Adsense

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

God does not condemn homosexuality

Note:  This is a response we gave to a post on another blog.  We took exception to the often repeated claim that God condemns homosexuality as a sin.  While we have provided the link to the blog, we do not recommend it as good, informative, or even entertaining reading.

No, God doesn’t call homosexual acts a sin, either. “Man will not lie with man as he does woman” is clearly a reference to a specific act without getting crude about it. Sodom and Gomorrah was a condemnation of our inhospitality towards foreigners, but if one wants the literal sense, it was a condemnation of gay gang rape, and that’s assuming we believe the men didn’t know the strangers were angels. (If they did know the men were angels, then the literal interpretation would be God’s condemnation of bestiality.) Of course, if we took the story at that literal value, then we would have to accept that a gang rape of one’s daughter is perfectly acceptable.

We also need to look at the three stories of same sex relationships God looked favorably on, and these relationships were more than “best friends.” Ruth and Naomi, where we get our wedding vows from, is one such story.

God was teaching a highly superstitious, illiterate, uneducated crowd. They had no concept of sexual orientation. How could God say “There’s nothing wrong with being gay” when the people two thousand or more years ago didn’t understand the concept of gay and straight? They understood the concept of sex, but not the concept of sexual orientation. So God laid certain rules down. Anal sex was out, but that rule didn’t mean homosexuality was out, too. Same sex gang rape was out, but that didn’t mean homosexuality was out, too. In Romans, pagan orgy festivals were out, but that didn’t mean homosexuality was out.

The only way we could accept God meant homosexuality was a sin is to accept that gay people choose to be gay. We reject that notion and refuse to label millions of gay people, all of whom say they were born gay, as liars. That means if we accept that gay people are born gay, we have to ask the question, “Why would God give us the greatest gift of all – the need to love and be loved, and then select a small percentage of people to reject that gift as if He were giving a select few a test to pass?” Given the evidence of what God did say (and didn’t say), we believe God meant gay people to live by the same faithful, monogamous rules He laid out for straight people. No anal sex, no gang rapes, and no orgies – just faithful and loving commitment to each other.

Related articles
Open season on gays


Posted by Five Drunk Rednecks

13 comments:

  1. Could you please explain how you came to your conclusion about the relationship of the widowed mother and daughters in law? Could you also list theother 5? I cant find them. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. We made a mistake. We should have said "three", not "five". We will go back and edit to make the correction. Thank you for pointing the error out to us.

    The three stories are:

    Ruth and Naomi
    David and Jonathan
    David and Ashpenaz

    All three stories are arguably stories of platonic relationships, however, all three do describe a relationship that is closer than even a best friends relationship. For example, Ruth "clave" to Naomi, clave being a word that describes marriage of a man and a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I fail to see how any of those relationships lead to the conclusion you have come to. Ruth 'clave" as an orphan to a stepmother. David and Jonathon were soldiers and treated each other like brothers. The eununch ashpenaz was the "Boss" of eunuchs. Daniel regularly defied the orders that he gave from the King. I wonder why they didn't speak of the concern ashpenaz would have had for Daniel? Because there was none. Can you show me where you get your information to further back you conclusions. In fact it doesn't even say what kind of eunuch Ashpenaz is. There are three kinds. Could you please expound more clearly where you get your conclusion?

    ReplyDelete
  4. In short, no, we can't say "Here's a link."

    Back in 2012, Maryland put the same sex marriage question to the voters. All five of us spent a year leading up to the voting day learning all we could about gays, marriage, and the Bible. We have long since forgotten the theological links we visited and the Biblical passages we read.

    We offer our brief interpretation as an inspiration for others to dig deeper for the truth on their own and don't take the guy behind the pulpit's nor the anonymous bloggers' interpretation as gospel truth.

    That's a nice way of saying that we do not wish to engage in a my-Biblical-interpretation is more correct than your-Biblical-interpretation sort of dialog.

    One thing we will say because we didn't make the point clear in our post is that we view the three same sex relationships described as definitely relationships that were more than best friends, or, as you put it, "like brothers." We won't go so far as to say all three or any of the three relationships were sexual in nature. While the choice of words and the actions of those in the stories strongly suggest a possible sexual relationship, all we can say for certain is the relationships were unusually strong, platonic relationships that may or may not have been sexual. We would have to spend the next twenty years or more learning ancient Greek and Hebrew and studying the ancient texts to claim anything more than that. We suspect anyone else would need to do the same to claim anything less than that.

