Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

I know we've discussed both slavery and gay relationships in other threads here. Maybe we'll retread some of that same ground. I am thinking of a question - should the way Christians in past eras read the Bible deter us from reading the Bible in the same way?

First, slavery. Last December or so I read Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Noll is probably the top evangelical Christian historian around today (i.e., he is no David Barton). This book expands on what he wrote in a few other books. Basically, Christians in early America read the Bible "literally" and because of this they agreed that the Bible sanctioned slavery.

So Southerners claimed the Bible supported their position. And for the most part, Northerners agreed that the Bible supported slavery. Some abolitionists were forced to argue that the Bible supported slavery but the Southern version was too harsh. Other Abolitionists were simply seen as too liberal, on a slippery slope to denying the orthodox faith (oppose slavery today, deny the Trinity tomorrow).

Today there is no question among evangelicals that slavery was wrong. Yet we are taught to read the Bible in the same way as those who went before us.

Second, civil rights. I just finished a fascinating book called Mississippi Praying by Carolyn Dupont. She argues that it was the faith of Mississippians during the 1940s-1970s that motivated them to support segregation. In their minds, doubting segregation was something that liberals do, it was a slippery slope to heresy.

What is more, though they lost the civil rights battle, these same people were in on the beginning of forming the religious right. Many who supported segregation in Mississippi later supported the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptists and the forming of the conservative PCA denomination.

My question is - should this matter to you if you interpret the Bible in the same way? I don't mean if you get the same conclusions. I mean because you don't get the same conclusions. I mean, if you fight for a "literal" interpretation of the Bible does it bother you that those who fought for that same thing opposed integration in the 1960s and opposed emancipation in the 1860s.

To be a bit more personal, this is one reason I am increasingly skeptical about opposition to gay marriage, at least when that opposition is built on the same way of reading the Bible that failed in the past. We've already seen this way of reading the Bible as proven wrong in terms of slavery and civil rights.

Even when I read Mohler's response to Matthew Vines' book I saw this. Mohler spoke of Vines and those who support gay marriage as on a slippery slope. But by opposing slavery, Mohler would be seen to be on a slippery slope if Whitfield or Edwards were here today.

I think a case can be made against gay relationships in other ways (see William Webb's book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals).

Thoughts?

Your question is good, David, but if we are growing as Christians...and if the Word is living...should we not EXPECT to interpret scripture differently than our ancestors? We would be in the wrong if we let it go stale, if we quit drawing closer to the Kingdom vision of Christ.

Good challenge, lots of variables that few seem to consider.

Does being a slave affect your eternal destination? No.
Does being gay affect your eternal destination? Greatly.

We do not change how we read the bible. And society really doesn't change - we just start accepting sins as the norm. Here comes polygamy...

What absolute nonsense, Rod.

Stay focused on the subject Lee. And be a little more specific.

People should never confuse racism with slavery. If there are no white slaves around - then all we have is egotistical racism.
Did God say anything specific about white slaves?

Where as homosexuality is an inside sin. Sexual immorality has not changed in over 3000 years. We just keep trying different approaches to justify our lusts.

Humanity hasn't changed - we just refuse to apply God's eternal advice. All in the name of tolerance and sin.
Most scholars still haven't figured out the difference between God's chosen Israel and all us gentiles.
Kind of like saying the speed limit is 30 miles an hour - and applying it to highways/drive ways/parking lots/and the Nascar track.

Maybe you should stay out of this Lee:

It's all about reading the Bible. Which to you is no different than Peter Pan or some buddhist scribblings.

I'm quite happy debating the point with you using the Bible as our authority, Rod. Because we've been over and over this topic, and you've NEVER provided ANY biblical evidence for your unchristlike homophobic stance. You are a religious bigot, pure and simple. To now pretend to know the mind of God on the matter and say anyone who is born homosexual is going to hell is utter nonsense.

Rod, if you lived in the 1860s would you argue for slavery? If you lived in the 1960s in the south, would you argue for segregation?

You'd have been wrong on both counts. That's my question - if you would have been wrong then why should I trust your interpretation of the Bible now?

David, you say, “should the way Christians in past eras read the Bible deter us from reading the Bible in the same way?

