The Sin of Sodom - Inhospitality or Homosexuality?
Kim over at Connexions has written an article showing us that the main sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. Of course, gay apologists have long claimed this, and actually, it is based on what I consider to be good hermeneutic - I find her conclusion on this matter sound. However, what do we make of the fact that the Sodomites wanted to rape Lot's two male visitors?
I think that this type of sermon serves to restore the integrity and use of this passage in evangelical circles, but it goes too far in trying to excuse homosexuality.
As Romans 1 points out, and as John MacArthur has pointed out recently in his two fine sermons on Romans 1, when a people have reached the point of widespread practice and acceptance of homosexuality, they are at the bottom of the moral decline.
The fact that the residents of Sodom were not only wanting to rape the angels, but that they wanted homosexual rape, shows that their decline was total. Later, we will see God condemn all homosexuality in the law of Moses.
So while it is correct to say that the main sin of Sodom was inhospitality, the depth of their depravity is shown in the specific type of inhospitality they exhibited - unrestrained homosexual passions.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Does Romans 1 Condemn Homosexuality?
- Debate: Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?
ADDENDUM:
As a humorous side-note, on June 8, Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown, listed John MacArthur as his "Second Worst Person in the World" for the Romans 1 lecture he gave (links above). Of course, he fell second to Bill O'Reilly, the WORST person in the world. I love how liberal whackos like Olbermann make these ridiculous declarations as if they mean anything more than a child's "I don't like it" when they are corrected or scolded.
Do you know what was even more depraved? Lot's offer of his daughters to the mob.
Posted by: Skeptic | 14 June 2007 at 09:17 AM
Not sure if that was MORE depraved, but it certainly was not moral. But here's a guy who is not only threatened and afraid, his thinking has been warped by the vile society he is living in. And he doesn't just have any two male visitor, but two angels. He fears God enough to believe that anything that he can do to protect the angels from the Sodomites is what he needs to do.
So although Lot's offer was heinous, there is no indication in scripture that it was more heinous, and Romans 1 lists hetero sexual immorality as one of the first signs of a fallen culture, and homosexuality as the last step down from there into depravity. So you might even be able to argue biblically that Lot's awful offer was NOT worse than what the Sodomites were attempting.
At least, that's what a logical and honest biblical interpretation might yield. Whether or not you agree with that is up to you.
Posted by: seeker | 14 June 2007 at 09:28 AM
I don't know. It seems to me that Lot, held up as a moral exemplar and righteous man (the only one in town, if fact), comes off rather badly. It also puts his God into a bad light as well, I think. Imagine it! God being more pleased with a man who would offer his human, and very vulnerable, daughters in the place of his supernatural messengers. Yuck!
There's also one interesting point: what the Sodomites wanted was homosexual gang rape. The fact that Lot thought he could fend them off by offering them an alternative of his daughters seems to indicate that the situation demanded the humiliation of gang rape, not homosexual relations. We see this situation in prisons where homosexual gang rape is performed, not as a love act, but as violent and humiliating displays of power. Really, I think your analysis is off here. The depravity of Sodom is demonstrated by is inhabitants willingness to attack and humiliate strangers sexually, regardless of their gender.
Posted by: Skeptic | 14 June 2007 at 11:02 AM
Verses that speak of Sodom and Gomorrah, their sin and why God was destroying them:
It always seemed conspicuous to me that God never gives one sin for which they are being judged. I came to the conclusion they are being judged not for being inhospitable or homosexual, but for being exceedingly sinful.
Posted by: Aaron | 14 June 2007 at 11:17 AM
What bothers me about this narrative is the indiscriminate wrath and punishment which God rains down upon these people. Now, I don't for a moment believe that all this is a historical narrative - more like a mythic tale with religious reverberations. But take it on its face for a moment: how many babies under the age of, say, five lived there? How great was their sin? Was it right for God to kill them as well as their wicked elders? It reminds me of the last "plague" God visited upon Egypt: the indiscriminate murder of all the Egyptian first-born males. This was just plain wrong, no matter how you cut it. Innocent children and babes, cut down so that a few slaves could get their freedom! If God wanted it so much, why didn't he just change Pharaoh's mind for him?
The OT is full of such oddities. Why waste time and breath defending them? Or trying to find modern-day parallels?
