So a view was expressed on the Twitter-Spitter and I was called out. My view is pretty simple. You're either Christian or you're not & enjoy the privilege of free will and free choice. Thing is changing God's Word so "Christianity" lines up with you and your lifestyle or preferred temporal view isn't very genuine. Its fake and its not Christian.
Its super simple, Scripture interprets Scripture and using out of context false exegesis don't make it so. So a fellow named Stephen called me out said
"Fine. So instead of making general comments, criticise the analysis with alternate facts. You can't, of course, so you won't"
Well it being twitter bit hard to go deeper but seeing he called me out here it is. Below is just some of Stephen's blog titled "Why is the Church Anti-Gay - Well This Is What I Think"
Half right & wrong already. Wrong= The Church is not Anti-Gay, if it follow Scripture properly we're all sinners...all. The Word of God explicitly warns against getting involved with homosexual acts. Bit of a difference. The church is anti drugs, murder, adultery, drunkenness, theft...but its not against those people who have done those sins and have turned away from them (as Scripture instructs).
Sin & Sinner are two different things. As for the half right bit... Right= "Well This Is What I Think"
Yes its what he thinks, not what Scripture actually says.
There's the big mistake. A Christian is supposed to be Berean like, checking the Scriptures daily to see if it is so, Stephen is more concerned with what he thinks. He has used Scripture but sparingly, selectively and even then used out of context exegesis to get the Scripture twisted enough to get it say what he has otherwise decided he wants it too. But anyway in brackets is the entire blog of Stephen's ( https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2017/04/26/why-is-the-church-anti-gay-if-the-bible-isnt/amp/ )
I'll leave his blog "article" below in black & answer in Red. To be honest be pro Gay or anti gay or Christian or atheist its really up to the individual. You just shouldn't twist a belief system so it fits your own personal needs. That's false church territory and Stephen maybe should do a Bible Study on 7 Letters to 7 Churches. Here Stephen starts...
Many ordinary Christians are deeply conflicted by their desire to embrace homosexual brethren in the fellowship of the church, when some of their leaders are telling them that these people are sinners.
They are sinners. We all are. Bible is very clear it is an abomination. Its a sin and if you continue to practice any sin then you're not really a Christian. Christians are ALL sinners, all. Their real difference is they are Saved. To be saved they have done what they're supposed to do to be saved. Accept Christ as Lord & Saviour, that He died on the cross for our sins, repent of sins and turn away from your sins. That's it in a very small nutshell.
If you're still keen to keep sinning then its not repentant and you're not saved. There are saved sinners and lost sinners. Christian aim is to not be the latter.
Numbers of people feel very discomfited by the current debate.
Pastors are to preach the Good News not change things to make it more comfortable.
So what is the “Biblical” teaching on gays?
Opponents of homosexuality almost always treat scripture as being “literally true” in a historical sense. Certainly, that is the case currently.
And straight away Stephen falls foul of his own thinking. He mentioned he has a Theology Degree. Not sure from where but its not helping. When people ask "Do you read the Bible literally?" my answer is simple "I literally read it seriously"
Some parts are meant to be read literally some aren't. There is over 200 literary devices being used in the Scriptures. Stories, allegories, history, types, shadows, fore shadows...
Read the literal bits literally...read it all properly
It follows, therefore, that any rebuttal of their claims should also adhere to this assumption, if it is to convince them that they are wrong.
God's Word is right and its us that is likely to be wrong. Use Scripture properly and find God's meaning not a pre-decided position. Its not about who of us is right or wrong, its about whether or not we're reading and using God's Word properly
I personally believe the early stories in the Bible are no more “literally” true than ancient Norse myths.
Our personal view isn't using Scripture to prove Scripture. Norse gods are non relevant and non related. If you're supposedly a Christian scholar and you're using false gods to prove the Judaeo-Christian God is what you'd prefer Him to be there's a big problem ahead.
But I am prepared to put that aside for one moment, and consider this issue under the rules that the “literalists” would apply, because many argue that the oft-trotted-out “Biblical” case against homosexuality simply doesn’t appear to “stack up”.
This is going to go from bad to worse I think...
Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where anal sex is referred to as “Sodomy”.
And that’s the problem. It’s become a cliché. We assume it’s true, because it’s been around so long.
Check the New Testament 2Peter 2:6 & others. The apostles mention it as was a real event that happen to real cities. According to Scripture it happened.
The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: “Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house,from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must also accept the conclusion that the entire city consisted of homosexuals.
What Scripture was clear about was the entire population was depraved, from boy to man they wanted sex with the 2 strangers. Other verses show God's view on homosexual acts. Its not difficult.
Now if Stephen or anyone else wants a short cut go here to get some Bible Study done, read up and go to a Bible Study group instead of making things up https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html
But if we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten” (verse 33).
God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten “righteous men” could be found I the city.
If we are to accept the previous logic, this would mean that the “righteous men” referred to were, per se, heterosexuals.
No depraved, homosexuality would have been just one of the depraved acts God was against. Were they all homosexual? We don't know, we know they were ALL depraved except Lot & his family. We know all from boy to man gathered at the house to have sex with the 2 strangers. Notice, "BOY" to man...there's children then. All Sodom are not strict homosexuals they are breeding as well...but they are all depraved.
Now it is a matter of Biblical “fact” that God (or rather, his angels) didn’t find anyone at all worth saving. But at this point, we then need to ask ourselves: what would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual?
The obvious answer is “impossible”, of course.
Well they found Lot & his family...but no not 10 men. Impossible? Ok you know what is and isn't possible with all people from 1000s of years ago and God from all time. Big big call...and false.
