Sure, I’ll bite. I wonder how long my comment can be…
The law found in the Torah (the first five books in the Bible) is not a self-contained means for righteousness, but serves to point toward God’s holiness. The Israelites were required to comply with it, but even the earliest Christians recognized that Christ rendered it obsolete by fulfilling it (see Matthew 5, Acts 15, Romans [esp. chapter 3], Galatians [esp. chapter 3], and Hebrews [esp. chapter 7] for further explanation). That’s why we don’t offer animal sacrifices and why we visit dermatologists instead of priests.
Second, his eisegetical approach to interpreting Scripture is tiresome. God’s finished creation (which he called “very good”) includes free will, which means the ability to choose to do wrong. As free moral agents, we can make choices that are not “very good” and it isn’t God’s fault (see Romans 9). Likewise, the pederasty “argument” goes utterly against the grain of the context in Romans 1, in the strongest New Testament condemnation of perverted sexual behaviors.
Third, let me expand on my use of the phrase “perverted sexual behaviors.” They are called perverted or deviant because they are perverted from, or deviate from, some standard. From Genesis 2 onward, heterosexual marriage is clearly presented as the appropriate context in which to make use of our reproductive systems (even if we use the equipment for pleasure only); ANY sexual activity outside of marriage deviates from God’s standard. Homosexuality is not wrong because it is homosexuality; it is wrong because it encourages sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage.
In this light, it doesn’t matter whether homosexual attraction is biological or volitional in nature. We all know that it is right to suppress certain impulses at certain times: the impulse to steal at an opportune moment, or to murder an offender in your anger, for instance, must be suppressed. The impulse to engage in sexual activity (and this includes lusting!) outside of marriage, whether with the same or opposite sex, must likewise be suppressed. Marriage as presented in Scripture has purpose beyond mere reproduction; it is not for everyone but the choice not to marry is not license to ignore the restrictions on sexual behavior.
Finally, let me respond to the minister’s “selective enforcement” (he hypocritically uses this phrase himself) of Jesus’ teachings. While it is true that Jesus taught on many subjects and homosexuality is not one of them, the theme interwoven in them all, and heralded at the very beginning, is repentance: Stop rebelling against God. The greatest commandment, Jesus identifies in Matthew 22, is “Love the Lord your God” above all and with every aspect of your being. All his teachings about loving your neighbor as yourself are valid as well, but obedience to this command is meaningless if it is from one who is not reconciled to God through a life surrendered to Christ. His emphasis throughout the Gospels is “follow me,” not “give intellectual assent to the wisdom of my teachings.”
He also quotes the oh-so-famous “Judge not” from Matthew 7. There is no room for us to judge; it’s true. In John 3, Jesus says that those who have not believed in him already stand condemned. But among those who claim to follow Jesus, there is no room for tolerance of sin. Wayward believers are to be corrected. The unbelievers who are so fond of quoting “Judge not” clearly have not read the rest of the chapter, which Jesus concludes with a warning that mere affiliation with his name (might this include taking his quotes out of context?) counts for nothing.
Completely outside his miserable graps of Scripture, this minister’s alarmist writing style is frustrating. He propagates the misconception that homosexuals are denied some legal rights. They are not. Marrying someone of the opposite sex, accompanied by all its benefits, is an option available to homosexuals. It may not appeal to them at all, but the fact is that it’s an option. Additionally, he does nothing to enlighten his readers about the details of the Galilean controversy. Galileo did not believe his findings to be incompatible with Scripture, but more importantly, he wrote them in a provocative manner in his Dialogo. An unprovoked, unoffended Pope may have resulted in a different outcome.
So, in conclusion, yes: We can follow the whole Bible without complying with Levitical law. The Bible supports heterosexual marriage and condemns all sexual activity apart from that, as opposed to singling out homosexuality. Jesus taught a message of obedience followed by service, not service on its own.