    But thank you for reading our blog. If our post inspires you (or any other readers) to dig deeper in the search of the Truth instead of simply accepting what you've (they've) always been taught, then our post served its purpose.

    And we say "thank you" in all sincerity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for being honest! It is very difficult to find people willing to admit to what you have admitted above.
    In the hope of inspiring you as well, I would like to make a suggestion. I would hope you would have more a citing of a peer reviewed work, rather than a "Link". Of course you also cannot discount more than 1900 years worth of theological work in the field done by Christians.
    I have no interest in engaging you in an argument of my interpretation over yours as well. I have not made a statement of my understanding and knowledge, nor do I intend to. I am not the blogger. I am simply asking questions.
    You understanding of how knowledge is obtained is intriguing.

    You say it would take you twenty years to gain the knowledge to back up you assertions. I wonder, If it takes twenty years of study to come to an understanding of this issue, Should you be so quick to post statements that carry such a weight of knowledge? Also, I would urge you to look at the works of Theologians such as Dr. William Lane Craig, John Calvin, Charles Ryree, Dr. Voddie Bachaum to name a few. You see if you read the works of people who have studied in the field of Christian Theology, you don't have to do twenty years of personal research. Oh, These Theologians are peer reviewed and noteworthy in the field. I hope this helps!
    Finally, (and this is the only view point I will give), My math teacher always said "Show your work" so she could know I did the things necessary to get credit for what I said I did. Do you think it is inspiring to make statements that can't hold up? I hope you stick with it. I also hope you actually take this kind of stuff seriously. Our country is being challenged with this kind of stuff daily. There are arguments out there for both sides. Real arguments. I assume the "redneck" part of your name, means you consider yourself a patriot or perhaps you akin yourself to the "rednecks" of the early United Mine Workers of America strikes. If I am correct and you are a Patriot, Is it worth your time, (no matter which side of any argument you are on) to put in the work to make your case in a matter of Civil rights? If not, Are you patriotic enough to listen to Americans willing to do the work? I hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You gave us a lot to think about, Edward! Let's see if we can't cover some of what you asked.

    First, there isn't one person involved with this blog - there's five of us, although almost all of the writing is done by one person to maintain a consistent voice. (Ok, that and because only one of us actually enjoys writing.)

    Your response last night had us texting all day with tidbits of thoughts and opinions and now I get to put it all together in one piece. It's not the easiest way to run a blog, but, when we started one of our other blogs three years ago, we thought five voices as one would be a good experiment to add dimensionality to a personal blog.

    The blog we started three years ago (and still run) is a very focused blog on one local topic and would bore most readers of the blogosphere, although it has been very effective for what we wanted it to do. We decided to expand out and that's how this blog was born.

    "Redneck" in our name has nothing to do with being a patriot nor with mine strikes. We live in the heart of redneck country, three of us having been born and raised here. One of us is a waterman, another is a farmer, two are regular working stiffs, and one is a stay-at-home Mom, of sorts. We also like our beer and wine, which makes us drunks.

    We suspect that you came across this blog and are feeling out who we really are before you waste any more time reading anything else we've written. We hope the above explanation gives you a better picture of us Five Drunk Rednecks.

    You raised a good point. If one hasn't spent twenty years learning and understanding the Bible, should one be so quick in making statements that "carry such a weight of knowledge"? Our short answer is yes. There are many false prophets out there leading literally millions of people down a false path. Those followers of false prophets don't hesitate to repeat the dogma they've been taught to parrot without questioning what the Bible really has to say on any given topic.

    Case in point is the often repeated slogan that God condemns homosexuality. God doesn't condemn a sexual orientation. He only condemns certain sex acts. The false prophets, however, would rather have us believe that God condemns the sexual orientation, which makes it easier for us to marginalize an entire group of people as "abnormal" and "perverted" who "chose a sinful lifestyle". Another favorite trick of the false prophets is to teach us to "love the sinner, hate the sin." Never has this nugget of wisdom produced a positive, practical outcome. The false prophets know that most people will shun the sinner with as much vitriol as they have for the sin, itself.

    In the big scheme of things, we reckon that in the war between good and evil, the false prophets are unwitting pawns on the side of evil. Many probably mean well but simply don't realize how far off the path to God they have strayed because they accept the dogma without question.

