Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Half a Story: a Review of "For the Bible tells me so"

A half story is a story that only tells one half of the plot and therefore there is no proper ending. Daniel Karslake, producer and director of “For the Bible tells me so,” is telling such a story with his film.

The movie is praised as a film which reconciles homosexual practice and the Bible. And in an extra feature, Karslake interviewing Gene Robinson, the first Episcopal gay bishop, states that the film was intended to, “elevate the conversation about homosexuality and religion to a higher level.” He concludes that it simply “comes down to love.”

Part of the film is about five families who have gay children, including the families of former House Majority, Richard Gephardt, as well as Bishop Gene Robinson. A great deal of the focus is on how the families reconcile their Christianity with their children’s homosexuality.

There are a couple of important truthful points in this film.

1. Parents should love their children unconditionally.

2.Abusive name calling, picketing with signs that say such things as “God hates faggots,” hate mail and death threats are terribly wrong. Some of such actions are criminal and all of it is sin.

But there is so much in this film that is wrong including the way Karslake explains the only two real truths he offers. Indeed, my main focus in this review will be explaining how the film tears apart real Christian love and makes it at best a sentimental human trait unconnected to the love of Jesus Christ.

There are at least three ways the parents in this film react when they find out their children have a homosexual orientation. Most, after the initial shock, accept both the children and their sexuality. They even go so far as to believe God is using their child to further the rights of homosexuals.

One mother is extremely judgmental of her child and believes that is the reason her daughter committed suicide. One couple, Brenda and David Poteat, keep loving their child, yet because of their belief in the authority of the Bible do not agree with the child’s sexual lifestyle.

The Poteats, who disapprove of homosex on the basis of Scripture, are made to seem backward and uninformed. This is done by jumping immediately to a scene of progressive biblical scholars refuting what the Poteats have just said about the Bible’s views on gay sex. It is also done by zooming in on a booklet in the Poteat's home, entitled “Why you should speak in tongues,” as though believing in the gift of tongues could somehow be a sign that anything you believed about the Bible was wrong.

In fact, throughout the film, there is a constant use of progressive scholars and pastors, between each story, as a means of clarifying, affirming or denying each person’s beliefs. The scholars and pastors include Reverend Mel White, Reverend Peter Gomes and Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene. All who disagree with their progressive interpretations of the Bible texts are put into a category titled fundamentalist.

In truth, all Christians who hold to the authority of Scripture are lumped with the most outrageous religious bigots and notorious tyrants of the last few centuries. For instance there is a constant interweaving of pictures of the notorious Phelps’ family with other Christians such as Billy Graham.

Even the President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw, is treated atrociously, in that his explanations about the biblical text and homosexuality are corrected by progressive scholars’ viewpoints. Yet the progressive speakers, in other places in the film, are allowed to speak without evangelical interference.

So, now here are the basic false perspectives in this film, which in many cases are stated not by words but by the interweaving of images of hate with other parts of the film:

1.Parents can only show unconditional love to their children by accepting, as righteous, their children’s participation in homosex.

2.Most Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that homosex is sinful are fundamentalists who are hate filled and bigots. Their beliefs are equivalent to those of the Ku Klux Klan, Hitler and Fred Phelps and his cultish family.

3.The Bible does not teach that homosex is sin.

4.Although this film is about Christians and the Bible, the gift of Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection and his transforming grace are totally missing. The distortion in this part is that Jesus’ gift of salvation has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality.

Of course, the second and third false suppositions are the cause of the first untruth. If the authority of the Bible can be explained away, or it can be reinterpreted within a cultural context then what it states about homosex does not matter.

The fourth false supposition, that the transforming power of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection has nothing to do with a Christian’s view of homosexuality,” is the distortion that caps all others. Looking at the Scriptures from a Christian point of view, the Bible’s most basic story is that the Father promised and gave his Son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross as a ransom for our sins. The Hebrew Bible holds the promise; the New Testament is the fulfillment. That promise and fulfillment entails all other details of our walk with Christ.

One of the ‘big’ ideas, stressed several times, in this film is that the statement in Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them,” is no different then the food laws in chapter eleven where such food as shrimp is considered “abhorrent,” (NAS) or “detestable” (NRSV) Another text referred to is Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Beyond the fact that the food laws of the Bible are different than the biblical laws dealing with immorality which include such immoral acts as bestiality, incest, homosex and burning children before false gods, when the work of Christ is applied to this problem there is more clarity.

Turning to the N.T., Acts 10: 9-16, a different understanding emerges. This is the story of Peter’s vision of the unclean animals being lowered in a sheet from heaven for him to eat. When Peter is troubled about God’s command to eat, he answers, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” But a voice from heaven tells Peter, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Notice the emphasis here is on what God has cleansed.

The work of proclaiming clean and cleansing belongs to the Lord. God uses his own analogy of unclean food to call Peter to Cornelius house where he would make clean the Gentiles who trusted in Jesus Christ.

Both creatures and humanity are made clean by God, but the cleansing of humanity required the blood of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this does not mean that sins, like homosex, are turned into something good but instead, the person is cleansed and transformed. The call to discipleship is open to the new Christians in Cornelius house. They are called to a new life which includes striving to live holy lives.

In another text Paul reminds Christians that although they had practiced all kinds of sin including homosex, they were now”washed,” “sanctified” and “justified.” He tells them to “flee immorality.” (1 Cor 6:11, 18)

The real plot of the story of sinful humanity is God’s call to love, suffering and redemption. Just as we were chosen in love to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, just as we were bought with great pain because of our Father’s love, we can also choose to love in just that way.

When one chooses to love a child who is living in rebellion against God’s authority it is painful. The future may be filled with sorrow, uncertainty and suffering. But that is God’s call. He calls us to embrace with love the child while suffering the painful awareness of their sinful lifestyle. That is a deeper love than a love which merely enfolds the sin of the child thus avoiding the pain. It is a love that must be drawn from Christ

The theme of the story is that a God who suffered on the cross will stand with those whose children and family members are caught in the bondage of a homosexual lifestyle. The end of the story is that Christ will forgive and transform the sinner no matter what the sin. The glory of the story is a future with Jesus Christ where there is no longer any sin.

***************************************************************
I am placing the trailer of "For the Bible tells me so" here to give the reader an understanding of how this movie is put together. Most of the scenes featured here are spread out more throughout the movie but the effect is the same.

118 comments:

Alan said...

An wonderful, excellent movie that demonstrates what it means to actually take Scripture seriously. I'm glad to see it is getting a wide viewing. I have heard wonderful stories about this movie really changing minds.

And though of course I disagree with nearly every word in your review, I am glad you actually watched the movie before you criticized it, Viola, which is far more than most fundamentalists have done. I've seen at least 5 different reviews from other fundamentalists who reviewed the movie -- and I'm not kidding -- based only on seeing the trailer alone.

Unknown said...

Good review, Viola. One nice thing about a Sundance Winner is that only .0000000000001 of the general population will actually see it, so its effect will be limited.

Seriously though, while those who disagree with us on this point delight to caricature us, this discussion calls the church once again to the task of apologetics. And, of course, apologetics need not be mean.

Unknown said...

BTW, Alan, what IYO, does it mean to take the Scripture seriously?

Alan said...

To start with, Kevin, it means recognizing that Scripture is the infallible and authoritative witness of God's revelation to us. It also means turning to Scripture in order to interpret Scripture, working to understand the context both literary and cultural in which a particular passage was written, understanding the linguistic nuances of the words used, understanding what the passage meant to the original hearers, etc., etc., etc.

That's of course, just a tiny nibblet of a summary. I'm sure others will be happy to jump on any point I have left out as an indication that I'm wrong or as an opportunity to disagree, even though they agree. So then, just to be clear, please note that the fact that I did not write a complete 1000 page treatise on the Reformed understanding of Scripture in a blog comment should not be seen as an indication that those few sentences comprise the sum total of Reformed thought on the matter. For a fuller summary, I'd suggest reading the various confessions and creeds of the PCUSA, particularly for example, Chapters I and II of the 2nd Helvetic Confession for a more thorough discourse.

In other words, just a good, old fashioned, orthodox, Reformed attitudes toward Scripture, which (given my experience with previous discussions on this blog) I have no doubt someone will find something about which to either disagree and/or misinterpret. ;)

BTW, why do you ask, Kevin? Does taking Scripture seriously mean something different to you?

Alan said...

BTW, before we get rabbit-trailed off on some other topic, which based on previous experience here, will likely lead off into a series of personal attacks, I'll just mention that the actual point of my first comment was to commend Viola for at least seeing the movie, rather than condemning it outright without having seen it.

Debbie said...

Alan, why did you call Viola a fundamentalist? She is not a fundamentalist; she is an evangelical. Were you trying to lump all theological conservatives into one group with a name that generally has negative connotations, or are you ignorant about the differences among theological conservatives?

Alan said...

Hi Debbie... Wow, no more than 6 comments and you're already starting the personal attacks by apparently fisking my comment for something -- anything! -- to disagree about, and ignoring my actual point, which was a compliment. I particularly like how you've decided there are only two options: either 1) I'm malevolent in trying to group all "theological conservatives" together and calling them fundamentalists, or that 2) I'm simply stupid. Evil or stupid. Why stop there? Couldn't it be both, Debbie? I'm a little surprised you left that one out. LOL

I wonder if perhaps you're simply looking for a reason to be offended, as you have accused me recently? Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife -- gotta love it.

Anyway, to answer your question, I called Viola a fundamentalist because that is what she has called herself on this blog...

http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2008/11/me-too.html

and on others ...

http://classicalpresbyterian.blogspot.com/2008/07/confessions-of-pcusa-fundamentalist.html

Now, if she would prefer not to be known as a fundamentalist, in spite of what she has already written elsewhere, I would assume that, as a full grown adult, she's big enough to tell me that herself, and I'd gladly use whatever term or label she preferred instead.

