Fortified Faith Opinion

Tim Kaine mangles the Bible to score a political point

U.S. Democratic vice presidential candidate and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine greets well-wishers at the airport in Cleveland on Sept. 5, 2016. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Brian Snyder

(RNS) Vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine has figured out a way to reconcile his “devout” Catholic faith with his support for same-sex marriage: a new reading of Genesis 1.

Speaking to the Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT organization, Kaine said he believes the Catholic Church will change its view of marriage.

“My church also teaches me about a Creator in the first chapter of Genesis,” he said, “who surveys the entire world including mankind and said, ‘It is very good.’”

Then, he added: “Who am I to challenge the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate, not challenge it.”

Part of me wants to point Kaine toward a theology class. But then again, a basic literature course might suffice, followed by an ethics class, since Kaine’s all-encompassing “celebration” of the diversity of the human family leaves him without any principle by which he can criticize any kind of family arrangement at all.

Let’s start with Kaine’s reading of the Bible.

Genesis 1 does indeed show God declaring everything he has created to be good. But this comes right after he created a male and a female and tasked them with filling the earth with more humans who bear the image of God.

There is only one family structure declared to be good in this chapter, and it’s the one that celebrates the true gender diversity of male and female and their union that leads to new life.

In other words, God’s original design is a man, a woman, and their children.

What happens two chapters later is that the first humans rebel against God, unleashing sin into the world. Everything is affected, including the family. Here is where “family diversity” shows up, and the rest of Genesis reveals not the beauty but the sordid details of family life after humanity’s fall into sin.

In the Bible, polygamy is the first indication that things have gone awry with the family structure, and the descriptions there — of favoring of wives, conning a father, sleeping with a slave girl — are tragic, not celebrated. The Bible gives us these details, not because it’s celebrating polygamous practices, but in order to demonstrate how far they fall from God’s original intent.

I realize there are many Americans who may read the Bible with interest but don’t believe it to have any authority in these debates. So let’s turn to Kaine’s principle of celebrating family diversity and see what that looks like from a sociological perspective.

What do we do with the overwhelming statistics that show how much family structure really does matter?

If gender doesn’t matter to marriage, why should number? If number doesn’t matter to marriage, why should permanence?

According to Kaine’s foundational principle of “diversity” as a trump card in the case of gay marriage, why should we expect him to oppose a court case asking the government to legally recognize a well-known polygamous family?

Furthermore, does Kaine disagree with President Obama’s lament for the fatherlessness of so many in our country? “I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house,” Obama said in 2008. “The hole in your heart when you don’t have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you.”

If the diversity of the family should be celebrated, not condemned, then we shouldn’t judge any family as being more ideal than another, right? Shouldn’t Obama buck up, stop talking about the hole in his heart from missing his dad, and realize that any gender or number of parents should have sufficed?

Is J.D. Vance’s best-seller, “Hillbilly Elegy,” in which he painfully describes a revolving door of boyfriends for his mother, a never-ending mirage of father figures, misguided? Shouldn’t Vance instead celebrate the family structure he grew up in?

Jesus knew a thing or two about reading the Bible. When he was asked about marriage, he did what Kaine did — went back to the first chapters of Genesis.

But Jesus’ takeaway was different. He stressed the true diversity of the human family — the two sides of humanity, male and female coming together in unity, not the flattened-out gender-neutral ideology that says that “two dads” or “two moms” are equivalent to a mother and father. And Jesus stressed God’s original design for the permanence of the marriage relationship.

In this, Jesus takes his stand with God’s design in Genesis 1, a design that says one man, one woman, for life is ideal. This sets Jesus over against the ancient patriarchs who opted for polygamy, over against the religious leaders of his day who wanted easy divorce, and over against the revisionist, schismatic interpretations of the Bible that come from people like Kaine, who mangle the storyline of Scripture to suit political ends.

(Trevin Wax is managing editor of The Gospel Project and author of multiple books, including “Clear Winter Nights: A Journey Into Truth, Doubt and What Comes After”)

About the author

Trevin Wax

152 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Trevin wax: Tim Kaine mangles the Bible to score a political point

    As opposed to mangling the bible to make sure that the Sodom story stands for a condemnation of all gay people, male and female, everywhere and everywhen, but the story of the woman of gibeah does not stand for the condemnation of heterosexual people. Or the mangling of the bible when Jesus answers a question about divorce, not gay people getting married. Or the mangling of the bible in Paul where a condemnation of idolatrous practices is used to condemn gay people.
    or. or. or. or. or.

  • Trevin Wax: “Genesis 1 does indeed show God declaring everything he has created to be good. But this comes right after he created a male and a female and tasked them with filling the earth with more humans who bear the image of God.”
    “Male and female he created them,” Gen. 1. This refers to the human race (men and women plural), not the beginning of a particular nuclear family. Only supposition links this with the two individuals in Garden of Eden story of Gen. 2, and this supposition has been debated by Bible scholars for eons. Gen. 1 explains humanity’s place in creation, not what families look like. Sure humanity multiplies, all living things are tasked with multiplying, but that’s not the point of chapter 1. As to the goodness of humanity, it is declared of God to be good in all of its variations and expressions to be found in the “them” of Gen 1:27.

  • Re: “In other words, God’s original design is a man, a woman, and their children.”

    Interesting. Why then is the Bible full of different family designs, e.g. 1 man, multiple wives, plus concubines, and all their children (e.g. the famed and holy King Solomon)? According to 1 Kings 11:3, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and his-God-only-knows-how-many children.

    How did that particular arrangement by a righteous ruler figure into “God’s original design” of “a man, a woman, and their children”? Do tell.

    Oh, and if you can explain that, then please also explain these other virtuous patriarchs and how their families supposedly also reflected “God’s original design” of “a man, a woman, and their children”:

    Abraham: Married Sarah (Gen 16:1), then took as additional wives Hagar (Gen 16:3) and later Keturah (Gen 25:1).

    Jacob: Married Leah (Gen 29:23), then Rachel (Gen 29:28), then Bilhah (Gen 30:4), then Zilpah (Gen 30:9).

    Moses: Married Zipporah (Ex 2:21), then an unnamed Ethiopian woman (Num 12:1).

    David: His named wives were Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam 25:39), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43), Eglah, Abital, Haggith, & Maacah (2 Sam 3:3-5), and Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24); there were an unknown number of other wives as well (2 Sam 5:13).

    Please, explain it all to me. I’m dying to understand it all. Really.

  • Taking your repeated assurances that you’re “dying to understand it all” at face value:

    Description is not prescription. Sometimes description is just description; sometimes the way a thing is described recommends that thing; sometimes the way a thing is described makes for a cautionary tale.

    And since pretty much every single case of polygamy described in Scripture is also described as having resulted in disaster, one can rightly say (even if polygamy were permitted under the Old Covenant) that Scripture presents it as being a very bad idea.

    Finally, whatever may have been the state of the law under the Mosaic Covenant, in his own teaching Jesus expressly forbids polygamy, and calls it the distortion of God’s good design for man and woman that it is.

  • Trevin Wax mangles the Bible to score political points on a regular basis.

    “The Bible gives us these details, not because it’s celebrating
    polygamous practices, but in order to demonstrate how far they fall from
    God’s original intent.”

    Of course there is no condemnation of such practices in the areas of the Bible which discuss them. In fact they are celebrated when one discusses patriarchs such as Abraham’s familial line and the glories and splendor of King Solomon.

    “If gender doesn’t matter to marriage, why should number? If number doesn’t matter to marriage, why should permanence?”

    Oh give us all a break! The whole sliding slope from marriage equality to polygamy BS. There is no moral argument against polygamy. There is a legal one. Polygamy wreaks havoc on our binary assumptions and defaults with marriage rights and obligations. Unless polygamists can come up with revisions to said laws which are equitable for all spouses (it is conceivably possible) then there would be no objections. There is no moral argument against marriage equality nor a legal one.

  • “Please also explain these other virtuous patriarchs and how their families supposedly also reflected ‘God’s original design.'”

    Their families *didn’t* reflect God’s original design.

    “In the Bible, polygamy is the first indication that things have gone awry with the family structure, and the descriptions there — of favoring of wives, conning a father, sleeping with a slave girl — are tragic, not celebrated. The Bible gives us these details, not because it’s celebrating polygamous practices, but in order to demonstrate how far they fall from God’s original intent.” Trevin Wax, in the above article. Did you not read the whole thing?

  • “And since pretty much every single case of polygamy described in Scripture is also described as having resulted in disaster”

    Except for all the instances on Abraham’s line and King Solomon which Mr. Wax ignores. Then there is the book of Esther. Persian king acquired an additional wife at a beauty contest. She eventually saves her people from genocide.

    He also misses the point. Demonizing single parents and gay couples is a horrific public policy. One which never supports “family values” and usually drips with dog whistle racist appeals.

