Marry Young, I Say
So . . . that’s why the average godly guy should be married by the time he is 23! You said it even better this time, Wilson! Hang in there gals! I expect some decent guys might get the right idea after this post!
Jason
Will you say anything to young women about being the resistance a young man might join?
John
John, yes. I would say that young women should not lower any biblical standards they have, not an inch. At the same time, they should run an inventory on how biblical their standards actually are. In other words, if their idea of a Spirit-filled man is actually a beta male, then they should recalculate.
I would agree with as to why there has been a lack of young men suitable for marriage in the church. When these men realize the scam that has been run on them, they will go in search of the truth. And when they do, they will also avoid anything that resembles the scammers and their coded Marxist language and guilt-driven tactics. Many of these men may then only be presented with two options: they can go to a church and be lectured about honest-dialoguing conversations about the nuances of systemic racism and white privilege, or they can watch a Jordan Peterson lecture. [Now] I think Jesus is the truth, not Jordan Peterson. The “truth” I was saying the men would be seeking (and consequently the lies they would be avoiding) would be truth, in general, on the social justice or cultural Marxism front, not “the truth.”
Bill
Bill, yes. The reason Peterson has been such a hit with young men (“at last, a father!”) is that the church, in a far better position to meet this need, has refused to do so.
I fear you may have hit the nail to directly with this one. This is the big issue behind all of our current cultural decay. The devaluing and debasing of marriage, modesty, and purity. May we repent as a culture and return to sanity, by the grace of God.
C. Sarge
C, amen.
Economics of Sexual Purity (or, The New Sexual Revolution): As the father of three teenagers–two girls and a boy—I am seeing your laments play out exactly as described. My daughters long to be noticed, wooed, courted, and married . . . by a real-life, Christian, young man. Emphasis on man. Thus far, there has been absolutely no one to step forward and meet these simple but all-important requirements. And my girls ain’t butter-faces! My son, then, being raised to aspire to Christian manhood, has already embarked on the goal of satisfying his—er—economics by telling a real cutie of a Christian gal that he likes her. As she was flattered and taken slightly by surprise, he smiled politely and said “take your time; I’ll be right here.” At the risk of sounding like I’m from Arkansas (which is true but not relevant to my point), my daughters need someone like their brother to show some interest and ask them out. You understand what I mean . . . besides, I live in Texas now.
Malachi
Malachi, blessings and good luck.
Is the West Really Dead?
It seems you’ve shifted your model a bit from two steps forwards, one step back to an endless cycle of death and rebirth. I won’t deny a pattern of sin and repentance in the Old Testament but I only see a few such cycles over a period of thousands of years. I think that, in your grasping at straws, you’ve grabbed onto a bit of Eastern mysticism there. Again with Chesterton. He tends to throw out these grand, dramatic assertions but you can’t allow them near sharp objects. Do you think you could convincingly support this claim that Christianity has died and been reborn many times? I know your closing comments was due in part with concerns about harm to your attempts at bridge building but I think it was also because you adopt the style of Chesterton which doesn’t hold up to interrogation. It’s been said that you can believe God is powerful or you can believe God is good but it’s difficult to believe both. I think your optimistic eschatology in the face of conflicting scripture and historical evidence is an attempt to ease the burden. “Secularists.” I still think this is an inaccurate term. Inaccurate language is both a cause and effect of inaccurate thinking. There may have been a time when the Church was threatened by direct opposition but now the threat is mimetic assimilation, a process that’s well advanced. If they take over entire denominations and completely redefine what it means to think and act like a Christian are they still secularists? If things continue as they are going a lumberjack dyke will one day stand in your pulpit and a Marxist liberation theologian will run your school. I don’t know if there is anything you can do to prevent that but I can tell you that the threat will not come from outside from someone identifiable as a secularist.
Barnie
Barnie, sure. External enemies always send infiltrators. But don’t give up. One of their central lies is the myth of “inevitable” progress.
Re: The West is Dead (19 April) Thank you for reminding me that there is a “vast difference between being attacked for your sins and being attacked with your sins.” If you may clarify this point, what rightly should be our response to those who weaponize our sins and flaws? Do we still confess them openly, despite the fact our confession can be used against us as well? It is interesting that you raised the likelihood of Islam filling up the vacuum left by secularists. In a Muslim-majority country like mine, many people including fellow believers embrace secularism as the answer to Islam’s pervasiveness. As you probably could guess, secularism anywhere will never hold water. While there is a longing for mere Christendom, I don’t realistically see that becoming a reality for my country (Malaysia) anytime soon, not on this side of eternity anyway. Once again, very well written and adaptable for audiences even outside of the West. Thanks.
Chee
“Micro-aggressions are to real sin what LaCroix is to fruit juice” Good one! So, homeopathic sin?
Jeb
Jeb, so to speak.
In Black and White
Ethnic Metrics I would like to see a skit about a schizophrenic, multi-racial racist. “I hate you, I hate you too, and you and you.” I myself could have up to three different ethnic personalities, if you lump all Europeans together, and northern and Mexican Native Americans separately. Counting different countries in Europe, I could be a Heinz 57 multi-racist-phobic schizophrenic. Which of my ancestors was the most offensive, that I should hate the most? Can I count warring Indian tribes? French vs. German? English vs. Celts? A long lost Moorish granddaddy from Spain? What about Attila, who I hear 1/4 of us are related to? How far back should it go? Is there an expiration date?
Ginny
RE: What Makes Racism Sinful (https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/makes-racism-sinful.html). Sometime back you wrote this short post which I found quite helpful. The categories of animosity and vainglory are certainly biblically defined sins that can fall under the term ‘racism,’ though, as you point out, many other things can fall under this term that aren’t biblical sins. I wonder if you consider ‘partiality’ in a similar way also as a biblical sin that can be racially motivated and thus ‘racist.’ I’m specifically coming from James 2, just to clarify. Would you consider partiality simply a sinful ‘subheading’ under either animosity or vainglory (it seems to be a vainglory for others if not for self), or something else entirely? Thanks for the consideration, and I haven’t read your racism books yet, so if your answer is to look there because you cover it, that’s fair.
Nathan
Nathan, partiality is a good suggestion. If you made it a third category, that would be defensible. But I would lean to grouping it under vainglory—you are being partial because your group is “special.”
I wanted to ask where you got the reference for the assertion that blacks are more likely to descend from slave owners than whites. Thank you!
Adam
Adam, the vast majority of whites in the South before the war were not slave owners, and would have had little opportunity for sexual interaction with the black population. Their descendants would therefore would not be descended from slave-owners. But sexual exploitation of slaves by slave-owners was relatively common, and accounts for much of the white blood among American blacks today. But that would not be white blood so much as it was slave-owner blood. Hence the statement that blacks today are more likely descended from slave-owners than whites are.
I think you got some of your tenses wrong here Pastor Wilson. When you say: “If you reduce generational complicity to something as simplistic as skin color, the chances are excellent that you will simply perpetuate the evils rather than resolving them. You will slug the wrong kid.” You submit this as a potential in the future. The truth, and I suspect you’re quite aware of this and are changing your tense for the sake of politeness, is that this is what he is already doing. You’ve already illustrated why this is the case in discussing that white families were and are still immigrating here after the murder of MLK. If you agree with me on this assessment and this phrasing was made knowingly, be cautious that politeness does not stray into dishonesty. The letter of your statement is technically correct so I would chalk this line up to “wise as serpents, innocent as doves,” but it’s a very narrow line to walk.
Justin
Justin, I was trying to be polite, but wasn’t trying to be coy. I did want to make that point clear.
While I’ve always been suspicious of this race-baiting movement, I am actually surprised to see anyone compose a compelling gospel rejoinder. I still can’t articulate why I remain suspicious of being guilty of white privilege, and I still can’t fully articulate why I agree with you. My question is this: what then do we do with our racist history? My father’s side is Mexican; my mom’s side is white—with both English and Scotch-Irish. I’ve seen a picture of her ancestors with a slave girl standing with the rest of a family for a photo (we’re all from Texas). I think it was her great-great grandparents—even then, I’m not entirely sure. How now should I pursue restoration?
Lindsey
Lindsey, when the duty of restitution is plain and clear, we have an obligation to pursue it. But when the whole thing is murky (as this most certainly is), we are to leave it in the hands of God.
You presented a beautiful description of the conscience cleansing power of the gospel in “Dear Thabiti.” However, when I read this as well as your rejoinder to Thabiti, I am still left with the question: “I am a forgiven man. Now, what should I do?” The gospel cleanses of guilt, but after having experienced freedom should I still not repay WinCo for the muffins I stole 15 years ago? So, given what you say about tax paying money being used for abortions, what should an average Christian man do? If one Christian man belongs to a group that has, in general and on the whole been less than charitable to those of another, what should that average Christian man do? Or, assuming we can separate such actions from guilt-ridden penitence performed in the hopes of receiving absolution, should churches as a collective perform anything akin to restitution?
Timothy
Timothy, yes, you should repay WinCo for the muffins because you remember the muffins. Restitution is a Christian duty. But we have a responsibility to make restitution for known sin, with a known culprit, and a known amount. We have no responsibility to try to fix ancestral wrongs on the basis of wild guesswork. Maybe an ancestor of mine beat his slaves. Should I pay restitution for that? Maybe someone else’s ancestors were lazy slaves. Should they pay for that? How on earth did we come to think we are competent to judge such things?
I read Thabiti’s response to your blog. I’m a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and have unfortunately been subject to the “gospel of racial reconciliation” for quite some time. Admitting white privilege, ripping down monuments, supporting affirmative action, supporting the kneelers etc. are all unspoken sacraments offered up to prove doctrinal purity to the Marxist concept of justice. I have been the target myself of the administration’s purging of “heretical” views. A professor who did not agree with the recent direction confided in me that if he were to oppose the social justice direction he would be fired. Anyway, I very much appreciate and support your response! It’s a breath of fresh air, and I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Here’s the information I wanted to share with you. Thabiti says he shares the gospel as the solution when preaching. He doesn’t. Here’s a recent chapel message he gave to the students of Southeastern. Among other things, he tells them they’re not doing enough to promote justice, they ought to be “liberal” since God is liberal, Whitefield and Edwards did not support justice since they were associated with slavery, but he never gives the gospel as the once-for-all solution. He gives a message of hopelessness in a sermon which overturns his response to you. Thought you’d like to know. Here’s the link.
Jonathan
Jonathan, thanks very much, and God bless.
I am curious as to why black people insist on being called African. I have more claim to Italian or Lithuanian than they do to Africa. One set each of my grandparents came from there. It gives me pause to wonder if the African designation helps to feed the slavery-racist-oppression theme. Would it not be more helpful, and accurate, to identify as a black American? It would probably be best to drop any adjective at all if we want to move forward in unity.
Jeff
Jeff, thanks.
Re: But Thabiti… How is it scriptural to be held responsible for grandparents in anything? Did Ezekiel 18:20 get mentioned anywhere? “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” This seems to be the missing link in the thinking of every Christian I speak with who gets swept up by the inequitable “equity” rhetoric. They have a very incorrect view of God’s equity. If my dad robbed someone, I am not responsible for the inequity (a.k.a. iniquity). I do not owe the victim anything except to love. (Rom 13:8) I think it’s time the Church learn the theology and truth about God’s equity and our iniquity all over again. These are two very powerful and far-reaching words in Scripture. Our ignorance of the theological definitions of these two words is our great vulnerability right now. Maybe you could do a post on them? Maybe Thabiti is a respectful man but the teaching is abominable . . . “A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight” (Prov. 11:1). Do we tell today’s Germans they were complicit in Hitler’s sins? Yeah, right. I do wonder about racial reconciliation, fostering healing between groups /categories, corporate sins and repentance and if it even matters. Does it make sense for a man to apologize or confess on behalf of men to a woman who was abused?
Matt
Matt, yes. The entire topic is a lot less simple than it is being made out to be.
Cancer
Many of you wrote very kind notes concerning my cancer, and I don’t have the ability to post them all here. But thank you all. The surgery is scheduled for May 7, and I will update you all as I have information.
Healing in Jesus name. Even if the cancer is there in obedience to Yahweh, could one possible purpose for its presence be for you (with us) to take authority over it? Sincerely, a huge fan of your God Is book.