Posted by: Skeptic | 14 June 2007 at 11:54 AM
There's also one interesting point: what the Sodomites wanted was homosexual gang rape. The fact that Lot thought he could fend them off by offering them an alternative of his daughters seems to indicate that the situation demanded the humiliation of gang rape, not homosexual relations.
Just because the sin here was "gang rape" doesn't mean that homosexuality wasn't also wicked. In fact, as we see in Aaron's comment, Sodom was entirely depraved and wicked. So if they wanted to gang rape a woman, that would be bad, but homosexual gang rape? That's so far past the pale that it just more fully shows Sodom's sinfulness. It's a both/and situation.
In fact, many pro-gay theologians make this same argument from ignorance, always trying to say that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, but ritual or abusive homosexuality. But I think the main reasons these are mentioned is because they represent final and full depravity of a city. But of course, the law of Moses AND Paul both directly condemn homosexuality proper, not just these abusive situations.
Further, there is NO mention of ANY postive, healthy same sex romantic/sexual relationship anywhere in the bible. AND, whenever marriage is mentioned, it is always between a man and a woman. So why the omission of "healthy" gay unions? I think that the answer is obvious - that homosexuality, like bestiality, is so beyond the pale, and so obviously against nature and biblical morality, that IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING.
It seems to me that Lot, held up as a moral exemplar and righteous man (the only one in town, if fact), comes off rather badly. It also puts his God into a bad light as well, I think. Imagine it! God being more pleased with a man who would offer his human, and very vulnerable, daughters in the place of his supernatural messengers.
Again, this one act of desperation and fear does not make Lot unrighteous. As I said, he was not only scared out of his wits, but he knew that if he allowed the angels to be attacked, God's judgment, or even retribution by the angels, could be instant and terrible. Just because scripture declares Lot as a righteous man in no way means that God was "pleased" with the offer of his daughters. That's just narrow hermeneutic.
What bothers me about this narrative is the indiscriminate wrath and punishment which God rains down upon these people.
OK, imagine this. A city where gays are summarily executed for kissing. Or where girls are killed by their own parents for being raped or for falling in love with someone from another faith. Or where everyone is forced to join the predominant religion or be killed. Now imagine that you sent your most mature, loving, and humble messenger to warn them that such behavior was wicked, and they raped and killed your messenger. You realize that they are irreversibly attached to their wicked viewpoint. Are you justified in destroying them?
If you are God, absolutely. The only difference here is that Sodom's sins included sexual perversion, which scripture consistently says is wicked, becuase it hurts both its participants and children.
This isn't some capricious act on God's part. It's a final act of destruction on an irreversibly wicked city. It's like killing a rabid dog. That's all you can do after a certain point.
Posted by: seeker | 14 June 2007 at 12:26 PM
Yes, yes...I have surveyed this blog before I started commenting, and I am aware of your opinion of homosexuality. I do agree that the Bible has a low opinion of same-sex relations, but so what? While I agree with you that the Bible and Christianity are entirely pro-heterosexual, I disagree with the religion and see no reason why a non-Christian need submit himself to it, nor acquiesce to it controlling his society.
Are you justified in destroying them?
I say, no. There are obviously plenty of innocent people here to consider, and there is always hope that, someday in the future, they will be able to reform. I don't think any city, or people, is "irreversibly" wicked. Humans are not "rabid dogs." Clearly, this story was written from a somewhat primitive, tribal viewpoint, and the God portrayed appears equally primitive and tribal. I see no compassion or understanding of humanity here, and certainly no deity with whom I would wish to have a relationship. In fact, I think these stories from the OT are more indicative of the cultures of the time than of the nature of God. The fact that Lot is considered admirable because he would offer his own daughters up to a ravening mob illustrates my point: it repulses me, and any God who would approve is also repulsive.
Posted by: Skeptic | 14 June 2007 at 03:15 PM
I do agree that the Bible has a low opinion of same-sex relations, but so what?
For the unbeliever, it probably has no import. But to those who are Christians or call themselves xian, it is important to resolve this issue. Christianity and the bible call it a sin, one that should be repented of and abandoned.
I disagree with the religion and see no reason why a non-Christian need submit himself to it, nor acquiesce to it controlling his society.
No one is arguing that it should. My arguments about gay legislation are not based on religious arguments, but on scientific and ethical reasons. I think government should remain neutral on such questionable issues, rather than condoning or condemning such.
So there is no control issue here at all, except by those who want to push their questionable agenda onto the rest of us.
