The following is a comment written to debate my previous article on homosexuality which you can find HERE.
Posted by Richard the Atheist on Oct 20th 2011:
So to summarize your "evidence"...
The first two passages you "quote" [Leviticus] clearly don't apply to women.
(I say "quote" because of course English as a language is only about 1500 years old, modern English considerably less so. Whether you believe the original bible, as written, is divine or not, it's not tenable to argue that arbitrary translations of it are also divine, since they are translated in recorded history by known people.)
The following three passages are not prescriptive in nature and thus don't actually corroborate your point. They don't define what is or is not permissible. Also, point of fact, they were all written by Saul of Tarsus, whom even many Christians don't accept as an authority, since he declared a lot of crap by fiat that has no basis in previous scripture nor in the quoted words of Yeshu ha-Notzri, your messiah.
In the third passage [Romans], a lot is going on that casts doubt on your choice of interpretation. First of all, while it may seem to you that "God gave them up" implies a punishment, this is only true from the perspective of a Christian who wishes to be in the grace of god. To a non-Christian this is a completely benign (indeed irrelevant) consequence. This is important because the people Saul is talking about in the passage are, in fact, not Christian.
Additionally, while the passage deplores behavior "contrary to nature", nevertheless there is no scripture in your religion that actually defines being contrary to nature as a sin. It's not one of the ten commandments, it can't be called a consequence of Adam, it's not one of the seven deadly sins, it's not in the covenant of Noah, it's not one of the 613 mitzvot, etc, etc, etc. Many opportunities existed to define "being against nature" as a sin, and yet it never was. Which is lucky for you, in particular, since affirming that which is contrary to established historical and scientific fact is pretty well against nature by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
The fourth and fifth passages [1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy] are again the opinion of Saul, and fall prey to the mistranslation point you glibly cast aside. In fact, we can infer from the passages, as written, that "homosexuality" and "sexual immorality" were apparently distinct and mutually exclusive concepts, since both are mentioned in turn. This tends to weaken your position.
You claim that "Christians need to know what God has to say about this topic" but then you provide only two passages about that, both of which only strictly prohibit a man penetrating another man, rather than the general concept of homosexuality as it is known in the world today (the Leviticus passages specifically don't police intention, merely particular behavior). The other passages you provide have nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with "Saul of Tarsus". Maybe I've missed a fine point of Christianity and you actually believe that Saul is a god, but I'm pretty sure you don't.
Here is the actual truth of the matter: by the logic of the scripture you provide, only Christian homosexual men who penetrate other men are sinners. Other homosexuals, even other Christian homosexuals, and all homosexual women (Christian or not), are not transgressing any specific commandment of your religion. Thus, homosexuality, as such, is not a sin. Meaning you're wrong. Checkmate.
So to summarize your "evidence"...
The first two passages you "quote" [Leviticus] clearly don't apply to women.
(I say "quote" because of course English as a language is only about 1500 years old, modern English considerably less so. Whether you believe the original bible, as written, is divine or not, it's not tenable to argue that arbitrary translations of it are also divine, since they are translated in recorded history by known people.)
The following three passages are not prescriptive in nature and thus don't actually corroborate your point. They don't define what is or is not permissible. Also, point of fact, they were all written by Saul of Tarsus, whom even many Christians don't accept as an authority, since he declared a lot of crap by fiat that has no basis in previous scripture nor in the quoted words of Yeshu ha-Notzri, your messiah.
In the third passage [Romans], a lot is going on that casts doubt on your choice of interpretation. First of all, while it may seem to you that "God gave them up" implies a punishment, this is only true from the perspective of a Christian who wishes to be in the grace of god. To a non-Christian this is a completely benign (indeed irrelevant) consequence. This is important because the people Saul is talking about in the passage are, in fact, not Christian.
Additionally, while the passage deplores behavior "contrary to nature", nevertheless there is no scripture in your religion that actually defines being contrary to nature as a sin. It's not one of the ten commandments, it can't be called a consequence of Adam, it's not one of the seven deadly sins, it's not in the covenant of Noah, it's not one of the 613 mitzvot, etc, etc, etc. Many opportunities existed to define "being against nature" as a sin, and yet it never was. Which is lucky for you, in particular, since affirming that which is contrary to established historical and scientific fact is pretty well against nature by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
The fourth and fifth passages [1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy] are again the opinion of Saul, and fall prey to the mistranslation point you glibly cast aside. In fact, we can infer from the passages, as written, that "homosexuality" and "sexual immorality" were apparently distinct and mutually exclusive concepts, since both are mentioned in turn. This tends to weaken your position.