You should see the Bullshit! (Penn and Teller) Episode on the Bible - if you search around Google Video you can probably find it
Sure, I’ll bite. I wonder how long my comment can be…
The law found in the Torah (the first five books in the Bible) is not a self-contained means for righteousness, but serves to point toward God’s holiness. The Israelites were required to comply with it, but even the earliest Christians recognized that Christ rendered it obsolete by fulfilling it (see Matthew 5, Acts 15, Romans [esp. chapter 3], Galatians [esp. chapter 3], and Hebrews [esp. chapter 7] for further explanation). That’s why we don’t offer animal sacrifices and why we visit dermatologists instead of priests.
Second, his eisegetical approach to interpreting Scripture is tiresome. God’s finished creation (which he called “very good”) includes free will, which means the ability to choose to do wrong. As free moral agents, we can make choices that are not “very good” and it isn’t God’s fault (see Romans 9). Likewise, the pederasty “argument” goes utterly against the grain of the context in Romans 1, in the strongest New Testament condemnation of perverted sexual behaviors.
Third, let me expand on my use of the phrase “perverted sexual behaviors.” They are called perverted or deviant because they are perverted from, or deviate from, some standard. From Genesis 2 onward, heterosexual marriage is clearly presented as the appropriate context in which to make use of our reproductive systems (even if we use the equipment for pleasure only); ANY sexual activity outside of marriage deviates from God’s standard. Homosexuality is not wrong because it is homosexuality; it is wrong because it encourages sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage.
In this light, it doesn’t matter whether homosexual attraction is biological or volitional in nature. We all know that it is right to suppress certain impulses at certain times: the impulse to steal at an opportune moment, or to murder an offender in your anger, for instance, must be suppressed. The impulse to engage in sexual activity (and this includes lusting!) outside of marriage, whether with the same or opposite sex, must likewise be suppressed. Marriage as presented in Scripture has purpose beyond mere reproduction; it is not for everyone but the choice not to marry is not license to ignore the restrictions on sexual behavior.
Finally, let me respond to the minister’s “selective enforcement” (he hypocritically uses this phrase himself) of Jesus’ teachings. While it is true that Jesus taught on many subjects and homosexuality is not one of them, the theme interwoven in them all, and heralded at the very beginning, is repentance: Stop rebelling against God. The greatest commandment, Jesus identifies in Matthew 22, is “Love the Lord your God” above all and with every aspect of your being. All his teachings about loving your neighbor as yourself are valid as well, but obedience to this command is meaningless if it is from one who is not reconciled to God through a life surrendered to Christ. His emphasis throughout the Gospels is “follow me,” not “give intellectual assent to the wisdom of my teachings.”
He also quotes the oh-so-famous “Judge not” from Matthew 7. There is no room for us to judge; it’s true. In John 3, Jesus says that those who have not believed in him already stand condemned. But among those who claim to follow Jesus, there is no room for tolerance of sin. Wayward believers are to be corrected. The unbelievers who are so fond of quoting “Judge not” clearly have not read the rest of the chapter, which Jesus concludes with a warning that mere affiliation with his name (might this include taking his quotes out of context?) counts for nothing.
Completely outside his miserable graps of Scripture, this minister’s alarmist writing style is frustrating. He propagates the misconception that homosexuals are denied some legal rights. They are not. Marrying someone of the opposite sex, accompanied by all its benefits, is an option available to homosexuals. It may not appeal to them at all, but the fact is that it’s an option. Additionally, he does nothing to enlighten his readers about the details of the Galilean controversy. Galileo did not believe his findings to be incompatible with Scripture, but more importantly, he wrote them in a provocative manner in his Dialogo. An unprovoked, unoffended Pope may have resulted in a different outcome.
So, in conclusion, yes: We can follow the whole Bible without complying with Levitical law. The Bible supports heterosexual marriage and condemns all sexual activity apart from that, as opposed to singling out homosexuality. Jesus taught a message of obedience followed by service, not service on its own.
See also this brief analysis:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5298