  • 1 Timothy 1: 9-11 “ …. understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,a liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

    Jude 1:7 – In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV)

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

    those are a few of them…..blessings.

  • Re: “Their families *didn’t* reflect God’s original design.”

    But they were holy men who did your God’s work. Weren’t they? If not, why are they included in your Bible and why are they revered even now?

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say they weren’t living according to your God’s design but laud them for being holy men who lived according to your God’s wishes. It doesn’t compute.

    BTW I get that the author carved out this convenient little exception to his rule. He offers no meaningful rationale for doing so, however.

  • The Bible does not talk about homosexuality. This is easy to understand because the word “homosexual” did not exist and was not used until after 1860. The concept of sexual orientation did not appear, at the earliest, until near the end of the 1600s. This means that the reason there is no reference in the Bible to homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality or asexuality and no general reference to sexual orientation is because at the time the Bible was written neither the vocabulary nor the concept existed. Consequently, translating any Biblical text as “homosexuality” is scholastically irresponsible and an abuse of the scripture.

  • So let’s jump to the two verses in Leviticus that get used so much.

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
    it is an abomination.
    — NRSV Leviticus 18:22

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
    both of them have committed an abomination;
    — NRSV Leviticus 20:13

    When quoted this way, the two verses seem nearly identical. Yet this is an inaccurate quote because it is incomplete.

    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.
    — NRSV Leviticus 20:13

    The second prohibition carries a death penalty which makes it neither as compatible nor as palatable as the first prohibition. Also missing are the verses from the beginning and ending of these respective chapters that clearly qualify the collection of prohibitions within these two chapters as being ways in which citizens of the ancient nation of Israel were to express their national identity. One of the ways the various English translations are correct is the absence of the words, “to God” – it is not an abomination to God. Here is, if not a more accurate translation, at least an equally accurate translation.

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
    it is an offensive thing.
    — NRSV Leviticus 18:22

    If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
    both of them have committed an offensive thing;
    they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
    — NRSV Leviticus 20:13

    One of the radical aspects of the Torah was the assumption and requirement of equality among men. In other nations, there were different laws for men according to their social status. That social status differentiation does not exist in the Torah. In the ancient nation of Israel, treating a man as a woman was a civil offense, not a moral offense; it was about treating an equal as something other than and less than equal. The offense specified in these two verses was about diminishing the social status of another man and not about committing an act of immorality

    Regardless of whether a translation uses the word “abomination” or the phrase “an offensive thing,” the word in ancient Hebrew was tōʻēbāh (to‑ay‑baw’). At this point, I will quote from the book, “The Bible Now” written by Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky. Dr. Friedman, a nationally recognized biblical scholar, is the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Dolansky is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Northeastern University. Here is what they have to say:

    “The question is: is the term tōʻēbāh an absolute – meaning that an act that is a tōʻēbāh is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative, meaning that something that is a tōʻēbāh to one person may not be offensive in another, or something that is a tōʻēbāh in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a tōʻēbāh in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another – in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change?

    Elsewhere in the Bible the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is they should say that they are cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (tōʻēbāh) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians do not eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (tōʻēbāh) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and do not find it offensive. See also the story of the exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (tōʻēbāh) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.”

    At this point, I need to interject that the Torah has different sources and different authors. In a footnote the authors tell us “The cases involving Joseph and his brothers come from the biblical source J. This case involving Moses and Pharaoh comes from the biblical source E. So this understanding of the word tōʻēbāh as a relative term is not just the view of one biblical author. It appears in both of the Bible’s foundational prose sources.”

    Returning to the main text of their book and continuing, the authors state, “If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a tōʻēbāh was precisely what made the biblical text seems so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of tōʻēbāh that opens the possibility of the law’s change. So whatever position one takes on this matter, Left or Right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex – between males but not between females. And one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive.” Consequently, for us, these verses are neither obligatory nor controlling.

    Which raises an interesting question: Why are these two verses so important? In that same portion of the Torah – in those books we call Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy – forgiveness is requested or offered 20 times. There are 9 divine calls for justice to be offered to all people and for justice to be applied fairly – even to immigrants and aliens. We are told 19 times that the poor, the widows and orphans, and even strangers are to be treated justly and compassionately and they are not to be allowed to go hungry or naked. The Torah (and the overarching message of the entire Bible) is less concerned with establishing an empire of legalistic obedience and ritual purity and more concerned with establishing a community of justice and compassion.

  • ” You do know that the Bible is the Word of God, right?”

    The so-called Word of God is nothing more than the word of delusional and/or fraudulent men claiming to speak for a god. And then later, after people cherry-picked the writings to be included in the Bible, it became labeled as “Scripture” in an effort to elevate its perception above the level of ordinary writings, and to convey the illusion of it being the supreme source of authority.

  • As an ordained Baptist minister for more than 56 years and a former adjunct seminary professor, I understand the doctrines you mention and declare as the final truth. What I think you are not taking into account is that Scriptural hermeneutics are based on 3 contexts: historical, cultural, & linguistic. I see no evidence of that you understand your examples. For example, the Sodom & Gomorrah account: what was the primary, systemic “sin” of perversion? Might it have to do with the gift of Hospitality that was a part of the Jewish Holiness Code? (Google it.). And do you think God approved of Lot offering his virgin daughters for rape rather to prevent the visitors from “knowing” the men of Sodom?
    Remember the Cultural Context? It is very puzzling to me that if homosexuality had been at the top of the “sinchart” that Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality. Bkessings for a sacred pace in your journey.

  • NOW we’re getting somewhere!! Finally, baby!!

    100 percent thanks to Trevin Wax for telling the flat-out TRUTH around here!!!

  • Sodom and Gomorrah

    This revisionist “Hospitality” interpretation ignores or downplays several important factors concerning the sin for which God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah: 1) It is described by God as “exceedingly grave (Gen 18:20).” 2) It is spoken of in terms of what “they have done,” indicating its ongoing nature and thus its existence even prior to the alleged “inhospitality” of the attempted gang rape. 3) It encompassed “the cities around them (Jude 7).” 4) It is characterized by Jude as an example of “gross immorality” and “going after strange flesh (Jude 7),” and by Peter as “sensual conduct” that occurred “day after day (2 Pet 2:7-8).” 5) A number of Second Temple Jewish texts (Jubilees, The Testament of Naphtali, etc.) clearly identify the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as an especially egregious example of sexual perversion. 6) Even in view of the significance placed upon hospitality within ANE culture, the notion that God would engage in the wholesale destruction of cities simply for failing to act hospitably seems wholly without warrant and without parallel. Ironically, what appears most inhospitable of all is the biblical and extra-biblical witness toward this revisionist hypothesis.

    God’s view concerning Lot offering up his daughters is really just a red herring. That such behavior may in some sense have been culturally acceptable in no way entails that God viewed it as acceptable.

    Jesus on Homosexuality

    As Sandi noted, your question is based on a false assumption, namely, that the words of Jesus in the Gospels (i.e. red letters) are somehow more authoritative than the rest of Scripture. But Jesus, the divine Logos made flesh (John 1:14), God Himself, is the ultimate author of ALL Scripture, Old and New Testaments. All Scripture is the Word of God, and thus the Word of Jesus.

    Second, the idea that whatever Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn He must have approved of is a fallacious argument from silence. There are a number of issues Jesus did not address by name that are nevertheless rightly regarded as sinful.
    Given that Jesus was a Jew speaking primarily to other Jews, the issue of homosexual practice simply wasn’t a topic that needed to be directly addressed; the understanding that such behavior was explicitly and categorically prohibited was axiomatic and undisputed.

    Third, Jesus does explicitly condemn “sexual immorality” (porneia), which encompasses all sexual acts prohibited in Leviticus and elsewhere, including homosexual acts (Mark 7:21).

    Fourth, contrary to popular misconceptions Jesus did not lessen moral standards; He greatly increased them. It is not just outwardly sinful acts that are the problem, but the heart disposed to such acts: “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person (Mark 7:21-23).”

    Fifth, Jesus’ explication of what marriage IS—the permanent and exclusive covenant bond between one man and one woman, male and female, husband and wife, which bond is physically consummated via the exclusive one flesh union of male-female sexual intercourse, which union is in turn the exclusive natural act whereby other males and females are created, who can themselves become husbands and wives, fathers and mothers—necessarily excludes all sex acts that occur outside the covenant of marriage (Matt. 19:4-6). Because male-male and female-female relationships do not, indeed cannot, by their very definition, qualify as marriages, same-sex sex acts are unequivocally prohibited.

    Sixth, if Jesus did approve of homosexual practice, what are we to make of the fact that He never once made an effort to correct the widespread misconception of those to whom He preached? Surely there must have been some among the masses who experienced same-sex desires and a deep longing to fulfill those desires. With but a word Jesus could have graciously granted the sexual minority permission to fully embrace and satisfy the sexual yearnings they wrongly suppressed. But in lieu of express emancipation, Jesus condemned those with same-sex desires to suffer needlessly throughout 2000 years of church history, anxiously awaiting the advent of a small cadre of enlightened 20th century prophets who would herald the “True” interpretation of sacred Scripture that had eluded all previous generations of the faithful.