You claim that "Christians need to know what God has to say about this topic" but then you provide only two passages about that, both of which only strictly prohibit a man penetrating another man, rather than the general concept of homosexuality as it is known in the world today (the Leviticus passages specifically don't police intention, merely particular behavior). The other passages you provide have nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with "Saul of Tarsus". Maybe I've missed a fine point of Christianity and you actually believe that Saul is a god, but I'm pretty sure you don't.
Here is the actual truth of the matter: by the logic of the scripture you provide, only Christian homosexual men who penetrate other men are sinners. Other homosexuals, even other Christian homosexuals, and all homosexual women (Christian or not), are not transgressing any specific commandment of your religion. Thus, homosexuality, as such, is not a sin. Meaning you're wrong. Checkmate.
My Original Response on Oct 20th 2011
I disagree with almost all of what you just said and I would like to respond a bit. However, some of the attitude which you give off in your comment such as your use of the word "Checkmate" indicate you might be a bit of a troll.
So before I actually respond to what you said I have two-ish questions.
1) Are you actually open to hearing and analyzing my response or are you absolutely convinced you are right regardless of what I say? Please be honest as I'd prefer not to waste my time if the latter is the case.
2) If you are an atheist, then why argue about the Bible at all? Do you believe the Bible should be taken seriously or believe it should be disregarded because there is no God?
I disagree with almost all of what you just said and I would like to respond a bit. However, some of the attitude which you give off in your comment such as your use of the word "Checkmate" indicate you might be a bit of a troll.
So before I actually respond to what you said I have two-ish questions.
1) Are you actually open to hearing and analyzing my response or are you absolutely convinced you are right regardless of what I say? Please be honest as I'd prefer not to waste my time if the latter is the case.
2) If you are an atheist, then why argue about the Bible at all? Do you believe the Bible should be taken seriously or believe it should be disregarded because there is no God?
My Second Response after others asked me to respond anyway on Oct 24th 2011:
Richard said:
The first two passages you "quote" [Leviticus] clearly don't apply to women.
(I say "quote" because of course English as a language is only about 1500 years old, modern English considerably less so. Whether you believe the original bible, as written, is divine or not, it's not tenable to argue that arbitrary translations of it are also divine, since they are translated in recorded history by known people.)
My Response
I agree that the English translations of the Bible that I use are not the end all be all. I do not consider them to be the exact inspired words from God. However, the good ones (ESV, NASB, NIV) are quite trustworthy in translating from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Good scholars have poured thousands of hours into accurately translating these texts, study Bibles include footnotes on difficult to translate passages, and the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic are available online for those who want to double check everything. Our English translations are reliable.
Richard said:
The following three passages are not prescriptive in nature and thus don't actually corroborate your point. They don't define what is or is not permissible.
My response:
I believe you are referring to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy passages. I have to disagree. These texts are very much prescriptive. For those who don’t know, texts can be descriptive or prescriptive. When the Bible says that Joseph’s brothers tossed him in a well and sold him into slavery, this is a descriptive text. It tells us what happened, but it is not telling us we ought to throw our younger brothers down wells and enslave them. When the Bible says, “You shall not kill,” it is a prescriptive text. It is telling us what we ought to or ought not do.
While the three New Testament passages do not say, “You shall not practice homosexuality,” they are still prescriptive. Take a look. The Romans passage calls homosexuality, dishonorable, shameful, and contrary to nature. It also says that it is an error that has a due penalty attached to it. The 1 Corinthians passage puts homosexuality in the context of unrighteous acts and says that those who practice it will not go to heaven. The 1 Timothy passage puts those who practice homosexuality in the context of those who are lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners (see verse 9). While *these* passages do not say, “You shall not practice homosexuality,” they are very clearly telling us not to do it as it is contrary to nature, dishonorable, shameful, unrighteous, lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinful, and carries a penalty with its error, namely, exclusion from heaven and condemnation to hell. There is no way to argue that this is not telling us how we ought to act.