So then if you have a problem with the word, I suggest you take it up with Viola, not me.

Viola Larson said...

Thank you Kevin,
The Church is, today, as always called to the task of doing apologetics. I try not to be mean, but I have to admit I become very troubled when I see some one like Karslake using his God given gifts of film to manipulate the scenes so that faithful Christians seem to be awful people.

Viola Larson said...

Debbie,
I was almost certain that Alan was referring to the posting of mine that he placed there. I had forgotten about my comment on Toby's site. Anyway that is why I was I was ignoring his remarks I didn't want to get into a discussion that was off subject in some ways. But maybe ...
Sacramento, CA

Alan said...

Thank you, Viola. It is nice to see that you understood my comment and did not, like Debbie, immediately start making unfounded assumptions about my evil motives, or lack of intelligence.

Again, my main point stands, I'm glad you took the time to watch the movie, even if you didn't agree with it. Only by being open to discussion can we hope to understand people with whom we disagree, and I think that's commendable. Particularly, as I said, in light of the knee-jerk attacks on the film by those who have never seen it.

Apparently even compliments get me in trouble here with some folks. Tough crowd. :)

Viola Larson said...

Alan,

On Toby's site I was agreeing with these essentials he placed there:

1. The Bible is God's Word and is fully trustworthy.

2. Jesus Christ is divine as the Son of God and was born of the virgin Mary.

3. Jesus Christ actually performed the miracles ascribed to him in Scripture.

4. Jesus Christ died on the cross as our substitute, to atone for the sins of His people.

5. Jesus Christ was truly, bodily raised from the dead in His resurrection.

Are there some statements on this list that you do not believe?

On my posting entitled, “Me too,” (and hear I find that you are truly a literalist.) I was responding to John Shuck who stated that "That is what fundamentalism is fundamentally about. Fundamentalists want people "found in Christ" so they are not lost in hell."

I still shout if that is what a fundamentalist is, call me that too. In fact call me anything you want (well almost) if it means that I want people to be found in Christ so that they are not found in hell.

And on the complement you gave, it was not a good complement because you only did it by way of saying that other evangelicals did a bad job. I don’t need that kind of complement.

In fact it implies that I might be unprofessional, not watching the movie more than once and parts many times. Not reading material that I needed to read. Like I said it is not a complement. Instead it is a slam at other evangelicals.

And on top of that, I thank Debbie that she brought the subject up rather than ignoring it. What she did was good, it exposed your intent to get all off subject. So let us return to the bad subject of “For the Bible tells me so.”
Sacramento, CA

Viola Larson said...

Sorry that link does not work but you have Alan's address in his comment to work off of. Or you can look it up in my archives

Alan said...

" it exposed your intent to get all off subject."

Actually my intent (as I have now stated several times, you came late to the party, perhaps you didn't read my previous comments) was to compliment you for being willing to watch the movie, instead of condemn it outright, as many others have done. But perhaps if you think you know my intent better than I do, then I guess Debbie isn't the only one who reads minds.

That was my point, as I have now stated clearly several times. It was Kevin who wanted to get off topic on what I mean by "taking scripture seriously" and if you'll remember, it was in fact Debbie who wanted to get off topic on the word "fundamentalist". Two people who ignored my point, ignored the movie, and each commented one one word of my comment. And you think I took us off topic??! Wow.

And almost before I even had the chance to finish commenting, Debbie was here making snide comments and insulting me. Behavior that you, apparently have no problem with at all! But I think if you read the comment thread, you'll see that it was she who got us off topic. It's right there in black and white for anyone to read. And interestingly enough, not only am I criticized for giving you a compliment, and not only do you not admonish others for their rude behavior, once again you even go so far as to blame me for the continued rude behavior of others!

Truly this blog is a remarkable place, where people argue about agreements, and criticize compliments.

I'm not sure why, Viola, that you countenance such behavior, I suspect that if I were to engage in such rudeness you wouldn't be nearly as forgiving, but perhaps I'm wrong there. I certainly hope so.

But in any event, it continues to be my hope and prayer that people can discuss difficult issues without being disagreeable. So far, unfortunately, that prayer goes unanswered when I comment here, but I will continue to try to reach out to you and others with whom I disagree in order that we might understand each other better. If that only continues to get me a slap in the face from you and your commenters, so be it. I'm willing to turn the other cheek.

Debbie said...

Alan, I didn't insult you; I asked you a question. Note that I didn't say that you had done either of those things. I gave a couple of ideas that I had but you could have answered "Neither; I called her a fundamentalist because...." Instead you get very angry and write long comments full of complaints about the supposed mean things that are done here.

The reason I asked about it is not because I was looking for something to disagree with or a reason to be offended. I actually don't go around looking for things to disagree with or reasons to be offended. The reason I asked about it was because so many progressives seem to (note that I say "seem to") lump all theological conservatives together into one monolithic whole and call them all fundamentalists. I am very tired of that, and I am probably oversensitive to it, and I tend to react to it when I hear it.

I've just read the blog where Viola refers to herself as a fundamentalist. Since you are intelligent, obviously you can see that she is saying that if the definition of fundamentalist is, as John Shuck had just said it is, someone who wants people to be found in Christ, then she must be one. That's similar to saying, "Well, if a pizza is a person with hair, then, since I'm a person with hair, I must be a pizza." In other words, the identification isn't serious. You're intelligent, you can read and understand, you must know that.

I've also just looked at Toby Brown's blog again where he calls himself a fundamentalist and Viola agrees with his blog. Again, he's using "fundamentalist" in other than the standard way. He means that he believes in some fundamentals about Christianity. Viola believes in them, too. That is not the same as being a fundamentalist as the term is normally understood. You probably believe in what are to you some fundamental principles about Christianity. They are probably different from what Toby and Viola believe, but you could probably describe yourself as a fundamentalist about those beliefs. But that wouldn't mean that in general theological conversation you could be called a fundamentalist.

According to the standard definition of fundamentalist, Viola is not a fundamentalist.

Debbie Berkley
Member, 1st Pres. Bellevue (WA)

Debbie said...

Sorry, Viola, for having continued off topic.

So much can be done with editing, and from the way it is described, it sounds like editing has been used in this film to shape what is communicated. Even if everything presented is true, the way it's stitched together tells another story. I'm sorry to hear that editing has been used to discredit one point of view and emphasize the other. If the filmmakers are pretending to be neutral (I don't know if they are or not), then it's a form of lying.

Debbie Berkley
Member, 1st Pres. Church (Bellevue, WA)

Alan said...

Debbie, if you'd like to continue to harangue me at a place where I am allowed to respond, anyone is always welcome to comment on my blog at any time.

Sorry though, but I can't respond to all the inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, incorrect assumptions, and continued rude and faulty attempts at mind-reading in your comment since it's off topic, and I'll once again get blamed for taking us off topic if I respond. That little game was funny the first couple times, but it's sort of gotten old now.

Viola Larson said...

Alan,

I wrote in my posting that one of the false perspectives of the movie was that, "Most Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that homosex is sinful are fundamentalists who are hate filled and bigots."

Since you are gay how do you feel about those of us who say that the Bible teaches that homosex is sinful?

Do you call all people who believe that way fundamentalists?

Alan said...

Viola wrote, "Do you call all people who believe that way fundamentalists?"

Sorry, Viola, I don't want to get off topic. I'm honestly not trying to be snotty, I'm just trying to abide by the rules you've already chastised me for not following. After all, it was you who commended Debbie for exposing my supposed "intent to get all off subject" and that we should stay on the subject of the movie.

So, I will simply repeat my, if I do say so myself, rather brilliant comment/prediction from earlier in this thread which is on-topic, "before we get rabbit-trailed off on some other topic, which based on previous experience here, will likely lead off into a series of personal attacks, I'll just mention that the actual point of my first comment was to commend Viola for at least seeing the movie..."

I hate to say I told you so....

Viola Larson said...

Alan,
The question I asked you was very much on topic, it was taken from my posting and the film.

Unknown said...

Alan, you asked, "BTW, why do you ask, Kevin?"

Understanding that it appears that I am walking into a conversation that it appears you and Viola have been having for sometime, I just wanted to know where you were coming from. I was intrigued by what you might be implying about the Bible's position on homosexuality.

Unknown said...

Hmmm. In retrospect, I DID take the post off topic but it was not intentional.

Alan said that the movie "demonstrates what it means to actually take Scripture seriously." I just wanted to hear him flesh that out a bit.

Sorry to have created a firestorm. :)

Viola Larson said...

Kevin,
You did not create a firestorm and I would think, given what the movie is about, that your question is very relevant.

Alan said...

"The question I asked you was very much on topic, it was taken from my posting and the film."

Hmmm... I can't possibly make sense of being chastised for going off topic, when I didn't. Particularly, when it apparently isn't off topic to fisk a comment apparently trying to find anything to pretend to be offended about, and then focus on one single word when it was never the actual point of the comment. And then I get told that it is actually on topic, anyway. Clearly all that is far too complicated for my little brain to work out. :)

So again, I'm going to stay on topic. You know what they say, Viola: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me! :) I've seen how quick you are to ban people, and so I'm trying my best to follow your rules.

Anyway, staying on topic, I've already given my opinion on the movie. In case you missed it, I wrote, "A wonderful, excellent movie that demonstrates what it means to actually take Scripture seriously. I'm glad to see it is getting a wide viewing. I have heard wonderful stories about this movie really changing minds." I hope that answers your question.

Kevin, I hope I was also able to answer your question before all this silliness started. Peace.

Viola Larson said...

Alan,
Why do you think it is an excellent movie? How does it demonstrate what it means to take Scripture seriously?

Viola Larson said...

Kevin,
Why not a little of what you think it means to take the Scripture seriously?

Viola Larson said...

And Kevin I am thinking here in the context of the subject of the Bibles views on homosexuality, etc.

I am forgetting my own rules
Sacramento, CA

Alan said...

