A couple years ago I started spying on "Gay Christian" websites to sample the theologizing that goes on therein, by which they intend to give Scriptural moral justification to perverse sexual acts. What I found could not instantly be identified as "liberalism" or "modernism," but really what could pass for Evangelicalism of a sort. By this I mean that many LGBT exegetes use the typical grammatical/historical approach to interpreting the Bible, just as many other Evangelicals do, without Tradition (Hermeneutic of Continuity), without reference to historic Church authority, and without Natural Law.
These gay proponents concentrate on the same limited but legitimate methods which would be applied by any Evangelical Bible student:
Briefly, they conclude that homosex (of, they would say, the Christian loving sort, the “respectable” Gay Marriage sort) is OK because
Now, Catholics (or Orthodox) see in a flash that these conclusions are obviously false because they contradict the Hermeneutic of Continuity (2000 years of Christian practical moral understanding, the teachings of the Fathers, the Lives of the Saints), the Magisterium (the official doctrines deriving from encyclicals, councils, catechisms), and Natural Law (those things which promote flourishing for human persons, families, and societies, as understood by reason.)
But those who reject the authority of Tradition (or Continuity), Magisterium, and Natural Law, ---what have they to fall back on?
Not Sola Scriptura, since the Gay exegetes have their own gay-accommodating Biblical arguments, based upon their own “careful scholarship” and upon every Christian’s supposed competency to interpret Scripture.
Not Sola Fide or Sola Gratia, since the gay Christians are rejoicing in their salvation by Faith through Grace (and chiding the rest of us as ‘foolish Galatians’ for being so concerned about Law and Works.).
Not Sola Christus, since (as the LGBT’s would patiently explain) Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, and furthermore, it shouldn’t matter whether you marry a woman or a man because St. Paul says that “in Christ” there is no ”woman or man.”
And Soli Dei Gloria? The LGBT’s rejoinder: Glory to God! Thank God I’m Gay!
So the Five Solas in themselves, can be cheerfully adopted by the LGBT Christian: there’s nothing there that clearly challenges his error.
That is: you really need to accept the authority of 2,000 years of Church history and interpret Scripture only in the “historic, orthodox” sense --- as formidable Baptist Albert Mohler, God bless him, has said a thousand times--- thus arriving,I would say, at the practical necessity of interpreting Scripture via Sacred Tradition, the Authority of the Church (Magisterium), and Natural Law.
To which Catholics and Orthodox say, "Amen."
And you?
Anyone?
In the book I'm reading the boy prostitute argument comes up as well as the OT argument that puts the ban on gay sex with the ban on shrimp. Do you know any responses to these arguments (aside from them not conforming to Tradition, Church authority and Natural Law?)
Again, thank you for your help. The course I'm taking, I think, will be pushing for gay inclusion and if they are not included it will be seen as a sign of the churches hatred for homosexuals (homophobia). Topics like homophobia, western imperialism, racism will be addressed in future chapters so I already know that there is a leftist slant.
You may be interested in mine at Post # 56. I'd be interested in your view.
The below is excerpted from the tail end of Prager’s commentary that I linked to in post # 49 here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2796454/posts?page=49#49
Dennis Prager is a writer, ___theologian___, and daily talk show host on KABC Radio in Los Angeles. He also writes a newsletter, “The Prager Perspective.”
http://www.dennisprager.com/
From post 49:
[snip]
PRAGER: “.......As early as the second century B.C., Jewish writers were noting the vast differences between Jewish sexual and family life and that of their non-Jewish neighbors. In the Syballine Oracles, written by an Egyptian Jew probably between 163 and 45 B.C., the author compared Jews to the other nations: The Jews “are mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Romans, specious Greece and many nations of others, Persians and Galatians and all Asia.” And in our times. sex historian Amo Karlen wrote that according to the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, “Homosexuality was phenomenally rare among Orthodox Jews.” ........
[snip]
“.....Therefore, the evidence overwhelmingly leads to this conclusion: By and large, it is society, not the individual, that chooses whether homosexuality will be widely practiced. A society’s values, much more than individual tendencies, determine the extent of homosexuality in that society. Thus, we can have great sympathy for the exclusively homosexual individual while strongly opposing social acceptance of homosexuality. In this way we retain both our hearts and our values.
Is Homosexuality an Illness?
Society, in short, can consider homosexuality right or wrong whether or not it is chosen. Society can also consider homosexuality normal or ill whether or not it is chosen.
Though the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, did not think that in and of itself homosexuality meant that a person was sick, according to his standards of psychosexual development, he considered homosexuality to be an arrested development. But until 1973, psychiatry did consider homosexuality an illness. To cite one of countless examples, Dr. Leo Rangell, a psychoanalyst, wrote that he had “never seen a male homosexual who did not also turn out to have a phobia of the vagina.”