  • “Holy” does not mean perfect/sinless when we speak of human behavior. King David is one of the most revered figures in all of Scripture, esteemed as “a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14).” And yet he also committed one of the most notorious sins in the Bible, an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, the wife of his faithful soldier Uriah, and the subsequent murder of Uriah in an attempt to hide the infidelity. Nevertheless, it is through the line of David’s son by Bathsheba, Solomon (who himself is greatly revered despite his many shortcomings), that Christ the Savior and King is born. He alone is holy/sinless. The fact is the Bible is replete with examples of God carrying out His good purposes is spite of the abundant failings of sinful human beings, even those who in many respects faithfully serve Him.

  • When did Religion News Service become a propaganda platform for bigotry? I expected much better from RNS who I respect for usually having more thoughtful and introspective pieces than this apologetic hate trash.

  • Actually your question was ,”Where is the text that condemns homosexuality and calls it a sin?” Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality in His recorded words, there are potential answers for that. However some of the texts cited by Sandi were written by His closest disciples, It is unlikely that they would assert positions in conflict with their Master. And as Sandi noted quite correctly from the historic, orthodox, and classical interpretation: Jesus is a member of the triune Godhead, and thus provided the guidance, inspiration, and often specific declarations to His prophets, therefore what ever is recorded in the bible is from Jesus.

  • So do you also stone your disobedient children to death too? Because apparently “Jesus” also commanded that in Leviticus but I never see Christians follow that anymore.

  • Scriptures above condemn 90% of all Christians. Are we under the Law of the Old Testament still? When and how does Paul’s writings in the epistles apply for slavery and wearing a head covering and women teaching (something you attempt doing here)? Clearly we do not live in the first century context of the scriptures and have managed to divorce ourselves some of its arcane requirements. I can only hope in Christ that our “STATUS” of righteousness is not erased by our inability to live perfect lives. Paul also states that there is neither male nor female, slave nor free
    and neither Jew nor Gentile in the kingdom, which might be pointing us to an understanding that we do not take with us our worldly identities into the realm of his rule.

  • “Yet the instances in Abraham’s line and Solomon’s life show the problem of multiple wives. ”

    For example? Please be specific here.

    “Also did God say what the Persian king did was okay no he didn’t.”

    That is not in the Book of Esther. In fact it is the only book in the Old Testament which does not mention God explicitly. God doesn’t say ANYTHING there.
    http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/EstherSong.html

  • Except bigots claim the Bible specifically condemns certain people. They use this fiction to justify malicious behavior towards others.

  • Except you are using subsequent sections by different writers and carefully omited all negative references to your point. The sin of inhospitality predates Biblical authorship and was common among all cultures of the region. You omit the references to the sins of predatory usury of Sodom (“marked coins”) and Ezekials reference to the sins of Sodom bring indifference to the poor. If you got out of the story of Sodom a condemnation of gays, you neither read it in its entirety nor understood it. But then again proof texting is not about honest interpretation of text. It’s about taking out quotes to justify a position.

  • “However some of the texts cited by Sandi were written by His closest disciples, It is unlikely that they would assert positions in conflict with their Master”

    Except all the history of what happens to all religious groups when their original leader dies. The former disciples cue for leadership and come up with their own versions of “the masters word”. They start diverging and splitting into sects.

  • Ever since they gave shills for the Southern Baptist Convention and Liberty Counsel recurring opinion columns. Trevin Wax is literally a paid for spokesperson for the SBC.

  • So the statement about bad things befalling them because of polygamy was just complete unfounded nonsense. It’s telling that fundamentalists Christians always seem to have a verse or two handy to justify given positions in most cases. But here they came up empty here. That means it must be a really egregious fiction.

  • Am I trying to justify the actions of treating people decently and humanely? I would hope so. I see nothing wrong in doing such things.

    Somehow you have equated bigotry to Christianity to such a degree that it defines your faith. Far more than anything Jesus said about how we treat others. It speaks badly to your interpretation of Christianity. And there are plenty others which do not share your hate. You chose that one because it works for you. It enables you to ignore all basic notions of human decency and excuse malicious behavior. (Please spare me the BS that attacking gays and other alleged sinners is a welcomed service or done out of concern for the souls of others. You do it to feel superior to others and act badly)

  • But it’s a sin not to believe that Jesus died for your sins. Shall we oppress people who are not Christian, or perhaps those Christians who are not True Christians (TM) according to the definitions of certain True Christians (TM) that post here regularly?

  • So in other words, your god doesn’t care as much about all the pat bad behavior as you do.

    But we knew that.

  • Your quote is in reference to salvation – it is for everyone. We are still under some of the OT as Christ brought the moral laws into the NT. He fulfilled the others. Paul discouraged being a slave to any man: 1 Corinthians 7:23 – New International Version
    You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.
    As far as the “arcane requirements”, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever – and we are still under what He wanted.
    Jesus knew we could not live perfect lives to the point that He died for us as our substitute, if we choose to accept that gift – otherwise sinners will still die.

  • That would be a civil law at best. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial and civil laws. He brought the moral laws into the NT.

  • But they did, Edward. Precisely that. Jesus condemned divorce except for adultery, it was quite clear. Paul gave us the “Pauline exception. That’s just an easy example.

    Paul seemed completely unaware of just about any of the incidents of Jesus’s life found in the gospels. Not a contradiction, per se, but indicative of something. No virgin birth, no choirs of angels.

    There is a wealth of articles on this subject of all of the places that Paul contradicted Jesus. Just google “st. Paul and Jesus contradictions.” Many of these articles are by Christians, not atheists.

  • Of course it was acceptable to God. God saved the one righteous man in sodom. That was lot, an old drunk who first offered his Virgin daughters, and then did them himself.

    Amazing how the sodom story was turned into a condemnation of homosexuality, but the woman of Gibeah was not turned into a condemnation of heterosexuality.

    That would not have been convenient,

  • Lots of room for debate here because it can be argued quite convincingly that these nuanced writings did not appear until the 11th century. For anyone to claim that scripture as we have it now “is truth without any mixture of error, creates an abundance of inconsistencies and hermeneutical problems and is at, best naive, and at worst, ignorant.
    I’m done with the discussion.

  • On behalf of the rapidly growing post-Christian movement, I want to thank Trevin Wax for vividly demonstrating his inability and/or refusal to utilize reason, evidence, and logic in his thinking.

    Unlike Wax, rational people are willing and able to discard ancient myths/fallacies/superstitions as they accumulate increasing knowledge gained through utilizing reason, evidence, and logic to grow, learn, and discover. People who are open to rational thinking are finally realizing that the existence of openly gay people, whether married or unmarried, cause no harm whatsoever to anyone, and thus it is not immoral despite the views of rational-phobic people still clinging to the writings of ignorant/bigoted ancient people (and today’s people using deceitful faux-scientific veneer to maintain the same bigoted views).

    And furthermore, the advocacy of full social acceptance of gay people strengthens family bonds, and thus it is the authentic pro-family position. It is the anti-gay crowd who are actually anti-family by doing everything they can to tear families apart.

  • Then you should know that Christ spoke about homosexuality all over the Bible including in Matthew:15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.20 These are what defile you.” Christ spoke about it in the Ot. He spoke about it in the NT. Lot offering his daughters to homosexuals who didn’t want her was probably just that. It proves the matter more how homosexual the men were.

  • That is a load of BS. You are making untoward and unwanted trespasses on others to exhibit self righteous arrogance. You are not trying to show concern. You are just acting obnoxious and judgmental to avoid bring civil or show a modicum of respect for the lives of others. I am criticizing malicious behavior you are trying to excuse. It deserves to be put down. Any decent person would find fault in the nonsense you are supporting.

    Live and let live is not good enough for you. You feel the need to attack people who do not flow along with you. If you were willing to respect people as people, I wouldn’t care about your beliefs at all.

  • Not so fast there, Spuddie Spudderton. First, “using subsequent sections by different writers” (i.e. the whole Bible) is known as Biblical Theology. As far as “carefully [omitting] all negative references to your point,” I heard nary more than crickets in terms of your handling of the relevant texts. Second, I never said homosexual practice was the ONLY sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned. Ezekiel does indeed include “pride, excess of food, etc.” in the list of Sodom’s sins. At the end of that list, however, he notes that the citizens of Sodom committed “an abomination” (to‘ebah, singular). Interestingly, only homosexual practice is singled out from the list of abominations (to‘ebot, plural) in Leviticus 18 and 20 with the special designation “an abomination” (to‘ebah, singular). Given Ezekiel’s high regard for the Holiness Code of Levitcus (by virtue of being a Zadokite priest), and the fact that his other two uses of (to‘ebah, singular) are both in reference to sexual sin, it is a good bet that his use of “an abomination” (to‘ebah, singular) in 16:50 with regard to Sodom, harkens back to its parallel use in Levitcus 18 and 20 concerning homosexual practice. Third, I clearly stated that the condemnation in view regards homosexual practice, not “condemnation of gays.” Btw, to reduce one’s identity to one’s sexual predilections is to embrace an incredibly distorted and anemic view of what it means to be a human being.

