Link: Obama Strongly Denounces Antigay Gospel Singer.

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country. I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

Comments

[Gary]

Obama does not understand that rights come from God and God does not give anyone the right to sin. There is no right to commit adultery or to steal, for instance. We have the right to do right, not the right to do wrong.

All of the Democratic candidates get this wrong. And that is why none of them is qualified to be President.

[preacherdarren]

Gays are not our brothers and sisters, they are vile and unseemly & also an Abomination.

These are name that the Lord called homosexuals, Tuff on the subject isnt he?

Pastor Darren

[Streak]

Well, that certainly explains how you see them. Nice, isn't it to get around the Bible by just redefining who qualifies as your neighbor or brother. No need to have to love them or treat them with dignity, because they are lower than you. Hmm, no wonder you cheerlead this administration. They too define others as less than themselves and then give themselves permission to waterboard them. They are evil and unseemly too.

Seriously, Darren, did you get your "pastor" badge out of the back of a magazine? Maybe a cereal box? Did you just make it up?

[JoeG]

"Gays are not our brothers and sisters, they are vile and unseemly & also an Abomination."

So much for "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Another command that apparently came with an asterisk -
*except when they are gay.

I seem to have missed all of these footnotes and caveats when I studied the bible.
By the way Darren, here's a sampling of other things God called an abomination. Why don't I hear you railing on these??

-Women wearing men's clothing
-Shellfish
-Four-legged fowls (whatever the hell those are)
-Prophets, astrologers and seers

So what, only gay people deserve your wrath and bile?

[Gary]

JoeG,

Do you hold to the view that God never considered homosexuality to be sinful, or to the view that God used to consider it sinful, but somewhere along the way God changed His mind?

[JoeG]

Based on what I believe to be the initial language of the old testament and its best translation to English, I don't believe God ever considered hoomosexuality to be sinful. The words have been misinterpreted.
But, based on the examples I gave above, it is possible to make the case the other way as well. If you truly believe homosexuality to be an abomination according to Leviticus, then the above examples were also abominations to God. Yet today, Christian women wear pants, Christians are in the field of astrology, Christians eat shrimp and clams without fear of eternal damnation, and I've still never heard of a four-legged fowl. None of those was ever addressed by Jesus in the gospels, much like homosexuality. If, as I have been told by you and Wm, the Levitical law was "cancelled" by Jesus, then no new directives were given by Christ. Paul mentioned stuff that has been (incorrectly IN MY OPINION) interpreted as homosexuality, but Paul is not Jesus, and Jesus did not feel it was important enough to address, and if he did, the gospel writers didn't consider it significant enough to include.

[Tony]

I think we need to look at this issue a bit more theologically. The Levitical law fits (roughly) into three categories; civil, ceremonial, and moral. In Matthew 5, Jesus did say he was the fulfillment of all the law. He kept all the laws perfectly at all times. Various passages in various books of the NT repeal certain aspects of the law; for instance, Christ declared all foods clean in Acts 10, so clams, shrimp, and four-legged fowl (whatever those are; which incidentally, where did that come from in the Bible??) are really non-issues. I could go into others, but hopefully we get the idea.

Some laws were repealed; some were enhanced and made more stringent; some were left as is; some were not addressed by the NT writers at all. Christ did fulfill the law, but He did not abolish it in its entirety.

Moreover, the NT does not record everything Jesus said on any given subject; John 20:30. Just because Jesus did not say anything regarding homosexuality does not mean He did not deem it sinful. If we apply the argument consistently, then we must also assume Jesus approved of bestiality, rape, and domestic violence (not that homosexuality compares to all of these equally) because neither did Christ address these issues.

Jesus did however have much to say about appropriate sexual expression and while there is no ringing denunciation out of the mouth of the Lord of homosexuality, neither is there a sterling approval. The fact that Jesus said nothing about it is only proof that He said nothing about it. We can however learn principles from what Jesus taught about good and appropriate sexual expression and should attempt to as closely as possible, apply those.

And no, Paul is not Jesus, but if we are to consider the Bible authoritative, then Paul's writings must also be authoritative and incumbent upon believers to obey as well, which therefore, according to numerous instances in Paul's writings are where we discover that homosexuality would be considered sinful and inappropriate sexual expression; Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians. Jude and Revelation also have some select verses.

[Wm]

Well said Tony.

[JoeG]

Tony, thank you for a very meaningful, intelligent response. Gary, if you answered me from your point of view in this manner, we'd have much better conversations.

Tony, let me answer your question first. I got the four-legged fowl from Leviticus 11:20 "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you", after going through a litany of birds that are also apparently an abomination.