It seems to me that you don't really define what you mean by 'the same way,' beyond suggesting that this equates to a '“literal” interpretation of the Bible.' But there are any number of different understandings of “literal,” ranging from believing that Herod had brown fur and a bushy tail, through 'flat world theology' to believing that many passages of the Bible were intended to be understood in a symbolic sense and that some aspects of Biblical teaching were never intended to be applicable in all cultures for all time. To anyone whose interpretation is more literal than your own, it may well appear that you are on the 'slippery slope' to woolly liberalism. But the reality is that we are all standing somewhere along that slope; so the question is why we choose to stand where we do.

But the really big underlying issue here is that all of us have a strong tendency to be influenced in our interpretation by the opinions of our peers and the prevailing culture of our times. It is said of G. Campbell Morgan that someone once remarked to him that, “The preacher must catch the spirit of age.” “God forgive him if he does,” he instantly replied. “The preacher’s business is to correct the spirit of the age.”

He was absolutely right. But note that he said, 'correct:' not 'denounce.' In most cultures there is an ebb and flow of opinion, some of which is for the good, motivated by our yearnings after truth and justice, and some for the worse, driven by our baser desires. We must learn to 'Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.' (1 Thess 5:21-22)

If we truly believe in the Bible as God's word, then our task is, first, to weigh our own bias in the light of scripture, and only then to seek to correct others. That was in large measure the root of Jesus' problem with the Pharisees – they put things the other way around.

My own favourite maxim for biblical interpretation is, 'Scripture is its own best interpreter.' But this needs to be qualified. 2 Pet 1:20-21 tells us: ' no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.' The catch here is 'private interpretation.' There are many who claim their personal opinion as 'Holy Spirit revelation:' and there are also many who believe they have avoided this error by clinging rigorously to the opinions of their particular theological peer group. The key to avoiding 'private interpretations' is teachableness, willingness to be corrected (even by one's critics if necessary), desire for intimacy with God and to bring one's own personal life into conformity with His will.

This will not make our theology perfect overnight: but it will keep us on the right course 'till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.' Eph 4:13.

Lee, I agree with the distinction that Rod makes between slavery and homosexuality: but that is not because I am a homophobe. The truth is that, if I had been subjected to the level of homosexual propaganda that today's youth face when I was in my teens, I would have been tipped over the edge into a homosexual lifestyle before I ever had the chance to discover that Jesus could set me free. As it was, for several years after my conversion I believed marriage could never be an option for me. But God healed me: and today I have 3 kids and 3 lovely grand-daughters.

I am surprised that you seem to think there is no biblical justification for disagreeing with homosexual behaviour: But if you wish to discuss this particular issue further, I suggest we do so on another thread.

Good comment Kevin.

What I got from Noll's book is that the common hermeneutic in early America was that since a variety of Bible verses endorse slavery, then slavery is a fine institution. Even those who opposed slavery agreed the Bible taught this which is why they either had to balance verses that endorse slavery with others that regulate it, and thus argue the south's institution was too harsh. Or they took a more "liberal" stance to argue against slavery in spite of the clear teaching of scripture.

The second book I sourced showed that southerners continued the same interpretation in support of segregation. It was not as clear and unanimous as the previous era, but it was there. Again, those who opposed segregation were seen as too liberal. And these southerners eventually stopped fighting for segregation but moved on to other battles, basically beginning the religious right.

I am asking - if the argument against gay marriage is that the Bible opposes it, the plain reading of scripture, this verse and that verse...then shouldn't it bother me that this was the exact same argument used to support slavery and segregation?

If your way of reading the Bible in opposition to gay marriage is the same way of reading (sorry I used the "same way" phrase again) that people used in the 1860s and 1960s then that should make you question.

I admit there can be arguments made against gay relationships that do look different, that use a different hermeneutic. At the same time, I am uncomfortable when I think that opposing gay marriage may end up being the same as opposing abolition and integration.

Will Calvinists in 150 years unquestionably accept gay marriage and ignore Piper and Macarthur's words on it while lifting up their theology as we ignore Whitfield and Edwards' acceptance of slavery today while still admiring them?

I don't know if I have answers.

I do agree we are all standing on the slippery slope. Sorry if my thoughts don't always translate clearly to writing :)

Isn't this fun? Ill comment more tonight hopefully.

