Is The Bible Really So "Bigoted" and "Phobic"?

The Bible does not condemn those who merely are sexually attracted to their neighbor’s spouse.  However, what one does with that attraction is what will be the death of him if he makes the evil choice.  Yet the Scriptures are never condemned as being adulterophobic.

The Bible does not condemn those singles who merely are sexually attracted to single members of the opposite sex.  However, what one does with that attraction is what will be the death of him if he makes the wrong choice.  Yet the Scriptures are never condemned as being extramaritalsexphobic.

In fact, the Bible does not condemn those who merely are uninterested in meeting the physical needs or desires of their spouse.  However, if this lack of interest persists as a product of repeated decisions borne of laziness, selfishness or foolishness, then these decisions will be his undoing.  This is one thing that the apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians, chapter seven; yet no one would ever think to condemn the Scriptures as being abstinencephobic.

So may the reader consider this refresher course in biblically-based sexual ethics and the way in which it is worded.  We all need to get back to basics sometimes, as does Desmond Tutu and any number of persons today who in all undue glibness throw certain labels at Christianity or the Scriptures regarding certain social issues.

************

Meanwhile, do not think that what liberal Christianity, as it were, has to say about the issues of the day are unimportant.  Liberals in general tend to think alike, coalesce, move in the same direction of thinking though they be a diverse group.  The Christian theology, again as it were, that attempts to paint a rosy picture of homosexuality is well likened to a viral infection, fifth column or Trojan horse.  First it attacks the Law and the apostles of Christ, because it must.  In the meantime, there remains the problem that recorded in the Gospel accounts is Christ’s acceptance of the authority of the Law even during his own time; accordingly, this becomes the next target as attempts are made to defeat it by glossing over it, lying about it, or writing it off as a matter of interpolation.  And the defeat of the Law, the apostles of Christ, and of the words and teachings of Christ comes at a great price: the destruction of sound practices of exegesis and hermeneutics.

Once the basics and common sense behind normal exegesis and hermeneutics are destroyed, the groundwork is laid for a groundswell of theology or teaching which fits with liberal thought patterns and emotional patterns: Sola Scriptura is effectively lost to false intuition and wishful thinking, the teaching of the everlasting punishment of the damned is lost, hell is reimagined as a condition that exists on this earth, universalism becomes a given, and the idea of divine omnipotence probably isn’t far behind.  Read this post again in fifteen years to see if and how it mirrors events of the day.

The Triumph of Sentiment Over Intellect

“Queer Christianity,” “liberal Christianity,” and heterodoxy are born of fallen humanity’s love and worship of positive sentiment.  Of course, it is impossible to feel good every day, at every moment, and all the time; nevertheless this does not stop people from pursuing extremes in order to avoid their having to acknowledge and deal with cold, harsh realities of the world in which we live.

Why are there Christians who, frankly, have gone about violating divine commandments against adultery and sexual immorality?  Because “something that feels so right can’t be so wrong”: that’s why.

How did universalism ever come into being though there was always no shortage of Scriptures which showed universalism to be questionable at best?  Because human beings, including Christians, are sympathetic creatures and some people simply are too weak-willed to deal with the reality of a world in which most people will end up condemned in the End: that’s why.

Why do some erstwhile Protestants and/or post-Protestants swim the Tiber and start singing the praises of sola ecclesia?  Almost certainly because some are too weak-willed to confront and handle the theodical reality that in a sense God is a god of risk, allowing people to deliberate truth claims (that contradict one another) with their own brains and with whatever finite amount of wisdom they may contain.

When the love of feeling good inside morphs into what is nearly or exactly idolization of positive feelings or sentiments reason is often compromised.  Evil deeds are committed with the delusional justifications “I’ll apologize later” or “I’m covered by the Blood.”  Voices of both moral and logical intuition are suppressed by ideas of falsely privileged or axiomatic status: hence the outright ignoring of many Scriptures which any reasonable person without an agenda would acknowledge of fighting heterodoxy to a draw at least.  Again, common sense goes out the window when people refuse to come to terms with the tough requirements of righteous living: they even end up making “excuses” like that of Proverbs 22:13.

The love and service of pleasure and upbeat sentiments often suppress the truth and frustrate attempts at valid reasoning.  That is why it is with extreme ease that this Rachel Held Evans person’s argument has been refuted time and time again in blogosphere of late.  In fact, I dedicate this blog post to her, because she brought all of this to mind after all.

