±«Óãtv

Dear William

Surely you know Jude 7 clearly says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual immorality? (Doubtless there was also injustice and inhospitality too).

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

Jude 7 in the Amplified Bible says;
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjaecent towns, which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice
and sensual perversity are laid out, [in plain sight], as the exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire
[the wicked are sentenced to suffer]." ends

Also, would more balance be introduced by adding a mainstream RC/COI/Presbyterian theologian to help the usual reactionary and probably less theologically trained Free P to debate with the other three pro-gay advocates? Would this not more reflect Irish church opinion and
that of your listeners generally?

Finally, who is to say Lot's comments about his daughters were not just a tactic to buy time and protect his guests?
You can continue to try and reinterpret every instance of homosexuality in the bible. But in each and every case you will be on the back foot with a defensive argument because homosexuality is ALWAYS mentioned in a negative context.
God ordained and blesses only hetersexual realtionships continually from Genesis to Revelation.

Sincerely
PBradfield

ive been looking at that jude verse mentioned here by pb. greek scholars are questioning what the 'strange flesh' mentioned in the passage means (sometimes translated 'unnatural vice' etc). some leading scholars seem to think it refers to the attempt at sex with angels - that would be an unnatural union.

i think the bible does have passages that attack sex between men, but what what i can tell from many of the sources ive looked at, the bible is against sex between men or between women because that was linked in those days to temple practices and the bible also didnt want sperm to be wasted for reasons most of us wouldnt understand today!

this is an interesting debate. thanks everyone for raising importance questions.

Just a question for PBradfield? Would you consider yourself a Sodomite? Somehow I think there is more to the story than just what your own personal phobias focus on....that is the reality of Abraham's intercession and how this is later reflected in the new testament as well as the fact that God being God brings down his wrath just as he does his goodness simply becaseu he is God.

Surely you know as much as the next theologian that the books of the bible were not meant to be read literally. And somehow I dont think this blog was meant to be a blog discussing Christian views of morality.

And to all of our LBTG's I'd just like to let you know that the God I have encountered in these very same books created you and loves you just as much as he created and loves PBradfield.

Hi Jan J

Yes I have heard this greek interpreted this way but in fact that is a red herring to the central point; Jude still clearly says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual immorality, which was being contested by Sunday Sequence. Also, only the second portion of the verse refers to strange flesh; whatever it means, it doesn't look good does it?

I will take a stab in the dark here, I say the only way the bible can be used to support homosexuality is i) If the reader does not accept it as the inerrant word of God and ii) If they effectively dismiss the related portions of the bible on various grounds, as per Mr Other's objection to literal readings, above. (What would happen if we objected to literal readings of medical textbooks? and... who decides which portions of the bible are to be read literally? I suspect this tool is only used to excuse the desired sins of the age and to confirm to the spirit of the age, contrary to scripture (Romans).
I'll give Mr Other this, I agree 100% that God loves LGBT people as much as me, or more - I cant get everything into each comment...
Every good father loves all his children and yet hates their sin.
I dont consider myself any more righteous than LGBT people, by the by. I am a sinner needing God's grace too.
PB

I agree with The Other (great name, by the way!). I listened to the programme today and I found it very clear that the Bible can be read in all sorts of ways. God does not hate gay people and I don't think people should be reading the bible in such a way that they give that impression. God loves gay people and he made them the way they are. They should live their lives as fully and freedly as anyone else. They should make love without fear or guilt, built homes together, have children if they wish, and don't let any of these fundamentalists tell you otherwise.

Enjoying the blog ... always makes me think.