There are obviously plenty of innocent people here to consider, and there is always hope that, someday in the future, they will be able to reform.
While in general, that is true, these cities were cancerous beyond hope, and serve as an example of the depths of sin that we can sink to, and the anger of God at such hardness. The question is not "was God unjust in destroying Sodom," but "why does he let our wickedness persist WITHOUT judging us more severly?"
Clearly, this story was written from a somewhat primitive, tribal viewpoint, and the God portrayed appears equally primitive and tribal. I see no compassion or understanding of humanity here, and certainly no deity with whom I would wish to have a relationship.
Progressives always seem to think that justice is somehow "primitive," but that's because they often discard truth and justice for mercy, having discarded the ability to balance these seeminly opposite principles. It sounds to me like you lean very heavily towards grace, and away from truth and justice.
While you may *believe* that such ideas are primitive, they are based on timeless principles that don't change. Our current LACK of truth and justice is part of our sickness, or excuses for sin, and not some more advanced thinking.
And calling these primitive is also a patronizing, sanctimonious, and pejorative trick that says "when we were less enlightened like you, we used to think this way."
Humans are not "rabid dogs."
Are you not familiar with similie? I didn't say humans were dogs, but that such humans are LIKE rabid dogs. Humans given over irreversibly and stubbornly to wickedness, who do not respond to repeated entreaty, pose a cancerous danger to civil society, must be dealt with quickly and seriously. Rabid dogs are similar - they are beyond reason, beyond kindness, and totally taken over by their sickness, and there is nothing more you can do except remove them as a danger to others. That's the point, so don't miss the similie in your zeal to make my comparisons, and justice and judgement, out to be "primitive."
I see no compassion or understanding of humanity here, and certainly no deity with whom I would wish to have a relationship.
If you make your entire decision on this one small data point, and miss the countless times that deserved judgment is withheld, you are making a poor decision, IMO. I mean, look at the story of Jonah and Nineveh. Jonah the Jewish prophet didn't even want to tell them to repent, he despised their wickedness so much. But God wanted to give them a chance to repent, and much to Jonah's chagrin, they did and were spared. And they were a pagan nation.
There are numerous scriptures revealing the tender and understanding side of God, but if you want a God that is not interested in justice or truth, you'll have to look elsewhere. As I said in my sermon on How to Identify False Teachers, they either deny God's grace and mercy, or they deny his holiness, truth, and justice. The balance is the just and loving reality of God. Saying that truth and justice are not part of God's nature is just as wrong as saying that love and mercy are not. In fact, mercy makes NO sense without the threat of justice.
The fact that Lot is considered admirable because he would offer his own daughters up to a ravening mob illustrates my point: it repulses me, and any God who would approve is also repulsive.
Again, you are entirely mistaken in your interpretation of this passage. Scripture says that Lot was righteous, but it does not say that the offer of his daughters was righteous at all. It does not say that he was righteous because of this offer he made. As I explained, he was panicking and in fear of immediate judgment if he let the Sodomites attack the angels. Even the righteous make mistakes, and thank God he didn't follow through with his wicked plan.
So your claim that the God of the bible condoned his choice is just bad scholarship, and contradicts the rest of scripture. If you make your choice on such poor logic, I pity you for your lack of good decision making abilities.
Posted by: seeker | 14 June 2007 at 03:59 PM
Yes, yes...the same ol' tirade. Yes, I'm a terrible person and a horrible scholar because I don't see the spiritual life as one of rigid judgmentalism, pharisaism, and rejection of any sense of humility. I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you, seeker. Suffice it to say that you make the spiritual life appear very unappetizing, at least the Christian one.
btw: I do consider the authors of the OT to be primitive. I'm not ashamed of it. So there.
Posted by: Skeptic | 14 June 2007 at 11:12 PM
It sounds to me like you lean very heavily towards grace, and away from truth and justice.
You may believe this if it makes you feel better, but it's profoundly untrue. I just see truth and justice is different terms than you.
Posted by: Skeptic | 14 June 2007 at 11:21 PM
Yes, I'm a terrible person and a horrible scholar because I don't see the spiritual life as one of rigid judgmentalism, pharisaism, and rejection of any sense of humility.
See how easily you forsake logical argument for emotionally driven straw men and ad hominem attacks? One well-reasoned response from me and you revert to exasperated hand-waving - but it must be hard to maintain such poorly reasoned conclusions in the face of criticism, so perhaps I don't blame you.