Joe
Joe, amen, just so long as it is faith and not presumption.
I am praying for you and yours, which I have done on occasion over the last 20 some years. This time in particular regarding this cancer that has been discovered. You have helped me train my six children in the love of Christ over the course of their childhoods. Thank you. They will also pray.
Evonne
Evonne, thanks so much.
“God didn’t send cancer to teach us a lesson, He sent Jesus to teach cancer a lesson.” Paul Manwaring from his book Kisses From A Good God. While I do believe in the sovereignty of God we must see Jesus and His revelation of the Father. He came to destroy the works of the enemy. He healed the sick (He didn’t accept sickness as the Father’s will or He would have been going against it by healing), raised the dead and cast out demons. I would caution my Calvinistic brothers from extending the sovereignty of God to an unbalanced extent and hence partnering with the things that don’t come from God. If sickness or disease is a gift from God then it would be cruel for the Father to submit His Son (Matthew 8:17) to suffer for our sin and sickness and then use illness to “teach us” something. Just a thought. I just don’t accept sickness personally as something God wills to stay. We pray for healing, trust His will for our healing and press for the breakthrough! If the breakthrough doesn’t come soon enough and death takes place, we leave it as “mystery” and declare His goodness regardless while not attributing or assuming it must not have been His will to heal. It’s a mystery why we don’t always see answers. But we must never attribute to God’s character things that bring death and destruction. Let’s just take His authority over those cancer cells and command them to bow to the name above all names! Amen? Love in Christ our conquering King!
Scott
Scott, not exactly. We certainly pray for healing. We know what direction to look, what direction we should go. But we still know that in the mystery of apparently unanswered prayer, God still has instruction and comfort for us. As Job teaches us, something can be from Satan and also from God, on different levels. Satan struck Job, and Job said, “The Lord gives, the Lord takes away.”
Sorry to hear about your cancer. I will pray that the surgery goes well and you have a swift recovery. Don’t die. The Internet would be so boring without you.
Noah
Noah, check. Don’t die. I’m on it.
Prayers extended for you and for the whole family. Thank you for making even these moments fitting reminders of the glory and sovereignty of God, and being an example to all of us by His Grace. I’m curious if this tumor will also be named by the family, as was Nate’s :)
Kevin
Kevin, Nate’s kids have suggested that we name this one Neil. But the idea has not yet caught on.
Because Someone Asked About the Cover of Reforming Marriage
The painting is The Sleeping Couple, Jan Steen, c. 1658-1660
Coley
Coley, thanks.
Immigration
Re: “How the Queen of Sheba Crossed the Border” This piece, and the two you referenced for your position on immigration, are great. You do a great job of explaining what biblical immigration would or should look like with true liberty and true open borders if every country were to repent and turn to Christ en masse. And diagnosing the real problem of our rebellion from Christ. But what about those instances between now (America and others rejecting Christ en masse) and utopia (America and others repenting and turning back to Christ en masse)? What if America were to not be destroyed for our sin and a new, completely different nation/kingdom isn’t raised up, instead America is restored and redeemed because we finally repented and turned back to Christ, but we’re the only nation who became Christian again (the other nations are still unrepentant). A scenario where we have one law and they have a different law, and immigrants coming to America have virtually no intention of assimilating into our one law, which is based on biblical law (because we have ideally repented and theonomically returned to Christ’s Lordship)? Does biblical open borders make sense or work in a scenario like that where we’re right with God, but the world is yet to become the ideal, utopian biblical world of ideal biblical republics? If so, you need to explain how biblical open borders in one direction can work because I don’t see how it does? If not, what does a biblical immigration policy look like for that scenario when not every nation is at the ideal and utopia point yet? The SJW open borders Christians, the ones being used by the likes of Marxists like Soros, confusingly misapply Scripture passages on compassion to the sojourner and refugee to appeal to the bleeding hearts for unfettered immigration, while the biblical open borders Christians apply the correct passages rightly, but they tend to focus almost exclusively on the ideal and utopian biblical republic and give zero help and discernment on what to do between the unrepentant now and the utopian biblical world not yet. If my question requires a more in depth answer than a simple answer on a “Tuesday Letters,” feel free to work on an immigration follow-up addressing the scenario that I’ve have asked about. Thank you.
Trey
Trey, I believe the answer lies in recovering a robust sense of citizenship. In other words, the fact that someone is allowed to come and live here does not mean they get to vote, etc. I believe we would have to get rid of the “anchor baby” policy, because that is what would allow people with an alien faith to establish a foothold. And citizenship would need to have some kind of mere Christendom component.
Evangellyfish
Doug, many thanks for your writing here. I’m in the middle of reading your Evangellyfish novel, and I came to a sudden realization last night after finishing a chapter. You provide such an astute, clear, honest depiction of each character, they sound so . . . human. Found myself wishing that I had someone in my life who knew me well enough to be able to write something similar. Funny how difficult it is to figure out oneself. Perhaps one day down the road in marriage I’ll see some of that understanding come from someone, but in the meantime I’m trying to fix my eye on Christ, who stands perfectly at the intersection of knowing-me and loving-me.
Alexander
Alexander, thanks for the comments on the novel. We all tend to long for a person who can see us as we are. And we all tend to wonder why we were longing for that after a couple of doses.
Heaven and Hades
In one of your Ask Doug videos, you helpfully explain the difference between Hades and Hell; Hades being a type of holding place for all the dead (though the good and evil are separated) before Christ came while Hell (as we think of it today) is the Lake of Fire, the peace of eternal suffering. Christ descended into Hades, not Hell. You also mentioned that believers today, after the resurrection, go to Heaven to be with the Father, not Hades. But didn’t mention the destination for unbelievers. Do they now go straight to the Lake of Fire?
Bill
Bill, I didn’t mention that because there is not a lot of biblical data for saying anything. But my supposition is that unbelievers still go to Hades because when the last judgment comes, Death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:14).
Is Jesus Your Boyfriend?
Pastor Wilson, There seems to be an increasingly pervasive tendency in evangelical circles (including reformed circles) to refer to Jesus as the husband of individual Christians. By my observation, this used to be largely limited to counsel given to women who wished to marry but had not yet found a mate, and were working their way through the difficulty of that longing. In such cases they would be exhorted to be content to be “married to Jesus,” or to consider or realize that “Jesus is your husband.” Increasingly, I hear this applied more widely and generally, not just to unmarried women, but to men as well—and not just to singles in regards to their coping with longing in singleness, but also more generally (to married and single alike) as a sort of general devotional exhortation towards faithfulness, holiness, and contentedness in Christ. The end result is that men and women, married and single, are being told fairly frequently to view Jesus as their husband. Now, I don’t want to be too cute or sophomoric here in my criticism of this tendency—a lot of smart-alecky jokes could be made here—and while I’m not necessarily above making them (but they would be about the practice, not about Jesus, of course) I also want to recognize the legitimacy of the underlying scriptural truths which such exhortational attempts are trying to get at, namely, that the Church as the Bride and Body of Christ is supposed to be ravished and satisfied by and in Him. I also acknowledge that inasmuch as individual elect are part of that body, there should, in some sense, trickle “down” to us some manner of individual application as well. However, to translate the analogy or symbolism directly and flatly into “Jesus is my husband,” seems more than a stretch, in light of the creation ordinance of the sexes and of marriage, among other things. I am not eager to simply dismiss the exhortation as simply because it has a certain weirdness to it, although it does. But nor do I want to simply accept it simply b/c there’s an underlying doctrinal truth at which it’s aiming. I used to think this kind of exhortation was something that was simply off-putting and bizarre to some of us, but that was of no real lasting harm—just a touchy-feely manner of “personalizing” the exhortation to be content in Christ. But it seems to be increasing in prominence and frequency, and ironically enough, often without being accompanied by a very robust articulation of the corporate sense which Scripture does speak. The end result just feels so very . . . feminist, touchy-feely, un-Old Testamenty (un-New Testamenty, for that matter), and un-eschatological; even more—it feels like we are being exhorted to abide in Christ by striving for an emotional, quasi-romantic “high” from the idea of Jesus as “my husband,” even though all of us, male and female, were designed to have such desires for another human so that we may mirror the Glory of Christ and his Church collectively. So my “question”/request here is very open-ended, I just want your commentary on this matter generally—big deal? Not a big deal? If you find an appropriate place on your blog, Plodcast, or elsewhere, I’d love to hear your reflections on this. Much Thanks
Matt
Matt, I think it is a very big deal, and I am with you. The whole thing gives me the fantods. I will try to get to it sometime soon. In the meantime, let me recommend the book The Church Impotent by Leon Podles. He traces the genesis of all this stuff.
Telos and Tactics
Thanks for your post Telos and Tactics. I found it very helpful and reasonable. The question I would like to raise to you is whether or not you would apply something similar to church politics (for lack of a better word). To give an example that we are dealing with in our Presbytery (I’m in a PCA church), what do you do with the matter of racial reconciliation, where I was witness to what can only be described as a white guilt sermon by a black minister at a presbytery meeting (one in which the majority of the other ministers, red, yellow, black, or white, didn’t seem to have any issue with what was being said). The essential idea was that if your church didn’t have a balanced mix of ethnic diversity represented in your church membership, you were automatically a racist church. Or in a previous presbytery that I was in, some elders were contemplating allowing unrepentant, practicing homosexuals to become members of their churches, at least on a provisional basis (they affirmed homosexuality was a sin but suggested that some people coming from a PCUSA church might be genuine Christians who just had a “blind spot” concerning the matter of homosexuality, not unlike King David had with polygamy!). From my perspective you can’t negotiate on these matters. If we let sermons multiply which are essentially reverse racism, and if we let unrepentant, practicing homosexual couples into membership, incrementalism isn’t the answer. I’m not even sure what incrementalism would look like here. Maybe a compromise is worked out to where you can only take one potshot at white people per sermon, and in the other situation it is proposed that we let practicing homosexuals become members in our churches, but immediately place them under church discipline until they repent. Not that anyone seems to be interested in compromising on these issues in this fashion; sadly to me it seems more like full steam ahead for the progressives and the conservatives are left scrambling, denying how bad off things really are, or are quietly muttering to themselves and hoping to strategically avoid having to deal with these issues. I’m seeing a few groups forming that give me some hope for the PCA (The Gospel Reformation Network and a group called MORE, standing for More Orthodox Ruling Elders) though I have a little bit of fear that their solution might be some application of the spirituality of the Church doctrine or a modified form of the two kingdom approach, which is kind of like punting on the issue. At any rate, I agree with your original post, but I have a lot more revulsion to this kind of thinking within the Church, and wanted to know how you would compare/contrast the two.
Thomas
Thomas, yes. We are at a place where captains of ships are incapable to seeing that the hull is filling up with water.
This is a very balanced approach to the issue in my opinion. There is something about calling for the hanging of women who have had abortions that has been bothering me. Somewhere between that and just calling for parental notification laws is a middle ground that is both daring and effective at taking ground from the enemy. I think the battle right now should be to try to get state legislatures to enact laws or constitutional amendments declaring the (obvious) fact the human life begins at conception, then we work out the penal codes later.
C.Sarge
C. Thanks
Housekeeping
Pastor Wilson When you embed videos in WordPress, you need to enter the HTML code in “Text” mode, rather than “Visual.” Like this: https://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/edu/wordpress/wordpress-introduction/adding-html-wordpress I love your writing — even when I hate it. In Christ,
Noah
Noah, yes. Sometimes that works for me and sometimes it doesn’t. That is because sometimes WordPress gets the wind up, and is kind of temperamental.
I’m not writing in reply to any particular article; I am writing about the blank space that shows up on your home page for some of us readers. I don’t know how much other folks have already figured out, so maybe this is old news to you. Your home page loads some link rewriting code from a service called Georiot. My ad blocker, and I assume the ad blockers of other users, stops that code from loading. Your home page doesn’t know this; as the code on your home page is making changes to the page it goes to use the Georiot code, fails, and bails out, leaving the changes half made. This results in the big white space between the carousel at the top of the page and the list of articles. Dropping Georiot would be the easiest way to address the issue. If you have web people who would like to take a look at it, running Firefox with uBlock Origin installed should reproduce the problem; they’ll be able to see the exception in the JavaScript console. Whitelisting Georiot will make the exception disappear and the page display correctly, demonstrating it to be the culprit.
