768 were "drawn from a nationally representative sample of respondents" to answer the questions specific to homosexual behaviors and opinions.
I think you're wiggling pretty hard over this survey because you don't like the results. If this dataset isn't enough (which is larger than many surveys taken by reputable organizations like Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby), and the veracity of the respondents isn't reliable enough, then we should probably ignore every single poll or survey done, because by your standard, we can never "truly know."
In this day and age, with widespread acceptance of homosexuality, especially in academia and the scientific community, I find it hard to believe that a homosexual would be reticent to give a truthful response to a survey which he knows will not be used against him and the results of which will never be known to those he might be closeted from.
You have a point, in that unless we're God we can never know with 100% accuracy the exact truth of every person's heart. Polls that are conducted with good methodology and a good representative pool do give reliable results of the overall and are useful in determining the behavior and opinions of the general population. If this methodology were ineffective, companies would be stupid to waste millions on advertising strategies based on similar research, and so would politicians. The reality is, this poll seems as reliable as we're ever going to get in this imperfect world--which is pretty good.
And to answer another of your points, what makes you believe the American sample would be significantly different than any other country. Human beings are the same, regardless of their national or ethnic background. Human tendencies, behaviors and moral failures don't vary that much from culture to culture. If anything, there are many cultures out there who might actually have a SMALLER cross-segment of homosexuals because many countries are far less permissive of this behavior.
Finally, "prejudice" by definition means pre-judging something without having knowledge of it. That is not the case with my statements. I have known a number of homosexuals over the years, and have been friends with several. I have also done a pretty fair amount of research into it (from sources both pro and con), and have studied it fairly extensively from a Biblical perspective. My opinions on the matter aren't knee-jerk reactions or prejudices, but are the reasoned conclusions of years of observations and studies.
I don't hate homosexuals; as I said, I've been friends with some, and several have been quite enjoyable to spend time with. But I'm convinced that the behavior is unhealthy and immoral, and for those reasons I cannot as a fellow caring human being applaud and encourage people in a behavior that is destructive to them physically, emotionally and spiritually.
They say "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." I don't think it's a loving act to stand by and allow a person to be ensnared in this lifestyle without trying to dissuade them. I'd try to dissuade the drunk, the drug addict, the woman who prostituted herself, just as I say it to the person caught up in homosexuality.
If I'm to be faithful to my God (Ezekiel 3:18), I can't be silent.
Good job! I knew you could do it!
`God created him a man and God ordained that a man is to have sex only with his wife;......"
you are crediting yourself with knowing the mind of god. a man-woman flesh relationship is merely one way. there is no" only" in jesus statement in matthew 19.
if homosexuals bond out of the same spirit as heterosexuals......................where is the fruit that would indicate a sin?
how can you ignore the gang rape of sodom? we know rape has nothing to do sex or bonding but instead is about power. would you say the incestial rape of 2 samuel is about heterosexuality, the bonding of 2 of the opposite sex out of mutual love, respect, trust, devotion, and attraction for a shared committed life together?
feetxxxl, you're right that I didn't glean such an understanding because I have some superior intellect. God said he ordained that in His Word. I don't have to be a genius; I just have to be able to read. He said in Genesis and in Matthew that the order for human sexuality was to be expressed between a man and a woman. And He said specifically several times in both Old and New Testament that homosexuality violates his design and plan for human sexuality, and he explicitly does NOT approve of it.
I think you may have an inordinate fixation on spiritual fruit, feetxxxl. Fruits of the Spirit are important and useful, but they are not the ultimate measure of truth. That's the Bible, God's written instructions to us.
A man could have sex with his daughter out of the same "spirit" as homosexuals or married heterosexuals...but it would still be wrong. God has made it clear that this expression of human sexuality is off limits, illegitimate, and disapproved.
I don't ignore the intended gang rape of Sodom. Nor do I ignore incestuous rape. But regardless of who perpetrates them, they are wrong. God makes it clear that rape is wrong (and it doesn't matter whether the rape is perpetrated by one or 100). God makes it clear that incest is wrong. And God makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong (whether the act is committed by 1 or 100, or whether it's consensual or not).
Homosexuality is wrong for any person at any time regardless of any feelings or any circumstances. You will not find a single exception allowing homosexual behavior in the Bible; you will only find condemnation after condemnation after condemnation of the behavior.
But the good news is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Though someone may be caught up in this sin (as with drunks, thieves, adulterers, et al), they can, as verse 11 says, leave that life in the past-tense by being washed and sanctified through Jesus Christ.
"God makes it clear that rape is wrong." ~ Bob
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." ~ God (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
These were people that God had decided to cast out of Canaan at the hands of the Israelites because the Canaanites had committed such gross immoralities that they had earned God's harsh judgment (kind of like Sodom did for it's gross immoralities).
The people that were allowed to live at all were taken into captivity, but it doesn't say anything about rape being okay.
I take it you're saying they were going to rape the livestock, Anonymous?
"But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder."
This sounds an awful lot like permission from God, but something tells me you'll disagree. I doubt these men were interested in the women for their conversation.
Um and no, Bob, beastiality is not what I was implying. But I'm sort of interested as to why you took it that way. After all, since you claim to have gay friends, surely you know that we don't all think "man-on-goat" when we see the word "rape." Nice try, though.
No equivalency between bestiality and homosexuality were intended. I was simply trying to be facetious about the assumption that the "women, children, livestock and other plunder" would be raped.
Many female servants were never raped or even subjected to a "forced marriage." Again, God doesn't approve of rape. They performed chores around the household and sometimes served as the personal attendant of the woman of the home.
But He does clearly in both Old and New Testaments disapprove of homosexual behavior. You don't have to like it, but that's what God said, and that's what's purported to be examined in this DVD: what the Bible says about homosexuality.
I think this author has proved the point of the documentary spectacularly. The Bible is often used as a weapon, and it is done so via the interpretation. This author does not disprove what is said in the video by citing opposing historical and objective evidence, but rather by pretty much saying, "This is how they interpret the Bible, and this is my interpretation of the Bible." He even uses the Bible as the historical reference for the Bible. This kind of literalism and selective perception is the exact demonstration of everything that is wrong with Modern Christianity.
Anonymous, you have proven my point spectacularly.
You choose to deliberately ignore the truth and the obvious meaning of the Scripture, in favor of a tortured misinterpretation that has only the slightest connection to the actual text--the purpose of which is an attempt to justify the Bible clearly and plainly condemns.
You may fool yourself, but be assured that God is not fooled by your attempt. Hopefully you correct your attitude before you learn this on judgment day.
Post a Comment