BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE
This is the last installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."
Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look
Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegesis
Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'
Part 3 - Understanding the Bible...Or Rewriting It?
Part 4 - Science or the Bible...or Neither?
Part 5 - Why Was Sodom Destroyed?
Part 6 - What Does the New Testament Say about Homosexuality?
Part 7 - Do Activism, Sympathy and Self Supersede Biblical Authority?
The film claims to be about what “the Bible tells” us about homosexuality, yet it spends a disproportionate amount of time on personal stories designed to elicit sympathy at the expense of scholarly Biblical examination.
Only about 15 minutes of the 99 minute DVD are actually spent examining "what the Bible tells us" about homosexuality. If you bought a box of cereal and it was only 15% full, you'd feel ripped off.
But in this case, maybe 15 minutes is about as long as you can stretch, misrepresent and misinterpret what the Bible really does say about homosexuality. Though the Bible says God disapproves of homosexuality several times in the Old Testament and several times in the New Testament, each instance is pretty straightforward and plain: God doesn't approve of homosexuality.
The film seems to capitalize on the accommodations made by these families for their homosexual children. These accommodations range from disappointed love and hope for change in one, to full acceptance and celebration in others.
The dilemma faced by these families is, despite the protests of even the most liberal among us, something that practically no family would welcome. There are certainly no easy answers. How would you deal with it if you learned your son or daughter was an alcoholic? How would you deal with it if you found out your child was a drug addict? How would you handle it if you found out your child had cheated on their spouse? How would you deal with it if you found out your son or daughter was involved in a sexual practice which God says is sin, and science tells us is very dangerous to the health?
There would be disappointment, hurt, anguish, and self-blame over "Where did I go wrong?" Hopefully you would love them, even as you maintained that these behaviors--including homosexuality--are wrong.
Unfortunately this is too difficult for many people. The Barna Group released the results of a survey on March 7, 2008 which found that 7 out of 10 Americans consider the relationships in their nuclear family more important than their relationship with God. Yet Jesus said in Luke 14:26 that our commitment to Him should be far above that to our family. This means that while we still love our family, we must remain loyal to God's truth even when our loved ones do not.
Homosexuals will never completely fit in with mainstream society because their behavior is contrary to nature, propriety, societal order and good health. The makeup of their relationships can never create a natural family, and the promiscuity and health risks associated with this behavior makes it difficult for most people to accept as normal.
But perhaps if we Christians and others would castigate and make fun of them less, and love them and their souls more, maybe they could see beyond their defensiveness and realize that God really does love them, and really does want better for them. Maybe they might start to believe that change is possible, and that they would be welcome in the Kingdom of God if only they would throw themselves on Jesus' mercy--as we all must do to enter the Kingdom.
We know it is possible for people to be delivered from this sin; the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that some of the members of the church at Corinth were former drunks, thieves and, yes, homosexuals.
The story of the prodigal son from the Bible provides what is perhaps the best example of how a parent can respond in a situation like this. The son squandered his inheritance on immoral living and ended up with his life in a mess. But notice that the father did not make excuses for the young man, nor did he come bail him out or claim that the lifestyle he had lived was normal, natural and healthy.
But the father continued to love his son, and when the son realized the error of his ways and was ready to repent, there was the father, waiting with open arms and an overflowing heart. The father rejoiced when his son returned to the right path, stating his son "was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
For the Bible Tells Me So: The Real Story, Part 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The Corinthians passage you cited says "homosexual offenders," not "homosexuals." Is there a difference?
You'd think that if homosexuality were enough of an offense, there'd be no need for qualification.
If I say "homosexuals," "homosexual people," "homosexual offenders," "homosexual perpetrators" or "those who practice homosexuality," we're talking about homosexuals.
Homosexuality is an offense against God's design for human sexuality, and an offense against his instructions not to do that.
Ok...but it's not what you say that's important; it's what the Bible says, right? If homosexuality is enough of an offense, then there should be no need to qualify it with "offenders." It makes me wonder if there is some context that got lost in translation/time.
But I can see you're not interested in discussing semantics, which is a shame. Because when we're dealing with a millennia-old document that's been translated across multiple languages, it's crucial that we carefully examine the meaning of words, and not generalize one idea to apply to a word, "homosexual," that is only 200 years old.
cinemaphile85, I'm very interested in what words and sentences mean. However, I'm not interested in word games that try to fathom an obscure interpretation in an attempt to justify what God makes clear over and over in both Old and New Testaments that he doesn't approve of.
I would suggest you start with the introduction and Part 1 of this series and read through them. I deal with every direct reference to homosexuality and a few indirect ones throughout the Bible. I think that if you have an objective mind, you'll find that God makes it overwhelmingly clear that he doesn't approve of homosexuality. It is a perversion of his design for human sexuality, which is one man and one woman for life.
Bob,
I'm not playing word games. I'm just interested in why the Corinthians passage says "homosexual offenders" if, assuming that homosexiality is an offense in and of itself, it's sufficient to say simply "homosexuals" instead. The way it appears in the Bible is redundant, so either God made a mistake in dictation, or "homosexual offenders" are different from "homosexuals."