Grant
Grant, thanks. I will pass this on.
Doug, thank you for your immigration response. A kind of “covenant assimilation” as part of citizenship and immigration policy? That helps.
I’ll give you a Biblical model for open borders. First genocide all of the neighboring populace. Then assign all land by ethnic tribe and make sure that it periodically reverts to such so that foreigners can’t possess any (a big deal in an agrarian society). Make any foreigners still around an untouchable underclass. Thoroughly propagandize your people regarding the importance of their ethnic distinctiveness in their teachings, songs and holy books. Encourage exploitation of outsiders through usury and slavery. That should do it. You’ll still probably need a wall, though.
Even taking aside your complete lack of Biblical reference for your obviously slanderous straw man, this is still a dishonest paragraph. You’re taking an interpretation of Biblical events as presented by those who despise the Bible, and presenting them as though the Bible itself presents those events in the same way. You aren’t going to get very far in taking the moral high ground when you can’t even be honest for the space of a few sentences.
You can quibble about Barnie’s understanding of the social order prescribed in the Torah, but it won’t due to call it slanderous. Clearly Barnie is in favor of such an order and believes that elements of it should be implemented immediately. With the exception of “any” foreigners becoming an “untouchable underclass” (which is true of the Gibbeonites, for instance, who were under the ban, but was certainly not universal) and the details of the supposedly encouraged exploitation of outsiders, I think the rest of what he said is broadly true, if provocatively expressed. Of course, there is more to redemptive… Read more »
” Clearly Barnie is in favor of such an order and believes that elements of it should be implemented immediately.”
Ah, then I wildly misinterpreted him. That would change the way I critique considerably, though not to a very different conclusion. I had thought he was employing sarcasm.
Sounds like a Poe’s Law problem.
I was going to say something, but Justin eloquently summed up what I was thinking better than I could, so I’ll just let his words stand and pretend as though I said them.
What part of that was inaccurate? Broadly stated, okay. But… they were commanded to massacre the Canaanites. The land was apportioned according to tribes. Intermarriage was forbidden. Usury and enslavement of foreigners was at least implicitly permitted (because denied with fellow Jews).
So what are you objecting to?
Farinata wrote: So what are you objecting to? I object that Barnie’s characterization is a complete farce from top to bottom. Barnie said: I’ll give you a Biblical model for open borders. First genocide all of the neighboring populace. Barnie makes the common error of simply assuming/asserting that God’s judgment on Canaan was “genocidal”, i.e. racial, ethnic, or genetic, rather than moral. Barnie makes the same mistake that 40 Acres made in assuming that Canaanites were a different ethnicity. Barnie also seems to be ignorant of many other counterfactuals, including the fact that God spared Rahab and her household, and… Read more »
Katecho, if you are disputing the notion that the Canaanites were subject to extermination for reasons other than their own wickedness, then your dispute is not with me. On the other hand, isn’t wiping out entire tribes of people (Jebusites, Amalekites, et cetera) pretty much what the word genocide means? Granted there are exceptions, but there is also a pretty obvious norm in view. You say: “The only propaganda about ethnic distinctiveness that I’m seeing is coming from the teachings of Barnie, not from the teachings of God or His Word.” Were not intermarriages explicitly forbidden? I think you are… Read more »
While Katecho is doing an excellent job, since the question was I believe directed at me I thought I’d butt back in. “. On the other hand, isn’t wiping out entire tribes of people (Jebusites, Amalekites, et cetera) pretty much what the word genocide means? ” You’ve departed too far from what Barnie said. He said: “I’ll give you a Biblical model for open borders. First genocide all of the neighboring populace.” Without context, this strongly implies that committing “genocide” against all of your neighbors is the first order of business. We could quibble over the term’s exact definition, but… Read more »
Justin, Reactive in what sense? The Canaanites had been living in the Promised Land for generations. They were wicked, but they weren’t attacking anybody. The Israelite arrival in the land was God’s judgment on the Canaanites; except for our revealed knowledge of God’s desires, their invasion and virtual extermination of the natives would have struck us as hugely aggressive, like the Huns moving West in the first millennium. And it pretty much was the first order of business: they enter the land under Joshua and start slaying people. Now if what you mean by your opposition is that America shouldn’t… Read more »
“They were wicked, but they weren’t attacking anybody. ” You’re using man’s criteria for what justifies intervention rather than God’s. God told the Isrealites to kick down the door. Why? Because their wickedness had already brought them to that point int he eyes of God. The Canaanites acted wickedly, and God reacted by sending the Isrealites, who in turn reacted to God’s commands. Barnie’s text would suggest that it was just standing policy to tear down your neighbors, whomever they may be, which is clearly and obviously false. The Isrealites were not instructed to destroy anyone and everyone they came… Read more »
Justin,
So essentially, it’s Israel’s role as “model” you dislike? I can accept that. Only you are reading an eisegetical distorition where I just see provocative phrasing – i.e. Israel obviously didn’t have a modern “open borders” ideology anyway. The issue of non-military mass immigration wasn’t generally on the table.
“So essentially, it’s Israel’s role as “model” you dislike? I can accept that. Only you are reading an eisegetical distorition where I just see provocative phrasing ” As I said at the beginning, it’s the blatant lie about what other people say to which I object. An atheist, or anyone who objects to what the Isrealites did, naturally does so because they don’t believe a God with supreme moral authority told them to do it. They don’t believe the story as presented in the Bible. If in fact God didn’t exist, they would be quite correct. There’s a big difference… Read more »
It is also important to note that Israel was not to attack Edom, Moab, or Amnon, all of whom were neighbours and who lived in the same region.
Farinata wrote: if you are disputing the notion that the Canaanites were subject to extermination for reasons other than their own wickedness, then your dispute is not with me. On the contrary, I’m pointing out that the extermination of those tribes was precisely because of their own wickedness, and not merely because of their ethnicity or genetics. Barnie’s “provocative phrasing” is an attempt to obliterate the guilt/innocence distinction and make the issue about race. Barnie is pulling the race card on us. I see no reason to indulge his sophomoric rhetoric when the issue with Canaan was expressly moral and… Read more »
Farinata wrote: Were not intermarriages explicitly forbidden? Forbidden along genetic lines, or moral lines? Recall Ruth, Rahab, and Uriah, and the tribes where God expressly spared all the women and children and expressly permitted Israelites to marry them. When we consider these facts and examples, it should be clear that the issue was moral and covenantal, and not about some defect in anyone’s bloodline or ancestry. Farinata wrote: But it is not false to say that Israel was warned to keep herself a holy people, and separate from the surrounding nations – that the Jews were a coherent people-group and… Read more »
I would say the genetic element is a little bit larger than you suggest – Rahab and Ruth were permitted exceptions, but that wasn’t general practice. The Law’s strictures are not predicated on individual morality, but heritage. It does not command Israelites to exterminate wicked people, but Jebusites. Now, because God is planning this, it turns out that all the Jebusites deserve to die. But this justice is enacted at the tribal – or, if you like, genetic – level: it’s not as though every toddler in Jericho had done something to make him particularly worthy of execution. You said,… Read more »
Farinata wrote: My point is that the two lines, genetic and moral, are largely inextricable. The Lord does not proscribe marrying *wicked* Philistines, but Philistines in general. The reasons for this policy are moral and covenantal, but its application is basically genetic: don’t marry the daughter of a Philistine. Farinata is getting very close to expressing, in his own terms, why Barnie’s race-card characterization is a farce and should not be indulged. Barnie’s taunts of “genocide” are coughed up to intentionally sidestep any distinction of moral guilt and innocence. Barnie probably also thinks that a parent who spanks their child… Read more »
“I certainly agree that genetic purity is not really the point of all this – Israel’s ritual purity was an allegory for the holiness available in Christ. I would merely stipulate that the purity, in spite of exceptions, was still real.”
In other words, even if we cede the point that it was genocide, Barnie’s post was still slanderous in meaning, rendering this purely a debate on semantics.
For the record, I don’t cede that the judgment on Canaan was genocide at all, just as I don’t cede that it was racist. If God’s righteous judgment condemned all of the men of a certain Canaanite tribe to death, but spared the women and children, then something else is going on besides an agenda of genocide. God has made the world in such a way that consequences (good or bad) naturally flow along covenant and family lines (sometimes for generations), but this feature has nothing to do with an agenda of genocide. God is always grafting and pruning and… Read more »
And you always hadn’t the option of being not a son of Abraham some place else.
“And you always hadn’t the option of being not a son of Abraham some place else.”
So you’re just going to ignore that this rationale was directly disproven by bethyada one comment above yours?
Too much to say here, lots of material
But the email about Thabiti condemning Edwards and Whitfield proves it all. That’s what Kyle Howard said on Twitter, too. This is a designed program, with the goal of infiltrating and making Marxist conservative Christian institutions. It cannot be opposed enough.
The letter from Jonathan (SBTS student; obviously not the “Jonathan” who used to comment here) is very alarming. I knew SJW infiltration was getting bad, but didn’t realize it was that bad. I wonder if Reformed Presbyterian seminaries are seeing the same thing? I know there’s at least a bit of it at Covenant. Sites like Mere Orthodoxy (linked to by this site) are filling up with similar tripe. https://mereorthodoxy.com/stay-woke-cultivate-virtue/ An excerpt: “Far too many Christians have in turn dismissed the role that sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, and capitalism play in perpetuating evil and overlooked the unique ways in which… Read more »
Although I do believe G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc have a point that ought to be made against capitalism.
But their statements against capitalism are in no way the same as the SJW’s campaign against capitalism.
I don’t think the two always go hand in hand, especially these days. I read recently that corporations actively court the wealthy liberal urban demographic. What I had seen as increasingly ethical behavior from corporations might be motivated by a desire not to offend their favorite consumers. My sjw friends aren’t anti-capitalism across the board. They’re on board with putting Starbucks outlets in every remote African village. They talk to their stockbrokers often, and they didn’t support Bernie because they thought he might take their stuff. (I’m no better but I stopped pretending to be anti-capitalist as soon as I… Read more »
Re Matt’s note, if Jesus is my (singular) husband and your (singular) husband and his (singular) husband and her (singular) husband, then he’s a polygamist a billion times over. It’s icky and blasphemous and of no true comfort to any unmarried person. God relates to each of individually us as Father, but only to all of us corporately as Husband.
Extending the problems with the concept further, I would suppose that Jesus would also be the husband of each male Christian. That idea would be enough to make Christianity far less attractive to most men.
That was included in “icky.” I just couldn’t bring myself to be more explicit.
kyriosity,
I apologize that I missed the “his husband” [I was distracted by “(singular)” phrase?}. Consequently, I thought it should be expressed.
Even when I planned to become one, I was always grossed out when nuns did the Brides of Christ thing. And even then it was kept on a pretty ethereal level.
How can early marriage be managed for people whose career goals require long and expensive professional training? Actually, I’m wondering how it can be managed for young people whose income will scarcely cover their own expenses. With so many people in their twenties still living with their parents because they can’t afford to move out, it’s difficult to imagine how this would work.
You incorporate marriage into the equation from the beginning. Of course it’s harder to support and care for a family as a medical intern than when you’re single – or complete an advanced degree. But we have had more than a dozen families in our church that have done it over the last ten or so years.
Well, Jilly, I didn’t get married until I was 30. ???? somewhat for the reasons you mention. ‘Mighta been a late bloomer too! ????
My answer is always how do people manage to live like they are married but not (partners who live together) through university and early careers and no one questions this, but mention marriage and everyone suddenly talks about how difficult it is?
It is not so difficult as long as
1. She is content to live like a college student
2. They do no procreate
Regarding #1, Given so many young college women are content to shack up, does a ring raise the bar when it comes to her material expectations, and that’s why he can’t afford it? Or is it that he figures he can afford playing at it with no ring involved, because the risk is lower? Don’t know, just wondering.