Notice that I stressed that *these* passages do not say, “You shall not…” This is because the two Leviticus passages very clearly do prohibit homosexuality.
Richard said:
Also, point of fact, they were all written by Saul of Tarsus, whom even many Christians don't accept as an authority, since he declared a lot of crap by fiat that has no basis in previous scripture nor in the quoted words of Yeshu ha-Notzri, your messiah.
My Response:
Yes, those three passages were all written by Saul of Tarsus after his conversion to Paul when the risen Lord appeared to him and commissioned him. Paul wrote most of the epistles and possibly Hebrews. However, your claim that “many” Christians don’t accept Paul’s writings as Scripture that belongs in the Bible is simply untrue. Since the beginning days of the church, Paul’s writings were circulated throughout the churches and read as Scripture. We have ancient records of many early church fathers quoting Paul’s writings as Scripture. The apostle Peter himself, the first leader of the church after Jesus, says that Paul’s writings are on equal ground with the rest of the Bible in 2 Peter 3:15-16. The three major Christian traditions (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) all include these writings as Holy Scripture and God’s Word. Frankly, there are very few Christians in all of history who claim otherwise. Your view strays so far from Christian orthodoxy that it is either very close to or actually is heresy.
Richard said:
In the third passage [Romans], a lot is going on that casts doubt on your choice of interpretation. First of all, while it may seem to you that "God gave them up" implies a punishment, this is only true from the perspective of a Christian who wishes to be in the grace of god. To a non-Christian this is a completely benign (indeed irrelevant) consequence. This is important because the people Saul is talking about in the passage are, in fact, not Christian.
My Response:
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure of your point here. As I mentioned above, this passage clearly shows homosexuality is a sin by calling it dishonorable, shameful, contrary to nature, and an error with a due penalty. The idea of God giving them up is definitely a bad thing. Its sort of like two siblings who are always disobeying their father when he tells them not to do bad things. It gets to the point where the father finally says, “You know what, go ahead. Do whatever you want. I’m not going to try to stop you anymore.” That’s sad stuff. I suppose if you are saying that a non-Christian wouldn’t care what this verse is saying I would have to agree. People who don’t believe in the God of the Bible would definitely not care what the God of the Bible has to say. But that doesn’t change the fact that this passage in the Bible is condemning homosexuality. The Bible condemns it, whether you as a non-Christian agree with what the Bible says is a very separate issue and has little to do with this topic. However, I do sincerely hope and pray that God would open your eyes to trust His word. If you’d like to speak about evidence that shows the Bible is more than just a normal book and is indeed God’s Word, we can speak about that. But that’s another topic. Just let me know and I’d love to share the things that have convinced me.
Richard said:
Additionally, while the passage deplores behavior "contrary to nature", nevertheless there is no scripture in your religion that actually defines being contrary to nature as a sin. It's not one of the ten commandments, it can't be called a consequence of Adam, it's not one of the seven deadly sins, it's not in the covenant of Noah, it's not one of the 613 mitzvot, etc, etc, etc. Many opportunities existed to define "being against nature" as a sin, and yet it never was. Which is lucky for you, in particular, since affirming that which is contrary to established historical and scientific fact is pretty well against nature by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
My Response:
I suppose the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that being contrary to nature is a sin. However, from the perspective that God is the Creator and therefore God has designed nature, it follows that going against God’s design is to go against God. Regardless of the moral standing of the phrase “contrary to nature” you can tell that this is a bad thing because the very same passage calls this act shameful, dishonorable, and an error with a due penalty.
Richard said:
The fourth and fifth passages [1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy] are again the opinion of Saul, and fall prey to the mistranslation point you glibly cast aside. In fact, we can infer from the passages, as written, that "homosexuality" and "sexual immorality" were apparently distinct and mutually exclusive concepts, since both are mentioned in turn. This tends to weaken your position.
My Response:
First, I did not cast aside the issue of the supposed “mistranslations”. I very clearly showed that the two Leviticus passages override any claims about the mistranslations. The Leviticus passages do not use any word for “homosexuality”. Instead, they spell it out by saying a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. Its very clear and there can be no argument for mistranslation.