Other than that, you do make a logical argument. Our differences of opinion I believe, at this point, are obvious. I don't agree on the translation of the bible that is used to deem homosexuality as sinful, that language/interpretation was only used in the last 100-200 years. Secondly, though the bible is an excellent guide, I feel it is no more authoritative than any other holy book. God sent several major prophets, Jesus being one, Buddha being another. Ihave made my case for the Jesus story being made similar to the Mithra story in the past, so I will not make it again, but will just reemphasize it as my point of view.
Tony, thanks for clarifying your thinking on the subject. I think I now have a better understanding of where you, Wm and, I'm guessing, Gary are coming from in regard to the Levitical law and the NT.

[Gary]

JoeG,

Yes, Tony gave a pretty good answer.

Old Testament Law also condemns adultery, bestiality, murder, theft, and many other things. Would you also argue that because eating shrimp is not now considered sinful, that adultery and murder should not now be considered sinful either? It seems to me that you would have to, if you want to argue that homosexuality is no longer wrong in God's sight.

[JoeG]

Gary -
I think my reply to Tony would also suffice for your question. He basically makes the identical case for homosexuality as you do for murder and adultery. Difference is, Jesus does address murder and adultery, so it doesn't quite apply to the same argument. For bestiality, rape, domestic violence, I think Tony very adequately summed up your (collective) position on that, and I understand and respect the logic behind it. I guess what it boils down to, then, is that the contrast between your beliefs and mine come down to our perspectives on the bible. Therein lie most of our differences, most of which we may not be able to reconcile, though hopefully we can mutually respect.

[Gary]

JoeG,

I really am trying to be nice, so please don't take offense at what I am about to say.

It seems incongruous that you would care what Jesus said, when you don't believe the Bible is true. If we were to discuss the words of Jesus from the Bible, we would soon discover that you don't believe much, or perhaps any, of what he said! So, that begs the question: Why should it matter to you whether Jesus addressed the sinfulness of homosexuality, or really, anything else?

[JoeG]

Gary -
No offense taken, and that is actually a very thoughtful question. Yes, I am pagan. I am also a Unitarian. The one aspect of both paths is that you are constantly searching, learning, taking things from other religions into your own life. I don't blanketly dismiss the bible, just certain aspects of it. I have stated repeatedly that while I have issues with the total historical accuracy of the bible, I (and most pagans that I know, quite frankly) have no doubt that the historical Jesus existed, and was a great prophet, healer and teacher. He had a closeness to the divine that most of us can only hope to achieve. As such, he was a great teacher of wisdom, morality, and following a right path in your life. For you, the end result of following Jesus' teachings is the reward of heaven and eternal salvation. For me, it is the promise of soul growth and advancement so that I can continue to grow in my next life. I, and again most pagans and Unitarians alike, feel that there is much to learn from other religions and their holy figures (Jesus, Buddha, etc.). So yes, I do look, in part, to Christ for moral guidance, and what he has said has a big impact on my life. The conflict for me is removing what I feel are the "paganized" divinity aspects of the gospels and focusing on his actual teachings, the actual translations from the original language. It's quite a challenge, and one I haven't taken lightly. But with a normal discussion about Jesus, the gospels, and the bible, I can stand to learn a lot from you, Wm, Tony, Streak, and everyone else who posts here. That's how I try to approach every discussion I get into here. I hope you are willing to do that as well.

[paulf]

There is a very simple, rational explanation for all this. The books of the Bible reflect the prejudices of the authors, nothing more or less.

There is no other rational explanation for why God at one point considered shellfish or clothes with two fabrics or sex during a woman's menstrual cycle to be an abomination, and now it is OK. People have concocted explanations having to do with God's dispensations, but they are all abject nonsense.

Some actions were for some reason hated by some members of a small tribe in the ancient world. As people of their era were want to do, they attributed their whims to a deity.

It is crazy that anyone today would hate another person based on the whims of people who believed the sun revolved around the earth.

[Tony]

Joe,

Thanks for the congenial tone. I will enjoy our future discussions. On Leviticus 11:20; man, get rid of that old King Jimmy. :) Updated translations, like the New (ha ha) King Jimmy, say "flying insects." That makes a whole lot more sense.

I think we are at a stalemate in our conversation about homosexuality. We part ways over the authority of the Bible and on our views of the diety of Christ, and that is the root of our disagreement, and one that won't be resolved in a comment thread.

I appreciate the sentiment that you could "learn a lot" from me. Frankly, that is a frightening thought!! Nevertheless, I know I could learn a lot from you, and already have. May God bless you as you seek the truth!

[Gary]

JoeG,

I'm going to be blunt, but with no ill will.