John, I have known a lot of college women in recent years and very few have any desire to get married much before thirty. This could be totally different elsewhere in the US, but the twenties are seen as a time to establish a career. I don’t think a lot of girls expect that much will change upon marriage; they take for granted that they will always have to work, even after they have children. I am often surprised at how many married people, even among my friends who are from my generation, have maintained entirely separate finances. I find… Read more »
Jill, “I have known a lot of college women in recent years and very few have any desire to get married much before thirty.” Doug Wilson: “So if you are an unmarried young man, out on your own with a legitimate job, then you need to seriously contemplate joining the resistance. Find out her name, and ask.” Your statement contains a significant part of the reason that those young men are not joining the “resistance”. That is, the young women have to join the “resistance”, too, and they are not doing that generally (although there might be a larger number… Read more »
Bethyada, they’re not typically pooling their resources, and they’re not assuming responsibility for each other’s student debt load (which is huge). My daughter’s college charged $45,000 a year, and that was only for undergraduate study. Three years of law school could have added another $150,000 to the tab. When I was young, it was pretty common for girls to get married right of college or nursing school. Her husband would go on to medical school, and his teacher/nurse wife supported him. This worked out fine as long as she didn’t have children until he was earning an income. I am… Read more »
So flat with others, delay children, live in a attachment to mum and dad’s house.
I guess I find it interesting that no one bats an eyelid at every second person who moves in with his girlfriend, but talk of marriage and you have to delay it till retirement. “Sure, move in together and live like you are married, but don’t actually marry.” We use false economic claims to encourage everyone to fornicate like rabbits.
I was thinking that over, Bethyada, and it occurred to me that the likeliest solution would be living with a set of agreeable parents. They could still be carried on their own parents’ medical until they are 26. If the parents are really sweet, they might not even object to a baby. My own dear parents made it abundantly clear that if you’re old enough to get married, you’re old enough to support yourself and you needn’t think for one moment of moving back in. I think that is true that a lot of young people fornicate like rabbits, and… Read more »
Jill, granted it is no fun being poor – as someone who married at the outset of my graduate studies, I can attest to that. But I can also attest that contentment is not very expensive – the argument for a minimum economic threshold for getting married does not do very much for me.
Farinata, my parents’ insistence that I be educated and financially solvent before marriage accompanied their belief that I would also be chaste! They would have preferred me to marry young than to live with a boyfriend.
Jill, it sounds to me as if the thing these people can’t afford is a US university education, not marriage. Those figures are crippling. It might bring down the artificially inflated cost if more promising young Americans were willing to consider alternatives. For example, for $16,000 USD a year you could get a Master’s degree at a reputable Australian university as an international student. Or $14,500 a year in Sweden. As for marriage, it’s remarkable how creative a young man can be when the only way to enjoy the benefits of marriage is to actually get married. As Bethyada said,… Read more »
Hi Indighost, I mustn’t mislead you. It is entirely possible to get a college education here for less money, at least at the undergraduate level. My daughter’s tuition UC schools would have cost about half if you include room and board. Obviously we could never have afforded it if she hadn’t won scholarships that covered over half the cost. But wherever students go, they tend to graduate with a lot of debt. I have friends who took half a million dollars out of their retirement fund to send two kids to drama school at NYU. The kids’ acting careers failed,… Read more »
How devastating for those parents! I hope their children are managing to put something aside to help support their parents later on. I haven’t had occasion to use my own degree much except for the pleasure of personal study, but my modest loan paid for that undergrad degree, a separate outdoor qualification that did provide employment, and I saved up the living cost component of the loan and used it to pay for my wedding. Quite a different culture. There is plenty to be said for the ‘user pays’ system in the US but I don’t believe making it insanely… Read more »
“I have friends who took half a million dollars out of their retirement fund to send two kids to drama school at NYU. The kids’ acting careers failed, as most of them do, and they work at Starbucks. Mom and Dad will probably work until they die.” As one looking forward to (if the Lord is willing for me to make till then) retirement in the not too distant future I am sympathetic, but ….. whatever possessed them to spend a small fortune on drama school?! I guess everyone’s situation, and everyone’s mindset, is a little different. I told my… Read more »
John, you and your kids did well! I think the drama school decision comes from soft-headed indulgent parents (like me), some early career success that makes you over-confident about down the road, and pressure from drama coaches who tell you with a straight face that your child is spectacularly talented. Most kids who get accepted by an excellent drama school are in fact very talented; the grueling audition process sees to that. But talent and luck (along with good connections) are two different things.
Jill, You should know that the value of a college degree is not what it once was. And that a bachelors or even a masters in some liberal arts field is not what one might call a financially-fruitful investment. My daughter’s education out of state (for a STEM degree) was about $30K per year (including room and board). Her cost was less with scholarships. The other point obvious to me is the huge difference in costs between LA and my city in flyover country. Here, one can get an apartment for $600 a month. Home valuations are probably about 20%… Read more »
OKR, you’re right. And a degree in drama is even more useless than an English degree. The average salary for an RN in Los Angeles is $90,000, and you get your RN in two years at a community college. I wonder why more people don’t go into nursing, and I wish I hadn’t left it much too late.
Marriage customs are a central part of any culture. It is difficult to conform to an anti-marriage culture while trying to defect only on the question of marriage, and possibly child-bearing. There are obviously lots of options of you are willing to forgo some of the fruits of modernity (high levels of consumption, autonomy, independent dwelling). Of course the elite can afford to do both (indeed, if you are preparing for a prestigious career it is usually pretty easy to do so with a spouse – it was easy for me with minimum hardship) and then they can look down… Read more »
Whereas I, on the other hand, am the old Mrs. Smith. You had to remind me.
Ah, clearly I should have went with Mrs. Jones!
People here should read the book God and the Christian gay.
Because?
Because it makes great points. You should always read opposing opinions, and gather more information. If you are right it won’t change your mind.
Such as? You haven’t said anything about it but just to read it.
Since time is limited, I’m picky about what I read. So-called “gay Christians” always do the same text-torturing (with a few different flavors and variations). The OT and NT are very clear on homosexuality; I see no reason to read the same objections in a slightly different package.
If the title is anything to go by, the entire book is based on a faulty premise. There is no such thing as a Christian homosexual.
“there is no such thing as a Christian homosexual”? Even mildly educated conservative Christians would differ with you on this
I suppose this would depend on what you’re calling a homosexual. Are there Christians who are physically attracted to members of the same sex? I’m sure there are. If you’re saying there are Christians who believe homosexuality is morally upstanding? That’s debatable. If you define Christian as “someone who follows Jesus and believes in the Bible” and that the Bible is explicitly against homosexual sex (because it is), then you could argue that there’s no such thing as a Christian homosexual. But then, you run into the problem that virtually everyone has some matter of doctrine incorrect, so where exactly… Read more »
So what? What does one’s level of education have to do with simply noting the incompatibility of homosexuality with Christianity? Would those same “mildly educated conservative Christians” also differ with me on other oxymorons such as “Christian adulterers”, “Christian pedophiles”, and “Christian murderers”? How about “Christian Muslims”?
fp, you have to admit that the statement is a classic example of shaming by the cool kids!
“you have to admit that the statement is a classic example of shaming by the cool kids!”
Yeah, the line “Even mildly educated conservative Christians would differ with you on this” is like three fallacies rolled up into one.
Jilly, if I didn’t have a college degree, I might have taken it personally. However, the best I could do was muster a horse laugh at Malik’s presumptuousness.
Also, I don’t consider Malik to be one of the cool kids by any stretch, so there’s that.
I have a healthy respect for education–defined as I experienced it four or five decades ago. But if there is any opening gambit more repellent than “highly educated people believe,” I don’t know what it is. But Malik is young; for me, humility came hand in hand with increasing age.
In some situations when I read the phrase “highly educated people believe” I think to myself, the next paragraph is almost certainly going to be false.
As far as I’m concerned, a university liberal arts education is largely meaningless (and usually detrimental) at this point. There are exceptions–a few rigorous private schools that don’t push SJW brainwashing. But look at the Occupy Wall Street crowd from a few years ago. Their mantra was “Pay me an upper-middle class salary for my M.A. in Art History or LGBT Studies else I’ll protest and maybe even defecate in the streets!”
“Nerd-shamed”?
FP, I think that depends on what we mean by homosexual. I think a person with a lifelong single-sex attractions who, because of his Christian beliefs, is doing his best to live chastely could be described as a Christian homosexual. But Christian and “out and proud” is something else.
Jilly, I believe the Bible condemns both homosexual orientation (sexual desire, or “lifelong single-sex attractions” as you put it, but I take issue with that phrasing) and homosexual behavior as sinful. While it’s easy to find scriptural support condemning homosexual behavior (Malik’s constant doubling-down on an indefensible position notwithstanding), it takes more digging to see that homosexual desire is sinful as well. Denny Burk has a good article entitled, “Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?” which Biblically addresses homosexual orientation. I’d give the link, but I don’t want my comment to be lost in moderation. Here are some quotes: It is sometimes… Read more »
Either we aren’t talking about the same thing, or I don’t think your evidence supports your conclusion. ” “You shall not commit adultery”; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.’” Looking on a woman to lust for her is not merely an inclination, it’s an action. The equivalent to a man being attracted to other men and abstaining would be for a man to *want* to look at women lustfully, but exercising discipline and not doing so. The later example of coveting… Read more »
Justin, did you find and read the entire article? I only quoted from part of it.
No. As a general rule, I wasn’t going to hold you to a lower standard than I did for Malik, where I responded to what he said rather than the external document he wanted me to read. As a courtesy, I’ll do so now. Edit: And it seems I should have read the article straight away, as in the very first paragraph that we are indeed not talking about the same thing. “Some otherwise conservative Christians are beginning to take a compromising stance on homosexuality. They claim that only homosexual behavior is sinful and that same sex attraction (SSA) is… Read more »
fp, I read Burke’s article and found it not to be very different from Catholic teaching. Catholics believe that a entrenched pattern of same sex attraction is objectively disordered but is not sinful in itself. On other hand, the fact that such disorder exists is the result of original sin. When push comes to shove, I’m not sure I see much difference in the two positions! Except that I think the Catholic church would apply this distinction to other predispositions that Burke mentions. If I had a tendency to bad temper, that would be part of my particular burden resulting… Read more »
For the most part, Jill said it well. Alcoholism is a sin. Some people are more prone to that particular sin than others. Like sins in general, they can be repented of, and your behavior adjusted to fix the problem. That being the case, the sin nature of your flesh isn’t going anywhere. If you ever gave in, your alcoholism, or in this case, same-sex attraction, is waiting for you to submit. That you’re still in sinful flesh on a fallen earth is not on its own a basis upon which to deny you Christianity, it’s why anyone needs the… Read more »
Justin, I remember reading a few opinions that the evidence for penitence/conversion is the acquisition of exclusively heterosexual attractions This seems to me to be setting the bar way too high.
Yes. Evidence is that the person is behaving in a godly manner. Faithfully married, serving the Lord, not frequenting gay bars. A life that looks different from their previous life.
And if they are making progress in the desires all the better.
I know people who have lost desire for a sin and others who still persist. I know one guy where he had two vices that on conversion, one disappeared and the other was slowly fought against.
Jilly, Burk’s article is fundamentally different from Catholic teaching. You said: Catholics believe that an entrenched pattern of same sex attraction is objectively disordered but is not sinful in itself. The entire purpose of Burk’s article is to make the case that an entrenched pattern of same-sex attraction IS sin. What good is the doctrine of sanctification if we’re going to allow for the entrenched patterns of evil desire? Colossians 3:5 says: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.” Likewise, Romans 12:2 says, “Do not conform… Read more »
fp, no question that every Christian must seek increasing sanctification and to rid his soul of attachment to sin. I think that there is a difference in how Catholics and Protestants might view sin as it affects our salvation. The official catechism states that while the seven deadlies are the cause, actual personal sin results from the exercise of free will. Until he is safely dead, any Christian can lose his salvation by deliberately committing mortal sin. “To choose deliberately – that is, both knowing it and willing it – something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the… Read more »
Jilly, even though temptation can lead to sin, I agree that temptation is not sin. I’m not trying to making the case that it is, and nowhere does Scripture say that it is sin. I think part of the problem is that you’re conflating two concepts that, while related, are categorically different. I am not addressing temptation; I’m specifically addressing the concept of “homosexual orientation” as you yourself have defined it: An entrenched pattern of same-sex attraction. A lifelong, entrenched pattern is not the same as “flickering thoughts”, and goes beyond mere temptation. I categorically deny that there are Christian… Read more »
Hi fp, I think that’s always a possibility. Seeking positions that will please the maximum number of people doesn’t go hand in hand with moral courage! You know, I’m not sure what I think any more. Thirty years or so ago, I was told that science had established that sexual orientation is determined early in life and is immutable. You were gay or you were straight, and people like Oscar Wilde who appeared to be both were gays forced to marry women to hide their true nature. But watching my daughter’s classmates be gay for a couple of years then… Read more »
It is interesting that you bring this up because this is something that book talks about. Before like the modern era, there was no concept of orientation, people thought that basically everyone was bisexual to a certian extent. I definitely think lots of people go through a phase of same sex attraction that goes away but many people it is not a phase.