Secondly, if you would like an in depth analysis of the supposed mistranslations of the word “homosexuality,” I will give some briefly. The word in 1 Corinthians 6 that we translate as “homosexuality” is the word “malakos”. This word can be translated in several ways. Most often it means “soft”. In that culture, this word was used to specifically describe the “girlier” man in a gay relationship. I don’t mean to be offensive, but in our culture it is sort of like the word “fruit” or “sissy” being used. This word is documented in other ancient texts as referring to one of the two homosexual partners. I won’t go into the details as it gets somewhat crude. The word in 1 Timothy 1 that we translate as “homosexuality” is the Greek word “arsenokoites”. This word is actually extremely clear. This word is a compound word made by merging the words “arsen” which means man or male and “kotes” which means sexual intercourse and is where the English word “coitus” comes from. When they are put together the word “arsenokoites” clearly means something like “man-sexers” or “those who have sex with men”. To add even further evidence that this word should be translated as “homosexuality,” these are the words used in the Septuagint to translate Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 from Hebrew into Greek. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament written in the third century BC. This is a document Paul would have had access to as an educated Pharisee. The Old Testament passages that say a man shall not lie with a man is with a woman literally use the words “arsen” and “koites” when translated into the Greek to ban homosexuality. Why then should the word “arsenokoites” be taken to mean anything other than “homosexuality”? If you’d like more information on this, there is an excellent article written by Gary R. Jepsen that you can find here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDO/is_5_33/ai_n27013812/
Thirdly, just because the terms “homosexuality” and “sexual immorality” are separate on the list doesn’t mean they have nothing to do with each other. In fact, you’ll notice that “the sexually immoral” and “adulterers” as well as “the greedy” and “swindlers” are separated in the 1 Corinthians passage. Those clearly are connected to each other so your argument that separation means they have nothing to do with each other falls apart.
At this point, I feel I have addressed all of your arguments except one. I think you indicated that the Bible doesn’t actually condemn female homosexuality or lesbianism anywhere. However, if you reread the Romans passage I quoted, you’ll see that it does. “For their women exchanged natural relations with those that are contrary to nature…” That statement combined with the clearer explanation about the men make this a very clear condemnation of lesbianism.
To Richard, I hope you consider these things and weigh the evidence. Please keep any further comments respectful. To anyone else who read this, I hope you find this information helpful.
Also, one more thing Richard mentioned that I missed. He said:
The other passages you provide have nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with "Saul of Tarsus". Maybe I've missed a fine point of Christianity and you actually believe that Saul is a god, but I'm pretty sure you don't.
My Response:
I suppose you are missing one of the main doctrines of Christianity. This is understandable as you are not a practicing Christian. Allow me to explain. Christians believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God. This includes the writings of Moses in the Pentateuch, the writings of the prophets, the writings of the apostles in the New Testament, and, on our subject, the writings of Paul. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..." We believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors and guided them through using their personalities to write the exact words He intended. So, while Paul wrote Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, we Christians believe that God wrote them as well. Paul's claims that homosexuality is a sin are therefore, more importantly, God's claims. Paul is not God, but God used him to write His Word.
Richard said:
The first two passages you "quote" [Leviticus] clearly don't apply to women.
(I say "quote" because of course English as a language is only about 1500 years old, modern English considerably less so. Whether you believe the original bible, as written, is divine or not, it's not tenable to argue that arbitrary translations of it are also divine, since they are translated in recorded history by known people.)
My Response
I agree that the English translations of the Bible that I use are not the end all be all. I do not consider them to be the exact inspired words from God. However, the good ones (ESV, NASB, NIV) are quite trustworthy in translating from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Good scholars have poured thousands of hours into accurately translating these texts, study Bibles include footnotes on difficult to translate passages, and the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic are available online for those who want to double check everything. Our English translations are reliable.
Richard said:
The following three passages are not prescriptive in nature and thus don't actually corroborate your point. They don't define what is or is not permissible.