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official listing of mental illnesses in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. Gay activists have used this as a major weapon in their battle for societal acceptance of homosexuality. But, for many reasons, the APA decision has not resolved the question of whether homosexuality is an illness, and the question may well be unresolvable. Given the mixed moral and judgmental record of psychiatry, especially since the 1960s, all one may conclude from the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from its list of illnesses is that while it may have been right, organized psychiatry has given us little reason to trust its judgment on politically charged issues. For these reasons, the fact that the American Psychiatric Association no longer labels homosexuality an illness should not persuade anyone that it is not. Given the subjective nature of the term “mental illness,” given the power of gay activists, and given the political views of the APA leadership (as opposed to most of its members), the association’s vote means nothing to many observers.
If social pressures forced psychiatrists in the past to label homosexuality an illness, how can we be certain that social pressures in our time have not forced them to label it normal? Are present-day psychiatrists less influenced by societal pressures than were their predecessors? I doubt it. So, putting aside psychiatry’s ambivalence about homosexuality, let us pose the question in this way: “Assuming there is such a thing as normal, is it normal for a man to be incapable of making love to a woman (or vice versa)?”
Presumably, there are only three possible answers:
Most homosexuals can make love to a woman, but they find such an act repulsive or simply prefer making love to men.
Yes, it is normal.
No, it is not normal.
If the first response is offered, then we have to acknowledge that the homosexual has chosen his homosexuality. And we may then ask whether someone who chooses to love the same sex rather than the opposite sex has made this decision from a psychologically healthy basis.
If the second response is offered, each of us is free to assess this answer for him or herself. I, for one, do not believe that a man’s inability to make love to a woman can be labeled normal.
While such a man may be a healthy and fine human being in every other area of life, and quite possibly more kind, industrious, and ethical than many heterosexuals, in this one area he cannot be called normal.
And the reason for considering homosexuality abnormal is not its minority status. Even if the majority of men became incapable of making love to women, it would still not be normal.
Men are designed to make love to women, and vice versa. The eye provides an appropriate analogy: If the majority of the population became blind, blindness would still be abnormal. The eye was designed to see.
That is why I choose the third response that homosexuality is unhealthy. This is said, however, with the understanding that in the psychological arena, “illness” can be a description of one’s values rather than of objective science (which may simply not exist in this area).
Man and Women He Made Them
To a world which divided human sexuality between penetrator and penetrated, Judaism said, “You are wrong sexuality is to be divided between male and female.” To a world which saw women as baby producers unworthy of romantic and sexual attention, Judaism said “You are wrong women must be the sole focus of men’s erotic love.”
To a world which said that sensual feelings and physical beauty were life’s supreme goods, Judaism said, “You are wrong ethics and holiness are the supreme goods.” A thousand years before Roman emperors kept naked boys, Jewish kings were commanded to write and keep a sefer torah, a book of the Torah.
In all my research on this subject, nothing moved me more than the Talmudic law that Jews were forbidden to sell slaves or sheep to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews engage in homosexuality and bestiality. That was the world in which rabbis wrote the Talmud, and in which, earlier, the Bible was written.
Asked what is the single greatest revelation I have derived from all my researches, I always respond, “That there had to have been divine revelation to produce the Torah.” The Torah was simply too different from the rest of the world, too against man’s nature, to have been solely man-made.
The creation of Western civilization has been a terribly difficult and unique thing. It took a constant delaying of gratification, and a re-channeling of natural instincts; and these disciplines have not always been well received. There have been numerous attempts to undo Judeo-Christian civilization, not infrequently by Jews (through radical politics) and Christians (through anti-Semitism).
The bedrock of this civilization, and of Jewish life, has been the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a natural unit so much as it is a value that must be cultivated and protected.
The Greeks assaulted the family in the name of beauty and Eros. The Marxists assaulted the family in the name of progress.
And today, gay liberation assaults it in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gays would do this. Life has been miserable for many of them.
What I have not understood was why Jews or Christians would join the assault. I do now. They do not know what is at stake. At stake is our civilization.
It is very easy to forget what Judaism has wrought and what Christians have created in the West. But those who loathe this civilization never forget.
The radical Stanford University faculty and students who recently chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western civ has got to go,” were referring to much more than their university’s syllabus. And no one is chanting that song more forcefully than those who believe and advocate that sexual behavior doesn’t play a role in building or eroding civilization.
The acceptance of homosexuality as the equal of heterosexual marital love signifies the decline of Western civilization as surely as the rejection of homosexuality and other nonmarital sex made the creation of this civilization possible.
The Bible alone is enough.
People who actually conform to theological standards from the Reformation, i.e., Reformed Churches, are a very small minority within the Protestant Churches of today.
Roman Catholics who are very conservative in their views and these Reformed do disagree on some theology, that’s true. However, I find that in a large part of fundamental beliefs, knowing right from wrong, etc., people might be surprised at how much they have in common.
True believers know that immoral acts are immoral acts, and they know that one only has to read the Bible to discover quite a large number of places where immoral acts are described as sinful and to commit them is to rebel against God. They also know that nowhere in the Bible are we told that these acts are acceptable to God. There simply is no defense of them unless the reader makes up a fallacious interpretation of Scripture.