It's so funny how you rush to judgment - no one said you were a terrible person, only logically mistaken. If you can't see the plain error in your conclusions about God somehow approving of Lot's offer of his daughters, I must conclude that you obviously have no interest in being intellectually honest, and are just looking for reasons to reject the gospel and the scriptures. So now that I know, I don't have to really argue scripture with you, because you don't really want to understand, just find fault.
So, in a juvenile fit of self-righteousness, you are more than welcome to shake your fist at the God of the bible and claim that He is unrighteous "for defending Lot," all the time depending on your purposely corrupted "logic." Perhaps it will be "more tolerable in Sodom and Gomorrah" than in your home on the day of judgment. We all have to choose.
And as far as my presentation of the life with Christ being unappetizing, I'm sure I have room for improvement. However, I also think that Paul the Apostle said it well
This last scripture means just this - to those who are awakening to the truth of the gospel, they are finding it life-giving. But to those who are still committed to a life of sin and unbelief, the gospel smells like death, not life. Why? Because they love darkness, and the light shines on their own unrighteousness, their own self-righteous and wicked thoughts, their own hatred for what is pure and just, and contradicts their own pet ideas about what is right.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 08:26 AM
I tried reading this but my eyes just kept blurring over. The same thing kept happening when I read this blog before. It's really strange that you claim for yourself a "well-reasoned response" when what you present is one tirade after another based on assertions and "logic" based on the mythology of the Bible. To a non-believer (yet one who still wishes to communicate and discuss) these types of arguments fall flat. And, your tone is very harsh and judgmental.
What really strikes me about your posts here is that, what is important to you isn't communication and discussion of spiritual issues, but winning. To use Nietzsche's term, you communicate with a hammer. You like to lay down the law, and woe to anyone who disagrees. That's why I felt like a chastened child and a terrible person after reading your response.
Maybe you could try a little restraint.
Posted by: Skeptic | 15 June 2007 at 09:18 AM
what you present is one tirade after another based on assertions and "logic" based on the mythology of the Bible. To a non-believer (yet one who still wishes to communicate and discuss) these types of arguments fall flat.
My argument is not that the bible is true, but that your methods for interpreting it are illogical and anti-intellectual. And then you want to make your decisions based on poor logic, and call it a "tirade" when I point that out.
But maybe you don't CARE about being logical. You see, you appear to have an axe to grind, and seem to have little interest in questining your conclusions about your uderstanding of the passage, or you logic.I think your eyes glaze over because you are not used to reasoned argument at the root of the issue. But there are perhaps two issues here that need to be separated.
Your scriptural interpretations are improper, regardless of whether or not you think the bible is reliable.
You seem to want to find fault with Christianity based on YOUR conclusions about the bible. But perhaps you are NOT interested in how you GOT to those conclusions. It just strikes me as blindingly obvious that your interpretation of scripture is lacking in intellectual honesty or rigor because you seem attached to your negative conclusions about God and Christianity.
The real issue is that you appear to have reached conclusions about what Christianity teaches, and you want me to defend this straw man of yours. But I won't because the conclusions are bogus to begin with.
This discussion so far has NOTHING to do with the authority of scripture. I am not arguing that the bible is true or right, only that your approach to it is lacking. The authority of the scriptures is a totally separate argument.
So I answered every one of your claims about your understandings of the passage, and you consider that a tirade. I'd say you're just wimping out on the discussion. If you can't come up with logical counter arguments, perhaps you lack the fortitude to follow up on your claims. Resorting to name calling shows your lack of resolve in defending your claims. Not my fault.
You doubt the validity of the bible itself
Fine. That's another discussion. But I have, to this point, not argued that at all, so whether or not you think the bible is myth is immaterial to your analysis of the Sodom story. Your analysis is incorrect, that's what I am saying. Now, once we agree on what it actually SAYS, we can talk about whether or not it is believable, or what it means, or if it ever even happened.
You like to lay down the law, and woe to anyone who disagrees. That's why I felt like a chastened child and a terrible person after reading your response.
OK, perhaps I do. Can you please give me examples so I can either defend them or accede that I do that? I'm not being coy, I just have little idea which phrases or words I used make you feel chastened. I'm sure I can temper them.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 10:58 AM
OK, perhaps I do. Can you please give me examples so I can either defend them or accede that I do that? I'm not being coy, I just have little idea which phrases or words I used make you feel chastened. I'm sure I can temper them.