  • For people who claim to read and understand the Bible in its entirety, who always have a quote handy to support whatever nonsense position yet have, I am surprised about how they have come up empty here.

    Sorry Kendall, you don’t get to declare yourself a victor for being unable to support your position in the manner typically used.

  • I can’t help it if you failed to read the passages in context of both the entire story or the cultural tropes it invoked. Now you are trying to weasel out of prior statements. You criticized another poster for pointing out the most important sins of Sodom were inhoslitality. So your statement about “the only sin” is just you being a revisionist liar. As for Leviticus, another poster already pointed out the problems with your interpretation of that as well.

  • You speak as though the OT law still prevails in the NT. Are we under the Law or under grace? If there is NT moral law, Christ died for nothing. If there is grace, we should desire to be conformed to his image. So, at what point can anyone be justified in denying fellowship to those perceived to be out of conformance to scripture when grace has been given to all who believe.

  • You had a “slip of the pen” there, Jwiley, by saying “the text” instead of “the references where JESUS” (condemns homosexuality), but Luckins displayed the sad fact that ultra-conservative “Christians” don’t know the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus.

  • Well if you wanted to demonstrate a point concerning the Bible’s text, and you are trained to use Bible quotes to prove your point on such matters, it is surprising you can’t in this instance.

    “I believe in God’s word”

    But you can’t seem to find the parts of it which support the claim that God didn’t like polygamy when it came to the Abrahamic line and King Solomon. So obviously it looks like you are coming up with your own version of God’s word or mistaking what you think God wanted.

    “Evidence isn’t necessary”

    It is when you are trying to claim text says something it does not.

  • Thank you, JWiley, for your scholarly response, in contrast to Bmo, who conveniently IGNORES over A DOZEN references in the bible to Sodom and Gomorrah, which DON’T relate to sexual sinfulness and HIGHLIGHTS the ONE instance that DOES:

    Deuteronomy refers to Sodom and Gomorrah twice, without any hint of homosexuality: Deut. 29: 23-26 and Deut. 32:32

    Jeremiah 23: 13-14 also speaks of Sodom and Gomorrah, with no clear reference to homosexuality.
    Ezekiel 16:49-50 describes the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as totally different from homosexuality.
    The first chapter of Isaiah speaks of God’s unhappiness with Sodom and Gomorrah, but says nothing whatever about homosexuality. What it does say is ” learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”
    Isaiah mentions Sodom again in Isaiah 3:9 and in Isaiah:13:19, but there is no clear connection with homosexuality in either of those verses.

    The Prophet Amos likewise mentions Sodom in Amos 4:11, without any reference to homosexuality.

    The Prophet Zephaniah likewise mentions the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah in Zephaniah 2:10 without any connection with homosexuality, but rather “in return for their pride, because they scoffed and boasted against the people of the Lord of hosts.”

    The Deutero-canonical books identify the sin of Sodom as the worship of competing gods (idols), as pride and as inhospitality:

    In Wisdom 19:13-14, we read “…whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them.”

    In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: “He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride.”

    In the Gospels, there is only one reference to Sodom and inhospitality:

    In Luke 10:10-13,
    Jesus compares the fate of towns that are inhospitable to his disciples
    to that which beset Sodom of its inhospitality.”Whenever you enter a
    town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even
    the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest
    against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell
    you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that
    town.”

    Paul also referred to Sodom and Gomorrah only once ( in Romans, 9:29 ) and not in connection with homosexuality.

    The same is true of the Book of Revelations, which referred to Sodom only once (Revelations 8:11) and not in connection with homosexuality.

    Peter likewise referred to Sodom and Gomorrah only once ( in 2 Peter 2:4 ) and not in connection with homosexuality.

    Finally, in one of the very last books of the Bible, Jude (1:7), the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah is attributed to unnatural lust, i.e. ” Likewise, Sodom
    and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as
    they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust”

  • You are full of excuses for what amounts to abusive behavior towards others. As much as you want to justify it through poor analogy, it doesn’t change the nature of what you are supporting. Behavior that if exhibited towards you would be considered an attack, defamation, persecution and discrimination.

    ” You lead others towards a cliff and don’t try to help them which shows your ignorance. ”

    I am pointing out your ignorance. How your self-appointed right to interfere with how others live is wrong, immoral and even against the teachings of your own religion. But I am not doing things like advocating attacks on you under color of law. That garbage is all from your camp.

  • Thank you, Ray D. Great pieces. Learned a ong ago that it is impossible to play cards with folk who deal themselves the entire deck!

  • “I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.”

    Richard Feynman

  • “Celebrate”? Then no one can not “celebrate when they exercise their right of freedom of religion by not making cakes, hiring/firing in Catholic organizations, let the men into ladies and little girls restrooms, showers and changing rooms, etc.
    Sure, what’s not to “celebrate”?

  • Holy Trinity-one God, Father , Son, Holy Spirit. All the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus affirmed marriage between one man and one woman, He blessed the wedding at Cana, made divorce unacceptable. He is God and cannot be against himself in three Persons.

  • Did Jesus say it’s ok?

    Does God contradict Himself? Does Jesus, who had three years to teach a new way, who is the Son of God, have to repeat everything that God said in the OT? Does He have to repeat the 10 commandments so that you can say, “Jesus himself said nothing about the 10?

    He preached what He approved, marriage of one man and one woman without divorce.

  • I am sure that response made more sense in your head than on the page.

    Lets backtrack here because it is obvious you are suffering from the positioning of one’s cranium up their egestive tract.

    Your statement:

    “Yet the instances in Abraham’s line and Solomon’s life show the problem of multiple wives.”

    You couldn’t demonstrate that statement had any merit. What instances? Anything from the Bible? Nope.

    You would think if you talked about instances of something with the lives of a Biblical character, you could find them actually in the Bible.

    But no. Just

    I don’t need to show you a quote. I believe in God’s word and you don’t seem to. Evidence isn’t necessary

    Oh well. Better luck next time.

  • Its not my job to verify your claims. You made the silly statement. You couldn’t support it. Not my problem. You are now just being a whiner about it.

  • One would think that an all loving, all knowing, and all powerful god would have foreseen problems such as this and spoken more directly about it.

  • Re: “‘Holy’ does not mean perfect/sinless when we speak of human behavior.”

    So you’re going to move the goalposts. You realize this invalidates everything you say, don’t you? That it’s possible to run afoul of your deity’s plans and dictates but remain faithful and even holy. Why should anyone really care about your deity’s wishes if s/he/it doesn’t give a you-know-what if his hand-picked worker-bees won’t follow them?

    Re: “The fact is the Bible is replete with examples of God carrying out His good purposes is spite of the abundant failings of sinful human beings, even those who in many respects faithfully serve Him.”

    I’m not getting how these people could have “faithfully served Him” if their family structures didn’t reflect your deity’s wishes. Again, it just doesn’t compute. It’s an evasion, and it’s transparent.

  • “Telling someone that they are doing something wrong is the right way to live.” Kendall, let me tell you, you are doing it wrong.

  • No, I guess you’re referring to the so-called “NOT” significant portion of Christianity who are ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’. And again your point….

  • “Holy”=set apart. Wholly unique. Different. Perfect. Despite their strengths, Abraham, Moses, and David were not these things–at least not in the fullest sense of the word. They got some things right and some things wrong. We are called to emulate their successes and avoid their failures. The Bible specifically acknowledges their shortcomings. Abraham’s a great example–his second marriage to Hagar represents a lack of faith in God’s promises, one that results in suffering for pretty much everyone in the equation. Above commenter pointed out David and Bathsheba as another great example.

    The point is, Wax didn’t use the word “holy” to describe these men. Nor did I. You did.

    But God uses sinful people to accomplish His good purposes. And He disciplines them where necessary, because yes, He does care about conduct. That might be a paradox, but contrary to what you seem to think, it’s not a contradiction. A parent’s unconditional love for his/her child doesn’t mean the parent doesn’t care how the child acts.

  • Christ brought the moral laws of the OT into the NT. No one denies homosexuals fellowship. They are just not members of most churches because they are not Christians.

  • It must be remembered that Satan quotes scripture for his own purpose. John 14:15 also states “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” Tim Kaine has taken Satan’s lead.

    Archbishop Fulton Sheen made the perfect distinction between someone who is bad, and someone who is evil. A bad person does bad things — steals, lies, cheats. An evil person seeks to destroy goodness, virtue, honor, decency, morality and truth.