Viola, please see my earlier answer to Kevin. Again, it is only a the barest outline of a summary and I would suggest reading the Book of Confessions for more thorough summaries of what it means to "take Scripture seriously." I hope that answers your question!

Viola Larson said...

Yes, Alan it does.

Kattie said...

Alan,

I'm guessing that helping Viola out a little here might be in order. It appears that she is having difficulty seeing how this movie is a demonstration of what you described as taking Scripture seriously, and is asking for more detailed, connect the dots information. This looks to me to be an invitation to a more substantive and illuminating discussion, one that maybe shouldn't be passed up.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

Thanks Kattie. While I might otherwise agree, I think it would be more useful to let everyone else's engines cool down a bit.

You see Kattie, in an earlier comment thread on this blog Viola told me specifically "If you try to reinterpret any of this I am not going to pay any attention because the Scripture and all else is very clear." That is, if I were to attempt to show how one can take the Bible seriously and yet arrive at a different conclusion than she does, she will refuse to pay attention. Case closed.

Honestly, I'm not sure how one could attempt to do what you are suggesting in a blog comment anyway. Even meaningless arguments about silly things seem to take 30 comments here. And an entire conversation where people apparently look for things to snipe about? No thanks.

Anyway, all that is why in this comment thread I was not interested in debate or argument. I was and am only interested in complimenting Viola on actually being willing to see the movie, whether she agrees with it or not. She and I will never find common ground on this issue, but I believe that being open to listening is commendable on her part. That's particularly true when, as I said earlier, I've actually seen many folks criticize this movie without having seen anything but the trailer. For some reason, Viola thinks it's an insult for me *not* to count her among those close minded folks. I was only attempting, as I have been all along, to find and state agreement where that is possible, rather than jumping all over people all the time.

Unfortunately you saw where that got me, eh?

So, maybe in the future she will be willing to treat me more fairly, condemn rude behavior by others, etc. But at this point, I'm not going to open myself up to further personal attacks from the hit squad that hangs around here, who ignore the point of my comments, and apparently look to pounce on any word they don't like. Instead, I'll simply continue to repeat my sincere compliment and hope that perhaps in the future she and her other commenters will be more open to disagreement that is not so disagreeable.

However, if you'd like to try to connect those dots for Viola, perhaps she'd be more likely to listen to you, and perhaps others here would be less likely to attack you immediately. I'd be interested in reading that.

Peace.

Kattie said...

Alan,

"However, if you'd like to try to connect those dots for Viola, perhaps she'd be more likely to listen to you, and perhaps others here would be less likely to attack you immediately. I'd be interested in reading that."

Perhaps, but my critique of the movie is not as positively glowing as yours seems to be. My impression of it falls somewhat closer to Debbie's. It's a propaganda piece. Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of good information presented, I just don't like the way it's stitched together, and I find it rather unreformed in its presentation.

Honestly, I would like to see a collaborative effort where all the cards are placed out on the table, so that we can all make up our own minds fairly. I don't expect that such an effort will come together any time in the near future though. We're still having too much fun demonizing each other.

Viola Larson said...

Debbie,

I meant to respond to your remark, "If the filmmakers are pretending to be neutral (I don't know if they are or not), then it's a form of lying."

No, they are not taking a neutral view, however, the director, producer, Karslake as I pointed out, is stated that he is setting the debate on a higher level. That in itself, after using the placement of scenes to make Evangelicals look bad, is a lie.

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
Those are interesting thoughts. Are you suggesting that it seems unreformd because it only presents one side or are there others reasons?

Sacramento, CA

Alan said...

Indeed, Kattie, I agree. Trust me, I know all about demonization.

I think, however, that I would be able to fairly and thoroughly characterize the anti-gay position without mischaracterization or snide remarks at least as well, if not better than most people who actually hold those positions. I don't have to agree with it to treat it fairly. I do not think the majority who hold such an opinion are bigots. And I don't think they ignore Scripture. I just think they're simply wrong.

(And to get back on topic for a moment, I didn't see anything in the movie that mischaracterized the anti- position. It isn't like anyone can honestly believe that some low-budget film maker is going to trick Richard Mouw into saying something he doesn't actually believe. He's a pretty smart cookie, actually.)

So then I think it would be good for those on the anti- side to be able to actually state the Biblical case for gay marriage without resorting to mischaracterization, personal attacks, and the ubiquitous false charges of "ignoring the Bible", "throwing out Scripture", etc., etc., etc. To be brutally honest, given my experiences here so far, I have a very difficult time believing anyone here could do that. Perhaps that's unfair, but there it is. It's what I've been led to believe by my interactions with the folks who post and comment here. Part of my reason for commenting here is to help people see that their caricatures are just that. Tough work, though, eh?

Now, yes, let's be also be honest that we are all aware of some very far left fringe folks who do indeed ignore parts (or more!) of Scripture. They're entitled to their opinion, even though I disagree with it. But that's not the position to which I refer. If all anti-gay folks are not Fred Phelps, then it stands to reason that all pro-gay folks are not Bishop Spong, eh? (Ugh. Even making that comparison makes me sick, but hopefully you take my meaning.)

So I'm talking about the majority of folks like me, who take Scripture seriously (see previous definition), who come at this from a thoroughly Reformed perspective, who don't ignore a single word of Scripture, and yet come to a different conclusion.

If one cannot fairly and honestly and thoroughly characterize the opposing argument, then it seems to me that it would be difficult to honestly say that one understands it well enough to disagree with it. IMHO.

Viola Larson said...

Alan,
You write, "So I'm talking about the majority of folks like me, who take Scripture seriously (see previous definition), who come at this from a thoroughly Reformed perspective, who don't ignore a single word of Scripture, and yet come to a different conclusion."

So how do you interpret 1 Cor. 9:6 and Romans 1: 24-26.

Alan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

Ah, Viola. I'll simply remind you of your own words to me: "If you try to reinterpret any of this [to which you were referring specifically to those verses!] I am not going to pay any attention because the Scripture and all else is very clear."

So ... um ... huh?

Besides, I'd wager all the money in my wallet that you have some idea of how one can read those verses, without ignoring a single word of them, and yet come to a different conclusion than your own. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, and you already know the Biblically-based, pro-gay interpretation of those verses (even though you disagree with it), why ask? If I am not wrong, and you know the Biblically-based, pro-gay interpretation of those verses just as well as I do, as I suspect, then what does just spouting the same info over and over accomplish?

Quite frankly I'd be far more interested to hear you honestly state, without mischaracterization, the pro-gay interpretation of those verses to see if you can do it fairly and accurately and thoroughly.

Look, we've been arguing about this stuff for 30 years in the PCUSA, and I'm fairly certain that neither I, nor anyone else really has anything new to bring to the party. So my guess is that anything I'd say, you've already heard before. Do you disagree?

(BTW, just to clarify, I would not interpret 1 Cor. 9:6 and Romans 1: 24-26. I would want to interpret *all* of chapter 9, and all of chapter 1, in the context of all of 1st Corinthians and Romans, as they relate to the rest of Paul's writings and the rest of the NT, as well as their relationship to the OT. I'm not really much for proof-texting, which is *not* what I would define as "taking Scripture seriously.")

Alan said...

Also, Viola, again, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to open myself up to further attack when no one even seems to recognize (not to mention see the need for an apology for), their rude behavior here, (and when such behavior is actually condoned!) and when I have every reason to believe that any long, detailed answer I give will simply be fisked for a word or two with which people can try to attack me. In addition, it seems some people are unable to have these discussions here right now in the abstract without making it personal and resorting to personal attacks.

Changing the subject doesn't mean it just goes away, eh?

So, maybe when people eventually are able to demonstrate they're more willing to be less disagreeable, I'll be more willing to be more open. Until then, I'm sure you understand my hesitancy to simply provide cannon fodder for the peanut gallery, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. :)

Viola Larson said...

Well Alan here is something we agree on. I also would thing it important to look at the whole text, however, I am sure we would still disagree.

Kattie said...

"So how do you interpret 1 Cor. 9:6 and Romans 1: 24-26."

I realize you didn't ask me, but I'll respond anyway. My interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9 and Romans 1:24-26 is still being formed and refined.

There have been differing positions on both of these passages throughout the ages (even in the first few centuries), and the differences are quite significant. I've heard it said many times that the interpretations by the Church of these passages have been univocal for two thousand years (always by right wing leaning individuals), but the facts prove that belief to be a lie.

As to your earlier question,

"Are you suggesting that it seems unreformed because it only presents one side or are there others reasons?"

Well, I don't think it only presents one side at all. In fact, I don't think it does a proper job of presenting either side, so I can't really make up my own mind what to conclude. I'm just being led to a conclusion by a Bishop (of a sort). That's why I say it’s unreformed in its presentation. Like I said before, it's a propaganda piece.

Alan said...

"Well Alan here is something we agree on."

My point all along, in this comment thread and others here (and also unfortunately unsuccessfully on other blogs, too), has been that there is likely a great deal on which we agree. No one here has yet been able to find any significant discrepancy between my understanding and beliefs and orthodox Reformed doctrine. For example, no one seems to have any problem with my definition above of "taking Scripture seriously". Or in our previous discussion, no one actually disagreed with my take on the relationship between general revelation and special revelation (other than that I'm too Calvinist, and not Barthian enough.) Trinity? Yup. Unconditional election? Check. Total depravity? Yup. etc., etc., etc. Any of those doctrines you disagree with? Yeah, didn't think so.

Heck, you want to argue about the Virgin Birth? Well, you'll have to find someone else because I'm down with that too.

See?

I've been looking to point out those agreements, where possible. But honestly, as I have stated before, it appears to me that you and others have been looking for ways and reasons to disagree, even when we agree. It almost appears as if agreement with me is some sort of sin. :) I'd chalk it up to "Whatever you do, don't agree with the gay guy!" if I didn't sincerely hope and believe you all are better than that. As it is, I think people just expect to find something to argue about, and so they find it even when it doesn't exist. (I'm also not saying that there may not be good reasons for that mindset based on your previous experiences. It does take time to get out of the habit of demonization.)

