Arguments for “gay” “Christianity” points 6-7 responded to (entry 3 of 4)
|March 24, 2011||Posted by Joseph Keysor under Blog|
6. Some of the key words in relevant Bible passages are unclear. We can’t be sure what they really mean. Condemnations of such things as male prostitution are mistranslated to apply to homosexuality in general.
Bible verses are not clear to those who do not want to face them. For those with a heart for God, they are clear. This is not a matter of translating Greek or Hebrew. It is a matter of openness to God’s truth versus love of sin and iniquity. There are those who will not be convinced by any amount of explanation – but, for the record, some more detailed comments may be useful.
I Corinthians 6:9 lists fornication and adultery as sins that those who will inherit the kingdom of God do not practice. This forbids all sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman. It is not just a question of the meaning of the Greek word arsenokoiteis, rightly translated in the KJV “abusers of themselves with mankind.”
We note that the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon defines it as “lying with (koiteis) men (arsen).” The Bible does not say here “with male prostitutes” or “with men if you are not homosexual by nature.” Those who use transparent evasions to create obscurity where there is none will perish in their sins unless God has mercy on them and gives them faith to repentance. No one who has received the Spirit of God can possibly be deceived by such clumsy deceptions.
I Corinthians 6 also states that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God. If someone said, “Oh, that just refers to people who are alcoholics and end up on Skid Row, it does not apply to people who get drunk frequently but can still live a normal life,” and then proceeded to casually and frequently (or even just occasionally) practice drunkenness, that would not be accepted by any responsible and serious Christian. Neither should other such equivocations be accepted.
Romans chapter 1 refers to men who leave “the natural use of the woman” and have lust for each other, “men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (which was fitting). This does not say “heterosexuals are guilty when they forsake the use of women, but people who are homosexuals by nature do what is normal and natural for them and so do not forsake the natural use of women.”
There are some obscurities, but the Bible is not a book of riddles that we can manipulate deceitfully so as to continue in our favorite sins. Paul says people commit the sins he mentions because they have reprobate minds. Two dictionary synonyms for “reprobate” are “unprincipled” and “immoral.” They like to do wickedness, and this is confirmed not only by the acts which homosexuals commit, acts which are clearly contrary to the body’s design and intended use. It is also demonstrated by the nature of the homosexual lifestyle, with its casual attitudes toward sex, multiple partners, and its degraded “culture” of practices too indecent to discuss in detail.
7. There are many laws in the Old Testament that we don’t have to follow. The New Testament also has rules about women that no one follows today and are generally recognized to be limited to that culture. Prohibitions of homosexuality fall within that category. The Old Testament calls eating shellfish an abomination – this clearly shows its condemnation of homosexuality is irrelevant.
About Old Testament laws not being relevant, they are relevant if they are confirmed in the New Testament, as prohibitions of homosexuality are. By the way, the New Testament does have laws and commands (“the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour,” as Peter wrote; “yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully,” Paul said). We are not saved by keeping them but, once saved, they are for our guidance, benefit, and healing. Neither are we saved by despising and rejecting them, or by explaining them away.
Concerning the eating of shellfish being an abomination, there is a clear distinction between dietary laws, and moral laws. The moral laws are reaffirmed in the New Testament, whereas the dietary laws were set aside by Christ himself. The former are vastly more important than the latter. In ordinary experience, we can easily see that if the parents say to their children “Don’t put your elbows on the table,” or “Don’t tell lies about your little brother,” the two commands are expressed in the same language, but are not of equal importance. Those with a heart and mind to understand the biblical message can easily understand that dietary restrictions are less important than moral ones. Those who only see the outward similarity but miss the fundamental and obvious difference lack understanding, and are approaching the Bible with a hostile attitude, eager to find fault.
Also, the father tells the four year old child “You may not cross the street and play in the park by yourself.” This is suitable for the child at that time. It is not meant to be binding for life, and the fact that it does not apply to the child who has grown up does not mean everything else the father says is irrelevant.
About the dietary laws, God wanted the Jewish people to be separate from other peoples. To this end he gave them dietary restrictions that were never meant for the world at large, and have (for Christians) been set aside by Christ. As God, he had the power to do this. These restrictions served to develop self-discipline and self-denial in the matter of eating, and served as necessary daily reminders of their higher obligations (like other Christians, I consider the separation of meat and dairy products to be a much later human misinterpretation that has nothing to do with the original commandments and is not expressed in Torah).