    Just as all evil is not equally malicious not all good is equally sublime.

    By Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s definition Mr.Kaine is evil and so is Hillary. An organization is what it’s people are, so, therefore, by extension, the Democratic party is evil.

  • Re: “The point is, Wax didn’t use the word “holy” to describe these men. Nor did I. You did.”

    Do you and other believers in the Abrahamic faiths revere them? Or not? If you revere them, why is that? Because they did your deity’s work? If so, then how could they have done so yet not had families that coincided with your deity’s grand design?

    Whether or not the word “holy” applies to them or not, is immaterial. Either they were men who lived according to your deity’s designs and did his/her/its work, or they didn’t. Pick one.

    Re: “But God uses sinful people to accomplish His good purposes.”

    Yes, I get that’s your rationalization for moving the goal posts. I really don’t care, however, about your justification for doing so. I only care that you moved them. And I will reiterate that you moved them until you concede you did so.

    Re: “And He disciplines them where necessary, because yes, He does care about conduct.”

    Except, it turns out, your deity did not care about it! If he doesn’t care about the patriarchs’ polygamy, then logically he can’t care much about anyone else’s, or about gay marriage, or whatever it is you want to whine about.

    Re: “That might be a paradox, but contrary to what you seem to think, it’s not a contradiction.”

    A paradox is not a contradiction!? Are you serious? You’re veering all over the place, and swerving into absurdity, in order to justify your ridiculous, irrational, illogical position. I’m nowhere near as stupid as you obviously think I am, so please stop expecting me to buy into this nonsense.

    Re: “A parent’s unconditional love for his/her child doesn’t mean the parent doesn’t care how the child acts.”

    A supposedly-omnipotent and omniscient deity cannot be compared, logically, in any way with mere-mortal and very-limited human parents. It doesn’t work … at all. Ever. That too is something I’m not stupid enough to fall for, so spare me that, too.

  • That excuses for these people and supporters of them are far more prevalent than those who make efforts to address the issue. Thank you for demonstrating just the kind of people I was talking about.

    Of course that is not going into the regular practice of s1utshaming rape victims done by many Christians of a fundamentalist stripe.

  • for someone who declares they are not antigay, you sure do like the worst possible– i.e., anti homosexual– translations of your holy book.

    Jude 1:7 “sexual immorality and perversion” Funny,, other translations do not scome up with perversion, but “going after strange flesh”, which actual biblical scholars state refers to going after angelic flesh.

    for timothy? Here are a bunch of other translations. NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS ‘MEN WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY’.

    New International Version
    We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

    New Living Translation
    For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders.

    English Standard Version
    understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

    Berean Study Bible
    We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers,

    Berean Literal Bible
    knowing this, that law is not enacted for a righteous one, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for slayers of man,

    New American Standard Bible
    realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers

    King James Bible
    Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

    Holman Christian Standard Bible
    We know that the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

    International Standard Version
    that is, if he understands that the Law is not intended for righteous people but for lawbreakers and rebels, for ungodly people and sinners, for those who are unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers, their mothers, or other people,

    NET Bible
    realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

    New Heart English Bible
    as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers,

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    While he knows that The Written Law was not appointed for the righteous, but for the evil, the rebellious, the wicked, for sinners, for the vicious, for those who are impure, for those who strike their fathers, those who strike their mothers, for murderers,

    You are simply delusional about your own motivations. But then, you are a bible believing Christian who uses her faith as a means to deflect attention from herself.

  • Except that Ezekiel 16:50 **does** in fact contain a sharp reference to the homosexual mess in Sodom.

    It’s not just any old general reference. Verse 16:50 shows that the homosexual mess was THE tipping point, the last straw, of all of Sodom’s sins, after which God “took them away” (i.e., wiped them out).

    This stuff can’t be sugarcoated. Take it seriously.

  • The victims were children. It makes the perpetrators pedophiles, not homosexual. Homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same sex. But its nice to see you would rather shift blame on outside parties than address the problems rife within your group. Scapegoating is always far easier than useful action. Never mind that ultra-religious authority easily enables sexual predators of all stripes. Blame the gays.

    Of course it also doesn’t address the regular problem of child rape within ultra-conservative Christian circles where the victims are of opposite gender. Nor do you really want to talk about how rape is excused and minimized in such circles when the perpetrators and victims are adults.

  • He did. All the way back in Genesis. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    The Sodom-ites knew what they were doing, just like we American-ites know what we’re doing today. We know what God’s Word says, even the atheists do.

    WE Americans are the ones who are messing up. GOD is the guy who’s showing us all this great mercy and economic prosperity IN SPITE OF our mant sins, just like He did for Sodom. He’s giving US extra free time to repent, just like he gave Sodom extra free time to repent.

    But WE are on HIS clock, all the same. Borrowed time, baby. Tipping-Point ahead. So while I don’t like Trump, I’m going to vote for Him.

    Trump can’t save us and he’s not very smart. But those two spiritually messed-up zombies, Clinton and Kaine, obviously want to Speed-Dial this entire nation straight to Catastrophic JUDGMENT !!

  • “Do you and other believers in the Abrahamic faiths revere them? Or not? If you revere them, why is that? Because they did your deity’s work? If so, then how could they have done so yet not had families that coincided with your deity’s grand design?”

    Define “revere.” I certainly don’t see them as better than anyone else of their own accord. No Christian who holds to a Biblical anthropology should (Romans 1-3). I see them as people who did some good things, and in other cases some bad things. It was good that Abraham left Ur and went to Canaan, like God told him to. It was bad that he married Hagar, instead of trusting God to provide a son through his first wife like He promised. This isn’t cheating the game, it’s letting the Bible define its own terms.

    I don’t concede I moved the goal posts because I reject your initial placement of them as inaccurate and based on a faulty assumption. I have no interest in defending something I do not believe–namely that OT patriarchs were sinless. Why on earth do you assume we think they were? Have you read the story of David and Bathsheba as detailed in II Samuel? Have you read God’s response to David’s adultery? Where do you get the idea that He shrugs it aside? How about Solomon in I Kings 11? Given v. 1-2, you really think God’s okay with his marital relationships?

    “Paradox”–a statement that sounds absurd or seems to contradict itself, but may in fact be true. (OED) “Contradiction”–A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another. (OED) I used these terms not because I think you are stupid, but because I know how to use them accurately. I figured you would too.

    “A supposedly-omnipotent and omniscient deity cannot be compared, logically, in any way with mere-mortal and very-limited human parents.”

    Hang on… so you’re saying that the reason a parent might both love and discipline their child is because they don’t know enough or can’t do enough? Really? I mean, say the comparison doesn’t work if you want, but if you’re going to claim to prove it, that proof requires more than dismissive ridicule.

  • No, anybody who’s been to the public library and read up on Gay History or Literature (or anybody who has a reasonable gay friend who’s acquainted with the Gay Bar Scene!!) already KNOWS that many gay men are also attracted to YOUTH or TEENS of the same sex. Git ’em-while-they-young.

    (“Intergenerational Intimacy”, some call it. Sheesh, what a mess!)

    Spuddie’s attempt to pretend that gay men are ONLY attracted to ADULT men, is absolutely false. (Now I never say that **all** gay men are pedophiles, for that is likewise not true.)

    But those gay priests hitting on all those altar boys? You better BELIEVE it, baby! Homosexual mess does take place. (And don’t think their abuse doesn’t set up a bad situation inside the young abused boy’s mind and spirit!). It’s time to get honest on this controversial topic, because they ARE doing this git-em-while-they-young business.

  • There’s no moving of goalposts and certainly no invalidation. The meaning of words depends on the context in which they are used. By your logic we could never speak of someone as “a faithful employee” unless he served his employer perfectly, day in and day out, without fail. Neither could we speak of someone as “a loving mother” unless she loved her child/children with a perfect love. Know anyone like that? When we use terms like “good” and “faithful” with respect to people, we understand we are using them in a relative, not an absolute, sense.

    Given that the overarching context of the Bible from Genesis 3 onward is that of a fallen, sinful world, it is understood that no human, save One, is good, faithful, etc., in an absolute sense. The glorious truth of the gospel (good news) is that God, in his infinite love and mercy, does not treat us as we rightfully deserve. Although we all stand justly condemned, God took our condemnation upon Himself by assuming flesh, living a perfectly obedient/sinless life, and offering Himself as an infinitely worthy and acceptable sacrifice upon the Cross. By placing our faith/trust in His perfect work, rather than our own tainted and futile works, God credits His own righteousness/ holiness/goodness to our account. As the popular saying goes, “We owed a debt we couldn’t pay; God paid a debt He didn’t owe.”

    Although the payment of this debt was fulfilled in Christ, even in the Old Testament men and women were made right with God through faith/trust in Him, not via works: “And he [Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6).” Was Abraham absolutely righteous? Certainly not. But in God’s eyes his sinful rags were exchanged for the spotless robe of Christ’s perfect righteousness. This gracious offer of forgiveness and embrace remains for all who will trust in the merits of Christ, rather than their own: “Therefore, since we have been justified [made right with God] by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace [undeserved favor] in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God (Romans 5:1-2).”

