A bible from 1859. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A curious hole in the testimony of some homosexuals I’ve talked to has appeared. It seems they think their lifestyle is “OK” with God. Can someone tell me then why it’s not “OK” to hand out Bibles at one of their rallies?
“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (John 3: 20)
P. S.
You people who are promoting your own agenda in the world, tell us that God loves you and your agenda, yet run from the Bible anytime it is poked in your face:
Here. Why don’t you do this: Begin to read the Bible for what it contains. Then turn and promote the agenda of God in Christ Jesus (even when it runs right up your proud backbone).
You see, we Christians do just that. We don’t claim to be holy or righteous. We promote the agenda of Jesus regardless how it offends our sense of pride. And when it stands against our sins, it is we who cave. The Lord won’t stand for anyone who uses his own agenda to promote sin.
In case you didn’t get my point: Go ahead, keep your life of sin going. But add to it the Word of God. In time, I promise you, your agenda will diminish and the Holiness of God will begin to enter. Keep up your charade, however, (of being God loving sinners) and you will be horribly ashamed and surprised when you stand before Him face to face.
You love the Bible when it says “God loves you.” But you hate to read about how no immoral or sexually perverse person will ever enter eternal life. You rave that you deserve recognition because you’re a minority. Did you ever stop to think that murders are a minority also? Did you give thought to why that is? It’s because most people understand that immoral behavior does not receive the love of God. They are the majority. You are the minority. hmmmmmm
So bring the Bible before your face. Go ahead and read the things that please you. Then, just for kicks, read a little more. It will scar your conscience. Isn’t that what you’re running from when you don’t want the Bible in your wicked rallies?
Words From There 
Nearly every person who acknowledges an aversion to homosexuality does so on the basis of what he or she believes the Bible has to say. In their mind, there is no doubt whatsoever about what the Bible says and what the Bible means. Their general argument goes something like this: Homosexuality is an abomination and the homosexual is a sinner. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Therefore, if we are to be faithful to the clear teachings of Scripture we too must condemn homosexuality. Needless to say, this premise is being widely debated among evangelicals today and seriously challenged by biblical scholars, theologians and religious leaders everywhere.
It rarely occurs to any of us that our reading of Scripture is profoundly colored by our own cultural context and worldview. In light of the post above and since I happen to speak and write on this topic, I thought you might find some of these posts of particular interest and relevance. I would particularly recommend the following:
“Genesis 19: What Were the Real Sins of Sodom?”
“Leviticus 18: What Was the Abomination?”
“Romans 1: What Was Paul Ranting About?”
“Romans 2: Paul’s Bait and Switch”
“Genesis 1: Turning the Creation Story into an Anti-Gay Treatise”
“Why No One in the Biblical World Had a Word for Homosexuality”
“Exegesis: Not For the Faint in Heart”
(Links to these and more posts may be found by simply clicking the link below and then selecting the “Archives” page.)
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Your reply seems to say two things. 1. That some people attack the sins of men from a rather ignorant position (one clouded by personal experience and not a strong embrace of God’s truth.) 2. That so called leaders in Christianity are right to debate God’s commands.
Did I get it right?
LikeLike
No, not quite. What I’m saying is that if we wish to interpret the Bible responsibly, we must adhere to the established rules of biblical exegesis. The word “exegesis”, as you might know, comes from the Greek verb which means “to draw out”. Simply put, exegesis is about drawing out from the text the true meaning of a Bible passage. Or phrased a bit differently, it means getting out of the text what it originally meant to the author and to the original intended audience, without reading into the text the many traditional interpretations that may have grown up around it.
Exegesis then is an investigation. The question we always have to be asking is: What’s going on here? The reader today must somehow try to enter the world of the biblical writer and seek to understand what the writer was saying. If we fail to pay attention to the world in which the Bible was written, we will simply read biblical texts, infuse them with meaning from our social and symbolic world and conclude that the Bible speaks directly to us.
In contrast to this, what many do instead is what some theologians refer to as “frontloading”, that is to say, they read their own personal, political or ideological beliefs back into the Bible, instead of reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. This process of reading one’s own ideas into interpretation of the Bible is called “eisegesis”. Exegesis and eisegesis are conflicting approaches to interpreting the Bible. Why? Exegesis is reading out from the Bible what the original writers were saying. Eisegesis is reading one’s own ideas or prejudices back into the Bible. Exegesis is about getting out of the text what is truly there in the first place. Eisegesis is about putting into the text something never intended by the author. Exegesis is drawing out the true meaning of a Bible passage. Eisegesis is at best unwise, and at worst extremely dangerous. But exegesis is not an easy task and is not for the faint in heart. Like most things of value, it requires some work on our part.
I hope this clarifies and answers your question.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about your comment a lot. Now, I’m not a really quick minded man. But I sensed that there was something amiss here.
Your point seems to be (at first) that those who hold an aversion to homosexuality are doing so from their own perspective. Even when we read in the Bible how God denounces the sin, we do so with cultural blinders. So our aversion is simply a matter of perspective.