My response:
I believe you are referring to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy passages. I have to disagree. These texts are very much prescriptive. For those who don’t know, texts can be descriptive or prescriptive. When the Bible says that Joseph’s brothers tossed him in a well and sold him into slavery, this is a descriptive text. It tells us what happened, but it is not telling us we ought to throw our younger brothers down wells and enslave them. When the Bible says, “You shall not kill,” it is a prescriptive text. It is telling us what we ought to or ought not do.
While the three New Testament passages do not say, “You shall not practice homosexuality,” they are still prescriptive. Take a look. The Romans passage calls homosexuality, dishonorable, shameful, and contrary to nature. It also says that it is an error that has a due penalty attached to it. The 1 Corinthians passage puts homosexuality in the context of unrighteous acts and says that those who practice it will not go to heaven. The 1 Timothy passage puts those who practice homosexuality in the context of those who are lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners (see verse 9). While *these* passages do not say, “You shall not practice homosexuality,” they are very clearly telling us not to do it as it is contrary to nature, dishonorable, shameful, unrighteous, lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinful, and carries a penalty with its error, namely, exclusion from heaven and condemnation to hell. There is no way to argue that this is not telling us how we ought to act.
Notice that I stressed that *these* passages do not say, “You shall not…” This is because the two Leviticus passages very clearly do prohibit homosexuality.
Richard said:
Also, point of fact, they were all written by Saul of Tarsus, whom even many Christians don't accept as an authority, since he declared a lot of crap by fiat that has no basis in previous scripture nor in the quoted words of Yeshu ha-Notzri, your messiah.
My Response:
Yes, those three passages were all written by Saul of Tarsus after his conversion to Paul when the risen Lord appeared to him and commissioned him. Paul wrote most of the epistles and possibly Hebrews. However, your claim that “many” Christians don’t accept Paul’s writings as Scripture that belongs in the Bible is simply untrue. Since the beginning days of the church, Paul’s writings were circulated throughout the churches and read as Scripture. We have ancient records of many early church fathers quoting Paul’s writings as Scripture. The apostle Peter himself, the first leader of the church after Jesus, says that Paul’s writings are on equal ground with the rest of the Bible in 2 Peter 3:15-16. The three major Christian traditions (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) all include these writings as Holy Scripture and God’s Word. Frankly, there are very few Christians in all of history who claim otherwise. Your view strays so far from Christian orthodoxy that it is either very close to or actually is heresy.
Richard said:
In the third passage [Romans], a lot is going on that casts doubt on your choice of interpretation. First of all, while it may seem to you that "God gave them up" implies a punishment, this is only true from the perspective of a Christian who wishes to be in the grace of god. To a non-Christian this is a completely benign (indeed irrelevant) consequence. This is important because the people Saul is talking about in the passage are, in fact, not Christian.
My Response:
I’ll be honest, I’m not sure of your point here. As I mentioned above, this passage clearly shows homosexuality is a sin by calling it dishonorable, shameful, contrary to nature, and an error with a due penalty. The idea of God giving them up is definitely a bad thing. Its sort of like two siblings who are always disobeying their father when he tells them not to do bad things. It gets to the point where the father finally says, “You know what, go ahead. Do whatever you want. I’m not going to try to stop you anymore.” That’s sad stuff. I suppose if you are saying that a non-Christian wouldn’t care what this verse is saying I would have to agree. People who don’t believe in the God of the Bible would definitely not care what the God of the Bible has to say. But that doesn’t change the fact that this passage in the Bible is condemning homosexuality. The Bible condemns it, whether you as a non-Christian agree with what the Bible says is a very separate issue and has little to do with this topic. However, I do sincerely hope and pray that God would open your eyes to trust His word. If you’d like to speak about evidence that shows the Bible is more than just a normal book and is indeed God’s Word, we can speak about that. But that’s another topic. Just let me know and I’d love to share the things that have convinced me.
Richard said:
Additionally, while the passage deplores behavior "contrary to nature", nevertheless there is no scripture in your religion that actually defines being contrary to nature as a sin. It's not one of the ten commandments, it can't be called a consequence of Adam, it's not one of the seven deadly sins, it's not in the covenant of Noah, it's not one of the 613 mitzvot, etc, etc, etc. Many opportunities existed to define "being against nature" as a sin, and yet it never was. Which is lucky for you, in particular, since affirming that which is contrary to established historical and scientific fact is pretty well against nature by any reasonable interpretation of the word.