  • So bestiality is a sin in the Old Testament (which it clearly is!), but NOW, according to your logic, “Tony the Pony” is no longer a sin according to the New Testament.

    Is that correct? Hmm?

  • “I believe in God’s word and you don’t seem to.”

    I believe in God’s word being one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on humanity, and you don’t seem to.

  • I can’t be bothered addressing your knowing defamation of gay people with this garbage. You know better but feel the need to repeat it. There have certainly been enough people correcting you on the differences between a pedophile and homosexual.

    “or anybody who has a reasonable gay friend who’s acquainted with the Gay Bar Scene!!”

    Please do tell. I am all ears about your experiences that! So did you frequent these bars? Have your alleged gay friends ever see your online postings?

  • Are you kidding?

    Abraham’s polygamy resulted in disaster: discord between Sarah and Hagar, discord between Ishmael and Isaac, and the Ishmaelites were a constant thorn in the side of the Israelites.

    So did Jacob’s: Rivalry and discord among his wives and children basically for the balance of his life; the sale of Joseph into slavery by his half-brethren.

    So did Solomon’s: his polygamy resulted in division of the kingdom of Israel.

    So did David’s: his polygamy resulted in incestuous rape, rivalry, and murder in his own household, and his own exile during Absalom’s brief reign.

    In every one of these cases, the polygamy of the man put the people of God in jeopardy. The fact that God saved them anyway is a testimony to his grace, not to their righteousness. It certainly is no recommendation of the practice of polygamy, which (if not expressly condemned between Genesis 4:19 and the New Testament) is everywhere portrayed in a decidedly unflattering light. Pretty much everywhere it appears in the Biblical narrative, you can clock the amount of time before trouble appears with an egg timer.

  • You make a lot of assumptions and fill in the blanks where the Bible doesn’t mention instances which would support your claims.

    The Bible doesn’t mention the Ishmaelites beyond:
    “Genesis 17:20 But as for Ishmael, I have heard thee:
    behold I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”

    “Rivalry and discord among his wives and children basically for the
    balance of his life; the sale of Joseph into slavery by his
    half-brethren.”

    The discord among the children is well noted, but among the wives, its curiously absent of Biblical reference.

    David’s house is considered blessed by God by the plethora of wives

    “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah;and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”2 Samuel 12:8.

    The closest you got to problems with Solomon was not polygamy, it was wife hoarding.

    The problem is you are trying to fit a Pauline prohibition and distaste for polygamy on the Old Testament. Where its authors were of a much different culture and background.

    The Book of Esther is a curious one in which the polygamous union was key to the protagonist being able to save God’s chosen people. God’s word isn’t mentioned in it once.

  • Why do Christians have a problem understanding the concept of consensual adult relationships?

    More importantly, “where did you come up with Tony the Pony”? Your mind goes into some pretty twisted places.

  • “which actual biblical scholars state refers to going after angelic flesh” The men did not know that Lot was housing angels so your “biblical scholars must have missed that class

    “lawless and rebellious” – homosexuals
    ESV – lawless and disobedient – homosexuals
    BSB – lawless and disobedient – homosexuals
    BLB – lawless and insubordinate – ungodly – homosexuals
    NASB – lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners – homosexuals
    KJB – , for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane – homosexuals
    HCSB – but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful – homosexuals
    ISV – lawbreakers and rebels, for ungodly people and sinners, for those who are unholy and irreverent – homosexuals
    and on and on….Christ said that homosexuality is a sin. In participating in the act, they are defying the living God who called what they do – Romans 1:24 -God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves”
    Romans 1: God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men ”
    Leviticus – an abomination
    Jude – sexual immorality and perversion”
    All lawless and disobedience.
    The Lord rained burning sulphur after getting Lot out of S&G because there were none righteous there – lawless and disobedient.”
    Scripture interprets scripture Ben.

  • I have nothing against conservative Christians or even giving them a platform in itself. But this article does nothing to add to the debate over LGBT rights. It’s not going to change anyone’s perspective or cause someone to think of a new angle they hadn’t considered before. It’s certainly not going to overturn the marriage equality ruling. It’s just some random guy no one cares using religion to rant about how much he hates gays and liberals. Talk about mangling the bible here. It used to be that even if you disagreed with a public official or politician on something, it was still expected of you to be respectful and mature about it. But I guess when conservative Christians are endorsing Donald Trump, Trump has made it acceptable for Christians to behave like children and insult someone by claiming they don’t know how to read. It’s particularly ironic since most likely Jesus and the apostles and most of the early Christians were poor lower class people who probably didn’t know how to read or write either.

  • Now that is an unusual take. Liberal and gay bishops did the cover ups. OK.
    reviling and slandering duly noted, divorce from facts and reality duly noted.

  • Also, the Wycliffe Bible – from the 1500 quotes it as such:

    1 Timothy 1:9-11Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

    9 and witting this thing, that the law is not set to a just man, but to unjust men and not subject, to wicked men and to sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of father, and slayers of mother, to manslayers [witting this thing, that the law is not put to a just man, but to an unjust and not subject, to unpious men and sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of fathers, and slayers of mothers, to menslayers]

    10 and lechers, to them that do lechery with men, lying-mongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching,[a]

    11 that is after the gospel of the glory of blessed God, which is betaken to me.”

    Would you like me to define “lechers” and “lechery” for you?
    from Vocabulary.com

    lechery

    Lechery is a noun applied to a person’s feelings that are lustful or sexual in an extreme or unnatural way. A person’s lechery may lead to wrong and unlawful physical acts or attacks on others, or to the making and viewing of inappropriate pictures and movies.

    Someone described as a “pervert” might also be called a lecher, whose offensive behavior and actions are lechery. Attraction between a husband and wife would not be lechery, because it’s between two people who have a desire together. Lechery is a one-sided lust that crosses the line to being inappropriate and making others feel very uncomfortable or even afraid. Bad guys or “Casanovas” in literature demonstrate lechery when they try to win over innocent young women with lies.

    Start learning this word

    Think you know lechery? Quiz yourself:

    ASSESSMENT: 100 POINTS

    The opposite of lechery is:

    chastity

    liberty

    sympathy

    avarice

    Add to List… Thesaurus Share It

    Definitions of

    lechery

    1

    n unrestrained indulgence in sexual activity

    Type of:

    sex, sex activity, sexual activity, sexual practice

    activities associated with sexual intercourse

    I hope this helps you. Blessings.

  • 1 Timothy 1:9-11Common English Bible (CEB)

    9 We understand this: the Law isn’t established for a righteous person but for people who live without laws and without obeying any authority. They are the ungodly and the sinners. They are people who are not spiritual, and nothing is sacred to them. They kill their fathers and mothers, and murder others. 10 They are people who are sexually unfaithful, and people who have intercourse with the same sex. They are kidnappers,[a] liars, individuals who give false testimonies in court, and those who do anything else that is opposed to sound teaching. 11 Sound teaching agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that has been trusted to me.

    1 Timothy 1:9-11Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

    9 We are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous, but for those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly, for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching 11 that accords with the Good News of the glorious and blessed God.

    This Good News was entrusted to me;

    1 Timothy 1:9-11Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

    9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

    1 Timothy 1:9-11Revised Standard Version (RSV)

    9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    Sodomites: Never Thirsty.com

    Sodomite. The New King James Version (NKJV) translates the Greek word MALAKOS in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 as “Sodomite.” MALAKOS refers to a “soft or fancy homosexual,” or a “passive or receiving male partner in a homosexual intercourse act.” Consequently, the NKJV translated MALAKOS as Sodomite.” This is an acceptable translation. It should be noted that the term sodomite does not explicitly occur in some other translations. Even though other Bibles may not translate MALAKOS as “Sodomite,” that should not be a comfort because God rejects male with male or female with female sexual acts. A Sodomite is one who practices something that God has explicitly described as sin.

    I hope I have helped you again. Blessings.

  • LOL Bestiality isn’t wrong because a thousands year-old text contains passages wherein a fictional god declares it to be a “sin!” It’s wrong because it is abusive to the animal (this is the consent part that Spuddie asks you about below) …as well as being a strong indicator that the perpetrator is likely to abuse people (along with starting fires and other behavioral markers.)

    It is so outside the norm that it is a crime in many jurisdictions.

    See how easy that is…no god(s) required!

  • Marriage equality is legal now, so Mr. Wax is going to have to find a way to grow up and deal with it.

  • Re: “There’s no moving of goalposts …”

    Of course there is! If you had any integrity, you would just own up to it.

    Re: “By your logic we could never speak of someone as “a faithful employee” unless he served his employer perfectly …”

    We aren’t talking about “employees.” We’re talking about legendarily-sacred people, so righteous and godly as to still be worthy of veneration upwards of 2 millennia after they supposedly lived.