(And finally, yes, much of political liberalism in general exists for the same reasons mentioned above.)

In the News: Harold Camping Changes His Mind and Kirk Cameron Does Not

Curiously enough, both of these guys have more courage and humility than many of their critics and other people in this world. Sources:

Harold Camping says May 21 prediction was ‘incorrect and sinful’ - The Washington Post

Kirk Cameron responds to anti-gay comments flap - Yahoo! News (Reuters)

First of all, when has Ergun Caner, for example, ever manned up about his biography and admitted to having repeatedly done things which are sinful?

Moreover, stop and consider the closing remarks of the Reuters story for a moment. Since Tracey Gold professes to “believe in equal rights for all,” does she also believe that grown men of the NAMBLA ilk should be provided legal “equal rights” regarding their sexual orientation? Presumably, the answer is No. That means that Ms. Gold is being less than honest about the real reasons she supports the LGBT community or she hasn’t thought her words through to even 1 millionth of the extent to which her elder TV brother thinks his words through.

Of course, if Gold is dishonest then the real reasons should seem obvious enough. No one likes to be a pariah or social leper; furthermore, the fallen and rebellious heart of post-Edenic humanity is naturally drawn to a minimalist theory of ethics per John 3.19-20. (If one is to avoid being mindful of God’s law, a replacement for one’s code of ethics must be sought.)

Contrast Tracey Gold's cowardice--or so I believe it to be--with the work of Kirk Cameron over the past several years. Who else in Hollywood and who else in celebrity circles has the guts to go against the grain of political correctness in any way, shape or fashion? If it were the case that Alan Thicke hated Black people, would he also have the guts to call them savages on Piers Morgan’s TV show? No. If Mel Gibson has a low opinion of Jews, would he dare say this openly and with a normal blood alcohol level? No. Modern celebrities and corporations are cowards and wusses for the most part: this is no secret. However, Kirk Cameron stands apart from them not only in his honesty and commitment to God’s law and Gospel, but also in the sheer guts the guy has to continually do street preaching or witnessing as many of us have seen on Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master” TV show. So Cameron has guts and honesty; I would think more highly of him than most celebs even if I were not a Christian.

Finally, Kirk Cameron has also been accused of being thin-skinned regarding his reaction to people’s criticism of him of late. Kirk Cameron is not thin-skinned--for one thing, he knows he is a laughing stock though that has not stopped him from street preaching and doing the other things that he does. Again, he is not thin-skinned; to the contrary, he is simply telling it like it is when in recent news he points out the BS quotient of those who holler “Homophobe!” or “Hate speech!” at anyone and anything that merely happens to disagree with the idea that homosexuality (the attribute) and homosexuality (the acts) are good things. Terms such as “homophobia” and “hate speech” are in fact the tools of people who are either too lazy, too evil, or too dumb to draw rudimentary distinctions of logic and language or who simply want to bank on the use of emotive, politically-charged words.

More Depressing News from Blogosphere (with a twist!)

AOMIN: “A Few Thoughts on the Geisler/Licona Conflict”

Triablogue: “Our Intuitions and Mark 8:27-33”

Triablogue: Our Intuitions and Mark 8:27-33

Hopefully, more to say about this sort of thing later. For instance, in the past hasn’t the “intuition” of a few people suggested that the biblical teachings of Original Sin and corporate guilt are false?

The persistence of those who give up too easily

Personally, I get the impression that inerrantism within Christendom is on its way out the door. This is due to the strident talk of inerrantists, the ease with which one can create doubts, and the fact that a full account of some of the issues of biblical inerrantism requires some time and study (aka, inconvenience). Of course, it bears noting the Christian errantists who reject biblical inerrancy don’t see their rejection of orthodoxy as an act of one’s painting himself into a corner; no, only the biblical inerrantists are thought to have made this mistake.

And the errantists will fail to recognize the nature of their cutting off their nose to spite their face until fifty years down the road, when they see that their numbers have severely dwindled. For there can be only one logical and final conclusion of biblical errantism: pseudo-intuitive universalism, if not wholesale apostasy in the strongest sense.

Now, why do I mention all this? See the link:

AlbertMohler.com – The Inerrancy of Scripture: The Fifty Years’ War . . . and Counting

(HT: Tur8infan fan by way of aomin.org)