My Response:
I suppose the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that being contrary to nature is a sin. However, from the perspective that God is the Creator and therefore God has designed nature, it follows that going against God’s design is to go against God. Regardless of the moral standing of the phrase “contrary to nature” you can tell that this is a bad thing because the very same passage calls this act shameful, dishonorable, and an error with a due penalty.
Richard said:
The fourth and fifth passages [1st Corinthians and 1st Timothy] are again the opinion of Saul, and fall prey to the mistranslation point you glibly cast aside. In fact, we can infer from the passages, as written, that "homosexuality" and "sexual immorality" were apparently distinct and mutually exclusive concepts, since both are mentioned in turn. This tends to weaken your position.
My Response:
First, I did not cast aside the issue of the supposed “mistranslations”. I very clearly showed that the two Leviticus passages override any claims about the mistranslations. The Leviticus passages do not use any word for “homosexuality”. Instead, they spell it out by saying a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. Its very clear and there can be no argument for mistranslation.
Secondly, if you would like an in depth analysis of the supposed mistranslations of the word “homosexuality,” I will give some briefly. The word in 1 Corinthians 6 that we translate as “homosexuality” is the word “malakos”. This word can be translated in several ways. Most often it means “soft”. In that culture, this word was used to specifically describe the “girlier” man in a gay relationship. I don’t mean to be offensive, but in our culture it is sort of like the word “fruit” or “sissy” being used. This word is documented in other ancient texts as referring to one of the two homosexual partners. I won’t go into the details as it gets somewhat crude. The word in 1 Timothy 1 that we translate as “homosexuality” is the Greek word “arsenokoites”. This word is actually extremely clear. This word is a compound word made by merging the words “arsen” which means man or male and “kotes” which means sexual intercourse and is where the English word “coitus” comes from. When they are put together the word “arsenokoites” clearly means something like “man-sexers” or “those who have sex with men”. To add even further evidence that this word should be translated as “homosexuality,” these are the words used in the Septuagint to translate Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 from Hebrew into Greek. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament written in the third century BC. This is a document Paul would have had access to as an educated Pharisee. The Old Testament passages that say a man shall not lie with a man is with a woman literally use the words “arsen” and “koites” when translated into the Greek to ban homosexuality. Why then should the word “arsenokoites” be taken to mean anything other than “homosexuality”? If you’d like more information on this, there is an excellent article written by Gary R. Jepsen that you can find here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDO/is_5_33/ai_n27013812/
Thirdly, just because the terms “homosexuality” and “sexual immorality” are separate on the list doesn’t mean they have nothing to do with each other. In fact, you’ll notice that “the sexually immoral” and “adulterers” as well as “the greedy” and “swindlers” are separated in the 1 Corinthians passage. Those clearly are connected to each other so your argument that separation means they have nothing to do with each other falls apart.
At this point, I feel I have addressed all of your arguments except one. I think you indicated that the Bible doesn’t actually condemn female homosexuality or lesbianism anywhere. However, if you reread the Romans passage I quoted, you’ll see that it does. “For their women exchanged natural relations with those that are contrary to nature…” That statement combined with the clearer explanation about the men make this a very clear condemnation of lesbianism.
To Richard, I hope you consider these things and weigh the evidence. Please keep any further comments respectful. To anyone else who read this, I hope you find this information helpful.
Also, one more thing Richard mentioned that I missed. He said:
The other passages you provide have nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with "Saul of Tarsus". Maybe I've missed a fine point of Christianity and you actually believe that Saul is a god, but I'm pretty sure you don't.
My Response:
I suppose you are missing one of the main doctrines of Christianity. This is understandable as you are not a practicing Christian. Allow me to explain. Christians believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God. This includes the writings of Moses in the Pentateuch, the writings of the prophets, the writings of the apostles in the New Testament, and, on our subject, the writings of Paul. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..." We believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors and guided them through using their personalities to write the exact words He intended. So, while Paul wrote Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, we Christians believe that God wrote them as well. Paul's claims that homosexuality is a sin are therefore, more importantly, God's claims. Paul is not God, but God used him to write His Word.
RSS Feed