Heh. That's a laugh. Ask Louis, Stewart, Cineaste, and Silver if that is even possible for Seeker to do. Based upon all those threads and your method of attack, that is clearly not possible.
Skeptic, give up now. Run. Run far away. Seeker is interested in winning...nothing more. There will never be moderation in his tone even with examples.
Just ask the other former regulars here...oh, wait, Seeker chased them off.
Posted by: SeekerTruth | 15 June 2007 at 11:04 AM
Sadly, all that is left are trolls like SeekerTruth.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 11:06 AM
Seeker, you reap what you sow. Cineaste was right.
Amazing what a ghost town this place has become. I guess people just don’t agree with you version of what hate is and your penchant for going for the jugular to win at all costs. Very sad. If you could finally learn to moderate maybe it wouldn't be so deserted.
And yes, I have been lurking off and on to see if you have remotely moderated your tone and if it might even be worth participating again, but clearly it is not worth it. My oh my, even the lurkers are not welcome. Sigh.
Pitty you totally mis-understood my reasons for leaving this site and instead launched into a tirade. I guess I will have to make an appointment with the RL seeker...maybe I will get a calmer person.
-s
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 15 June 2007 at 11:37 AM
Amazing what a ghost town this place has become. I guess people just don’t agree with you version of what hate is and your penchant for going for the jugular to win at all costs. Very sad. If you could finally learn to moderate maybe it wouldn't be so deserted.
Our visitor count has not gone down, it's just that a few local loudmouths (you excepted) have stopped posting comments. I'm not worried. There are more reasonable people out there.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 01:07 PM
And in fact, when I post more moderate articles, they don't post. Know why? Because they are controversy driven, not truth driven. So when i tone down the controversy, they have naught useful to say. Maybe we NEED a new audience.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 01:09 PM
HI Seeker:
IMO you need to consider at least a little bit that Skeptic might be on to something about your tone. you wrote:
So your claim that the God of the bible condoned his choice is just bad scholarship, and contradicts the rest of scripture. If you make your choice on such poor logic, I pity you for your lack of good decision making abilities.
The point you make here is excellent: people often read into Bible passages things that aren't there, and either don't know about passages that say something different from their mistaken interpretation, or they don't consider alternate interpretations that are consistent with those other passages.
But then you add that last sentence. The sentence is combative and patronizing. To be fair, yours was just the last of series of combative exchanges between you and Skeptic, each of you seeming to be fairly angry at each other. But as a Christian brother, I want to remind you about turning the other cheek. I'm not saying you should tone down your advocacy (even though I disagree with you on so many of those things:-). What I am saying is that you need to be careful not to post when you are mad, because that leads to unloving combative sarcasm. if you had left of the "I pity you..." sentence you'd not have lost anything.
Seriously, think about that. Maybe I'm wrong and you weren't angry at all when you wrote that sentence, but it reads the same way I sound when I post angry.
your friend
Keith
Posted by: keith johnson | 15 June 2007 at 01:11 PM
And again, on this post, not one of you whiny complainers has given any constructive feedback, nor chosen passages from my comments above (this one excepted ;) that might support your contentions. I'm open, but what am I supposed to do with unsupported criticism? Go meditate on them and get back to you?
In fact, I am considering my tone and approach, but such criticisms without any useful information is really not very productive. So please put up.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 01:14 PM
What I am saying is that you need to be careful not to post when you are mad, because that leads to unloving combative sarcasm. if you had left of the "I pity you..." sentence you'd not have lost anything.
Thank you keith, that was useful.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 01:18 PM
But btw, I am not really mad at all. I guess I just like a little smack talk (my gamer past). People are so thin skinned. I admit that such sentences may seem patronizing, but I merely mean them to be antagonizing ;). And you might also note that they are not ad-hominem attacks.
I also started the sentence with "IF", but I guess people miss that, but I think that makes it much more acceptable. He could have easily answered that he does NOT make his conclusions based on one data point, and given examples.
Posted by: seeker | 15 June 2007 at 01:21 PM
And in fact, when I post more moderate articles, they don't post. Know why? Because they are controversy driven, not truth driven.
That is certainly one way to look at it. It is a flawed and narrow way of looking at it, but it is way to look at it. I can say that it is certainly not true for me, but again you and I have reached the point where we cannot discuss anything except the weather. Unfortunately.
And you might also note that they are not ad-hominem attacks.