Before like the modern era, there was no concept of orientation, people thought that basically everyone was bisexual to a certain extent. Yes, because all cultures throughout the ages before the modern era were monolithic in their views toward homosexuality, and the Greco-Roman view is the one they all held. Oh, my sides. But wait, there’s more! I definitely think lots of people go through a phase of same sex attraction that goes away but many people it is not a phase. How many are people are “lots”? Here’s a quote from an article in The Atlantic entitled “Americans Have… Read more »
Malik is being given a lot of slack by the blog owner (more than I would give at this point), but I hope that he realizes just how serious his agenda is. It’s the sort of agenda that, if he tried to bring it into a faithful Christian congregation, would get him excommunicated if he didn’t drop it. This blog isn’t a church congregation, but I think Malik should hear the warning, to help him feel the gravity of taking this show of his on the road. As someone who purports to bear the name of Christ, something has to… Read more »
Your statement reminded me that it was Malik who accused Doug a while back of an obsession with homosexuality, yet Malik brings it up just about every time he’s come here as of late.
“yet Malik brings it up just about every time he’s come here as of late.”
Given the way this post has been derailed, maybe it should be titled “Brokeback Tuesday” instead of “Talk Back Tuesday”?
Sshhh! Don’t give Doug any ideas.
I don’t think he thought that through. If fixed orientation goes, so does any demand for special exemptions.
Proponents use the fixed orientation in this way.
1. Moderns understand fixed orientation.
2. Ancients did not.
3. Paul’s proscriptions were against the practice of sodomy in those who engaged in a range of sexual practices with women, men, boys, men-slaves, women-slaves.
4. Men with fixed attraction to men are not included in this group.
5. Men with fixed attraction to men can therefore be in a monogamous sexual relationship as that is consistent with Paul’s ethic of fidelity.
Ignoring that Paul might have actually studied Leviticus 18 at some point, and actually read where it talks about “men lying with men as one lies with a woman” (in which monogamy is irrelevant), the proponents of the “fixed orientation” argument would have a difficult time explaining how such a high proportion of gay men have biological children. Fixed ain’t so fixed in these modern times.
In other words, the very first premise in the argument doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
“Fixed ain’t so fixed in these modern times.”
Especially the instant you apply transgender theory on top of it, in which gender is subjective, so there essentially isn’t any such thing as men and women to begin with. So how can you have a fixed orientation if the concept of men itself is subjective?
What we have is total insanity. My daughter’s female classmate declared herself lesbian at 20; her partner is now transitioning to a man, which makes me wonder how this can be equitable. He will still be attracted to her, but what happens to her attraction to him? Fortunately she-soon-to-be-he is willing to separate sexuality from gender and take an omnisexual orientation.
But as all this does not involve sex slaves, St. Paul has no objection.
“But as all this does not involve sex slaves, St. Paul has no objection.”
Such a laid back guy, that Paul. Real non-judgemental.
Come on, you guys! You don’t really think anyone is expected to believe all of the liberal claims are true, and that the claims would be expected to be consistent with the others? :)
Well, I think I did as far as fixed orientation goes. Some people who are fond of me describe me as infinitely credulous except that they put it more rudely, usually with references to PT Barnum and suckers. Regardless, it was only when my daughter’s classmates started “coming out” that I started to wonder. So many of them came out and went back in again. Or declared themselves omnisexual, which I find truly ominous. Then I began glancing at statistics. I think there are people who never feel attracted to the opposite sex. But I am not sure how common… Read more »
I wouldn’t get excommunicated for these beliefs. Maybe if i was preaching them to people in the church.
“I wouldn’t get excommunicated for these beliefs. Maybe if i was preaching them to people in the church.”
That’s exactly the comparison he was making.
The ancients were open to men being promiscuous with both sexes, but there is evidence that they were aware that some men preferred males and others females, and that for some that may have been quite exclusive.
So while the prohibition is against the practice, there was knowledge that some men were predominantly attracted in one direction. Vines is mistaken on this point.
How many times has Science!™ gotten it wrong before?
How many times has the Word of God gotten it wrong?
See where I’m going with this?
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/is-homosexual-orientation-sinful
The idea that sexual orientation is a sin is absurd, it isn’t a choice. Sin is always a choice.
I’m guessing you didn’t read Burke’s article, either….even though you think others should read entire books and listen to podcasts defending your position.
I can read it but it sounds a little ridiculous.
Wait, weren’t you the one who told the rest of us that we should always read opposing opinions, and gather more information?
Physician, heal thyself!
I said I’ll read it, I’m half way thru (I’m reading between classes) and so far it’s not exactly convincing.
I read the article, and the guy who wrote it doesn’t understand homosexuality, or sexuality for that matter. He approaches it with using definitions (that aren’t the best) and arguing against them. While it is sincere I’m sure, it’s also a sophisticated straw man. His points are all built on faulty understanding, he sounds like he has no LGBT friends or heard any of their stories.
Malik wrote:
Does Malik have any fornicating friends, and has he heard any of their stories?
Is this the basis on which Malik thinks we should decide whether homosexuality or fornication are permissible?
Malik may as well be screaming, “close your Bibles and listen to your friends!”
“I’m sure, it’s also a sophisticated straw man. His points are all built on faulty understanding, he sounds like he has no LGBT friends or heard any of their stories.’ First, that’s not what a straw man is. His points could all be built on a faulty understanding (they aren’t) and it still wouldn’t be a straw man. It’s only a straw man if he’s claiming an opponent is making an argument which they aren’t. He isn’t attesting to what their argument is, he’s attesting to what the truth is. Further, which LGBT stories do you lend credibility towards? How… Read more »
I have a friend who has been sleeping with a married man for quite some time. I’ve heard her story. Yet I have been taught that adultery, and complicity in it, is gravely sinful. The whole thing makes me uncomfortable. So I have revisited scripture. It’s clear to me that the sixth commandment doesn’t apply to people who truly love each other. Or to people who have unpleasant wives. Or to those who have stronger than average sex drives. Or to those who don’t go to swinger parties, which is the closest parallel I can think of to Roman orgies.… Read more »
” Before like the modern era, there was no concept of orientation, people thought that basically everyone was bisexual to a certian extent. ” The person who said this, also said this about an article describing the most basic and obvious interpretation of the Bible: “I can read it but it sounds a little ridiculous.” Malik, sometimes I find it difficult to imagine you as a real person. I’m reminded of a secular friend of mine who once said “The only reason Christians don’t believe in sex before marriage, is because in olden times, it would devalue a woman before… Read more »
Wut? The person who said this? It’s just histórica, read up on it a little.
I’m kind of confused by this comment
No. It isn’t historical. It’s laughably fictional. Multiple views on orientation have existed for as long as there have been people with enough spare time to think about sexuality.
Yeah multiple views have existed? I didn’t say they didn’t. Look into the Roman sexual practices and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
Right yeah. I responded but im not sure hwere my comment went. here is a post about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome
Of course there were many views but in the roman empire, where the bible was written, the cultural norms were more or less homogeneous. These ideas (that homosexuality was okay as long as the person of high status was dominant etc) would be met with repulsion by the most liberal mind. This is what the bible is condemning I believe. You have to take the bible in context.
Ok, so you’re changing your comment. You had said that only in modern times did people have these ideas of orientation. What you actually meant was that Rome specifically didn’t have these ideas of orientation. That’s a *massive* shift. ” This is what the bible is condemning I believe. You have to take the bible in context.” By what criteria in the text do you determine that this is what the Bible was condemning, rather than what the text actually says which condemns homosexuality in general? Let’s grant that, hypothetically, it *could* have meant this, how do you determine whether… Read more »
Okay, Not sure i follow, but yeah i guess i changed my claim, but it kind of makes the same point, yeah there were other views in the world but the known world was mostly the same so like, feels like a distinction without a difference.
And like you have to be careful to interpret with context unless you want every woman to not be allowed to speak inside a church and other things like that which are condemned by Paul as well, but for a cultural reason.
“And like you have to be careful to interpret with context unless you want every woman to not be allowed to speak inside a church and other things like that which are condemned by Paul as well, but for a cultural reason.”
Let me guess…you have no problem with female pastors/priests, right?
Lol, you know me well. How hypocritical and sexist would it be for me to not be, that would be super inconsistent
“Lol, you know me well. How hypocritical and sexist would it be for me to not be, that would be super inconsistent” Gosh, how lucky are you Malik? You live in a world where the Bible happens to agree with everything that modern culture approves of! What’re the odds of that happening? Why, if you were born in any other society in any other era of all of human history, you would have to take up a belief that is opposed by the mainstream of society. That sounds rough doesn’t it? Awfully convenient then that your reading of the Bible… Read more »
Catholics forestalled that issue. Nobody except the priest gets to talk.
I don’t know. I’m quite sympathetic to cultural context. But only in as much as what a text would mean to the person, not that we are free to indulge in anything that ancients did not fully grok.
Hang on a moment. You think the Bible condemns gay sex only when the high status person is dominant? In other words, gay sex between social equals was fine with St. Paul? This is a bit like saying that Paul approved gay sex in the kitchen but never the dining room.
Is this a sample of the arguments from your book?
“Hang on a moment. You think the Bible condemns gay sex only when the high status person is dominant? Is this a sample of the arguments from your book?”
Ha! Perhaps he should also consider that it was condemned equally in both OT Israel and pagan Rome…two cultures that were as different as night and day. Maybe, just maybe, it was simply condemned universally?
Lol of course not, sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m saying that the bible condemns the practice in rome which was basically rape and adultary and being a pedophile. And I think that is different than a monogomous relationship. I explained more fully below.
It doesn’t touch on paedophilia.
No, that is not quite what he meant. But your comment is pretty funny.
Malik, Your reputation is such that your recommendation is sufficient in itself to inform me that I should do precisely the opposite. I did, however, look for reviews and found this one by Tim Keller. To summarize, he covers six arguments that are used by the proponents of homosexuality. He did, however, make some statements that reminded me strongly of you: “But until very, very recently, there had been complete unanimity about homosexuality in the church across all centuries, cultures, and even across major divisions of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions. […] One has to ask, then, why is it… Read more »
Good review.
That is a surprisingly good review by Keller. I guess even a blind Marxist squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. Sometime in 2012, Dr. James White took on Matthew Vines (the guy who wrote the book Malik recommends) and offered a fantastic point by point rebuttal of Vines’ lunacy. Unfortunately, it’s in audio only and is just over 5 hours long, but if you get the chance to download the audio and listen to it while doing something else, I highly recommend it. If it weren’t for the moderation abyss, I’d share a link; instead, fire up DuckDuckGo… Read more »
Is Tim Keller a Marxist squirrel?
I’ve looked into the book on its own website. It can’t complete a descriptive paragraph about itself without defying the base components of Christian theology. I’ll take a pass unless you come up with a more compelling reason.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 covers this point of view fairly well.
Malik, there’s this collection of books called “The Bible”. It tells you everything you need to know about what God thinks of homosexuality. As an added bonus, it’s inspired by the Holy Spirit, so you know it’s what God actually thinks about the matter.
You should read it sometime.