    Re: “The glorious truth of the gospel (good news) is that God, in his infinite love and mercy, does not treat us as we rightfully deserve.”

    Yeah yeah yeah. Original sin and all of that. You probably won’t believe this, but really, I’ve heard this story before. Really! Not that I find it impressive.

    Re: “By placing our faith/trust in His perfect work, rather than our own tainted and futile works, God credits His own righteousness/ holiness/goodness to our account.”

    I’m sure you think there’s a point to all of this carrying on about how hideous humanity is and how wonderfully sanctified your deity is, but the relevance of all this to family structures — and the need to stick with only the one type of family structure you say your deity demands of us — escapes me. I see no logical connection. I’d appreciate it if you could be so kind as to point it out to me.

    Re: “Romans 5:1-2”

    Again, your probably won’t believe this, but honestly, I’ve read your Bible. All of it. Front to back, and to front again. In multiple languages, including the κοινη Greek in which Romans (and the rest of the New Testament) was originally written. I can even quote parts of it in that language from memory.

    That said, there’s no relevance to family structures in any of that stuff about how putrid humanity is and how glorious your deity is and how we don’t deserve salvation but your deity was magnanimous to grant it to us anyway, by descending to earth in human form and arranging to get himself killed in order to lift that horrificness from us all because after all, we don’t deserve any of that, because we’re just the nastiest creatures your deity ever made —

    Yada yada yada.

  • God gave us the Ten Commandments Jesus gave us the interpretations of how to lead our lives recorded in His Gospels. I don’t think that a simple man like Kane have any power or authority to change our Holy Bible or the Ten Commandments . He is confusing the mundane tenants of the Democrat Party with the teachings of Our Lord Jesus. We all will taste Death ,then when we all face our Supreme Judge we will be judge according with His Rules not ours or Mr Kane.

  • Re: “Define ‘revere.'”

    Talking about how righteous and godly they were, thousands of years after they supposedly lived, is one way.

    Re: “I certainly don’t see them as better than anyone else of their own accord.”

    But Christians have thought so … from very early on in the religion’s history. For example, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham (especially him!), Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Moses are all said to be models of faith for God’s people to emulate, in Hebrews 11. If you want more examples, I’d be happy to provide them, but really, that one ought to be more than sufficient.

    Re: “Hang on… so you’re saying that the reason a parent might both love and discipline their child is because they don’t know enough or can’t do enough?”

    I’m saying that analogizing an omnipotent deity to greatly-limited parents can’t work, because it can never account for his omnipotence. Logically, one can never analogize an omnipotent being with anything but another omnipotent being. If you don’t like me pointing that out to you, too bad. That’s just the way it is. It’s a ramification of the absolute nature of omnipotence. It’s a quality that must always be accounted for — fully! — in any effort to understand the Abrahamic deity (who is, supposedly, omnipotent). If you want to analogize your deity to human parents, we can do that, but only if you first concede your deity isn’t omnipotent. It would cease to be the Abrahamic deity, but that would be your problem, not mine.

    Yes, logic is a harsh taskmaster. I prefer living within its parameters to defying it with absurdity. (Oh and yes, saying a “paradox” is not a “contradiction” is, in fact, an absurdity. No other adjective describes it. I really don’t care that you can rationalize otherwise using dictionary definitions. We both know it. Just ‘fess up to it and we can move on.)

  • Well Paul said God sanctioned him to write his letters. God could not be reached for his opinion on the subject.

  • Even in Hebrews 11 the figures described there are associated with specific actions that were good–they’re not given a total blank-cheque endorsement as people. They’re praised there for looking forward to the fulfillment of promises God made to them–but on their marital lives, that text is predominantly silent.

    But if you look at the context of Hebrews 11 in the broader context of the book’s argument, it seems like the writer is saying that these people had less of an idea of God’s broad purposes than we can, and sees them as looking forward to the better object of faith, namely Jesus.

    “If you want to analogize your deity to human parents, we can do that, but only if you first concede your deity isn’t omnipotent. It would cease to be the Abrahamic deity.”

    Nonsense. One of the things the God of Abraham does most frequently is create illustrations of His nature through insufficient, sub-divine human relationships (John 1:12-13 is a great example). Yet the same texts that reveal Him define Him as omnipotent and omniscient (Isaiah and Jeremiah are pretty insistent on both of those qualities–relational intimacy and sovereignty). So really, denying either one of those concepts to God is to cease talking about the God of the Bible. Why you see them as a contradiction is beyond me–and you still haven’t proven it is, you’ve just asserted it is and called me absurd for disagreeing with you.

    But if you’re not willing to actually allow for the possibility that any words or concepts can be meaningfully defined as themselves, then this conversation can only ever really go in circles. I’ve made my case. If you won’t hear it, not much I can do about that. I’m out.

  • Re: “Even in Hebrews 11 the figures described there are associated with specific actions that were good–they’re not given a total blank-cheque endorsement as people.”

    Gee, that sounds all well and good … trouble is, it’s not true:

    “By faith [Abel] was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.” (Heb 11:4b)

    “For before [Enoch] was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God.” (Heb 11:5c)

    “By his faith [Noah] condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.” (Heb 11:7b)

    Three are enough to make the point. In all these cases, blanket statements are made about the person’s righteousness.

    Re: “So really, denying either one of those concepts to God is to cease talking about the God of the Bible.”

    I actually agree with you that, as written, the Abrahamic deity is omnipotent. You just didn’t get my point, which was that you cannot use human-parent analogies to illustrate anything about the Abrahamic deity, because no human parent has the omnipotence which is an absolute quality of the Abrahamic deity.

    What I was telling you is that, if you insist on using such an analogy, you are necessarily no longer talking about the Abrahamic deity, because human-parent analogies can only work if one assumes that deity not to be omnipotent.

    Re: “I’ve made my case.”

    Actually, you’ve made no case at all! You relied on a human-parent analogue to explain your deity, even though such an analogy cannot logically explain the deity you claim to follow.

  • No, I think your beliefs are. Also, they don’t matter in the slightest, because marriage equality is legal. You can think it’s wrong all you like, but it’s legal anyway.

  • Tim Kaine is not mangling the bible at all. He very intelligently recognizes it as ancient mythology that must be considered as such in this much later day. He does not wave a mangled copy of the bible that he never touched, as Donald Trump did when he used it early on in his political campaign for the presidency. Kaine lives religion. Trump only uses it as he uses everyone and everything else to gain something material for himself.

  • If they were interested in helping, they would shut up and listen, stop telling lies, and stop insisting that they have the right to make my life as difficult, expensive, unpleasant And dangerous as possible, because they think they understand something in an old book and God said he agrees with them..

    So would you,

  • I would disagree to the extent that with respect to the Old Testament extreme care was always taken by the Jewish scribes to make sure that what they were copying from older texts were transcribed exactly. The number of errors from the Old Testament that we can identify are very few indeed. As far as the New testament is concerned, the bulk of the ancient fragments that have been discovered and evaluated by competent scholars tends to reinforce the general correspondence between those texts and the bibles we use today. Naturally different versions of our modern bibles make minor adjustments in terms which do not substantially change the meaning of the text. The nuances you suggest which “appeared” in the 11th century are not familiar to me, and reference you can make as to source would be appreciated. I suspect your last statement would be refuted by biblical scholars from one side, and endorsed by biblical scholars from the other, so where does that leave us?

  • I will do so, though it’s quite possible I will not agree with the reasoning. Just saying, because I visit a host of websites on these and other biblical questions and though I try be as objective in my analysis as I can (a difficult task for anyone), I tend to be reinforced by those arguments which match my own. A quite human response. In the end, I will continue to study, watch, and wait for greater illumination. Peace to you.

  • Well, I may be biased in favor of my own view (what a novelty), but in my own study of the biblical texts I don’t see the divergence that is apparent to you and others.

  • REALLY, Floyd? That would be news to Ezekiel! If you were right, you could have simply QUOTED the verse, instead of providing a reference that doesn’t support your false claim!

  • Alright, last one.

    Enoch is literally the only example in Hebrews 11 where his character, rather than a particular action, is emphasized–which isn’t a surprise, given how little we actually know about him. Even in the other examples you raised, Noah and Abel, it’s Abel’s offering and Noah’s ark that are in the forefront. You don’t get to quote Hebrews 11:4b when Hebrews 11:4a refutes your case. The whole verse reads, “By faith Abel *offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain,* through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts.” And you don’t get to choose obscure figures we know little about to make your case from that passage when the other more relevant ones that the conversation has, up until now, been about, again refute your argument. Look at how Abraham (polygamist) is dealt with in this passage. Or Moses, the murderer. It’s actions, not figures, that are the focus in Hebrews 11.