Hi, David,

I haven't got time to browse the books you mentioned: but assuming you are citing them correctly it seems to me that there is a deficiency in the arguments they were using in respect of the slave trade.

As I said, the Bible is its own best interpreter: and it is apparent that the social conditions of the time were so radically different that there were many circumstances in which slavery would have been preferable to the alternative (e.g. starvation or wholesale slaughter of captives). In those societies a wise and industrious slave could rise in rank to become more influential and respected than many a free man. And, as you noted, the Old Testament sets out rules for the treatment of slaves that were consistently violated by the European/American slave traders.

But the scriptures also make it clear that it is freedom, not slavery, that is God's ultimate goal for the people of God. This is clearly seen in the much tighter restrictions imposed on the practice of keeping Hebrew slaves, with the rights of redemption and their ultimate freeing in the year of jubilee. In the New Testament Paul, whilst enjoining submission to the secular law on slavery, made it very clear that, as far as God was concerned, in Christ there was neither slave nor free (Gal 3:28) and every slave-owner had better remember that they too had a master in heaven (Eph 6:9). He also advised slaves that, if they had a legal opportunity to secure their freedom, they should take it (1 Cor 7:21).

Finally, it's worth noting that 'menstealers,' (meaning 'one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery' or 'one who steals the slaves of others and sells them,') are condemned in the New Testament (1 Tim 1:9-10) in exactly the same terms as those that practice homosexuality. So how can it be argued at one and the same time that we have 'progressed' so as to consider slavery as much more evil than they did and homosexual behaviour as ok? Do you see the contradiction?

But there is, of course, one major change from the Old to the New Testament that is relevant to all forms of sin: and that is the transition from law and judgement, through the cross, to grace and forgiveness. So, for example, whilst upholding the Old Testament standards on marital fidelity, and indeed making them stricter (Mt 5:17-18, 26-29), Jesus could say to the woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." (Jn 8:11).

Jesus never relaxed the rules on same-sex conduct, and neither did Paul or any of the early disciples, in spite of the fact that homosexuality was widely accepted and practised in Greek and Roman society. Rather, they taught that there was forgiveness and acceptance with God: but that, as Jesus had told the woman, they were to desist from such practices. (1 Cor 6:9-20).

P.S. I'll probably be too busy to comment tomorrow. After that, it will depend on how things pan out. But I hope that this helps to clarify the kind of contextual issues that we need to consider in our interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus never addressed same-sex conduct, but he also never addressed many other old-testament biases that we assume have been overturned by a new way of understanding. We no longer discriminate against the blind, lame, women, different races, the poor...or gays. Jesus taught us a better way.

Yes, we should pull this to another thread if we want to go over all this again. My beef is not with you, Kevin, it is with Rod, who makes bold claims (that homosexuals are going to hell, in this case) and never backs them up...yet when evidence is provided against his claims, he simply ignores it.

Lee people can't take their sins with them to Heaven. I'm curious - how many homosexuals even want to go to an eternal Kingdom that doesn't offer gay sex? Same goes for heterosexuals. How important is Jesus?

We can apply slavery to this issue as well. How many people were more interested in slavery over Jesus?
Jesus being the King of kings and Lord of Lords hasn't changed in 1900 years of Bible reading.
I believe the. Apostle Paul was clear from the beginning about sexual immorality and slavery. Why is there still confusion? Because people really don't like what the bible says - so they twist it to their hearts wicked desires.

Haha, Rod, you can be hilarious. People don't want to go to heaven because it doesn't "offer" sex? Is that why God had to come down from heaven and rape a human? He was getting a little too deprived up there where what he needed wasn't "offered"?

Kevin, good comment again. Maybe I wasn't clear - the two books I cited say nothing about gay relationships. I am the one taking what they say about slavery/segregation and applying it to gay relationships.

The point of Noll's book is that no one made the argument against slavery that you made above. Noll's book (and forgive me for deferring to authority, but he is comprehensive and he is considered one of the top evangelical Christian historians) shows that southerners thought the Bible accepted slavery and northerners tended to agree. The argument you made above did not show up, it was too nuanced for the American theological scene in the 1800s.