Sam
I have to correct you there, despite media spin to the contrary about current research, there is no generally accepted conclusive evidence that people are born homosexual. Just trawl through ±«Óãtv Online carefully regarding gay gene and you will see this is true.
On the contrary, there is much research which shows that social factors in upbringing have a strong influence.
PB

That was a quick reply! PB you must be glued to this page. I still think God made gay people as gay people. He may have used genetics, he may have used environmental factors, or any other influences he chooses, cos he's God and he can do as he pleases. But however he did it, God wanted a world that was diverse and Gay people are part of the plan, just as black people and chinese people are part of the plan ... or intelligent and not so intelligent people, for that matter. PB, can you not find a more useful subject to get excited about? You're sounding like a throw-back to pre-colonial times. Slavery is past. Racism is no longer acceptable (even though many christians, to their shame, supported it). Sexism is a sin (even though many churches still practise it and exclude women from the priesthood). Anti-gay attitudes ahould be part of the past too. Time to move your thinking along there!

Would anyone like to list all the Bible passages that support slavery, then PB can read them literally for us - just as he would read a medical textbook literally? Can't we just accept that the Bible was written in a world that approved of moral outrages such as slavery and the abuse of women, and those moral outrages are defended in the pages of the Bible? Once you start acknowledging the Bible's social context, you have to ask questions about the other moral beliefs that are based on this ancient text (such as a view on sexuality). A literalistic approach is naive in the extreme. A contextualising approach may raise uncomfortable questions, but it's the only sensible approach, surely? There's no point quoting the Bible on sensitive issues like this as if that ends the matter. Instead, let's do some hard work and try to understand these biblical books in the context of their world. When you do that, you realise the Biblical world had nothing approaching our modern notion of same-sex relationships.

Let's get PB's literalistic interpretation of these:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

WWhen a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

I wait with bated breath, PB.

Great discussion this morning on SS with McIlveen and the rest of the panel - I sensed more than a little frustration at McIlveen from the rest of the people in the room. My favourite quote from this morning's show: "I wish I got as much sex as the Christians seem to think I do!"

It was a fascinating discussion - I wish there was a transcript, because I'm not sure that I remember all the details accurately. [Kind of you to describe your audience as 'intelligent'.]

I found the Girls Brigade discussion interesting too. It's something you always think about - that there must be children with disabilities in the congregation, but you don't, for the most part, see them at Sunday School or in the Youth Organisations - and they should be there. But at the same time, most of the officers in our GB are ordinary working mothers, and it's incredibly hard to get sufficient volunteers to run the Company as it is - people genuinely don't feel equipped for the responsibility. If companies were obligated to take on any child, would even more people shy away from the increased responsibility?

So many people so easily offended. If Christians are using the term simply to refer to homosexual behaviour then I'm not sure why it's deemed to be offensive. Shouldn't the word be deemed simply to be a bit silly in the year 2006? I think those who use the word and those who claim to be offended by it should grow up and get a life.

Stephen G.

PB,

You hit the nail on the head saying "three pro-gay advocates".

Surely William should not contribute to the discussion but rather chair it?

I can't understand why David Tombs didn't start at Gen 18 rather than starting half way through the narrative. Had he started here he would have recognised that Sodom's destruction was planned long before the "attempted gang rape and injustice". This was merely the final straw. As PB states Jude 7 states why Sodom was destroyed by fire.

We do not talk about the sin of Lot [or any other sin] because we deny the existence of sin.

Yes I'm back, I apologise to anyone offending by me posting a quick reply earlier.... ;-D

Hi Dave from Oxford, good to hear from you again.