I'm sorry, but you can't be serious about Jesus being a great teacher of anything. With Jesus you only have three rational choices: He is either A. God in the flesh and Saviour of them that believe on him, or, B. he is a liar, or, C. he is insane and his teachings are nonsense.

To say, as you do, that Jesus was a great teacher of morality and how to live, while at the same time you dismiss his divinity, his authority, and the gist of what he taught, is nonsense. Logic and rationality won't permit you to embrace "Love thy neighbor" but dismiss "He that believeth on him(Christ) is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God."

[Streak]

Ah, the Josh McDowell argument, right? But all of that, Gary has to be read in the context of how you see the Biblical text as well. You already believe it to be inerrant and literal, but if it isn't, then there are many other rational arguments.

And let me suggest further that many, many Christians don't accept the Bible as literal or inerrant truth.

[Gary]

Streak,

Why would anyone, if they are in their right mind, become a Christian unless they believed that the Bible is true?

Believing the Bible is true does not have to mean that everything it says is to be taken literally. Jesus said, "I am the door", but that does not mean he was made of wood or steel.

[Streak]

Gary, I understand and you are certainly in good company in your view of the Bible. My point was that some of us don't see the Bible as "the word of God" but rather the attempt by humans to communicate with and explain God. As such, it becomes, just as I think Joe described it, a wisdom text.

That doesn't mean that we don't believe in God or even in the redemption of Christ, but we believe that the Bible is an imperfect record.

Like I said, I am not mocking your beliefs here at all. I am merely pointing out that a good many Christians don't see the Bible in the literal truth category--and I don't mean seeing Jesus as a wooden door.

[Gary]

Streak,

I'm sorry, I just can't agree. And I could give you Bible references to prove my point, but I don't think it would matter to you.

[Tony]

Gary,

There are a great many Christians that do believe just as Streak has shared. It does not mean they are no less saved. Believing in the inerrancy of the Bible is not a requisite for salvation.

And I do understand the argument that in order to believe in God one must also believe in the perfection of His Word.

One thing we as inerrantists must understand is that the doctrine of inerrancy is a man-made doctrine. Nowhere in the Scriptures is believing in the doctrine necessary for belief OR continuing in salvation.

And we must also face the fact that the Bible is indeed an imperfect record. The Bible is a copy of a copy of a copy ad infinitum and this is where the science of textual criticism comes in and the reconciliation of disagreeing texts.

Granted, all of the texts that are questionable have no significant impact upon theology, but the fact of the matter is that inerrancy is a doctrine that is used as a weapon against any who disagrees with it and your aforementioned claim comes into play.

As I have said before, I have no problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible (save where the Bible is supposed to be interpreted metaphorically, as in your Jesus/door example. When Jesus said we were sheep, he didn't mean we have woolly coats and say "baaaa"). Demanding belief in inerrancy is to conflate Gospel requirements and is akin to adding to the Gospel.

[Gary]

Tony,

The Bible says that God created the universe in six days. It says that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. It says that Moses and the Jews crossed the Red Sea on dry land. It says that Samson killed a lot of people with the jawbone of an ass. It says that Jesus healed the sick and cast demons out of people.

Question: Do you think it is likely that a real Christian would argue with the truthfulness of what I just referenced?

[Tony]

No, Gary, I don't think it is likely. But that is not the issue on the table. The issue is conflating belief in inerrancy with the requirements to be saved and to continue in salvation.

And besides, to be logically correct, you have switched categories. You cannot argue the legitimacy/illegitimacy of homosexuality by pointing to the miracle stories of the Bible, which most moderate Christians accept anyway.

[Gary]

Tony,

I have never said that belief in inerrancy is a requirement for salvation. Only that a real believer will believe the Bible.

And I thought the subject had already changed.

[Tony]

No, Gary, you didn't come right out and say it, but several comments you have made in this thread and others are tantamount to saying it.

If that general sentiment is not there then I apologize, but I think that everyone will agree that is your position.

And when you say Only that a real believer will believe the Bible are you not you yourself defining what a "real" Christian is, that without a literal, inerrant view of the Bible, then that individual is not saved?

What about the Ethiopian believers who have no Bible yet a missionary has come to their village and shared the Gospel with them and several are saved? Since they have no personal Bible, are they therefore in danger of losing their salvation? Or perhaps since they have no Bible they cannot get saved to begin with?

I'm sorry Gary, your argument, when applied consistently does not stand up to scrutiny.

I didn't say you changed the subject. You switched categories; big difference.

One more thing: I understand the logical extrapolation that belief in the Bible will follow as a result of salvation. However, it is a logical extrapolation, not a Scriptural requirement. If it is, then can you give me chapter and verse?