So to take those two cases of history, we see that certain hermeneutics led to the support of slavery and segregation and were wrong. They were bad/poor ways of reading scripture. Thus, my extrapolation is that, as far as the same sorts of arguments are used today, why should we give them credence?

I think the argument you did make above, contrasting slavery and gay relationships in that the Bible for all its support of slavery does also contain nuggets of opposition while the same cannot be said of gay relationships, is a stronger argument. It is what William Webb says in his book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals. The thing is, most people don't use that argument. Most people simply site a verse from Romans or Leviticus as a proof-text against gay relationships.

Maybe its just a symptom of our age - people don't have time for nuanced arguments like you made above. But my take-away is that if history has taught us anything, proof-text arguments against gay relationships are doomed to failure.

My argument, too, is based on extrapolation. Jesus seemed against bigotry in all its ugly faces, and I see little reason to imagine he wasn't also against bigotry as regards sexual preference. In fact, we have one example in which Jesus may directly show approval of honest, loving gay relationships (the centurian's "servant").

It seems to me that Jesus' example of acceptance and compassion was SO central to his message that Paul must have been wrong. This should not surprise us; Paul was wrong about many things. And if we throw out Paul's teaching on the matter, we have no reason left at all to justify all the pain we are causing with this anti-gay doctrine.

I'm afraid that, due to work pressures, I won't have time to respond in any depth till the end of the week at the earliest.

Good biblical exposition requires close attention to context, and especially to what the Bible itself tells you about that context. Proof texts are fine when used in the proper context: but can be very misleading if not.

But extrapolation can be equally misleading, especially when you factor in the all-too-human tendency noted by Rod, for people to extrapolate in the direction that suits them best. The question is not, what do we infer from Jesus' words and actions, but what did He intend?

Lee, I can see serious weaknesses in the arguments you present here: but if you want to discuss these further, could you point me in the direction of one of the previous threads that, in your opinion, best expresses your views on the matter? If so, I'll take a look at it.

Off to bed now. Early start tomorrow...

starts here, kevin.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Is the centurion and his servant Gay? Lee (and every other gay person is betting their SOUL on it.)

The Faith of a Centurion Matthew 8/ Luke 7

5When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6“Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,c ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israeld have I found such faith. 11I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Is that the story Lee? I'm just not seeing the GAY there. Or did you get the x-rated version?

Back to the historical elements of this thread:

Slavery and cultures AND ECONOMIES have changed over the centuries. So the world is in less demand of slavery (yet it still seems to function in some areas.)

Sex has not changed in 6000 years.
Romans 1:
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.…

Yep, sex hasn't changed. We just have MORE sexual immorality than ever before.
Being "consumed with passion" apparently is not something God approves of in certain situations.

Rod wrote: "Is the centurion and his servant Gay? Lee (and every other gay person is betting their SOUL on it.)


Here, Rod:

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2014/0...

Should be fun Lee. I'll read your blog.

Lee's winning argument:
" yet if there is any hint at all in scripture about how Jesus felt about same-sex relationships, this is it. No condemnation, only respect and compassion."

Wow, there is some pretty nasty internet arguments over this Roman issue and choice of word. My guess is that eventually the entire Bible will have this argument applied to every single term.

So it does seem people are betting their gay souls on this word choice playing out in their favor. Good luck with that.

I am curious how often (throughout the last 1900 years) this Gay relationship with the Roman Centurion has been discussed? If it was not argued about until recently???? then it may not be historically accurate.

Lee is there any mention of this gay "WORD CHOICE" issue in the first 5 centuries? Maybe? Someone did try to drag Caligula into this - and yet the church didn't seem to notice. OR did it?

It's not fun, Rod. It's just sad that you think you're insulting me to pretend I'm gay. Be a bigot in your closet, not in public pretending to be a Christian...you give real christians a bad name.

Hi, Lee! I've had a look at the thread you pointed to: but it is locked against further comments. I've also looked at the link to your own blog that you gave Rod above, and posted a comment there, which is awaiting your moderation.

I've since followed the 'Next' and 'Pref' links to the related pages of your blog and see that this is actually a slightly expanded version of your arguments on this site. I could comment further there, if you would like. but, due to time pressures, it will have to be little by little.