I think the objective thing to do, which you are not doing, is to examine the words for what they are, not for what you want them to be. This isn't to say that I believe the Bible approves of homosexuality; I agree that the passages are quite clear. But the specific passage you've cited COULD mean something other than what you want it to. If you are objective, you'll entertain the possibility and be willing to accept a less than favorable conclusion.
cinemaphile85, if you are genuinely interested in understanding the issue, I suggest you go back and read parts 1-7 of this series. I think that if you're objective, after you have done so, you'll agree that God is saying here that he disapproves of homosexuality because it is an offense to his design for human sexuality, and an offense to his moral instruction.
Bob,
I did read the other articles. Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly, so I'll try again. I AGREE that the Bible condemns homosexuality. What I said about objectivity relates only to the Corinthians verse you cited. What you have done is paraphrase the verse to say something that it does not -- the verse says "homosexual offenders" while you take it to mean "homosexuals."
The point I'm making is that if homosexuality in general is an offense, then it's redundant to say "homosexual offenders." The *objective* thing to do is accept the possibility that the author was referring to something OTHER than generalized homosexuality. Again, I'm not debating that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but you are misrepresenting what the Bible says in Corinthians to fit your argument. That is subjective and dishonest.
Since you seem unwilling or incapable of accepting the straightforward understanding, what do you think it means, and why do you think so. Please back up your assertion with facts.
I never said that I know what it really means. What I said is that it seems possible that the author was talking about something other than homosexuality in general. If it is indeed an offense, then why say "homosexual offenders"? You don't see "drunken offenders" or "slandering offenders," because it's understood that being drunk and slandering are crimes in and of themselves, according to the author. In this particular passage, "homosexual offenders" implies something different from homosexuality -- perhaps in the context of rape or prostitution. We can't be sure, and that's the point. I can't say with certainty that it means these things, but you can't say with certainty that it doesn't.
You ASSUME it doesn't mean anything other than homosexuality in general. You read the passage presupposing that it supports the Bible's case against homosexuality, so you are biased against any possibility that the verse might refer to a different type of crime.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, just acknowledging that your reading of this particular verse is subjective.
Since God clearly lays out his design for human sexuality in both Genesis and Matthew, and repeatedly condemns homosexuality both in the Old Testament and the New Testament with such references as those in Romans 1:26-27 (which should be abundantly clear), would it make sense that God would suddenly limit a scope that has otherwise been broad and general by implying in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that "I just mean homosexual rapists here" or "I just mean homosexual prostitutes here?" If you truly are objective, I think you'll agree with me that such an implication is completely illogical and inconsistent, and that the explanation I provided makes sense.
Would it help you to understand the intent of this passage better to know that other translations such as the New American Standard translation render it "homosexuals" and the English Standard Version renders it "men who practice homosexuality?" The passage is clearly referring to homosexuals.
"...would it make sense that God would suddenly limit a scope that has otherwise been broad and general by implying in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that "I just mean homosexual rapists here" or "I just mean homosexual prostitutes here?"
Considering the amount of absurd nonsense that's already in the Bible, I don't think such a thing would be unreasonable.
And no, it does not help my understanding to know that more modern translations of the Bible phrase the passage differently. Language changes over time, and therefore MEANING also changes over time.
I've heard Christians say that the King James Version is the closest thing we have to the original biblical text. Closer than other translations, yes, but it could still be way off the mark. The only version of the Bible I would consider valid is one written in the original Hebrew and Greek. Since none exists, our only options are guesswork and speculation.
I see. Now your true colors come out, cinemaphile85.
"it's not what you say that's important; it's what the Bible says, right?"
"I AGREE that the Bible condemns homosexuality."
"This isn't to say that I believe the Bible approves of homosexuality; I agree that the passages are quite clear."
"Again, I'm not disagreeing with your main point..."
You attempt to pass yourself off as the dedicated, Bible-believing Christian who is "just struggling to understand this difficult passage."
Then we see you're real opinion of what the Bible says: "...the amount of absurd nonsense that's already in the Bible..."
I smelled a rat from the beginning. My only regret is that I wasted my time on what I hoped might have a tiny chance of being a genuine inquiry.
Thank you for your comments cinemaphile85. You make some really good and interesting points.
I'm not accepting any further comments on this post where commenters misrepresent themselves and can't deal with a reasonable answer. We're above our quota in that department for the month.
Cinemaphile said, " The only version of the Bible I would consider valid is one written in the original Hebrew and Greek. Since none exists, our only options are guesswork and speculation."
You are incorrect, sir. There exist over 10,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, in whole or part. The Ryland Fragment which contains a section of John, is old enough to be a copy from the original. The 1600-year-old Codex Sinacticus is the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. You can read it for yourself (in the original Greek) here: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/
As far as the Old Testament goes, you might want to visit the Shrine of The Book to read a 2100-year-old scroll of Isaiah (in the original Hebrew)
http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=24227
No need to speculate or guess. :-)
Post a Comment