What the Bible says about sexual relations is not "hate"

Faith Presses On

[Faith Presses On]

Secular humanists are starting to step up their direct attacks on the Bible. Many are openly calling what it says about sexual relations "hate," and they especially want young people to accept that.

What secular humanists aren't bringing up, though, is that in pre-modern societies, without modern medicine especially, "sexual liberation" would have meant drastic increases in incurable diseases and ailments. It doesn't even take any faith in God to see that it isn't hate to command people not to do what would cause them and others physical harm.

This is a summary review of the matter of secular humanists attacking what the Bible says on sexual relations:

1. Secular humanists today claim that Christian beliefs on human sexual practices and "sexual identity" are hateful.

2. These Christian beliefs come from the Bible, so secular humanists are saying that the Bible itself is "hateful."

3. Some secular humanists try to argue that it's not the Bible itself that is "hateful," only that "hateful people" who call themselves Christian twist its meanings, and "better-intentioned" people have been misinformed.

4. The people who are truly twisting Scripture, though, are those who claim that it preaches and supports "sexual liberation."

5. And those secular humanists not telling the truth about Scripture are the ones truly taking advantage of people's ignorance about the Bible. They tell people that not only CAN they believe in "sexual liberation" if they're Christians, but they SHOULD because that's what the Bible either supports, or actually doesn't prohibit.

6. Secular humanists talking that way are actually attacking the Bible, and trying to destroy it, while falsely claiming to be faithful to it.

7. Other secular humanists, though, attack it more directly. They acknowledge that the Bible does indeed preach and teach against "sexual liberation," and they therefore say that it's not God's Word after all, but only man's, and it is a very old book full of the prejudices of unenlightened, ignorant and superstitious people. Therefore, it shouldn't be any sort of guide for modern man. Its teachings, these secular humanists say, have been "discredited."

8. Secular humanists in general say that those who believe in the "discredited" Bible today are only doing so out of hatred and/or ignorance. Those who steadfastly refuse to "learn" what secular humanists "teach" about the Bible can't be considered ignorant any longer at some point, so they are to be considered "hateful."

9. They further claim that the Bible's commandments and teachings on "sexual liberation" are ancient "hate" which hateful people today have adopted as their own beliefs. They claim Bible-believing Christians aren't sincere in their beliefs, and don't hold them out of love, but hold them hypocritically and hatefully. The "ancient hate" in the Bible merely provides a justification for the hate of Christians today.

10. The Bible's commandments and teachings on "sexual liberation" aren't hateful, however. Even from a wholly secular viewpoint, "sexual liberation" in societies without modern technology, including modern medicine, would be highly destructive just from the standpoint of disease-transmission alone. The idea of "sexual liberation" has taken hold in societies where there are highly effective and readily available medical remedies for and ways to prevent the transmission of diseases through sexual promiscuity. But this radically-altered situation is left out of secular humanist arguments about the "hate" and "repression" of the Bible.

11. The Bible teachings and commandments on "sexual liberation" weren't "hate" when it was written, but were truly love, which Bible-believing Christians today recognize.

[Faith Presses On]

Can't vouch for its accuracy and if it has biases, but here is a lengthy piece on supposed sexual attitudes in Ancient Greece. I haven't read it all but were surprised that many things differed from what I've heard in the past about Greek society:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1194618/

[soycd]

Maybe it should document the dumb ways to die ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw&index=4&list=RDRgox84KE7iY&nohtml5=False

[Robert DeLong]

Nothing has changed because even with modern medical advances, sexual liberation promotes all kind of sexually transmitted diseases including even more powerful ones.

So the love remains present in the Bible. The sexual liberation has not produced a net sum gain, but rather a significant loss.

[Jim from C-Town]

Even with modern medicine sodomy is an incredibly dangerous habit.

[Jim W N]

Only Satan and those in league with him (whether they know it or not) rail against “hate.”

“You that love the Lord, hate evil” Palm 97:10.

[Faith Presses On]

I agree. But with modern medicine, the realities of what “sexual liberation” means can be ignored enough that many people believe the Bible simply promotes hate. That is now essentially the position being taken by corporations like Paypal and Coke who are acting as if defending “sexual liberation” is a noble thing to do, and only bigots could think otherwise. In societies without access to modern medicine, such fantasies simply can’t exist. Which is likely why whether Christian or not, ancient societies didn’t live according to “sexual liberation.” The motives weren’t to “repress women and homosexuals,” but were partly to avoid the spread of disease.

[Cottonpatch]

I read one time that...

Satan knows your name but calls you by your sin.
God knows your sin but calls you by your name.

[South Dakota]

I seem to remember reading that the Clinton administration spent a ton of our money trying to come up with a lubricant that would kill the AIDS virus but not harm the anal tract.

Just a waste of money

[Fiddlstix]

[Faith Presses On]

I’ve heard that before, too, and believe it’s true. Satan can get you down until you remember God’s forgiveness. Thank you for posting that truth.

[Jim from C-Town]

Ew!

[onedoug]

Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[ctdonath2]

The single most important point, always missing from such discussions:

Sexual relations are profoundly different when odds are good that a child will be created. The consequences of copulation are enormous then.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

These liberals who worship nature should get a hint that it’s trying to tell them something about the deadly rates of infection in the homosexual community you’d think.