That's not to minimize our disagreements, but nevertheless, sometimes it's important to see people as people and not as caricatures of a particular issue.

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
Thanks for answering my questions. Do you know what the different interpretations were in the first few centuries and what the sources are for that information?

Pastor Bob said...

OK, I'm coming in late in the conversation and haven't seen the movie so I'm not going to comment on the movie or most of the other stuff.

But I will agree with Alan and Viola that ya gotta interpret verses in context.

Having said that I think the order in which we interpret passages is important too and I suspect that Alan and Viola with both agree with me again:

1. Translate the passage in question
a. be particularly on the lookout for words that have multiple possible meanings or are rarely used and therefore we may not be entirely sure what they mean
b. grammar matters as does word placement

2. Then look at the context
a. the context may or may not cross chapter lines
b. the context may be limited to a section within the chapter.
c. The context may not be immediate. There is a section in Ephesians where Paul starts a sentence, puts in a bunch of subordinate clauses and then puts the verb in the sentence 14 verses later

And that's only the beginning!

All of this is not intended as instruction, criticism or anything else except to suggest something we might agree upon.

An example in the I Cor. passage where we might use the same method but disagree: Paul uses a word that could be translated literally as male bed liers. As far as I have been able to discover this is the only use of this word in Greek literature. (Although I think it's used again by Paul in a similar passage) Some suggest that Paul made up the word from two words in the LXX translation of Leviticus. Others say we can't know the meaning of the word.

Now we can disagree on translation but still be using the same and proper method.

An even more important debate about the passage is the translation of the word, malakoi, (sorry couldn't remember the Greek for the first word and don't have my Greek Bible at hand), which literally translated means soft man, has a multitude of cultural meanings but is normally an insult. (Sometimes it means paying too much attendance to one's appearance!) So we will debate over whether the context tells us something about the meaning of the word.

So Allan, I'm sure we agree about method. Have I got the specifics right, from your perspective about the translation and immediate context issues? I didn't mess with Romans because that is much more difficult.

Oh, and the slightly larger context in the particular verse is that it is a sin list.

Pastor Bob said...

oops

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Alan said...

Yeah, I'd say overall, I don't find anything to argue with in your summary, either the method nor the specifics, Pastor Bob.

Indeed, the Romans verse is much more complicated because the entire context of the chapter, particularly the first few verses (ie. who is he actually talking about?) is crucial, and then you need to read the chapter after that as well, not to mention the fact that the entire book is making one continuous rather complicated argument. Then on the micro level, you get into the whole interpretation of the word he uses for "natural" which he uses many other times, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, it's really too complicated for a blog comment, IMO.

But I do appreciate that you clearly showed how, without ignoring a single word (and in fact quite the opposite, concentrating on the meanings of single words) one does not have to "ignore Scripture" nor "throw out the Bible" to come to different conclusions. One can, in fact, take the Bible seriously.

It's also nice to see someone can agree with me occasionally here, without being consigned to the flames of eternal perdition.

Yet. ;)

Anyway, earlier I wrote that I doubted any commenter here could do that honestly and without mischaracterization. I'm quite happy to be shown that I was wrong about that.

Kattie said...

Pastor Bob,

"Some suggest that Paul made up the word from two words in the LXX translation of Leviticus. Others say we can't know the meaning of the word."

I’m not willing to buy into the not knowable argument quite yet. Also, I've always found the LXX translation of Leviticus argument fanciful at best, but I think this is the argument Dr. Gagnon uses to pin down his particular translation of αρσενοκοιται. As far as I've been able to determine, we have no examples of LXX Leviticus that predate Origen's revisions in the third century AD, so we really have no idea what Paul's Greek Scriptures said, assuming Paul even read Scripture in Greek (he referred to himself as a Hebrew's Hebrew after all). Then, of course, the Old Testament Hebrew wasn't even completely standardized until a couple of centuries AD.

There’s no wonder there’s disagreement within the ranks of good honest, Bible believing Christians.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Adel Thalos said...

Are you being serious Kattie? You really think that people who take the Bible seriously disagree on this issue?

Having also not seen the movie, I cannot say what arguments are presented there, but I would venture to guess that the arguments are not that much different than the recent Newsweek article on "gay marriage".

I have posted 3 of my 4 part series commenting on that article on my blog. You might also be interested to read an article by Brad Grammer, entitled "Can Homosexuals change?", which I reposted with permission from OnebyOne on my blog.

A careful look at the so-called Biblical defense of homosex never takes the Bible seriously, but misrepresents it at every turn.

Thank you Viola for your important post.

Adel Thalos
Snellville, GA

P.S. Have you removed your requirement to put name and city?

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
I will let Bob speak to the rest of your questions and thoughts, but Paul and the other N.T. writers wrote in Greek although they spoke Aramaic.

Sacramento, CA

Viola Larson said...

No Adel,
I haven't but I do keep forgetting myself. : )


Sacramento, CA

Kattie said...

Viola,

What questions are you referring to?

Was my point really that unclear?

What does Paul's writing in Greek have to do with whether or not he actually read LXX Scripture or what the version he read (if he even made use of one) of LXX said in Leviticus?

Sigh!
Why do I feel like I'm just beating my head against a wall?

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Kattie said...

Adel,

"Are you being serious Kattie? You really think that people who take the Bible seriously disagree on this issue?"

I'm sorry, but with comments like that, I just can't take you seriously. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I think I would rather you just not address comments to or about me at all.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Kattie.
I took this to be a question, "assuming Paul even read Scripture in Greek (he referred to himself as a Hebrew's Hebrew after all." I'm sory about that. But you will have to admit that a large part of the N.T. could not have been written in Greek if Paul didn't read Scripture in Greek.

And in fact The Dictionary of N.T. Backgrounds states that the LXX was "in use throughout the Diaspora" and "in Palestine as well." That means that the Septuagint would be the bible that Paul read.

Alan said...

Adel wrote, "Are you being serious Kattie? You really think that people who take the Bible seriously disagree on this issue?"

Wow.

So, Viola, do you agree with that statement?

Kattie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kattie said...

Viola,

"But you will have to admit that a large part of the N.T. could not have been written in Greek if Paul didn't read Scripture in Greek."

OK, I’ll accept freely and without hesitation the notion that Paul could read and write Greek, but that has very little to do with what I was saying. Your notion that Paul would had to have read Scripture (I assume we’re talking OT here) in Greek in order to have written Scripture (NT) in Greek is baseless and follows from no logic or evidence that I have ever seen. The burden of proof here is entirely upon you.

"And in fact The Dictionary of N.T. Backgrounds states that the LXX was "in use throughout the Diaspora" and "in Palestine as well." That means that the Septuagint would be the bible that Paul read."

That conclusion of yours is based on very flimsy evidence. What real credible evidence is there that Paul actually would prefer a Greek OT over a Hebrew OT? You seem to be saying that it is simply obvious that he would prefer it simply because it may have been available to him. You've got a long way to go in order to make that argument stand up.

Beside that, there are still no examples of LXX Leviticus text that predate Origin's revisions, therefore we have absolutely no credible evidence that what we now call LXX Leviticus is what Paul would have called LXX Leviticus. You've got a long, long way to go before you can make a real connection between LXX Leviticus and αρσενοκοιται.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Viola Larson said...

Kattie,
I gave you my source could you give me your sources?

And by the way, the author of the material on the LXX is Stanley E. Porter, research Professor of N.T. at the University of Surry Roehampton, London. Some of his books are, The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, retoric, and Theology and Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with reference to the Tense and Mood
Sacramento,CA

Viola Larson said...

Paul would have preferred it because that is what the Hebrews used at the time.

Pastor Bob said...

Kattie

I made my statement about Leviticus and the LXX for a couple of reasons:

1. Unless Origen also revised Paul's letters, (and I admit that textual criticism is getting more rather than less complicated these days although that has little to do with Origen), many of Paul's quotes from the Old Testament read more like quotes from the LXX than the Hebrew bible. This isn't just because they are in Greek but rather because when you translate later Hebrew texts into Greek they read differently.

An aside: some scholars today are not quite as sure about textual streams as I was taught back in seminary. They are now working on pre writing in terms of short term and long term memory. And they argue that copiers actively changed the text to fit their contexts or even to make the text agree with their position! See Dr. April DeConick's recent blogs on memory on her blog http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/

Of course the whole question of copying the OT in Hebrew is very complicated until the Massorites came along. And yes, I admit that some portions of the sections of the OT in the Dead Sea Scrolls read more like the LXX translated into Hebrew. Textual criticism is tricky stuff.

2. While Paul may well have spoken Aramaic, (as well as Hebrew and Greek), he clearly knows how to use Greek rhetoric and grammar to make his points. While using quotes from Hebrew texts Romans is a good example of a mixture of Hebrew and Greek rhetoric. Chapter 1 of Ephesians is a wonderful example of the use of a Greek string of participial clauses, perfectly acceptable in Greek grammar and almost poetry. In English it would be a run on sentence. I suspect Alan, Viola and I will also agree about this. The rhetoric part I mean.

3. Please notice that I did not claim that Paul took two words from Leviticus in the LXX, joined them together and made his own word. I said that some suggest that. Now my personal opinion is that either Paul made a new word or the word was in use at the time. I think the latter is less likely because we cannot find another author who uses the word.

4. One final comment about the LXX. Paul was writing to mixed Gentile and Jewish communities of the diaspora. The LXX was written because many Jews in the diaspora didn't read or speak Hebrew or Aramaic. The LXX was in common use in the Jewish diaspora so one might conclude that Paul would use the Hebrew Bible that Jewish Christians were used to.