    The only legitimate reason you can object to my parent analogy is if you really believe that God cannot both discipline His people and love them unconditionally the way a human parent can. And if you believe that, that means that you believe that *because of God’s omnipotence*, God *cannot* do something we can. BECAUSE of His omnipotence. God CANNOT.

    If anything else is a contradiction, that is.

    All the best in your future trolling.

  • Nice try but as I wrote they were never Christians to begin with, only wolves in sheep’s clothing, like the gay Priests who molested the majority of adolescents.

  • Here we go again. No the majority of abuse was homosexual abuse. Denial, denial, denial. Believe what you want. Of course, not all gays are abusers, but the majority in this case certainly were.

  • If you are going to misrepresent what pedophilia is, then you invited the discussion.

    Deliberate and defamatory conflation between behavior of sexual predators and adults in consensual relationships. As stated previously, and you probably know this by now (but want to feign ignorance) is that pedophiles seek targets of opportunity and are not attracted to adult sexual characteristics. After a lot of conversations with Christians like yourself, I never see any kind of understanding of what consensual adult conduct means.

    Of course the people who enabled sexual predators among the clergy are the same church leaders who make a big stink about attacking civil liberties of gays as well. So your assertion of liberal types being involved is even more defamatory untruth.

    If you had a legitimate point to make, you would not be making so many easily verifiable misrepresentations of fact.

  • “I wrote they were never Christians to begin with”

    And you were full of it the first time.

    Looking for scapegoats is far easier than addressing the big problem the ultra-religious have with sexual assault. Even when the victims are adults, Christians like you engage in s1utshaming of the victims, covering up for the perpetrators and coming up with cultural excuses why such behavior is perfectly OK.

    Christian culture, especially fundamentalist Christian culture encourages sexual abuse and assault.

    “The Troubling Connection Between Modesty Culture and Rape Culture”
    http://time.com/3918215/modesty-culture-rape-culture/

    Purity Culture as Rape Culture: Why the Theological Is Political
    https://rewire.news/article/2013/10/22/purity-culture-as-rape-culture-why-the-theological-is-political/

    Reporting sexual assaults in Christian colleges bring s1utshaming tactics
    http://addictinginfo.org/2014/03/05/rape-culture-101-christian-colleges-call-women-liars-sinners-reporting-sexual-assault/

  • Deleted comments again. Will someone grow up?
    The answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.

  • “Enoch is literally the only example in Hebrews 11 where his character, rather than a particular action, is emphasized–which isn’t a surprise, given how little we actually know about him.”

    So you say, but one is enough, is it not?

    “You don’t get to quote Hebrews 11:4b when Hebrews 11:4a refutes your case.”

    Except it doesn’t. It’s actually neutral here; Abel might have offered a greater sacrifice because he’s inherently more holy, or he could have been judged inherently holy because his sacrifice was greater. 11:4a doesn’t say which of those is the case. That means it’s not relevant to what I said, which is that Abel had been judged holy, period. The “why” doesn’t matter when it’s the determination of sanctity which is the point.

    “The only legitimate reason you can object to my parent analogy is if you really believe that God cannot both discipline His people and love them unconditionally the way a human parent can.”

    First, to be clear, whether I “object” to it or not isn’t relevant. It’s not my “objection” that makes it illogical. Its own nature makes it illogical: A human-parent analogue can never account for a deity’s omnipotence. Period.

    “And if you believe that, that means that you believe that *because of God’s omnipotence*, God *cannot* do something we can.”

    The illogic of the human-parent analogue has nothing to do with what your deity can or cannot do. It has to do with the nature of human parents, who are by definition limited in ability, scope and knowledge, whereas an omnipotent deity is none of those things.

    Re: “All the best in your future trolling.”

    All the best to your illogical and irrational apologetics!

  • “Speaking to the Human Rights Campaign, a leading LGBT organization, Kaine said….” The Human Rights Campaign – who’s director and founder – Bean – was charged along with his homosexual lover for sexually assaulting a 15 year old male. When the courts would not allow him to buy off the young man with money, shortly afterward, he refused to testify and the charges were let go…..hmmmmm.
    Then we have….”Gay rights icon Larry Brinkin has been arrested on child pornography charges, according to San Francisco police. 
Brinkin, 66, who led the fight in San Francisco for equal rights on behalf of the gay community, was booked into jail on Friday night. 
Authorities seized computers, videos, and a floppy disc from the home Brinkin shares with his husband.
The activist exchanged emails containing pornographic photographs involving children as young as one, two and three being sodomized or performing sex on adult men, according to police. 
The emails allegedly also contain explicit sexual and racist commentary including, ‘I loved especially the n***** 2 year old getting nailed.’

    “Brinkin retired from the Human Rights Commission in 2010 after working there for 22 years. The Board of Supervisors once declared the first week of February as Larry Brinkin Week to honour his work for the LGBT community. “

    This is certainly company that a politician wants to involve himself with.

  • Again, trying to conflate pedophilia with adult sexuality.
    I’ll never forget how much you “love” us.

  • Sexual sin, Ben. It’s all sexual sin, and the HRC members are showing how it isn’t that extreme from their sin of choice. Two members of a very small group charged with crimes against children, when their mantra is to “normalize” sexual sin, does not lead one to think they are that far apart. Why a politician would kiss up to that leads him to be suspect also.

  • He said that sexual immorality defiles us (Matt. 15). What constituted sexual immorality to His audience is found in Leviticus 20.

  • “It is very puzzling to me that if homosexuality had been at the top of the “sinchart” that Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality.” To argue that something is OK because Jesus didn’t specifically mention it is NOT a place you want to go. There are a great many things He didn’t specifically mention.

    To me it’s more telling that He didn’t mention homosexuality than if He did — after all, He specifically mentioned divorce being wrong and people have invented no end of baloney arguments around that one. And it appears He wouldn’t even have mentioned that either if no one had asked.

    Consider the fact that He remained silent on the subject of something which was soundly condemned by the Torah and was a capital crime in Israel. I think if He wanted to set aside this particular prohibition, He had plenty of opportunity to do so and did not.

  • He did speak directly. It’s just that some don’t like what He said. No matter how direct He is there are some who are simply not going to accept the word of God if it doesn’t conform with their own will.

  • “The nuances you suggest which “appeared” in the 11th century are not familiar to me, and reference you can make as to source would be appreciated.” It’s Boswell again. Which, IMO at least, is the same as no source at all.

  • Tim Kaine is doing blasphemous work, in the name of a VOTE. He’s nothing but a puppet, pushing the “progressives” into people’s lives. He’s a Marxist communist and is a part of the DEGENERATION OF OUR NATION.

  • P.S. A “false prophet”, if you will. You people out there are FAR from stupid. This great nation of ours was FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian VALUES. Yes, Timmy Kaine, there are things called “VALUES’, there are ALSO words like ‘character’ and ‘integrity’, of which you have none.
    Don’t keep trying to pee in our faces and then try to make us believe it’s RAINING.

  • “This great nation of ours was FOUNDED on Judeo-Christian VALUES”

    Like what? Please be specific as to what is so specific to Judaism and/or Christianity in your responses.

    People who make that statement never can follow up with what they really mean by it. But a translation always seems to be “Our great nation was meant for Fundamentalist Christians only”.

  • “Tim Kaine is doing blasphemous work, in the name of a VOTE.”

    If only that were true! I would hate to have a political leader who is willing to hijack the Constitution, our laws and personal liberties in service of their sectarian faith.

  • The point in all of it is to show “there is none righteous, no not one.” “All sin and fall short of the glory of God.” Even those God used for His glory were not perfect. There was need of a Savior. Alone, we will never be perfect which was why God sent His Son: to impute that perfect righteousness to us. I appreciate that you’ve read the Bible. In doing so, all of it leads to the purpose of the coming of the Christ.

  • Re: “Even those God used for His glory were not perfect.”

    Yeah yeah yeah … I’ve heard that before. “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.”

    Re: “There was need of a Savior.”

    Actually, no, there wasn’t. Your deity wanted a “savior.” But s/he/it didn’t “need” one. An omnipotent being cannot ever “need” anything — at any time or for any reason — otherwise s/he/it ceases to be omnipotent.

    Re: “I appreciate that you’ve read the Bible.”

    Thanks. Most Christians don’t. They often accuse me of not having read it “the right way” or something. As if there’s any one “right” way to read any particular text (or collection of them).

    Re: “In doing so, all of it leads to the purpose of the coming of the Christ.”

    And if Christ fixed everything, then what need is there to worry about family structures? Either they matter, or they don’t. If they matter, then obviously Christ hasn’t fixed everything; if they don’t, then why would your deity have propounded these rules in the first place?

  • Yes, but I don’t find the arguments for contradiction persuasive, but that’s just me, and there are substantial numbers of scholars who agree. Naturally, not all of course.

  • I don’t cook somebody cook for me those delicious crepes and they serve them to me in a silver dish. Sorry to informr you with so many details.

ADVERTISEMENTs