I disagree profoundly with both the scriptural and factual validity of many of the arguments you present. But I consider it far more important to focus on the solution to the problem, which is Jesus' power to set people free from bondage to sin, than on the sin itself. So I am seeking to prioritise my time in that direction and ration the time spent on theological debate.

Lee I do not think you are gay. You honestly told me that a while ago. I disagree with you on many (possibly all) issues. But I see you as a truthful person. Lies would not benefit either of our quests - I think we are both honest.

My wife and I have numerous (and amazing) gay friends. But we must always be as careful as possible with the scriptures.

Kevin, Jesus isn't Lee's God - and he doesn't think fondly of you calling certain lifestyles sinful. So you might not be speaking the same language as Lee. But nice try.

Haha, Rod, I certainly didn't tell you I was gay. I had to go through my own stage of growing up and overcoming a repulsion of gays.

Kevin, you are focusing on the solution to the wrong problem. The problem is people who feel it is their duty to speak for God by telling other people they are condemned by God.

Hi, Lee. I'm not personally willing to turn this thread into yet another debate on homosexuality, as if that were the biggest issue in Christendom today. If you want me to comment further on that matter, then say it's OK to do so on your blog, and I will: though not this week. (It's our wedding anniversary and my wife's birthday; and we are celebrating with a 'Staycation' – spending as much time together, and as little on the computer, as possible this week. But she's chatting to her sister on the phone just now, so I've got a brief window of opportunity!) But thanks, anyway, for publishing my reply to your argument about the centurion's servant.

John the Baptist was a problem to a lot of people because he preached that people needed to repent of their sins; and Herod had him killed for it. But Jesus commended him and did the same himself. Jesus never minimised sin: rather, he raised the bar to the point where even his disciples despaired at times. But he also preached that he could bring forgiveness and the power for a genuine inward transformation. And he did it. That is real liberation; setting people free to become what, deep down, they always knew they were meant to be.

Kevin, you are ALWAYS welcome to comment on my blog! I feel strongly, however, that comments which call a loving, honest relationship a sin cause a great deal of unnecessary pain, so I do not ever recommend voicing such opinions. For example, you say:

"setting people free to become what, deep down, they always knew they were meant to be."

But thousands of our youth per year DO know, deep down, how they were made and are committing suicide because of the disapproval of parents, ridicule of peers, or doctrine of their church. This cannot stop until the hurtful doctrine is suppressed. So believe what you will, but be extremely careful about sharing those beliefs.

Hi, Lee. Sorry for the delayed response. I've been playing catchup since last week. But I've now posted a comment to your first post at www.dubiousdisciple.com/2014/06/leviticus-2013-homosexuality-and-the-bible-part-i-of-viii.html

Thanks, Kevin, I responded.

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2014/0...

These conversations do make me sad, though. I lose a little faith in humanity each time I read something discriminatory. It really bothers me that we use religion as an excuse for our bigotry.

Lee do you feel the same about polygamy and idol worship? What if bestiality is someone's true hearts DESIRE? WE all know predators have deep desires: should those be met as well? Where does it stop? God is very clear in HIS WORD what obedience is required.

Sometimes hurtful doctrines are because we love someone and want them to listen to Jesus "Go and sin NO MORE." Often our desires SHOULD be suppressed.

EVeryone is free to get their FREAK ON while here on earth. But there is a price to pay in the end.

Rod, why on earth would I care what people do in the privacy of their homes? Bestiality and polygamy aren't for me, but their practice doesn't hurt me, either. I cannot grasp your hang-up about dictating people's private lives.

Lee comment:
"Rod, why on earth would I care what people do in the privacy of their homes?"

Because Jesus cares what people do in private.

Matthew 5:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…

Nothing is private before God. Personally I don't care how people get their FREAK ON - but God mentions repeatedly how obedient his people should be to HIS desires.
But as we know: everything spills over into society. Nothing stays private for long. Pride Parades sure aren't private anymore - It's on television, radio, newspapers, billboards and on the streets. This is NOT about being normal and accepted... It's way nastier than that.

Maybe I should have a Fundi PARADE.

You are seriously comparing a loving relationship between a same-sex couple with adultery???

When you quit pretending gays are sinners, they won't need parades to show support for one another. That's a no-brainer, Rod. You have built an atmosphere where trampled-on humans are finally standing up for themselves. We've been through it before, with women and with African Americans, so this shouldn't surprise you. Treat people like crap long enough and they'll get tired of it.