Now you say that you meant that we need to take into consideration the context of such things in the Bible. I think I’ve done that pretty well. God spoke from heaven against such things. That’s the culture and perspective of His condemnation of all sin. Again, I’m not a really smart man, but I would think that God’s perspective is all that matters in this subject.
However, I think you missed the point of the post. It’s not the sin I was pointing to as much as it is the agenda to have all men support sinners in their “plight”. The “poor little me” syndrome wafts up from that group of people like a stench. And everytime we try to bring God’s word to them in whole they run for the hills, all the while screaming “You hate me! You don’t understand me!”
Well, I’ve become sick of their sissified approach to truth. Not to mention all the children they are corrupting with their advertising of that particular sin. It is not so much that they are sinners. It is that they complain that the majority won’t recognize them as a tribe of people worthy of all inclusion. I suppose the leppers have voiced the same thing in days past. But at least the leppers had a right to complain. These people are a blight to our world, yet they consider themselves special because of a CHOICE they have made to ignore the commands of God.
Your second comment walked far afield of the point. Perhaps you can bring it a little closer to home?
LikeLike
I’m a bit uncomfortable with how you paraphrased what I wrote only because I fear that in your paraphrasing you unintentionally may have missed the points I was trying to make. Let me see if I can be a little clearer.
YOU SAID: “YOUR POINT SEEMS TO BE (AT FIRST) THAT THOSE WHO HOLD AN AVERSION TO HOMOSEXUALITY ARE DOING SO FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE. EVEN WHEN WE READ IN THE BIBLE HOW GOD DENOUNCES THE SIN, WE DO SO WITH CULTURAL BLINDERS. SO OUR AVERSION IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE.”
With regard to the comments I made above about the importance of doing exegesis as opposed to doing eisegesis, we also must be mindful of the fact that we are all (yes, everyone single one of us!) guilty of eisegesis, to some degree, because we all read the Bible with modern eyes. We all have our own beliefs, worldviews, biases and personal aversions, and letting them influence our interpretation of the Bible is an ever-present danger. So whatever we can do to leave our assumptions behind before we approach the text will only help to not taint what we’re going to come out with. It is respectful of God’s gift to us to go after the author’s intentions and meanings before arriving at our own.
YOU ALSO SAID: “GOD SPOKE FROM HEAVEN AGAINST SUCH THINGS. THAT’S THE CULTURE AND PERSPECTIVE OF HIS CONDEMNATION OF ALL SIN. AGAIN, I’M NOT A REALLY SMART MAN, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT GOD’S PERSPECTIVE IS ALL THAT MATTERS IN THIS SUBJECT.”
I fully agree with you that it is God’s perspective that matters. I also fully agree that, as you phrased it, “God spoke from heaven.” But let’s also bear in mind the following when we consider who wrote the Bible. While some would answer that God wrote it, others would roll their eyes to the ceiling and say, “Don’t be stupid; people wrote it.” Both of these responses miss key understandings of orthodox Christians in that both reduce it to an either/or. A sound and traditional understanding was voiced by evangelical scholar Herman Bavinck when he said that “THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE PRODUCT WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND AT THE SAME TIME ARE WHOLLY THE PRODUCT OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE WRITERS.”
His colleague at the Free University of Amsterdam, Abraham Kuyper, put it this way: “THE SPOKEN WORDS, HOWEVER MUCH AGLOW WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, REMAIN BOUND TO THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR LANGUAGE, DISTURBED AS IT IS BY ANOMALIES.” Fundamentalists have sometimes tended to minimize the human side of the Bible but orthodox Christians have always taken the human side seriously. One noted evangelical theologian, Donald Bloesch put it this way: “THE BIBLE CONTAINS A FALLIBLE ELEMENT IN THE SENSE THAT IT REFLECTS THE CULTURAL LIMITATIONS OF THE WRITERS.”
Baptist theologian Clark Pinnock says: “THE WRITERS OF THE BIBLE WERE NOT MERE COPYISTS OR SECRETARIES, BUT FLESH-AND-BLOOD PEOPLE LIKE OURSELVES, GIVING US THE FRUIT OF THEIR EFFORTS TO HEAR GOD SPEAK TO THEM OF THE CONTEXT OF THEIR SPECIAL PLACES IN HISTORY.”
Just as heretics have failed to see that Jesus Christ was both a human being and God in the flesh, we are in danger of failing to see that the Bible is both a book of human words and the Word of God. Early heretics tried to blow away the dusty footprints of Jesus as later heretics would try to wipe away the inky fingerprints of the writers.
In connection with this, when trying to interpret the Bible we should never begin with the question: What does this mean? The reason is that’s the wrong starting point. You’re really asking, “What does it mean to us today, individually?” and that’s why we end up with scores of different answers that can be answered by anyone subjectively. If you have 25 people, you can end up with 25 different opinions, resulting in 25 different doctrines, every one of which may be wrong, even though they all sincerely and completely believe they are correct. Just because one says: “GOD SPOKE FROM HEAVEN” and “THAT’S THE CULTURE AND PERSPECTIVE” does not excuse us from doing responsible exegesis.