Why are you so rude? Are you this rude in real life or are you just more comfortable hiding behind a screen? You like to be really judgy about all the traditional Christian stuff, but you aren’t exactly an exemplary case of the fruit of the spirit
Don’t be whiny, Malik. I, and others here, have gone rounds with you about the issue of homosexuality. You claim to be a Christian, yet you thumb your nose at the plain Word of God, as if you know better than He does about His own creation and how it works. Furthermore, you approve of those that not only try to rewrite God’s moral code, but have the audacity to try to lead God’s people astray with their lies. I am referring specifically to Matthew Vines here. That’s arrogance, Malik. It’s an arrogance of the sort that borders on idolatry.… Read more »
Alright man idk what your problem is but you need to get it together. If I make you this angry you need to take some deep breaths. It sounds like you are an adult, act like one. I’m not putting myself above God, I think you have put words in his mouth. I read Keller’s “rebuttal” and he didn’t even respond to the arguments. “Me sides are aching from laughing at you” again, grow up. If you want to argue like this I’m sure you can go find some first graders who argue like this. I prefer to act like… Read more »
Malik, I like you. But you’re the one who needs to step away from the keyboard and do some deep breathing. It’s unbecoming for you to talk to an older brother in the faith the way you just did. It’s not okay.
Alright. But is he being polite and I’m going crazy, or has he been very rude the last few months
Malik, remember how this started. You started lecturing people here (“you should read this and listen to that”) about a topic (homosexuality) unrelated to Wilson’s letters. Not only that, but your assumptions and tone were arrogant and condescending (“I don’t think any of you could listen to all of it and still think what you do”).
That’s fair, definitely my bad on that one.
Malik, he is not rude. He is clear and direct, and he doesn’t like woolly headed thinking, especially in support of a position he thinks is gravely mistaken. Rude is what my own dear father was when I extolled the virtues of socialism while going to school on his dime. Believe me, you would notice the difference. Fp is taking the trouble to engage with you because no one wants to see an impressionable young Christian go over the cliff. In one sense, everyone on a board is equal. But, I still think that admonitions from older Christian brothers should… Read more »
“Rude is what my own dear father was when I extolled the virtues of socialism while going to school on his dime. ”
Hard to argue with your dad on that one!
Honestly respect is earned, yeah I defer to older Christians, but I’m not a door mat to people who talk like he does. I responded to his request for my opinion civily, but if he responds in his usual laugh it up way Im done with the pretend to be civil. And I really do respect your opinion, but the idea that he is trying to care for me i really disagree with. What he is doing is what pushes young Christians off the cliff not what brings them back. Ive seen it and honestly im really mad at it.… Read more »
“What he is doing is what pushes young Christians off the cliff not what brings them back. ” What you are doing, contorting Scripture to absolve the sins of people who you wish didn’t have to deal with serious problems, that is what drives young Christians off the cliff. That’s why you’re being pushed to actually defend it. The more you maintain your position without defending it, the harder people are going to push back on you, because what other way is there to get you to confront the truth? ” I have multiple friends who hate the church because… Read more »
alright man, think about what you just said. My friends are very possibly going to hell because of people like FP, thats what I said. You want to think about that and respond differently this time. Hell for F***ing eternity. Think about the gravity of that again.
But you don’t think your homosexual friends are going to the same place if they don’t repent?
I think we have entered the Twilight Zone. Change your minds, you bigots, or my friends are doomed to the fiery pit.
That’s a pretty bad reading of what I said. I objected to his offhandedness with people’s eternal souls, come on
You quote me VERBATIM and give the comment number where I was expressing “offhandedness with people’s eternal souls”, Malik. Otherwise, apologize and retract your claim.
“But I’m busy and have to go to work! You really just need to calm down. Anyway, I just really care about people’s souls.”
Having resumed my zen posture, I am now free to render you an Upvote.
Has this exchange made anyone else but me feel very old? What happened to the relentless little rebel I used to be?
‘What happened to the relentless little rebel I used to be?’
God’s pervasive grace
He’s not being offhanded with people’s eternal souls, but I think he is afraid that you might be.
“I objected to his offhandedness with people’s eternal souls, come on”
And playing fast and loose with God’s law = being careful with people’s eternal souls?
Malik, you have some very odd and contradictory positions. You still (thankfully) believe in hell (don’t read Rob Bell, and I wasn’t just trying to rhyme there). However, you want to totally redefine morality based on current cultural norms. You want to save souls (good) but save them from what? Sin as defined by SJWs in 2018?
I understand the gravity perfectly well. Though I must say, I think a great deal more highly of your friends than you do. I believe fiercely, inordinately fiercely, my most closely held belief save for my belief in Jesus, in the power God has given us in free will. What you’re saying, as far as I can see, is that your friends are mere animals. Incapable of making their own choices about ending their lives. I believe your friends were carved to be reflections of the mightiest thing to ever exist, the King of Kings. Nobody can *make* them kill… Read more »
I never said it wasn’t their choice. I’m saying if the church wants to care for people and spread the love of God it has to change some attitudes.
Again I don’t think it’s wrong so I disagree about the homosexual part, but I also believe Jesus saves us from our sons and not everyone but the gays or something silly like that, he is as powerful to save a gay person as me or you our your pastor.
And don’t play like I don’t know the gravity.
“I never said it wasn’t their choice. ” You certainly acted like it was. “I’m saying if the church wants to care for people and spread the love of God it has to change some attitudes.” Starting with the attitude that people’s pride and comfort is more important than their lifestyle choices. If being told homosexuality was a sin is what caused them to leave the church, that’s them walking away from God of their own volition. That’s not on JR. “And don’t play like I don’t know the gravity.” ……Are you joking? You’re the one who made this accusation… Read more »
Malik, I am going to be serious with you, and I’m going to be frank. So put on your big-boy pants. First off, enough of your tantruming about my supposedly being rude. Grow up. You have dedicated several of your comments to whining and moaning about me, rather than addressing anyone’s arguments. Quite frankly, it’s unbecoming, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I don’t give a rat’s rear end what you think of my supposed manners. But if you’re going to ignore the vast majority of my comments that have substance and concentrate on the fluff, then you might… Read more »
If Sodomites are going to hell regardless then what? Now we want to speak in a way that helps them repent, so we do not need to treat them in a way that prevents them from coming to know Christ. That is true.
But claiming that their behaviour is not sinful is no better. They may falsely believe that things are fine between them and God.
Which is worse, to be damned and know it or be damned and think you are saved?
Malik,
I think fp is being direct which you think is rude. I doubt you’re going crazy, but you are far less mature and rational than you believe. (I had already typed this before I saw Jill’s post [217510]).
I am curious if you comment similarly on other blogs like this one, and how you are received there. If you don’t, I suggest you do. I think the results might be similar. However, in some cases, I expect the negative response would be very strong and you might come to think this blog is a relative bastion of acceptance.
Direct? his comments are similar to insults that I grew out of in elementary school. If i said the things he does in high school I would be laughed at for being unintelligent and immature. It sounds like things that my youth pastor had to tell the youngest kids to stop.
I like direct, I have people in my life that are direct. He is more childish than direct.
Malik,
I didn’t expect you to agree. I am still interested in whether or not you comment on other blogs similar to this one and if you get the same kind of responses.
“I’m not putting myself above God, I think you have put words in his mouth.” He’s not claiming you’ve directly stated that you’re above God. He’s claiming that the arguments you make require that you consider yourself above God. He’s correct. You read the Bible to get it to conform to what you already believe, rather than letting the Bible shape what else it is that you believe. “grow up. If you want to argue like this I’m sure you can go find some first graders who argue like this. I prefer to act like a grown up????” Can you… Read more »
That’s just not true. Like I said I used to believe everything you do, the Bible is one of the things that changed my mind.
And yeah I shouldn’t have said what I did, but I’ve baby sat people more mature than that guy. He’s very provoking
Malik, the Bible didn’t change your mind, our culture did. You constantly link left-to-mainstream media sources, hip-hop songs and the like. No one goes from a clear reading of Scripture to a tortured one without other influences.
“And yeah I shouldn’t have said what I did, but I’ve baby sat people more mature than that guy. He’s very provoking”
I’m not sure if I should make some popcorn and sit back or just leave this post altogether…it’s pretty clear who’s doing the “provoking,” though…
If emojis is all you’re measuring maturity on than yeah I’m more immature than him. I usually consider other factors tho.
“If emojis is all you’re measuring maturity on than yeah I’m more immature than him. I usually consider other factors tho.” And if I suggested anything like this, that would be a relevant point. It was merely one example of your constantly immature behavior. You started this with the declaration that if anyone read the book you suggested, that none of us would believe what we do already. That is a supremely arrogant and naive assertion that almost no adult with experience talking to other people would make. Now I don’t think it’s a big deal. I admit I foolishly… Read more »
Yeah I already said I shouldnt have said that and that was immarture and presuptuous.
I made my point below, you can argue with it.
Malik, why are you so presumptuous? You have no idea what my state of mind is. How can I be angry when you’re providing this much entertainment? And yes, when you declare homosexuality to be OK, in blatant contradiction to the fact that God Himself called it abominable sin, then you are putting yourself above God. How many times do I have to tell you that God makes the rules, not you? What part of that don’t you understand? “Me sides are aching from laughing at you” again, grow up. If you want to argue like this I’m sure you… Read more »
Alright. So let me respond to a couple of things first. I am not putting myself above God, I know that he determines everything, but let me also turn that on you. YOu do not determine morality, nor do your beliefs. The bible is the ultimate authority, however your possibly faulty (and human) interpretation can be wrong. I would not be going against God in the 13th century if I were to say that the sun was the center of the solar system. However people would regard me as a heretic and I might have gotten excommunicated. The bible is… Read more »
“However on the subject of monogamous homosexual relationships the bible is silent.” You state this to be the case, but provide no rationale. You give a hypothetical reasoning that Scripture *could* be interpreted to be condemning rape rather than homosexuality, but you give no concrete reason why this is the interpretation that should be taken, rather than simply taking the most direct reading of the actual text. This is dancing around the issue, no arguing it. “I would also argue that forced celibacy is unbiblical. ” 1 Corinthians 7:2 answers this, as well as your argument about homosexuality. But because… Read more »
Right so yes I think the bible should be accurately interpreted rather than taking the most direct reading. In the same book Paul says women should be silent in the church. The simple reading is that all women should never talk inside of a church building, but the accurate reading is very different and it is the one that we all follow. I also think that you cant say well the bible might say this or might say this other thing. And then if you take the this other thing and enforcing it drive people to suicide and means that… Read more »
“Can you provide some verses that really say that the two genders have to marry each other only?” “He created them male and female, and He blessed them…” Gen. 5-2 The rest of the Bible conforms to the pattern of Adam and Eve, giving specific instructions to wives (who were clearly women) and husbands (who were clearly men). Moreover, homosexuality is condemned throughout. How would Abraham have so many descendants if Isaac married Billy, while Jacob and Bartholomew settled down, married and had zero sons (oops, there would be no Jacob)… The burden of proof is you. It’s no different… Read more »
“Right so yes I think the bible should be accurately interpreted rather than taking the most direct reading. In the same book Paul says women should be silent in the church. The simple reading is that all women should never talk inside of a church building, but the accurate reading is very different and it is the one that we all follow.” You didn’t answer the question. We all agree that the Bible requires interpretation. I asked you to explain *why* you chose the one that you did. “And then if you take the this other thing and enforcing it… Read more »
Ah I see the disconnect. I’m arguing that because the bible does not necessitate that gay marriage is wrong I am not going to accept that it is yet. Now you are probably about to explode but give me a sec to explain. In one set of circumstances then gay marriage is right and in the other it is wrong, as we sit in the argument right now. Its like if there was probability of it being right or wrong right now, because we have some “set of circumstances” that would make it right and another set that would make… Read more »
“In one set of circumstances then gay marriage is right and in the other it is wrong, as we sit in the argument right now. Its like if there was probability of it being right or wrong right now, because we have some “set of circumstances” that would make it right and another set that would make it wrong. There is a correct answer but at this point of the argument we haven’t determined it yet.” Yes. With where we sit, as a matter of rhetoric, this is correct. Only as a matter of rhetoric though. “I’m saying that this… Read more »
Okay cool, so your position is that the bible does nessesitate it. I did give a reason that the bible does not, so I have attacked you actual argument, I have not proved that LGBT is right, but I have shown that it might not be wrong. Then lets go back, to get that to the point of it is not wrong I said if there is a maybe it is right maybe it is wrong, then it is right because the bible doesn’t leave maybes. so now we are back to you needing to close the hole. While there… Read more »
Malik, I’m beginning to worry you can’t follow the complexity of the conversation. ” I did give a reason that the bible does not, so I have attacked you actual argument, I have not proved that LGBT is right, but I have shown that it might not be wrong.” No, no you haven’t. As I directly stated, your argument can be beaten. Jill’s already done half the work. I’m opting not to beat it until you can finish establishing it all the way. Why do you believe in the interpretation you do? You still haven’t answered, perhaps fearing how obviously… Read more »
Alright Im getting tired of this, I think you are the one that can’t follow a complex situation. I know this is rhetorical. Weve talked aboutt it, we can stop dwelling on it, I know you want to take argument with the main argument but not yet. If we establish whatt I said as absolutely true, and we are, rhetorically, as you have so kindly pointed out, then God has not adressed the issue in the Bible and therefore it is not condemned. Yes the metaphore has nothing to do with the bible but you can’t logically use it if… Read more »
” I think you are the one that can’t follow a complex situation. I know this is rhetorical.” Then why do you keep saying things that you suggest you don’t understand the basic words at play? You continually say you’ve established things you haven’t established. You disregard major components of what I say, and you repeat the same point multiple times in the same post. “I know you want to take argument with the main argument but not yet.” Then why did you state the opposite? Were you mistaken then, or are you mistaken now? ” then God has not… Read more »
Dude, wut? Look i siad assuming my argument is true! if you assume all my arguments are true then yeah, you get the conclusion, take an issue with the argument. Dude you really have to read a little more carefully. And yeah honestly I agree and have to go to work, you can’t really hold an argument and you aren’t remembering what I said only sentances before so Im not sure we can really have a conversation. And it doesn’t sound like we have theological common ground if you think the cleanliness law is still valid so idk, we cant… Read more »
“And it doesn’t sound like we have theological common ground if you think the cleanliness law is still valid so idk, we cant do this.” A fine example of you blatantly lying about what it is I have said, then acting confused when I point out that this isn’t what I said. I have no alternative than to conclude you’re either a deeply corrupt and dishonest person, or hopelessly out of your depth. The problem I’ve been going to great lengths to try and show you Malik, and I do think it’s the most common problem facing man today, is… Read more »
…[Y]ou’re either a deeply corrupt and dishonest person, or hopelessly out of your depth. Neither of those options are mutually exclusive. But if I had to make a choice, I’d go with “hopelessly out of [his] depth.” When Malik said that the arguments put forth in Vines’ book are the first he’d heard of them (and these are arguments in support of Malik’s position), I realized that Malik hasn’t done his homework. He simply does not have the knowledge with which to think this issue through. Rather, he’s building his opinions on the shifting sands of emotions, stories, and the… Read more »
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” – Proverbs 14:12.