I suppose that depends on how you define ad-hominem attacks. See, we can play that game too seeker. The very tone in your posts is just as bad...if not worse.
The attacks you use are on the side of subtle...through the use of condescension, smugness, antagonizing people, insulting of intelligence, and superiority (to name a few).
In fact, I am considering my tone and approach, but such criticisms without any useful information is really not very productive. So please put up.
I am glad you are receiving some feedback and marinating on them. The trouble in the past with other regulars here is you get specific feedback and a) either reject it out of hand, or b) marinate on it and then reject it out of hand.
See, since you have a schizophrenic approach to discussing issues in RL vs. Online it is like a Jekyl and Hyde personality trait. I actually am at the point where I cringe at giving you any sort of feedback online...because the Jekyl side is there.
If you really want feedback, I can and will give it to you off-line where you Hyde personality lives. Just make the conversation real with substance and not about the weather.
BTW: You really should turn privacy settings on for this domain. Any fool can do a whois look-up and have a 1-3 chance of figuring out who you are, where you live, and how to call you. Not smart for hiding from supposed Islamist threats.
-s
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 15 June 2007 at 01:55 PM
Our visitor count has not gone down, it's just that a few local loudmouths (you excepted) have stopped posting comments
Visitor counts mean little unless you truly factor in the number of people who actively participate. That is, unless you are really interested in having people participate.
So, from an external view and number of people that actually post comments and engage you, the number is truly down.
-s
Posted by: Silver Hallide | 15 June 2007 at 02:06 PM
seeker wrote,
So, in a juvenile fit of self-righteousness, you are more than welcome to shake your fist at the God of the bible and claim that He is unrighteous "for defending Lot," all the time depending on your purposely corrupted "logic." Perhaps it will be "more tolerable in Sodom and Gomorrah" than in your home on the day of judgment. We all have to choose.
seeker wants an example of his bullying ways. Shall we just consider the above? First, the ad hominem jibe "juvenile" while analyzing my dismay at Lot's actions and revulsion that such a man would be considered "righteous" by God. Now, we can disagree on this point amicably, but seeker doesn't just do that. He claims that I am "self-righteous" and childish for doing so. Now, I don't think it's being totally out-of-line to feel revulsion at Lot's actions - after all, ask the average father whether he would offer his daughters for gang-rape to save supposed "messengers of God," and I think you'd probably get a fist in your face. How is it self-righteous or juvenile to express my opinion? And where did I "shake my fist" at God for that? I merely questioned it, and reported my revulsion at this view of God (not a view all would share). And how was it "purposely" corrupted? Does seeker claim to be able to mind-read? I may be mistaken, but at least I am sincere. Why question my integrity? Now who's indulging in ad hominem attacks?
And finally there's the bald-faced threat in the last sentence above. Why is it that Christians, when faced with determined criticism or resistance to their opinions or dogmas, finally resort to this threat of violence or damnation or whatever? This is intolerable, a purposely vile form of intimidation. It kills any debate at all, and brings to mind past Christian pogroms against dissenters.
seeker claims innocence of bullying tactics and thinks he offers reasoned debate only. He thinks his tone is without rancor or attempts at intimidation. He has the gall to charge me with ad hominem attacks and purposeful, emotional responses which avoid the issues. But how else can I respond to such as the quoted paragraph above? How can anyone respond? How can anyone expect converts when these kinds of bullyboy tactics are employed? They play right into the worse stereotypes people have of Christians.
I chose to post here because I am interested in spiritual issues, and how Christianity addresses those issues. True, I am not Christian-identified, but how can one be when confronted with this type of intimidation? No wonder Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and other types of conservative Christians are reviled by so many. A bunch of zealots and bullies!
Posted by: Skeptic | 15 June 2007 at 03:38 PM
Why is that we have to try and read something "new" into a passage that has been almost universally interpreted for millenia? Is that the latest generation wants to say that it "contributed" something to Biblical interpretation? I think it would be better for the latest generation to say that they were "faithful" and "obedient".
Posted by: Luke | 25 June 2007 at 05:38 PM
Well, a lot of modern scholarship, esp. since the 1611 KJV, has revealed errors of various sorts. It's ok to question traditional interpretations - heck, it's responsible.
However, we must also admit that traditional interpretations based on hundreds of years of scholarship should not be lightly discarded. You agree with that balance?
Posted by: seeker | 25 June 2007 at 06:41 PM