Slavery, first thing's first;
1) Anyone who forced another into slavery was to be punished by death
Exodus 21.16, Deut 24:7.
2) Slave traders are destined for hell 1Tim1:10 and Rev 18:13.
3) "Slavery" here was the only welfare state which many people sold themselves into to avoid poverty, Lev 25:39-43.
4) Others were made slaves by law to pay off theft or bankruptcy Ex 22:3 and 2 King 4.1, Ne 5,8, Ex 21.2-6, 7-11.
5) Others were prisoners of war.
6) Hebrew slaves were to be set free, **if they wished**, after 6 years and set up in their own livlihood Ex 21.2-6 and Dt 25 12-18.
7) If you read throuh the related passages of Ex and Deut you will see many rights and safeguards for slaves and in many cases they were to be set free if mistreated.
8) By law they were included in all holidays (Sabbaths) and festivals.
9) Many commentators draw distinctions between our concept of slavery and slavery in these times. Eg In the bible Joseph became Prime Minister of Egypt while a slave. In the parables of Jesus, slaves tended to administer country estates and labour was recruited casually.
11) Even Jesus declined to confront Rome in the trick taxes question. It seems plausible the apostles likewise did not directly confront slavery. But Gal3:28 says slave and free are equal in God's kingdom and 1Cor7.21 says they should become legally free if the opportunity arises and they so wish. Masters are to treat them well Eph 6.9 and Col 4.1.
12) The only Biblical book devoted to slavery is always missed - Philemon! In this book Paul beseeches the churches not to treat slaves as slaves but as **brothers** vs9-16. In fact, the church is to treat slaves as they would treat Paul himself (vs17)!!!
This is the faith that bought me, the OT law is not binding on Christians; This is also the faith which sustained the bible believing Wilberforce to abolish slavery in the UK!
sincerely
PB
NB In all this, the NT still forbids homosexual practise.

PS I also note that Christians are once again to the forefront of battling modern slavery ie sex slavery and trafficking Eg Salvation Army, CARE etc.

Nomenclature can indeed be potent. Take the terms Quaker and Friend, a member of the Society of Friends. George Fox, usually regarded as the founder of the Society in the 17th century, admonished a magistrate to "tremble at the Word of God" and not interfere with the worship of his followers. The jeering crowd, whose sympathy did not lie with the dissenters, called them Quakers. And although the two terms seem interchangeable even among Friends, it should not come as a surprise if some prefer to be known as Friends rather than Quakers.

PB- So, there is biblical endorsement of slavery BUT it also says you have to treat 'em well. OK!

There is endorsement of slavery AND condemnation of homosexuality and they are BOTH in the Old Testament which you say is "not binding on Christians". So the next time you try to make a point about homosexuality from the bible, I don't want to hear anything from the OT - NT only please.

You didn't address any of the verses David asked you to, by the way.... including the last one from Ephesians: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

PB really dropped the ball on this slavery business. Who says the OT is not binding on Christians? Wasn't its once a heresy to say that? As for his interpretation of the slavery passages ... talk about trying to re-write history!? The Bible comes from a world were slavery was acceptable and that justification of slavery comes across in all those passages (including the New Testament passages). Stop cherry-picking the Bible. If you want to buy into the Bible attack on homosexuality, you have to accept what it says about slavery too.

Not just slavery - what about how the biblical world treated children? Parents were allowed to execute children who misbehaved!

What's that sound? Is it the sound of keys rattling? Is PB googling every fundamentalist website he can find in search of a defence of slavery!?

Guys, guys, guys

Do I sense just a little anger that you got just a shade more than you expected in my slavery treatise there? ;-)

I am not a professional theologian, you know, in fact the OT law bit I mentioned is not actually that relevant because I dont think there is any OT/NT law requiring people to take part in slavery, now that I think about it.

However, now we are on the subject, John and Alan - Romans, Galations and Hebrews are just three books of the bible that teach how Christians are not bound by the OT law - so dont think I just pulled this out of a hat myself! Go read em.

John, I have never used OT law to condemn homosexuality for this reason. Never. However Paul does tell Timothy that the law is still there to show people their sin; it is just they will not be saved by trying to observe it.

This never was or will be an attempt to synthesise every verse in the bible on slavery on a blogsite - get wise guys!
But what it does now intellectually demand of you guys, if you are honest with yourselves, is that you must merge everything you think you know about slavery in the bible with these refs - that is what is called biblical context, as David from Oxford demanded of us all.

Jesus said that God allowed the Jews to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, my reading of the OT and NT is that slavery was similar. It was not God's idea, he did not ask people to do it, but he provided checks and balances for the slaves.