HOWEVER! It was allowable at the time in making arguments to change the text one what quoting to further one's arguments. You can see this happening not only in Paul but also in the Gospels.

So while I might suggest that the evidence leans one way or another I recognize that one must know something about Hebrew and Greek rhetoric, keep up with textual criticism, compare the Hebrew and LXX quotes with Paul's letters when he quotes the Old Testament to see if the quotes are more like one rather than the other.

In other words one has to do the hard work. That was what I was saying in my first statement. And again I think both Alan and Viola would agree with me.

And for true exclosure I do think that asenokoites is a combination of asen and koites. I will not argue whether Paul combined them or if someone else did. I do think the word means man lier. Notice I didn't go beyond this mainly because I was looking for general agreement on method, not arguing one way or the other about the I Cor. passage. Like I said, some think it comes from the LXX Leviticus passage and some don't. I have friends on both sides and I read both sides.

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Viola Larson said...

Bob thanks you are very very helpful.

Kattie said...

Bob,

Thanks for your input.

"1. Unless Origen also revised Paul's letters, (and I admit that textual criticism is getting more rather than less complicated these days although that has little to do with Origen), many of Paul's quotes from the Old Testament read more like quotes from the LXX than the Hebrew bible. This isn't just because they are in Greek but rather because when you translate later Hebrew texts into Greek they read differently."

I don't think we need to get into whether or not Origin revised Paul, but we do know that Origin revised LXX. We don't know to what extent Origin revised LXX, and we don't know how much of what we today call LXX was actually derived from his work. Certainly Origin was familiar with and studied Paul's writings. It is also not outside the realm of possibility that Origin's revisions of the LXX may have been influenced by Paul's writings, and we can only guess at the likelihood. I would admit that there is no evidence either way, so we're really left with a chicken or the egg kind of argument in that regard. The fact remains though that we don't have copies of LXX that date to a period before Origin's revisions, so we really have no evidence of what Paul would have been reading if indeed he was reading LXX.

I would agree that αρσενοκοιται means *male* lier, but tracing its lineage from LXX Leviticus, I think, is virtually impossible given the lack of conclusive evidence. Then the question becomes a matter of determining what this word really means. Is it a form of slang, and if so, for what? Again, I think Gagnon’s argument about the connection between αρσενοκοιται and LXX Leviticus is fanciful and is based upon nothing more than wishful thinking.

So to Adel... Yes people who take the Bible very seriously can disagree with each other.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

Adel wrote, "Are you being serious Kattie? You really think that people who take the Bible seriously disagree on this issue?"

Wow.

So, Viola, do you agree with that statement?

Simple enough question. Or is this going to be yet another instance when you ask questions but refuse to answer them? Or perhaps you simply didn't see that I posted this question earlier.

Dave Moody said...

If I'm following Kattie Coons' argument correctly, which isn't a certainty, I'll grant-

Kattie bases her presumptive conclusions on the assumption that we can't be properly confident that the LXX we have is the same LXX Paul had, and the NT authors seem to have been familiar with, because Origen corrected it, through his parallel work we have in parts called the Hexapla.

Therefore we can't really know if arsenakoitai has anything to do with Leviticus, even though that hack Robert Gangnon says otherwise. Even though within the context of 1 Cor. 6.8ff it would appear arsenakoitai in tandem with malakoi seems to have something to do with guys having sex with guys- in a list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God- if that practice is not repented of.

It sounds to me like a case of the 'hermeneutic of suspicion' run amok.

Dave Moody,
MCS, OT Studies, Regent College

Unknown said...

Good grief! I have a lot to reply to in so short a time away.

Alan: "Kevin, I hope I was also able to answer your question." Yes, you were.

Alan: "Why not a little of what you think it means to take the Scripture seriously?" I think we are in agreement with as far as you went. I would add that the Word of God is the final authority for all issues of faith and practice...even when it leads us to conclusions that are socially uncomfortable or politically incorrect. For instance, one has to do *considerable* exegetical gymnastics to come to any other conclusion than sexual activity other than what occurs between a married man and woman is sinful. That is an example of submitting to the authority of Scripture in the context of social discomfort. People don't want to hear that. I realise there are a ton of PC(USA) readers here who will instantaly hate me for saying this, but the same goes for ordaining female elders. One really has to grasp at biblical straws and ignore some pretty blunt biblical statements to justify women as pastors. But biblical authority trumps political correctness too. (And apologies all around to those whom I have offended, if the way I made those observations gave offense.)

Kattie: "there are still no examples of LXX Leviticus text that predate Origin's revisions" Your point assumes that because we do not have a mss of the LXX (a 3rd centruy BC document) that predates Origen (2nd-3rd century AD)that Paul didn't. In any event, two things: first you are historically incorrect. Aquila's version of the LXX predates Origen by a century. Second, even if one accepts the stretch that Paul, a highly educated Pharisee, could not read/write Greek, would you want to argue that he couldn't read/write Hebrew? If you carefully study his quotations of the OT, you will find that he could do both. Sometimes he follows the LXX verbatim. Sometimes he follows the Hebrew. Sometimes he paraphrases. Any way you cut it, he knew the OT and, what's more, he understood how to communicate ideas originally written in Hebrew using the Greek language.

Kattie said...

Dave,

“Kattie bases her presumptive conclusions on the assumption that we can't be properly confident that the LXX we have is the same LXX Paul had, and the NT authors seem to have been familiar with, because Origen corrected it, through his parallel work we have in parts called the Hexapla.”

It’s interesting that you bring up the Hexapla. That is Origin’s masterpiece. Unfortunately, this only exists in fragments. OK Dave, supply one piece of reliable evidence (just one!) that Paul’s LXX said “και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν” in Leviticus 18:22.

“Therefore we can't really know if arsenakoitai has anything to do with Leviticus, even though that hack Robert Gangnon says otherwise.”

Well, I didn’t call him a hack, but I do think it’s dishonest to repeatedly make the claim the way he does, as if it’s obviously a known fact.

“Even though within the context of 1 Cor. 6.8ff it would appear arsenakoitai in tandem with malakoi seems to have something to do with guys having sex with guys- in a list of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God- if that practice is not repented of.”

I agree, it would appear that it has *something* to do with “guys having sex with guys”. What kind of sex, between what sorts of guys, with what intent, and in what sort of context is a matter of debate. I’ll warn you in advance that if y’all say “all sex, between any guys, with any intent, and in all contexts” then I’ll just say prove it, and warn you that you may be falling into the same trap the Pharisees did.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

"the Word of God is the final authority for all issues of faith and practice...even when it leads us to conclusions that are socially uncomfortable or politically incorrect."

Indeed, Kevin. I agree. I do hope however, that you're not implying that people only come to these conclusions in order to be politically correct. That's obviously as false as charging that you come to your conclusions because you enjoy being an iconoclast.

Though to be quite honest, I often hear this statement from people. "You just believe that because it's comfortable". I do have to say that I'm not sure what exactly about coming to the conclusions about sexual orientation is supposed to be "socially comfortable." Even among Christians, who are supposed to be charitable, there is nothing "comfortable" about it (As you can clearly see in the microcosm of this blog comment thread. Rude comments, personal attacks, casual dismissal, interrogation, etc. Not only is it downright uncomfortable, it isn't even minimally courteous.)

And out there in the world? Heck, you can get a baseball bat to the head, just for *looking* gay, as Jose Sucuzhañay, an Ecuadorian man living in NYC did last week. Not gay. Father of two. Just walking back from church with his brother. Now he's dead. And most likely the last words he heard before he was bludgeoned into a coma were anti-gay slurs and epithets.

Comfortable? Feh. I think you and I live in very different worlds, but I'd love to visit yours for a few days.

Viola Larson said...

Kattie & Dave,

I don't have the kind of knowledge you two have to write on the subject as you are. But, Kattie, when you write this,
"I agree, it would appear that it has *something* to do with “guys having sex with guys”. What kind of sex, between what sorts of guys, with what intent, and in what sort of context is a matter of debate. I’ll warn you in advance that if y’all say “all sex, between any guys, with any intent, and in all contexts” then I’ll just say prove it, and warn you that you may be falling into the same trap the Pharisees did."

It seems to me that you are going way out side of Scripture and insisting that the gay community’s cultural categories be laid along side the text. Categories that probably did not exist in the Greek/Hebrew world. We try to put a moral face on homosexuality by calling it a lifetime relationship or committed relationships, but nevertheless it is still homosex.

Kattie said...

Kevin,

“Your point assumes that because we do not have a mss of the LXX (a 3rd centruy BC document) that predates Origen (2nd-3rd century AD) that Paul didn't.”

Not at all; I’ve never disputed the possibility that Paul had access to LXX. I don’t think you’ve been paying close enough attention.

“first you are historically incorrect. Aquila's version of the LXX predates Origen by a century.”

I am not historically incorrect. All I said was Origen *revised* LXX sometime probably in the early to mid third century. So what if Aquila’s version predated Origen by a century. That places that version after Paul’s time too. All you’ve done here is add more uncertainty to what Paul’s available version actually said (and I mean the precise words used) in Leviticus 18. So, thanks for the help there.

“Second, even if one accepts the stretch that Paul, a highly educated Pharisee, could not read/write Greek, would you want to argue that he couldn't read/write Hebrew?”

What conversation have you been paying attention too? I don’t think anyone here has been trying to argue that Paul could not read/write Greek.

There is, in my opinion, a valid question as to whether Paul would *prefer* to read OT Scripture in Hebrew or to read it in Greek. Like I said before, he referred to himself as a Hebrew’s Hebrew. After all it was the Pharisees who eventually called for the standardization of the Jewish Scriptures to be written in Hebrew (not too terribly long after Paul’s time) and set down strict rules for transcription (there weren’t strict rules before then).

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Alan said...

"Adel wrote, "Are you being serious Kattie? You really think that people who take the Bible seriously disagree on this issue?"

So, Viola, do you agree with that statement?