    We may not be 100% right in what we have to say and how we interpret things, but we figure by expressing what we think we do know, with or without twenty years of study, will inspire others to question the dogma they have been spoon fed since they were children and search for the truth on their own. Everything we write on this blog is not to "prove" we're right and everyone else is wrong.

    Can you tell we're from a much older generation during a time when one didn't trust anyone over thirty and always challenged the conventional wisdom? :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I once again appreciate your honesty and ability to state the truth about yourself and your friends.
    If your short answer is "yes" when it comes to the importance of accuracy and study in scripture, (the twenty Years of Study), then should you use the lack of that knowledge and your assumption of my lack of study as a defense for your fairly wild, still unbacked, assumptions about relationships in the bible? You see in your first response you said you could not place any positivity in your assumptions because of that lack of study. And then you now say "That's okay, Other people do it too!" which is it? If your inference is okay, why not the interpretations of false prophets (whom I suspect are Preachers who preach the literal bible) you speak of? and If it is not okay to infer as they (and you) have, then only a literal interpretation is viable and I doubt you like that Idea. Which will it be?
    Now, you say God only condemns certain "sexual acts". I agree. Can you tell me how you are so sure of which ones are which.? I know where the ones that condemn sexual impurity are and the ones that define what sexual impurity is. Can you tell me where you find the conclusion you infer? It seems that you believe "People" have chosen to condemn sexual impurity. Is that possible? Can people actually condemn people to the abyss? Isn't that God's place?


    Never? really? Never has "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" produced a positive outcome?
    Never?
    I think you have over spoken. All five of you.

    I believe you might have a problem with the definition of "Prophet". A prophet in any language is one who Prophecies. That would mean that you have a problem with people who Proclaim they speak "New", but false, information in the name of God. There is however, a clear difference between one who Prophesies and one who is preaching the Gospel. The difference is where the information comes from.
    A false prophet would be a pawn of evil. Anyone who speaks something "of God" that does not align with scripture is a false Prophet. There are 6 other tests for that. All that have to be met. There are false prophets in the world. Are you referring, as I assume, to a preacher? Has he made prophetic statements and predictions? or is he merely interpreting or reading scripture? There are many references in scripture about false teaching. Is that happening? has someone taken scripture completely out of context or changed it to accept or exclude for their own gain? If you have not done the twenty years of study you say is required to know, how can you be sure?
    I understand you have a problem with Dogmatic thought. I do as well. However, labeling anything "conventionally wise" as dogmatic is in itself the dogma of the "generation that doesn't trust anyone over thirty." Yours is the New Dogma, if you can accept that. You have won on that front. You are no longer spouting the "rebel" point of view. What you are saying, every liberal news commentator says weekly.(except FOX) YOU are the New conventional wisdom to be challenged and untrusted.
    and that is fine. someone has to be. just do something the last guys didn't. Show some respect for Truth and don't just reach at things that suit your agenda the way the people that made you unable to trust did. If you truly profess to see it with your own mind and "decide for yourself", Can you do so. Can you do it without redefining things to fit an agenda?

    I don't know what generation you belong to. You said the same thing every generation has said since the sixties. and Isn't that foolish? Not to trust anyone older than thirty? What if you are wrong? who would you talk with to be sure? Only people with the same view and age group you are in? I wonder, how do you expect the younger generations then, to trust you? You skipped out on a growing process that has helped the survival of humanity. You chose not to learn from your elders.

    ReplyDelete
  8. After reading this over this morning, I want to clarify, "the ones on sexual impurity are "the scripture".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for all of your thoughtful insights. We considered responding to your many questions and thoughts, but decided to hold off for now. Best we can tell is you have read this post, objected to the opinions expressed, but haven't bothered to read anything else in the blog to get a better feel for how we think. If you had, we believe you would have answered many of the questions you posed to us on your own.

    We invite you to continue reading our blog and we may learn a little more about each other along the way. We have visited your Google plus and youtube accounts, but saw no mention of a blog. If you have one, please let us know. We'll gladly spend some time on it learning more about you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not answering is probably good. I do object to anyone who slaves scrioture to their cause, rather than working their cause to exemplify scripture. The idea that I have to read more of your posts to rationalize the misinformation you have written in one is the last part of the puzzle for me. In that train of thought, the idea that I have to blog something for you to better understand the context in which I challenge your post is telling. I have answered most of these questions I asked. You don't need to know me any better to answer these questions because these questions are about your thoughts, your belief, your understanding. You blogged. I find no need too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Slaves scripture to their cause"? And do tell, exactly what is our cause? Here's the deal. You agree that God does not condemn homosexuality. You agree that the three stories we cited are stories of same sex relationships that are stronger than a "best friends" relationship. We carefully pointed out that while the relationships, as worded and described, suggest a possible sexual relationship, no one can say for sure other than the relationships were unusually strong platonic relationships. So exactly what misinformation did we bastardize?