“And then if you take the this other thing and enforcing it drive people to suicide and means that other people’s lives are extremely controlled I think that is a problem.” There are plenty of single men who “burn” as Paul says. There are others whose wives left them (for no Biblical reason) or stopped having sex with them. These men may never marry or have to wait years to marry, but that doesn’t mean they can sin. They’re as tempted as any homosexual man, but that doesn’t make suicide or fornication/adultery acceptable alternatives. Some of the men I’m referring… Read more »
First of all you would not say that a man whose wife leaves him and then remarries, given that he believes in Jesus is going to hell. But it sounds like you would say that abut a gay guy. Which would be a double standard. TO be clear im not sure you in particular would say that, so tell me if you wouldn’t, but fp would.
Malik, my husband divorced me, and my church teaches that I may not remarry while he is alive. If I do, I will be committing a mortal sin which threatens my salvation. There is no double standard. We are called to fidelity within marriage or celibacy outside it. There are no other options on the table.
Keep this up, Jilly, and we just might have to become roomies living rent-free inside Malik’s head.
fp, innocent though that would be, it is forbidden by my church!
What threttens yor salvation is your faith. There aren’t sins you can commit that take you away from the grace of Jesus if you trust in him. If you think there are then I may as well leave because we have different faiths. I’ve never heard of evangelical christians believing in works based faith.
It is strange to Malik that other people have these things called principles and they abide by the principles of God even if they’re inconvenient at the time.
Well, I’m not an evangelical Christian but this is not the time to rehash the Council of Trent. That wasn’t the point of the example.
“First of all you would not say that a man whose wife leaves him and then remarries, given that he believes in Jesus is going to hell. ” Well I don’t know all the facts and am not God. If his wife left him because he committed adultery and refused to repent, that’s where he’s headed. That wasn’t the type of situation I was implying, though. There’s not double standard, though. The gay guy is 100% sinful in any sexually active relationship with another man–in a monogamous relationship, in a “marriage,” in a bathhouse, etc. I think there are a… Read more »
Oh dear, JP. Something about your wording in your third paragraph has triggered a Green Eggs and Ham fit.
You may not do it in a boat,
You may not do it with a goat.
Oh my. Well if bestiality gets popular, I’m sure a Matthew Vines type will come along and twist the OT around to make it perfectly moral…as long it’s monogamous bestiality that doesn’t involve slaves or something.
Were the animals raised without antibiotics?
I recently read an article which said that our only opposition to bestiality could be concern for the comfort and welfare of the animal. This must be why Canada’s supreme court has ruled that there can be no criminal conviction for it except when…I have tried to type this and I can’t bring myself to use the words in the ruling. All I can say is that Canada does not let you do anything that would make the animal very uncomfortable. I will now go bleach my mind.
That “consent” argument against bestiality never made sense to me. We EAT animals. Yes, sexually violating an animal seems ickier to us than eating it, but I’m 99.9% sure it’s not, to the animal. They don’t have the moral and emotional sense to feel violated, except insofar as pain is created. Once people figure out that if it’s legal to eat kill and something, it shouldn’t be a big deal to interfere with its body in some other way (barring objective cruelty), the “consent” argument will fall away. Which just points back to the fact that bestiality is not uniquely… Read more »
Malik, I give up. I don’t think you are actually willing to entertain any argument that doesn’t agree with what you want to believe. If Leviticus were all we had, it would still be enough. There is no “maybe” there, and there is no alternative reading.
Yes, the downside of a moral code is that it tends to be “extremely controlling.” I know that well. I think about that every time I want to do something wrong. Perhaps we would all be better off without one.
Why would it be enough? We don’t do lots of OT things now days. We don’t sacrifice or anything else, what makes these two verses in Leviticus different. They are surrounded by OT cleanliness law that we no longer follow, I feel like this is support for my side.
I think this would be cherrypicking the verses you like or dont like.
Just the opposite I’m afraid. There are specific reasons we do and don’t do specific Old Testament law. It just begs the question why in particular you think this law was rescinded? Answer, you’re the one cherry picking the verses you like or don’t like.
Not true at all, I hold all ot law is recinded, the things that stay are the ones that are said again in the nt. Im not picking, it is absolute, and that iis for sure biblically supported and accepted by most chrches.
You’re actually admitting that you only believe half the Bible and you think this puts you in a good light? Oh dear. Somebody hide this kid before Katecho gives him three dozen NT verses promoting OT law.
No ofc not, but I dont believe we are bound by cleanliness laws, nor do you unless you sacrifice goats on the weekends. The laws about homosexuality are in the cleanliness law.
Malik,
Whether you believe the Mosaic Law applies to Christians today or not, there is plenty of NT scripture stating that homosexuality is sin. You claim to believe the Bible is God’s Word. Why do you insist that the direct, traditional direct reading of the NT is wrong and homosexuality is not sin (at least, not always)?
I learned this since I was a little kid in a CREC church that came from the Dutch reformed tradition, thats as conservitive as you get, but we still didn’t do sacrifies or believe it was a sin to not wash your hands before a meal.
I still believe that the OT is true
An excellent partial telling of the story to distort the issue. Now would you care to explain *why* we don’t sacrifice goats and explain why that rationale applies to sexual immorality?
I’ll just go with 2Timothy 3:16, for now.
The sound you just heard was my jaw hitting the floor.
Now I’ve regained my wits, I wanted to finish by saying this. There are serious problems with that assumption. The prohibition against bestiality is not repeated in the New Testament (I know this because I just looked it up). Would you argue that it is no longer sinful? You have crafted your argument so that any objection can be met with two automatic rebuttals: (1) Old Testament moral law doesn’t apply to Christians unless it has been specifically reaffirmed by the gospels or the epistles. (2) When Old Testament moral law is confirmed by St. Paul, he must have meant… Read more »
“I hold all ot law is recinded”
Well, I just mentioned bestiality, which doesn’t get a single mention in the NT. So I guess it’s not a sin after all. I’m sure some weirdos will be happy to know that.
Paul instructed Timothy concerning this notion that some Scripture was revoked. Paul wrote:
How can something that is “recinded” and obsolete still have any power to reprove or correct anyone? Does Malik suppose that when Paul says, “all Scripture”, he somehow doesn’t mean to include the Old Testament Law? Malik’s hermeneutic is in shambles.
Katecho,
By “include the Old Testament Law”, do you mean that Christians today are bound by the Mosaic Law (definitely part of Scripture), and, if so, to what degree?
Malik, the Bible does not specifically condemn abortion. It doesn’t mention it as far as I know. Nonetheless, the sixth commandment prohibits murder, and other Biblical passages suggest the personhood of the unborn. In the absence of a blanket prohibition, do you think that a Christian can argue that God has no problem with abortion? (Maybe I don’t want to know that.)
Otherwise, if you can infer God’s opposition to abortion from the entirety of scripture, why do you question a moral law that is stated in black and white?
No because I believe you can apply christian teaching to the real world, dont kill includes dont kill unborn children. Ofc it does not have to be black and white, I feel like you guys are who are making it black and white. It says here and therefore no context is taken into consideration. Im really confused actually how my line of reasoning lead you to think this, maybe you could reexplain for me? I din’t say to qualify the bible or anything, i said interpret accuratly, which is what you did with the commandment to say that it includes… Read more »
The point I was making was this. Your argument is based on the premise that the Bible never explicitly forbids gay sex in a monogamous relationship. You say that in the absence of such a statement, we can conclude that it is okay.
I am saying that the Bible never explicit forbids abortion. Therefore, using your logic as a guide, we must be able to conclude that it’s okay.
Malik wrote: However on the subject of monogamous homosexual relationships the bible is silent. It’s only silent for those who refuse to see: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. — Leviticus 18:22-23 Notice the criteria is simple: no lying with a man as one lies with a woman. Period. The act is perversion whether it is monogamous or not.… Read more »
” Jesus identified that “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12). This sort of surgical option is far less painful today than ever before in history”
Are some men actually doing this? Honest question.
Every time I get a stray knee in the balls I feel like doing that, lol.
Honestly Ive never heard of it, and I kind of doubt it but you never know.
Malik,
That describes a portion of my response to homosexual activity. The difference being that it seems many actually do it and claim to enjoy it.
Jesus spoke of it as a real thing. I’m certainly not recommending castration, and I don’t take Jesus to be recommending it either. He was contrasting the temporal loss of a body part with the alternative of the eternal loss of the entire body. In that context, one is clearly the better option. Apparently there are men actually doing voluntary (reversible?) chemical castration today, in order to get control of their sex or porn “addiction”. It’s a thing, and certainly a better option than the so-called “forced suicide” that Malik is carrying on about in his sentimentalism-fest. Even some unbelievers… Read more »
“He sounds quite contrary to Jesus’ own direct teaching on the matter. Malik should “think about that for a second”.”
Suicide tipped his hand indeed. Not simply blaming the Church for standing up for Biblical truth, but more relevantly for him personally his own personal end goal in his morality. He wants to avoid “sad” outcomes. If someone has a naturally sad outcome, it must not be true.
Certainly a religion centered around the concept that the best person to ever live needed to be brutally tortured to death would NEVER expect you to undergo serious hardship? Nah.
I’ve read this carefully. There is no doubt that homosexual activity is made more wicked by the addition of child rape and keeping sex slaves, just as bank robbery is made more wicked by killing the witnesses. But conceding that fact doesn’t equate to moral approval of either gay sex or bank robbery. You can’t get from “St. Paul thought homosexual orgies were wicked” to “Otherwise, he didn’t have much of a problem.” On the basis of logic alone, that doesn’t fly. In any event, the burden is still on you to prove why St. Paul, as a Torah-observant Jew… Read more »
Well, Malik, your comment #217522 is certainly a start at addressing substance. The foundation of your entire comment is the assumption that the Bible allows for homosexuality, at least between two consenting adults. What you fail to realize is that your comment amounts to nothing more than a giant exercise in question-begging. You’ve not established that the Bible allows any type of homosexuality, let alone a monogamous version of it. Until you accomplish this, any tangential issues such as celibacy, suicide, and blame-shifting are irrelevant. And no, an argument from silence will not suffice, as the Bible does not differentiate… Read more »
I read Keller’s “rebuttal” and he didn’t even respond to the arguments.