Exegesis always asks, “What did it mean?” There’s a vast difference in those questions as starting points. What did this mean to the author and original intended audience? The goal of Biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the text which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance. But if we have no idea what the text meant THEN, we’re left to only guess at what it might mean for us NOW. Only sound exegetical techniques will bring out the actual truth. Otherwise, the Bible becomes nonsense with multiple subjective opinions of what the text means and no objective guide to whether any of them are right. The reason why there are so many wild and utterly wrong interpretations of Scripture is that exegesis has not been applied.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
LikeLike
I applaud your voluminous use of words. But I got your point the first time. Now, however, I need to ask what this has to do with the post?
LikeLike
What it has to do with the post is the following: Your post presumes that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I’m trying to explain to you that steadily growing number of Bible scholars, theologians and other evangelicals who have done their biblical and theological homework, are discovering that when the few passages of scripture that generally get appealed to in this debate are examined more closely and in context, the antigay doctrine you hold and profess simply does not hold up to scrutiny.
Fact is if we could stand Moses and Paul before us — the only two biblical authors who have been attributed as having said anything pertaining to or about homosexuality — and applaud or ridicule them for their condemnation of homosexuality, they would almost certainly stare at us in blank incomprehension. Why? Because homosexuality per se simply isn’t anything they’d ever been aware of. No kidding.
It may well take time to get used to seeing this in ancient writings — and none of us assimilates this notion on the first pass — but like it or not, this understanding operates in biblical interpretation and more and more bible scholars working in good faith and out in the open find this reality necessary for grasping what the biblical writers were talking about when they were treating something sexual.
And when our doctrines do not hold up to scrutiny and are found in the final analysis to be exegetically unsupportable, then we need to be willing to let them go, no matter how long-held or personally treasured they may be.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
LikeLike
I tell you what, my friend. You hold tight to that thought. Promote all your little heart desires. Sing it from the roof top. And make yourself happy.
You quote men as dismissing the word of God. Hmmmm Wonder if I should join you. Nah. All men are liars. God alone is true and He has made it clear. Not only do we have the word of God in the Bible, we also have the Spirit of God within us to confirm that word.
It doesn’t matter how many men you gather to support your point of view. What matters is that very moment when you see the Lord face to face. You go ahead and tell Him that you believed men rather than Him. That is, quite frankly, your choice.
I would warn you, however, that the “easy way” is the way of death. The inclusive way is the “broad way”. The Lord calls all men to holiness and restraint. You are promoting just the opposite. It seems a no-brainer to me that sacrifice of bodily desire is more the point of God’s commands to us. But you would dismiss His command because your body asks you to join in the orgy of pleasure.
I think we’re through here Alex. You have nothing in your bag of tricks that interests me. And you aren’t likely to come my direction. I’ve spoken what’s true to you. The choice is absolutely in your hands.
By His Grace.
LikeLike
YOU SAID: “NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE THE WORD OF GOD IN THE BIBLE, WE ALSO HAVE THE SPIRIT OF GOD WITHIN US TO CONFIRM THAT WORD.”
In all due respect, surely you must also be aware that in 2,000 years of Church history there have been Christians who have been equally sure they got it right on a myriad of things that we now know they were dead wrong about. Some of the notorious mistakes perpetrated include Christians finding biblical “proof” that the world is only 6,000 years old, that light-skinned people are superior to dark-skinned people, that slavery is God-ordained, that women and blacks should not be allowed to vote, that interracial marriage is wrong, that women should not be allowed to preach, teach or wear lipstick, that anti-Semitism is biblically supported, and on and on. A number of biblical texts were cited to give support to each of these and, of course, the Bible verses that once footnoted these notions are all still in the Bible.
According to James, “we all make many mistakes” and nowhere is that propensity toward human error more obvious than in the history of biblical interpretation. They were all convinced they had the Bible on their side and that their understanding of the Bible was self-evidently correct. Just like you! They all had substantial support too from many other like-minded Christians. But most of us now know they were interpreting the Bible wrongly and making serious mistakes as a result.
As we look back over our 2,000 years of history, we find that oppression of one sort or another against people who are “different” — whether by means of race, color, gender, class or sexual orientation — has always been endemic. And to our great shame, the oppression and injustices are always carried out in the name of someone’s Christianity. One of the lessons we can learn from these experiences is that reading and interpreting Scripture is not quite as simple as some would like to believe. A text does not simply “say what it says” despite the rational good intentions of some readers. For reading Scripture is not only a matter of what is written there, but also what we expect to find there, what we bring to the text, and what we take away from it.
And while it is easy to see others have done terrible and wrong things in the past in their interpretation of the Bible, it’s not so easy to see that we may be doing terrible and wrong things today. Perhaps then the warning of Jesus about the dangers of trying to conduct eye-surgery when you are unwittingly the victim of poor vision yourself might be a salutary one to remember here.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
LikeLike
I’ll allow that final comment Alex, just for the simple sake that your liberal mind might not have grasped the finality of my last comment. You have a web site. Go promote your trash there. I won’t approve any more of your comments. We’re done.
LikeLike