Pastor Bob said...

Kattie

It seems we agree on something. I would agree that arsenokotai and malakoi imply someone is having sex with someone and it's bad according to Paul. Any discussion from there I think belongs on a different blog since this one started out as a description of a movie. However I suspect we both have read all the usual and maybe some of the unusual suspects.

Your comments about not knowing what was in the LXX I find very interesting. Because only fragments of Paul's letters exist before the 3rd century one could argue by the same logic that we aren't sure whether the verse is in I Cor which would make the conversation moot.

Like it or not we have to go with the evidence we have. Although your argument that Paul's use of arsenokoitai may have influenced revision of the LXX is interesting. Frankly I find it likely that Paul or someone either made up the word with no influence or that someone, maybe Paul, was influenced by the LXX. My reason is that the arsen and koitos were common words while asenokoitai is very uncommon.

Now let me go back to my main point: we all agree on how to do exegesis. Kattie, we are doing it by the same method. Where does the word come from and what does it mean? So when it comes to method those of us who have participated in this discussion all use the same method. Or at least the beginning of it.

And this, I think, should end the "serious Bible study" argument. Disagreeing about conclusions is an important part of exegesis as well!

So thank you! We have proved that we are using the same method! Although I hadn't heard the argument about the revision of the LXX it is an important part of the conversation.

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Kattie said...

Bob,

I knew something good would come out of Sharon Hill one day! :-)

I spent many years near by in Swarthmore.

Thanks for the discussion.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Presbyman said...

Alan says he takes Scripture seriously, but he still considers same-sex intimacy (physical intimacy, obviously) not to be against God's plan. My only comment is that I don't understand how one reaches that conclusion. That doesn't mean I question Alan's sincerity or the sincerity of anyone else who holds that view. It just means I don't understand how one gets from point A (taking the Bible seriously) and point B (condoning homosexuality).

My 2 cents worth.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Unknown said...

Kattie, you pointed out (a bit over the top, but I might have had it coming) that I was not paying close attention. Guilty as charged. I was skimming and if I misrepresented what you were saying (and I apparently did), I apologize.

Alan: "I do hope however, that you're not implying that people only come to these conclusions in order to be politically correct." Actually, I am. PC and its willing acomplice, egalitarianism, is a driving hermeneutical principle these days, though not in every situation, obviously. Give me authorial intent and reliable historical-grammatical exegesis followed by sound application any day.

"I do have to say that I'm not sure what exactly about coming to the conclusions about sexual orientation is supposed to be "socially comfortable.""

What I mean is that to suggest otherwise brings instant denunciations of bigotry, homophobia, etc. I did not mean to suggest that being gay in a world that is often violently anti-gay is easy.

The discomfort to which I referred is for those who have the termerity to denounce immorality in any form. Sin is sin, though it is never popular to say so.

Adel Thalos said...

Wow! The scholarship here is tremendous.

By the way, for those arguing for the acceptance of homosex acts, could you point me to one favorable biblical text on this? I have been trying to follow the discussion and I would like to read those verses.

All this fascinating discussion from all these PhD's is wonderful. Somehow I missed where Paul speaks positively of any sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. Could someone post those verses?

Hey, I have a better idea. Since the PCUSA GAPJC has seen fit to rule that an ordained minister who is involved in a "gay marriage" is not really involved in a marriage, since a marriage is between a man and a woman, let's try this on for size (it might just be the next step). Why don't we just say that since "real" sexuality is between one man and one woman, the act of homosex is not really sexuality (it is somethin else) so it must be perfectly alright? That way we can, just like the GAPJC, avoid the whole thing. Sacrificing all integrity and honor in the process, but who really cares anyway.

Adel Thalos
Snellville, GA

Kattie said...

Bob,

I meant to make a comment on this point of yours:

"Your comments about not knowing what was in the LXX I find very interesting. Because only fragments of Paul's letters exist before the 3rd century one could argue by the same logic that we aren't sure whether the verse is in I Cor which would make the conversation moot."

I don't really think the arguments are on the same level. We know that Origen did, in fact, make revisions to LXX, but we don't know how extensive and where. I'm guessing that the revisions weren't insignificantly minor because it rated significant historical discussion. I don't think you can really say the same thing about Paul's letters, at least not with the same level of emphasis. Besides, I'm not aware of any variation in the various known manuscripts of Paul's letter in I Cor 6:9.

Kattie,
Formerly Swarthmore, Pa

Alan said...

John E.

I appreciate that you're respectful enough to, unlike some here, consider that all of this arguing about what the Bible says isn't just a nepharious ruse by we LGBT people and our allies. That is, you appear to believe that we might actually not be lying; we might actually take the Bible seriously. (One wonders why anyone would spend the time to have conversations like this one with all it's rudeness and attacks, if the Bible wasn't important.) Clearly other commenters, and perhaps our blog host do not believe that, but it is good to see that, at least some on your side including Pastor Bob seem to believe it. I wish those attitudes of respect were more common on both sides of these discussion, but I've found the number of people mature enough to hold them rounds to nearly zero, unfortunately.

I would suggest re-reading the excellent conversation that Kattie has been having here. That's a good start. There are plenty of other resources out there for a Bible-based understanding of sexual orientation. Some are, of course, better than others, but they're out there if one is willing to look.

Also, just a minor point, but while your comment focuses exclusively on sexual intimacy, there is, as we both know, much more to marriage than that.

Alan said...

"Actually, I am. PC and its willing acomplice, egalitarianism, is a driving hermeneutical principle these days, though not in every situation, obviously. Give me authorial intent and reliable historical-grammatical exegesis followed by sound application any day."

Well at least you're honest, and unlike our blog host, willing to answer questions. So you won't mind then if I suggest that you only hold your positions in order to be cantankerous, and in your own eyes, "counter-cultural"? See, your argument really goes both ways. How is it OK to suggest that I only arrive at my position because of political correctness, but it is somehow not OK to suggest that you only arrive at your position because of some inherent bigotry on your part?

To be clear, I am not saying that is true. I'm simply showing how I can respect that your opinion is based on taking Scripture seriously, while you seem to be unable to admit the same about my opinion. Very odd.

(And I'd note that you make these statements about my position without a single quote nor shred of evidence.)

I honestly feel you should re-read Pastor Bob's last comment. It's excellent. And I don't think there is any way that you can accuse him of being PC.

"What I mean is that to suggest otherwise brings instant denunciations of bigotry, homophobia, etc. I did not mean to suggest that being gay in a world that is often violently anti-gay is easy."

And what I mean to suggest is that the opposite brings instant denunciations of perversion, abomination, false-faith, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Frankly I'd be far happier to be called a bigot than a pederast. I'm honestly not sure there's any comparison here. When you fear for your life, walking down the street with your wife because some roving band of militant gay people drive by in a pickup truck, then we can compare notes about social comfort. When people actually vote on whether or not you and your wife are married. Then we can compare notes about social comfort.

Getting a strongly worded comment in a blog calling you a bigot? Meh. We LGBT people should be so lucky.

Presbyman said...

Alan,

Two brief points.

I gladly concede your sincerity and the sincerity of others who hold your position. I only know you from blog postings, although we probably know people in common (like Michael Lindvall). So how can I know your heart?

One point I would make, however, is that sincerity is not always sufficient. I have dear friends who are LDS who sincerely believe they are correct about continuing revelation and the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants being equal in authority to the Bible, for instance. Doesn't mean I think they are correct, of course.

Anyway, if I think a Mormon can be sincere despite some enormous theological differences, I guess I can also think you and others who agree with you can also be sincere. Someone is right and someone is wrong (I just don't buy the postmodern idea held by some that there is more than one right answer to these questions).

And my second point is that of course there is much more to marriage (or any close relationship) than sexual intimacy. There had better be! I focused on sexual intimacy because that is where I believe the disagreement lies. I think emotional intimacy between people of the same sex is certainly part of God's plan for the human race. I've been blessed in that way by some of my friends who are male.

John Erthein
Erie, PA


PS: Alan, if you really find commenting here frustrating, why comment so often? That is not meant as a slam ... just wondering. You'll notice I hardly ever comment on Shuck and Jive. I figure, why bother?

Presbyman said...

My last comment turned out to be somewhat disjointed. I wanted to say that I can grant anyone's sincerity but that sincerity is not the same as truth, which is far larger than an individual's sincerity. I certainly don't know Alan well enough to possibly say he is not sincere.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Viola Larson said...

Adel,
While I truly appreciate your position, it is also mine, I don't really appreciate your tendency toward sarcasm. Please stay, but add to the conversation with clear points.

Alan,
You are right, this is my blog. Please do not keep asking the same bombastic question over and over, and do not, no matter how pained you feel, keep turning the conversation back to your own person. I believe the way Bob, Kattie, Dave and Kevin as well as a few others have conducted themselves on my blog is the fruitful and helpful way to go. I know I will come back to some of their comments, copy them out and use them for study.

Alan said...

"Alan, if you really find commenting here frustrating, why comment so often? That is not meant as a slam ... just wondering. You'll notice I hardly ever comment on Shuck and Jive. "

John E, There have been so many comments, you may have missed where I stated clearly why I comment here, in spite of the rude behavior evidenced so often (snotty sarcasm, personal attacks, interrogation instead of dialogue, etc.) In that comment I wrote, "But in any event, it continues to be my hope and prayer that people can discuss difficult issues without being disagreeable. So far, unfortunately, that prayer goes unanswered when I comment here, but I will continue to try to reach out to you and others with whom I disagree in order that we might understand each other better. If that only continues to get me a slap in the face from you and your commenters, so be it. I'm willing to turn the other cheek."

You wrote, "I wanted to say that I can grant anyone's sincerity but that sincerity is not the same as truth, which is far larger than an individual's sincerity."