If for no other reason than to ask, “where did all the population come from?” They were all gay immigrants, presumably, begat by parents left behind in other places that were heteroesexual? We think not.
Seriously? Depraved committing depraved acts in defiance of God...doesn't exclude breeding.
So if homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words.
When the mob cries out “Where are the men who came in to you tonight?”, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated men is actually ‘enowsh which, literally translated, means “mortal” or “human”.
No it doesn't it means "male human being"
This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were.
We can divine this because the Hebrew word for “man” (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. And one really has to ask: why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
They knew, just possibly didn't know they were angels. The city was depraved, utterly & totally...that's why it was totally destroyed. You know that right?
Trying hard to disbelieve what the text clearly spells out.
The passage translated as “Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them” needs further examination as well.
Other Bible translations read “so that we may know them”. The Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “have intercourse”, or “know” is yada.
But this word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. And in all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone.
Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he could simply have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
Many people argue, therefore, that the correct translation should be rendered something to the effect of: “Where are the people who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them.”
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey?
It was convicted of vile depravity...that's why it was destroyed, they showed their depravity by wanting to have sex with the 2 strangers...from boy to man from the city.
The denial here is strong...but facts of Scripture is very clear.
Two verses in Exekiel sum up the story this way: “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]”. (Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.)
It is commonly assumed, because we’re referring to Sodom, that the “detestable thing” referred to in this passage is homosexuality.
But in fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow’ebah, which translated literally means “to commit idol worship”.
No it doesn't - It means detestable things abominations, ( https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/towebah.html )
This is half the problem the view is set before the explanation is deliberately created. In regards to idol worship, remove God and anything that takes up the vacuum is an idol. Idol worship doesn't just mean a carved statue or an obelisk. Its anything that separates you from God or replaces God.
Its beginning to get very sad at this point...
This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes.”
One has to ask: If Lot’s house was surrounded by homosexuals, which presumably he’d know as everyone in the entire region was gay apart from him and his family, why would he offer the mob women?
They weren't gay they were utterly & completely depraved. Sex is clearly and specifically designed for within the confines of marriage. That's a man and a woman. Anything else is adultery. Having a mistress, a prostitute, a rent boy, a lover of any sort is adultery. 2 men couldn't marry back then so homosexuality is adultery. DeFacto relationships were adultery.
The New Testament is very clear on this and homosexual acts.
Note also that these women were virgins. And that the Sodomites were pagans.
Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in this era. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
Easily concluded if you ignore the Scriptures completely and decided a personal assumption is valid explanation. Sorry duded out again
In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: “and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come”.
This corroborates Ezekiel’s summation, once again showing that these were “ungodly persons”; in other words, idolaters, they were not worshippers of the true God.
If we have difficulty with the logic of 100% of any population being gay, can we rather believe in 100% of a population being adherents of a particular pagan cult? Yes, we certainly can. If for no other reason that there was no tolerance of those who didn’t share pagan beliefs in many early societies. Not to agree was to invite exclusion or execution. You were in, or you were out. The Jews themselves exercise this attitude continually throughout the Old Testament.
Utter rubbish twisted like a wet rag. Lot & his family were not depraved like the rest of the city, that's why they were saved. This is a massive and detailed conclusion based on no data or evidence at all.
Dangerous lack of exegesis & personally concocted.
So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is almost certainly intended as a condemnation of idol worshippers, and of a greedy and inhospitable society that sought to treat visitors in a threatening manner – which was also a sin, to the early Jews, by the way.
Many people argue, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable to propose that this key text on the judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Some people argue the earth is flat but that's a load of rubbish too.
In all these cases verses are selected in isolation and twisted with false premise to provide a false version of what was being said...to suit someone who isn't God but is wanting to modify Him to suit their own view lifestyle.
They could just be honest & say I'm Christian and the Bible is very clear about wanting sinners, all sinners (including homosexuals) to turn from their sin and find salvation through Christ or...
Or perhaps be honest and say they're not Christians, they don't believe in god, they reject the bible and think anyone can do whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt or no law is broken.
Changing the Bible to Vers. 2.0 to suit your own pre-suppositional view is appalling.
All the while there's a dozen verses that have been side stepped completely...
1Corinthians 6:9-10.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Have to confess, there's more to the twisted Scripture filled "article" and I've only brought half of it across. Poor Hebrew transliteration, twisted interpretation with no sola scriptura exegesis...its not going to get any better.
Make up your mind, be a Christian and read, use Scripture properly with proper in context exegesis or go do your own thing away from the Word without twisting it to suit your own idol filled motivations. Stephen may be a top bloke, who knows but he's not just got the wrong end of the stick, the stick is a snake and he's using it to lecture other people about sticks.
I understand he works for an advertising agency.
Somehow I think the claimed theology degree was either lost, non existent or wasted.
Now if Stephen wants to return volley I guess we can deconstruct the rest of the blog.
At that point it'll be the same, God's Word compared to "his" view of what "he" thinks God meant.
If homosexuality is not a sin against God, as Stephen suggests then he needs to do a blog on why it is that God owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.
Now if you're gay and you have decided to stay gay, in a gay lifestyle with your gay partner that is entirely up to you. Its not my place to call you a good or bad person because of your choice. But if you alter God's Word to suit your own lifestyle then yes you are pretty bad. The Bible is also pretty clear about false churches and there are many out there. Far too many. Most of them will fail as churches and we should just call them civic clubs.
If a religion cannot properly live by its own teachings then it should be stripped of its "church" status.
No comments:
Post a Comment