Malik, that is not true. You might not find his arguments convincing. If not, say that. And say why. But Keller specifically did respond to some of Vines’ arguments. For example he refuted the claim that orientation was unheard of byu the ancients. And he gave a source.
Ah, OKR didn’t quote that one, just a bunch of stuff about tradition. I just said the ones OKR quoted ignored the arguments, which they did, I didn’t say anything about the other ones.
” I just said the ones OKR quoted ignored the arguments, which they did, I didn’t say anything about the other ones.”
Malik, read your post again. This is a lie. You directly did say that Keller’s rebuttal didn’t respond to the arguments.
Malik, Did you really think the quotes in my comment were intended to show rebuttals of the arguments in Vines’s book? If so, you need to try reading with comprehension. I specifically preceded the quotes with this: “He did, however, make some statements that reminded me strongly of you:” In other words, they weren’t rebuttals of Vines but were instead quotes I think describe your behavior here quite well. Until you can read with comprehension, you can certainly expect that I will consider your comments to be equally ignorant. By the way, that “stuff about tradition” is quite a strong… Read more »
There is also a podcast called the out house that puts some people to the thing that you all tend to hate so much. I don’t think any of you could listen to all of it and still think what you do.
You could also connect real people with bestiality, adultery and incest in some sympathetic way. It doesn’t make them less sinful.
“There is also a podcast called the out house that puts some people to the thing that you all tend to hate so much.” What does this sentence mean? You’re playing the pronoun game a little heavy handed for me to follow. ” I don’t think any of you could listen to all of it and still think what you do.” Doesn’t this strike you as a particularly arrogant presumption? Is there any content at all that all people react to in the same manner? Malik, if the arguments are so outstandingly grand, why don’t you give us a sample?… Read more »
There are zero arguments, they are stories. You have to understand the people, that’s what makes it so valuable.
I’m sure “The Adultery Hour/Open Marriage Podcast” could have equally compelling stories. Who needs arguments or the Bible when you can just hear their side and imagine walking in their shoes?
Malik wrote:
Um, fornicators and adulterers have stories too. Now what?
Does Malik believe every story he is told?
“There are zero arguments, they are stories. You have to understand the people, that’s what makes it so valuable.” Doesn’t then that guarantee that it’s not likely to change our minds since any moral taken from their story is subject to their own subjective inaccuracies? I’m sure many gay people have many endearing stories. How does any of that relate to God’s word? You don’t realize it, but you’re creating a trap for yourself. If you find a person’s personal story a basis to change someone’s mind on the morality, doesn’t that declare rather loudly that the Bible is not… Read more »
I will happily read it if it is (1) free and (2) not a rehash of arguments I have been listening to for the last ten years. Malik, I think that many of us could recite them in our sleep. As in, Leviticus should be ignored because (a) it was part of a holiness code that no longer applies or (b) we understand more about sexuality than a bunch of Stone Age goat herders. The most creative interpretation I’ve heard is that Leviticus only applies to two men having sex with each other while simultaneously having sex with a woman.… Read more »
I mean I got it for free from the library, but ofc you can’t find the book free to own if that’s what you mean. And the arguments are new to me I’m not sure if you have already heard them all or not though. I like it mainly because it is very thorough and it comes from the perspective of someone who grew up and is still a Christian so he address all the arguments we grew up hearing in church and from parents.
Vines’ book is well known and has been debunked many times over. Tim Keller, who is notoriously soft on this issue, ripped it to pieces (see OKR’s post). There’s nothing good or Biblical about the book–it’s just the age-old tactic of justifying sin with smoke, mirrors and poor exegesis.
I read the post and it didn’t respond to a single argument in the book.
Bill. if I may?
I have not heard the podcast but listening to your summary it seems that my thoughts on Hades are similiar to Doug’s. So here is a link to a post of mine on Hades, further posts can be seen by clicking on the label “Hades”
On immigration, I have been told that there are a couple of different concepts for foreigners in the OT and they are not the same. You need to have a legal arrangement where immigrants agree to abide by the law. This legitimises removing illegal immigrants as they are not law abiding. Immigration is a request not a right. No country owes me. An attitude of entitlement is a reason not to allow immigration. Mass immigration changes a culture, it is prudent for a country to examine the % of immigrants allowed per year. This may differ depending on where immigrants… Read more »
I wish Doug would have addressed Barnie’s point on secularism. Clearly the church is not suffering from secularist infiltrators, at least not in a straightforward way. Doug has read his Girard he should understand mimesis and the desire attain status because it is held by a conflicting group. He also knows about the insidious influence of “I’ll call you a Christian of you call me a scholar” yet he still promotes a simple view of the faithful church against the attack of the secularist horde. The church is not high status, it is a cultural backwater, why would secularists want… Read more »
Hey Demo, I think Barnie is correct about how secularists are working, though I see nothing wrong with the term. But I would push back against the idea that we are some kind of cultural back water. I don’t think secularists envy our power or prestige, what’s left of it in America anyways. I think they see us as a hurdle to them having political power.In other words, we still have enough power to stop them, or at least slow them down. I think you are correct about the church being tempted to act like the secular culture to attain… Read more »
I mostly agree, although I would be curious to read how you see the “left’s cultural pressure” being wielded, and whether it is a byproduct of unconcerned cultural activity or if tastemakers consider pulling Christians away as their telos? My main point was that the model isn’t sneaky secularists (whatever that term now means) entering the church in an attempt to undermine it. The reality is that those in the church are falling all over themselves to show that they are in with the cool kids, but there is nothing less cool than being an evangelical – despite our numbers… Read more »
“The reality is that those in the church are falling all over themselves to show that they are in with the cool kids”
Cases in point: the letter from the seminary student re: Thabiti and the one about the PCA presbytery.
I did some reading about why secular liberals are more okay with Catholics than with evangelicals. There’s a strange division that works to Catholic advantage. Secular liberals deplore official Catholic positions on sexual morality. On the other hand, opinion polls conducted among the laity in the US show that Catholics increasingly deplore them also. It’s easy to see lay Catholics as progressive on sexual issues and it’s just too bad that their bishops haven’t caught up with them yet. On the other hand, the church hierarchy in the US supports positions dear to secular liberals. Opposition to the death penalty,… Read more »
“Clinton won a plurality of the Catholic vote.”
This is why secularists are more amenable to Catholics than Evangelicals.
Well, that is pretty much what I was trying to explain. But I wouldn’t state the converse and say that Catholic political views are based on secularism. The thoughtful and conscientious Catholic is in a difficult position when it comes to deciding how to vote. Any very right wing political platform might contain planks which a Catholic is taught by his church to regard as unjust. It is possible to argue that support for a pro-life candidate is so important that nothing else matters. But, taking this to an extreme, I would not vote for a Hitler who promised to… Read more »
For the record, Hitler wasn’t right-wing or conservative by any stretch. That’s a myth created by fascists who label their foes as fascists and nazis.
“For the record, Hitler wasn’t right-wing or conservative by any stretch. That’s a myth created by fascists who label their foes as fascists and nazis.”
A feat I’m still impressed by. The man was the candidate of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Their rhetoric was pretty identical to Bernie Sanders’, save for the fact that their 1%ers were jewish adding an additional layer.
I would have done better to say that I would not support any genocidal dictator in return for anti-abortion judges!
I would be curious to read how you see the “left’s cultural pressure” being wielded, and whether it is a byproduct of unconcerned cultural activity or if tastemakers consider pulling Christians away as their telos? It is mainly wielded, culturally speaking, not politically, in education, entertainment, and the corporate market. But there is most definitely a concerted effort to undermine Christian beliefs. My main point was that the model isn’t sneaky secularists (whatever that term now means) entering the church in an attempt to undermine it. Generally, I agree. But there are most certainly folk on the Left who are… Read more »
demosthenes1d wrote: Clearly the church is not suffering from secularist infiltrators, at least not in a straightforward way. Not suffering? Just look at mainline churches and seminaries if one doubts the rampant infiltration. However, contrary to Barnie’s hasty analysis, Wilson’s point was never that the secularist worldview limits itself to opposing from the outside. Wilson warns against wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing on a regular basis. Secularism opposes Christ from whatever ground it can, inside or outside. demosthenes1d wrote: He also knows about the insidious influence of “I’ll call you a Christian of you call me a scholar” yet he still promotes a simple… Read more »
” I’ve not known secularists to turn down any seat of influence, no matter how small, or backwater.” There’s nothing secularists worship more than the progression of comforts of organized society throughout history. It’s only natural that being their closest approximation of God, that’s there they’d want to be. ” In proclaiming the seat of high status and influence for themselves, the secularists sure seem to be afraid of something.” The majority of their rhetoric against Christianity depends on the listener being completely ignorant to what Christian culture is actually like. Finding out that Christians are also normal people and… Read more »
I agree with that. I live among people most of whom have never actually been friends with an evangelical Christian. Their impressions are drawn from reading the extremist statements quoted on Right Wing Watch: “Famous preacher John Doe told his TV viewers that America must deport all Muslims and kill the gays.” But there is a nasty streak of cultural elitism as well. As in, we are not the kind of people who would be caught dead in a fast food restaurant, let alone one that pushes religion along with its factory farmed chicken. Keep all that stuff in the… Read more »
I read the Bee article. This one is scathing and a little close to home for Christians: Reminder To UK Parents That The State Owns Their Children
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wmj0i1oH1Q Pastor Douglas, in this video of Matt Chandler speak in the MLK50 conference he addresses that, for church leadership, between White 8 and Black 7, the Black 7. On the other hand, between White 8 and Black 6, the White 8, because he doesn’t want to perpetuate the notion that blacks are inferior. Shouldn’t the most capable according to biblical standards be chosen instead of looking them by their color? Is that a case of racial justice? Racial quotas? What is the end of it? If the purpose is to fight racism, why not address the issue in this… Read more »
Raphael,
Not having watched the video, I don’t understand your comment well. However, I find it unlikely that both sides will truly discuss the issues. It’s my perception that the liberal side does want to talk, where talk is defined as we (the liberals) will tell you how you are wrong and what you must do to be on the right side. That is, they have decided they are right and you are wrong and no other possibility exists, regardless of what the Bible and traditional belief teaches.
“the liberal side does want to talk, where talk is defined as we (the liberals) will tell you how you are wrong and what you must do to be on the right side. That is, they have decided they are right and you are wrong and no other possibility exists, regardless of what the Bible and traditional belief teaches.” 100% spot-on. This has been the history of the church for last 150 years or so. Even though supposedly conservative, orthodox types are pushing this agenda, it’s no different. A face-to-face talk would be the SJW side presenting followed by “That’s… Read more »
JP-
Not to mention also that Thabiti said he was going to “respond to Doug once” and then be done. What about all of those wonderful, previous interactions? Too bad, I guess. Thabiti is done with our host now. Those moments gave Thabiti credibility, and he has used his recent time at TGC to establish the same. Now is the time to throw the door open. Identity politics and cultural Marxism for all!
Barnie wrote: It’s been said that you can believe God is powerful or you can believe God is good but it’s difficult to believe both. No doubt many a fool has said such a thing. Fortunately, by offering the statement in such a passive, “it’s been said” form, Barnie has not come to personally own or defend the statement here. What a relief. Barnie wrote: I think your optimistic eschatology in the face of conflicting scripture and historical evidence is an attempt to ease the burden. Speaking of burdens, Barnie doesn’t actually bother to unburden himself of any Scriptural or… Read more »
“No doubt many a fool has said such a thing. Fortunately, by offering the statement in such a passive, “it’s been said” form, Barnie has not come to personally own or defend the statement here. What a relief.” This gave me a delightful laugh. I have a dear relative that uses this tactic as his sole means of interaction, giving a constant stream of contrarian opinion without ever attaching himself to it so as to present a target. In fairness, it is a good skill to have when needing to be polite without being dishonest. “Oh wow. I think almost… Read more »