I agree that sincerity and truth are not the same thing. Obviously we don't know each other, I believe you are sincere. I'm not going to take a "wait and see" attitude, but assume that, unless I have good reason to believe you're insincere, that you are as you present yourself. To do anything else would be to call you a liar, in my opinion.

You are, however, wrong.

I believe however, that these conversations are only worthwhile when we at least approach each other from a basis of common and mutual respect and courtesy.

In any event, I appreciate that you're willing to show mutual respect, and frankly just good old-fashioned manners. It is an example that several others here could definitely learn from!

......

Viola, my question had nothing to do with me, but was only to see if you agreed that people cannot take the Bible seriously and yet arrive at different conclusions than you do, as Adel stated. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that asking you if you agreed with Adel is about me. My name is not Adel, it's Alan.

I think your continued refusal to answer the question tells me all I needed to know. That is why I did not answer your previous comment, "So how do you interpret 1 Cor. 9:6 and Romans 1: 24-26." Why would I bother, when you, apparently don't even believe I take the Bible seriously anyway, as I suspected? (If you read my previous comments, I have predicted exactly how this conversation would go. If I already know the outcome of the game some folks here playing, why play?) I may as well simply quote a recipe for fudge for all the good it would do me. You have continued to demonstrate that your opinion of dialogue is, apparently, interrogation, in which you get to ask the questions and let your commenters make snide, snotty, rude comments and personal attacks, while you ignore any questions yourself.

It's your blog so answer any question you want. Or don't. But as I said, your refusal tells us all we needed to know.

Kattie. You wrote earlier, "This looks to me to be an invitation to a more substantive and illuminating discussion, one that maybe shouldn't be passed up." Now you see why I didn't respond to Viola's question. It was not actually an invitation to a more substantive and illuminating discussion. It was just interrogation, which is exactly what I predicted, unfortunately.

Fortunately for all of us, however, there has been some good, honest, respectful dialogue here.

Unknown said...

Alan: "So you won't mind then if I suggest that you only hold your positions in order to be cantankerous, and in your own eyes, "counter-cultural"?"

I guess I don't mind, but it is not an accurate representation of my motives.

"I can respect that your opinion is based on taking Scripture seriously, while you seem to be unable to admit the same about my opinion. Very odd."

How can you take the Bible seriously when you ignore its clear statements and implications? Approaching issues the Bible with the express purpose of justifying sinful behavior is simply not taking the Bible seriously. You may hold it in high regard, for which you are to be commended, but you don't take it seriously because it doesn't lead to where you want to go. Not being unkind, just honest.

"(And I'd note that you make these statements about my position without a single quote nor shred of evidence.)"

Well, several major passages have been mentioned which you immediately dismissed, but let's start at the very beginning. Literally.

Genesis 1 and 2. God created man, male and female, in his own image. He blessed them and commanded them to reproduce. This is HIGHLY instructive and relevant. God did not create two men or two women. He created one man and one woman.

How do you rationalize that away, if indeed you take the Scripture seriously?

Alan said...

"although we probably know people in common (like Michael Lindvall)"

BTW, John E., that name totally rings a bell, but I can't place it. Who is Michael Lindvall?

Alan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

Kevin write, "I guess I don't mind, but it is not an accurate representation of my motives."

and, "Approaching issues the Bible with the express purpose of justifying sinful behavior is simply not taking the Bible seriously. "

Kevin, isn't odd that you believe that those statements above were not accurate representations of your motives, but your statements about me, a person you've never met in your life, are accurate representations about mine? Based on what evidence do you arrive at those conclusions? Where have I said or written that "I only use the Bible for the express purpose of justifying sinful behavior"? Please provide a quote and citation. If you cannot provide such a quote, given that we have never even met, how exactly do you presume to know my motives better than I do?

I'm sorry, but I am afraid that I suffer from the problem of almost always requiring evidence for my opinions, rather than just making unfounded assumptions, particularly about people I do not know. It's a habit of being trained in the sciences, I guess. So that is why I'm asking for evidence for your opinion. Actual evidence, not just more assumption.

As for the rest of your question, I simply will not answer it for the same reason I didn't answer Viola's. What is the purpose in debating the Bible when you have already clearly stated that you do not believe I take it seriously? As I said before, I may as well quote a fudge recipe for you.

Let me give you an analogy. I have absolutely no interest in professional football. So, knowing that, why would I engage in a debate about who is the best team? And more importantly, why would someone who actually does take pro football seriously bother debating the issue with me? Now, you incorrectly believe I have no interest in taking the Bible seriously, so why should I bother debating the Bible with you, when you've already dismissed anything I would say out of hand as simply an exercise in "justifying sinful behavior." And, frankly, I can't imagine a reason why you'd bother with such a conversation either, when you've already arrived at a conclusion. We can skip the discussion, because you already know the answer, eh?

Again, while I believe you take the Bible seriously, but are quite simply wrong, it is too bad that you cannot separate respect and agreement, sincerity and truth, as John E has described above.

If you'd like my fudge recipe, however, it's excellent.

Adel Thalos said...

Viola,

I apologize for coming across too sarcastice. I will respect your wishes and not express any sarcasm on your blog, although I would remind you that there is ample biblical witness toward sarcasm, especially in the prophets often directed toward apostacy and heresy. Also, a pervasive use of Hebrew play-on-words in the OT is a form of sarcasm.

Alan,
You indicate that there are some good resources of a biblical defense of pro-homosex and gay marriage. What might those resources be? Where do you believe we might find the best defense of your position? Do you believe that the Miller Newsweek article did an adequate job of summarizing that biblical defense?

Viola Larson said...

Adel,

Think you for your good points and good questions. I realize that Old Testament prophets used sarcasm as did Paul at times. But it doesn’t work well for give and take on blog comments.

Alan said...

Adel, I think I can honestly say without fear of successful contradiction that you and I have seen before that we can have no productive conversation. Though you may disagree, I believe this is precisely because of the rude, snarky, and sarcastic tone of your comments, which even here you continue to defend as somehow Biblical.

As I've now said umpteen million times in this thread, I'm happy to have dialogues with people, which are based on mutual respect, common courtesy, and good, old-fashioned manners. I have seen your comments here and elsewhere for quite some time, and I have seen no evidence that would lead me to believe that you are capable of respect, common courtesy, or manners, at least toward me.

Anyway, since you have already pretty clearly stated that there can be no good biblical resources that provide a pro-gay viewpoint, I'm pretty sure you'd simply dismiss any recommendation that I gave. Remember when you wrote above, "A careful look at the so-called Biblical defense of homosex never takes the Bible seriously, but misrepresents it at every turn. "

Given that rather clear statement of where you're coming from, it doesn't seem like good sense nor good manners to enable bad behavior on your part.

So sorry, I'm not interested in playing games and I'll simply point you toward Google or Amazon.com. I'm sure you can find such resources with a minimal amount of searching, if I'm wrong and you're indeed serious. There is, I'm afraid, a good deal of trash out there, but I'm sure, if you're really interested, that a college trained minister of the Word and Sacrament surely has the skills to sift through that and find the serious scholarship out there.

Adel Thalos said...

Alan,

Why the 288 words all to avoid the question and obfuscate the issue? Instead of taking all that space to communicate that we cannot communicate, you could have simply said, "I find ....to be the best book on the subject". Or, "..... is a really good article." Or even, "while .... does not cover everything and I disagree with a couple of points, it is overall a very solid presentation of the pro-homosex position."

Despite whether or not you think I would have received that information in the way you would have liked, you would have at least had a chance to plug what you believe are important resources for others.

Adel Thalos said...

Viola,

By the way, I was not being at all sarcastic in my comments about the GAPJC.

The first three points are their reasoning, and the next three points is how it could very easily be applied in this situation:

1. Marriage is between one man and one woman.
2. Anyone involved in an event that unites 2 people of the same sex or 3 or more people ( I threw that second part in there, because it can very easily be applied), is not really performing a marriage.
3. Therefore, there is no violation.
4. Sexual activity is defined as between one man and one woman in a marriage relationship.
5. Anyone involved in activities that are sexual in nature outside of this are not really involved in sexual activity.
6. Therefore, there is no violation.

I am simply pointing out that the faulty logic used in the GAPJC ruling could very easily apply in this direction.

Alan said...

I didn't avoid the question, Adel. I addressed it directly, clearly, and give sufficient reasons for why I answered the way I did. Your rather transparent attempt to mischaracterize my answer as "avoidance" is precisely why I don't bother play these sorts of silly games.

How's that for brief? ;)

(BTW, if you feel my answers are too long, you may always feel free to skip them entirely and not address my comments at all.)

Kattie said...

Adel,

Just a quick note, simply because I'm not sure I even want to have a dialog with you at this point...

Your definition of Marriage is incomplete, and your "definition" of Sexual Activity isn't a proper definition at all.

Kattie,
Huntsville, Al

Presbyman said...

Alan,

I thought everyone in Ann Arbor knew Michael Lindvall. Oh well ... he was Pastor of my home church, First of Ann Arbor. I figured you'd know him if you were active in Presbytery, which I think you've indicated you are in other posts. But then again he left in 2002.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Alan said...

Ah right, now I remember him, though I never met him. (I've actually never been to 1st Pres.; I go to Northside.)

I wasn't aware you were from A2. Cool!

Unknown said...

Alan, I notice you didn't interact with my point on Genesis. Dare I say that proves the point?

Pastor Bob said...

OK, just what is the record for responses to one blog post and is Viola anywhere near the record? The Guinness Book of World Records is waiting to hear!

And if she isn't near the record let's get back to work!

Bob Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA

Debbie said...

Alan, I haven't read everything here, but I do have to say that your response to my second-to-last comment, addressed to you (way back up higher), took me completely by surprise. I have no idea what parts of my comment triggered it. What you possibly could refer to as "continued rude and faulty attempts at mind-reading" is beyond me, unless it was possibly this sentence: "I tend to react to it when I hear it", in which I meant "when I hear the word 'fundamentalist'" but by which you might have thought I meant when I hear something different, some other thing that you imagined I think you do.