    We agree with one point, though. No, we don't need to read anything you may have written to understand you better. Our first impression from the moment you mentioned your math teacher to your questioning the redneck in our name pretty much told us everything we needed to know about you. We were hoping the stereotyped picture was an incorrect picture, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am not sure where you got that I agreed with you on much. God does condemn sexual impurity which includes Homosexuality(Romans 1, and 20:13, Matthew 22:37, 39; Leviticus 18:20). I did not agree with you on that point. Truth: The three stories that were referenced, but by no means cited, are of 2 people OF the same sex. The only reason you only reference three is because I questioned your reference to six unnamed relationships(which I see you changed in the original post). The only reason you were careful to point out is because of your first premise was more than false(Good thing you changed it). You still have no reasonable grounds for your assumptions and still have not even tried to show it. The reasoning to believe that "More than best friends" leads to sexual relationship is perverse. Parents and Children, Siblings, and Veterans Military experiences have relationships that are far deeper than "Best Friends" and frankly far deeper than most sexual relationships. The only thing you got correct about your understanding of the relationships you "Slaved to your cause" was the names. I believe 1900 years of theologians have said that these relationships were "FOR SURE" strong and in no way shape or fashion, Sexual.
    Oh, I am sure you have me pegged. I am a pretty easy read. I might even be stereotypical. The question is how does that make what I have asked or said incorrect? It doesn't. Just because I fit some unstated mold, doesn't make me wrong or right. What does is thought that aligns with the Word. The Word, Not someone behind a pulpit......Unless he or she preaches The Word. I hope and pray that all of you align your thought to God and decide to stop posting untruth. (2 peter 2)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Romans: condemnation of drunken orgies at the temple during pagan festivities. Straight people shedding their natural function is just as sinful as gay people shedding their natural function (aka reparative therapy). The only way our statement makes sense is if you believe homosexuality is not a chosen sexual orientation, but a natural variation in human sexuality.

    Leviticus - At most, a condemnation of males engaging in anal sex and not a generic condemnation of homosexuality. We won't go into the historical context of why Leviticus may not even be a condemnation of anal sex.

    Yes, I typed in error and admitted my error. In talking amongst ourselves, we covered the eight Biblical definitions of marriage as well as the three same sex stories and a few other topics. When I sat down to type all we talked about, I confused the number fact. I told you I was going to make the correction so please don't try to leave the impression that we were trying to cover our tracks.

    The only reason we pointed out that we really can't definitively claim anything more than an unusually strong, platonic relationship is not because we realized an error in our premise, but because the Bible does not explicitly make the claim. As we stated before, the choice of words and certain actions of those involved imply the possibility of a sexual relationship, but based on the Bible alone, one can't say any or all of the relationships were physical to any degree as a fact.

    Please don't lecture us on modern day platonic relationships. All five of us are parents (even grandparents), siblings, and three of us are even veterans. The three stories we cited tell a story of relationships that were much stronger or closer than any of these relationships you cited. It's disingenuous to imply otherwise.

    We made it clear that the purpose of our post was to inspire others to dig deeper for the truth. We made it clear that we weren't preaching the Bible as we understand it at this stage in our lives as being the gospel truth. We have to ask: why are you turning it into more than that? Clearly our post (read the fine print at the beginning) was a quick response on another blog and not a preaching.

    And if 1900 years of theological experience has gone into understanding the Bible, why do our Bibles today include the word, "homosexuality"? Homosexuality is a late nineteenth century word describing a sexual orientation - not sex acts. There is no ancient Greek word that exactly matches our modern day definition of homosexuality. The one word that Paul, for example, could have used in Romans that is closest to approximating our use of the word homosexuality he chose not to use so under what authority do you claim to say Paul meant homosexuality?

    We kindly refer you to Proverbs 30:6 and Revelations 22:18-19 so you can understand why we are politely ending our discussion with you. Don't worry about answering our two questions above. They were rhetorical.

    ReplyDelete