African Americans and Homosexuals have nothing in common. Slavery and lust are not the same issue.

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

But back to the real topic:
David quote: " We've already seen this way of reading the Bible as proven wrong in terms of slavery and civil rights. "

Was God wrong David? How much of the Bible is God's opinion? Is our momentary slavery not just a slight bump in the eternal significance plan? Like Joni Eareckson-Tada being imprisoned for a lifetime in a paraplegic body (that God could easily heal???) there are more important issues going on.
Joni has a successful ministry because of her challenge
Slaves throughout the world have had an eternal hope because of their challenges.
Pathetic healthy white people seldom see a need for the God of the Bible - but they love religion and self righteousness.

This shows us that God/people/the Bible hasn't changed in thousands of years. But humans love going around calling themselves ENLIGHTENED and crying about their civil rights - and freedom to sin.

I would just like to comment briefly. Bible interpretation is an undertaking to say the least. A very good resource for those interested is John Stott's - How to Understand the Bible. Great book and is and has been a past resource book in many seminary classes. It should be noted however that what God states in the OT is still important even though we now have the NT. It really is the acting of homosexual desire that is the real issue and not necessarily the person themselves. There are many Gay people that have the attraction to the same sex but love Jesus more than that attraction and thus do not act upon such desires.

CJ wrote: There are many Gay people that have the attraction to the same sex but love Jesus more than that attraction and thus do not act upon such desires."

I agree, C.J., many gays do this. That's too bad, but it's the way it is. Similarly, there are many people who think women should be equal to men, but treat them as lesser humans because that's how God treats women. There are many people who think it's silly to abstain from eating cows on Friday, but they do it because it's what God wants. There were many in Jesus's day who knew in their hearts that strict Sabbath observance was silly, yet they wouldn't lift a finger to help another person on the Sabbath because God said not to.

Let's get some perspective on this nonsense. No reasonable person, anywhere, follows these three stupid rules unless their religion tells them to. Likewise, no reasonable person, anywhere, discriminates against gays unless [1] they think their religion tells them to, or [2] they are homophobes who lean on their holy writings to reinforce their bigotry. This tells us clearly that common sense comes down on the side of tolerance and understanding. Reasonable people must therefore OVERCOME their common sense to follow this hurtful church doctrine.

So ministers kick people out of the church who love someone of the same sex. Dads tell their kids they can't have a same-sex partner. Kids go to school and beat up gay kids, because God has given them license to hate.

Now I know there are a few people who are just simply insecure and mean-natured and love to discriminate. They jump on the chance to discriminate like flies wallowing in crap. But most people who follow hurtful doctrines surely all know in their heart that they're being cruel, but God tells them to be cruel, so they have to do it. They call it tough love, or in Rod's case, I suppose they call it justice.

This is very sad, and Jesus would certainly disapprove. It goes against everything he taught.

Gosh, Lee, and I used to look at the anatomical figures in science labs and think "gee, men and women seem to line up perfectly". But when I think of man on man or woman on woman, I really don't see how they're supposed to match up without "toys", an abundance of vaseline, or extreme gymnastics. Must be my "common sense" failing me, Lee.

Robert wrote: "Must be my "common sense" failing me, Lee. "

No, Robert, it's your ** COMMENT CENSORED ** that causes you to ridicule people different from you.

Lee you really don't have the slightest understanding of the old and New Testament do you? You read the bible like an atheist. This is not an insult - it's a spiritual observation. You have no interest in God's redemptive plan or how it plays out. We could explain it to you - but I don't think you are interested.
There is a reason for everything in the Bible. God doesn't waste words.

I "read the Bible like an atheist" ... yes, I guess you could say I do! I consider it somewhat of a compliment that I don't let predetermined beliefs dictate what I think the Bible says.

As for God's redemptive plan, if you equate that with the prophets' dream or Jesus' dream of a Kingdom of Heaven, then that's PRECISELY what interests me. To me, that's what the Bible is all about...not some flyaway castles-in-the-sky pretend world.

And the lion will lie down with the lamb, and Lee's friends will lie down with the lamb, too.

ok...THAT one was funny. :)