Etymology is important to developing a deep understanding of certain doctrine, but it is sometimes employed by people trying to “read in” meanings that simply are not intended. The “acid test” of reviewing the whole of Scripture and making sure that the supposed new meaning they have found (mind you, after 2,000 years of highly intelligent people studying the Bible before us) is conveniently skipped. Simple common sense tells us that if men laying with men or women laying with women were - God forbid - acceptable to God, there is absolutely no way that it would not be made quite clear - since it was made so quite clear in so many places that such acts are an abomination unto God. It’s sheer lunacy to think for one second that an act that is referred to as an abomination unto God - quite clearly, literally and on numerous occasions and never contradicted - is not just what the Bible says, an abomination.
People so often think the Christian mean for insisting on the Biblical view, but of course, it’s not our decision, it’s not about us - it’s just what is in the Bible, it’s that simple. There is no “having it both ways”. One can not be a Christian and not believe that every word of the Bible is true. Otherwise one is just making up what one believes when in fact the Bible is the revealed Word of God. Logically, there are only two possibilities, either it’s 100% true or it’s not, God forbid; there’s no halfway, since the Bible itself states that it is 100% true.
In interpreting Scripture, it stands to reason, and, indeed, Scripture tells us, that there is nothing inconsistent in Scripture, so we should be able to stand up our interpretation of a particular verse against every other verse and not find that we have contradicted ourself.
We all know that there has been 2,000 years of scholarship regarding the Bible, and the Reformation did not throw out all prior scholarship, it sought to ensure that the then current interpretation was consistent with all prior interpretation that was consistent, abandoning only the interpretations that were inconsistent with Scripture. In other words, to correct errors that were relatively recent at that time and remembering and using original theology going back to the time of Christ.
Since the Reformation, the Roman Catholic and Reformed schools of thought have continued separately of course, but both have sought to be correct and true, each using their own established mechanisms for considering issues as they arose. Both Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches have their own system of teaching elders as defined in Scripture, and Church elders, ordained, are the only ones who interpret Scripture when it comes to dealing with issues, questions or disagreements as they arise within the body.
When completely wrong teachings like that which seeks to promote sodomy come along, they conveniently ignore all prior writings and Bible commentary of any kind. The Arminian part of the Protestant Churches, which started hundreds of years ago and is an enormous influence on mainstream Protestant Churches today, went off on a theological tangent of their own making, with various heretical innovations that resulted in most mainstream Protestant Churches today having no idea what they’re talking about. As proof, simply talk to some members, and you’ll find people that have no real understanding of fundamental Christian doctrine.
In the prattling of misguided people who rationalize sin we find almost each statement they make refutable without much complex analysis but simply looking up a few verses or referring to some basic theology, combined with a little common sense. For example, the phrase “the ancient Hebrew and classical Greek milieux knew nothing of of marriage between same-sex peers”, that’s pure twaddle. The ancients didn’t “know about” such an evil concept because it was recognized to be an abomination and was therefore not condoned or accepted by any accepted church or congregation. The Epistles to Churches in the New Testament frequently exhorted congregations which were having such difficulties to make it crystal clear to all but those who don’t want to listen that all sinful behavior - including fornication, lying, etc. - was not to be tolerated and would result in excommunication if there was no repentence. The Epistles to Churches speak across the ages to Churches today, as we know; are they not an amazing blessing ?
We live in an age where the news media and the intelligentsia simply say any foolhardy falsehood with a straight face on national tv or in writing and there is no one to call them on it and boo them out of their career. Some of these people today utter ridiculously obvious lies - and just enough people in the right positions in society tolerate it.
The Bible tells us again and again that there are those who do not want to listen, those who want to make up their own religion, make up their own rules, defy God, excuse themselves from God’s commands - from early in the Old Testament. And it beautifully and perfectly paints the picture of those good servants who will persevere in the truth that is Jesus Christ.
1. Jesus may not have mentioned homosexuality directly but He did address marriage directly and at no time did He mention men with men or women with women. He only mentions men marrying women.
2. The same Paul they quote was very clear in Romans 1 about women having sex with women and men having sex with men being shameful and depraved behavior. Here from Romans 1 from the New Testament:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I have also seen that they choose to believe that words referring to homosexuals in the Bible refer to temple prostitutes, etc. I've seen that they believe that the homosexuals punished in Sodom were punished for lack of hospitality even though the real reason is homosexuality is was confirmed in the New Testament book Jude verse 7:
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Sodom and Gomorrah was not punished because they lacked hospitality. It is because of their sexual perversion.
These deluded homosexuals ignore the fact that every single time either the word or the behavior is mentioned in the Bible it is shown in a very bad light.
They can cherry pick the verses they choose to hold to and pervert the meanings all they want, but they can't change the fact that homosexuality, not just the word but the very act of men having sex with men and women having sex with women, is a sin against God and a perversion of His Will.