What this goes to show is the deep miscommunication that exists between you and people like Viola and me. We write one thing, having one thing in mind, and when you read it, you understand something completely different from what we intended.

Please do not take this as some kind of put-down of your intelligence or of anything else to do with you. I am a linguist; this happens in communication all the time and has nothing to do with anyone's intelligence. But it does have a lot to do with context and expectations, and your context and expectations are apparently so different from Viola's and my context and expectations, that communication between us is very, very difficult.

I can assure you that I never have the intention of insulting you or putting you down or being rude to you. Anything of that sort that you have perceived has been misunderstanding--miscommunication.

What we need in these interactions is the assumption that each person is coming at this discussion with good motives until proved otherwise, instead of assuming evil motives from the start. It would certainly help keep the civility at a better level. Then we can ask clarifying questions--for example, "That felt like you were putting me down--did you mean to do that?" instead of saying "There you go with the putdowns again."

No more ranting about the terrible things that we think other people do.

This would really be helpful if we could all practice this.

Debbie

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan said...

Kevin wrote, "Alan, I notice you didn't interact with my point on Genesis. Dare I say that proves the point?"

Actually I responded thoroughly to your question. You did not answer mine.

So again I'll ask, exactly why would either of us bother which such a conversation when you have already stated that you believe that my only interest is in "justifying my sin"? Seems like a complete waste of time to me, doesn't it to you?

Debbie wrote, "What we need in these interactions is the assumption that each person is coming at this discussion with good motives until proved otherwise, instead of assuming evil motives from the start."

That statement clearly says that you believe (though more mind-reading?) that I assume evil motives from the start. Instead, you were the one who started out by assuming that my motives for giving Viola a compliment were an attempt to insult her. So, I suggest you practice what you preach, Debbie.

Debbie also wrote, 'What you possibly could refer to as "continued rude and faulty attempts at mind-reading" is beyond me, "

I've already explained exactly what I meant, and yet you continue to ascribe motives and feelings to me which are not only inaccurate, but which are the opposite of what I've already clearly stated. You don't follow your own advice, asking me what I think, believe or feel, you just make incorrect assumptions. You have done this in nearly every interaction we have on several blogs.

On the other hand, I use phrases like, "I think" and "I believe". I ask questions (even though they are rarely answered.) And I take people at their word. I assume that people here are, in general, people of good will, who love the Lord, take Scripture seriously, and want honest, real dialogue. I seek agreement where I can find it, rather than looking for one word or phrase on which to base an entire comment thread of insults and rude behavior.

I'm not saying that I'm perfect, and certainly miscommunication happens. But overall, I think your pattern of fisking my comments for even the smallest disagreement, for things that have nothing to do with the main point is pretty evident by now. You say you're not doing this on purpose, and though the evidence leads me to find that hard to believe, I'm not about to call you a liar. But perhaps then you should analyze your behavior and see how any person of good will can take your comments as insulting and rude. It's pretty hard to believe that a linguist wouldn't understand how a question like, "Were you trying to lump all theological conservatives into one group with a name that generally has negative connotations, or are you ignorant ..." can't be interpreted as rude. Simply ignoring that you (and let's be honest, you're not the only one) have indeed been rude, or worse, defending such rudeness, isn't really very helpful.

Enjoy your weekend.

Viola Larson said...

Debbie thank you for your words. As a linguist you have offered us all a lot of good advice and I think most of us will take them to heart.

Sacramento, CA

Anonymous said...

OK, I've come very late to this thread, read through it, and have nothing to add. But I am the 100th comment!

Viola Larson said...

David,
Sorry I lost the prize money I was going to give out for that :-(

Unknown said...

Alan,

If you responded thoroughly to my Genesis 1-2 remark, it must have been in the post you removed because it isn't there.

Debbie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie said...

Alan, you write: "I use phrases like, "I think" and "I believe"." You also write things like "you continue to ascribe motives and feelings to me which are not only inaccurate, but which are the opposite of what I've already clearly stated." Hmmm. You didn't use "I think" or "I believe" there--you just asserted that I do this.

I wrote: "What we need in these interactions is the assumption that each person is coming at this discussion with good motives until proved otherwise, instead of assuming evil motives from the start."

You responded: "That statement clearly says that you believe (though more mind-reading?) that I assume evil motives from the start."

I didn't write that about you alone, but you responded as if I had.

Well, so much for trying to cross the understanding gap! Merry Christmas, Alan!

Alan said...

Debbie wrote, "You didn't use "I think" or "I believe" there--you just asserted that I do this."

LOL. Um... I think I can be pretty certain when you have said something about me that is untrue. ;) I have stated clearly when you have done that, in this thread and all the other times you have done so elsewhere.

Kevin, nope, my response is right there. I've given the same answer to you that I've given to Adel. In brief, while I'm happy to discuss things with those who show mutual respect (ie. John & Bob), I refuse to explain myself to those who refuse to grant even cursory respect for my opinions, particularly when I try so hard to respect theirs, even though we disagree. And since I think you have been pretty clear in stating that you do not believe I take Scripture seriously (eg. "How can you take the Bible seriously when you ignore its clear statements and implications?"), I can't for the life of me figure out why I should bother to discuss Scripture with you. Take care.

Unknown said...

Ah. I see the answer now: go to Amazon. Interesting. I'm much more interested in Genesis. Mostly because it's a slam dunk on the point. :)

Again, no offense was intended by the tone of my remarks.

Alan said...

"Second, you have been ascribing motives to me that I do not have."

I was basing my conclusion on what you wrote.

When I wrote, '"I do hope however, that you're not implying that people only come to these conclusions in order to be politically correct."

Your response was, "Actually, I am."

I am not trying to ascribe motives to you that you do not have, and if it seems that I have done so, I have no problem sincerely apologizing for that. I wonder if you can see, based on your writing how I would come to the conclusion that you have already decided that I do not take Scripture seriously.

You wrote, "I have not STATED you did not take the Scripture seriously."

Again, I do not have any interest in putting words in your mouth, and if you feel I have done so, again I apologize. I hope you can understand that, when you write something like this might lead me to that conclusion: "Approaching issues the Bible with the express purpose of justifying sinful behavior is simply not taking the Bible seriously. You may hold it in high regard, for which you are to be commended, but you don't take it seriously because it doesn't lead to where you want to go. Not being unkind, just honest."

So you can see how writing "you don't take it seriously" might actually lead to me believing that you do not believe that I take the Bible seriously, and that you have indeed STATED I did not take the Scripture seriously.

Perhaps you can explain what appears to be the contradiction between those two statements?

"I never intended the slightest insult towards you."

I believe you and I appreciate your writing that. Yet you can, I hope, understand how I seem to be getting mixed messages here.

Unknown said...

Alan, as you well know a conditional statement has a prodasis and an apodasis. I was focused on the former and you on the latter.

No worries. Merry Christmas.

Alan said...

Indeed, if there were a conditional statement there.

Happy Holidays!

Viola Larson said...

If you guys want to keep going until it hits 200 thats okay.

Alan said...

Depends. Is there a prize? :)

Viola Larson said...

No, I lost that one too!

Presbyman said...

Although I have not seen the movie in question, I do trust Viola's judgment about its content.

On the matter of sexuality, I wanted to make a positive comment about something The Outlook has done recently, since I had previously criticized the Outlook for some articles I thought were pretty bad. Anyway, The Outlook ran an article and letter by Kristin Tremba, Executive Director of the One-by-One Ministry (full disclosure: their former Director, Theresa Latini, was a friend of mine at seminary). I believe Kristin's perspective reflects the costly and transforming grace of Jesus Christ. Given the shameful demonization of the ex-gay movement by many progressives, it took courage for Kristin to speak out, and it took courage for The Outlook to publish her writings.

So, I think The Outlook did something that deserves support.

John Erthein
Erie, PA

Viola Larson said...

John,
You are late to the show but that is good news and I also praise the Outlook for that.

Sacramento, CA

Veneftir said...

I know I'm really late to the discussion (2 years!); I just wanted to point out, while trying to not insult you, that using the word "homosex", at least in every group, both Christian and non-Christian, that I've been in, makes you sound very backward, if not bigoted.

I can see from your posts that you're not a bigot. I'm just saying this because "homo" anything (again, at least in the situations I've been in) is, rightly or wrongly, associated with frat boy homophobia. The only times I think it's appropriate to use "homo" is in the words "homosexual(ity)" or "homophobe/ic/ia". And most everyone I've encountered on the subject agrees.

I'm not commenting to insult or condemn, just to warn you about the way some of your words came across.

Viola Larson said...

Veneftir,
You need to put your full real name.

There has been a controversy about using homosex for some time. It seems better than say homosexual sex. And homosexual is after all a real word. I haven't decided if it matters or not.
And I have to say I wouldn't know anything about frat boy homophobia: ) But thanks for telling me.

James Miller said...

Sorry about the name thing - it's a force of habit to use a non-real-life name.

I asked some people, both Christians and not, what they thought of someone who used the word "homosex". I chose to use the phrase "frat boy homophobia" for the stereotype 14 out of 17 people described, which agreed with the image that popped into my head when I read it. We all agreed that it evoked images of a high school or college jock who drinks a lot and sleeps around with the cheerleaders and is generally very immoral, but wants nothing to do with "those dirty homos".

Perhaps that's not an image that the word would evoke in your circles, and it certainly isn't a fair image to anyone, much less you, but it is the image the word brought to mind for at least 14 other people.

I would have used "gay sex" or "homosexual sex" which may seem unnecessary, but sometimes it matters more what the other person hears than what you think you're saying in these matters.

Also, just to be clear, this was my only issue with your post. I agreed with everything else. And I'm only saying this to caution you, not to be snarky.

Viola Larson said...

Thanks James, but I did get the words from a very Christian theology professor.