I know from your reactions that the study I put together there puts a **drastically** different slant on the subject than most people are aware of. I am sure proffessional scholars could uncover more.

Sincerely
PB

PS Sam, sadly, I did check long ago, but there were no fundie websites offering this info! It was just a little more work than that ;-)

John,

just for you, ref Ephesians 6v5. If you read on you would read this in verse 9; "You masters, act on the same principle toward them, and give up threatening and using violent and abusive words, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven and that there is no respect of persons - no partiality - with him." Amplified Bible.

You know, I just havnt time to do this for every verse you will pull up. Perhpas try getting out a bible (or bible website) and reading the context first for yourself...
PB

I've been reading this stuff about slavery and it is infuriating. Of course the Bible defends slavery. It gives guidance on how to take slaves and specifies conditions justifying the taking of slaves (e.g., in war). Yes, the NT gives guidance to Christian slave owners about how they should treat slaves, but the NT does NOT oppose slavery.

Paul does not tell Christians that the Old Testament is irrelevant to them, or that they are not bound by the OT. He tells Christians that they are not bound by the Law - this is a different matter altogether. Paul makes a case for "grace" over "law" - not for the NT over the OT. Big difference. Grace, by the way, is an OT idea! And to be clear, Paul does not tell Christians that they are not bound by the OT Law - he tells them that they are not bound by ANY LAW.

PB's attitude to the OT used to be called Marcianism (look it up).

Leon

Your comments do not in ANY way undermine the extensive references I have given on slavery. They are rock solid and anything else you say on the subject MUST be taken in context of those references.

On the face of it, it appears you are more precise than I in your distinction between OT/Law/Grace. But again, this does not undermine or call into question any of the points I am making.

I repeat Leon, you have not undermined or refuted ANY of the points I have made.

Sincerely
PB

PB cannot have it both ways. In Post 4 he defends a 'literal' reading of the Bible comparing it to a literal reading of medical text book (based on evolutionary biology, not creationism, by the way). Yet in Post 15 he cites distinctions between concepts of slavery - is this not a non-literal reading of the Bible?

So sodomy is sodomy but slavery isn't slavery.

Now when he cites the NT as saying the OT law doesn't always apply (handy that) but makes copious use of OT law to condemn anal sex.

I think the inconsistencies highlight not only sloppy thinking but also his prejudices.

Really enjoyed the programme and learned a lot from it.

Stephen D is absolutely right, and exposes the problems with PB's thinking about both slavery and sexuality. This is a case study in ignorant approaches to the Bible. I hope others pay attention to this thread, since it illustrates the dangers of selective interprepation and the ludicrous consequences of a fundamentalist approach to the Bible.

Guys
I would like to draw my contribution to this topic to a close if possible -- dont all cheer at once! ;-)

In conclusion, I think Ceejay just about knocked Mr Crawley's whole argument into a hat - in Genesis 18, esp v17 etc God had already marked Sodom and Gomorrah for destruction, long before the attempted gang rape.

Then, to repeat, the refs I have given in Jude state the cities were destroyed for "sexual immorality" NKJV.

I apologise if I have been overly flippant etc as I realise there are very deep emotional hurts involved here. But you guys could skin a tiger and I have to put on a brave face to face you all.

I remember seeing a gay American comedian on TV once, speaking seriously about how disillusioned he had become with the baths scene; he turned to the unconditional love of his pet dog instead.
To be honest this is what brought me to Christ, deep down I was looking for the security of that type of relationship.
A true friend like him knows the very worst about us and still wants the very best for us. And he is true enough to tell us the home truths we need - and to help us through them.

As a fallen being, I have fallen sexuality too. I am currently reading an exceptional book on putting it right (Pursuing Sexual Wholeness), by a man who has done it all. His name is Andrew Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries if anyone wants to google that.
His book is also a brutally honest account of his own repeated struggles and failures and how God's grace is still bringing him through.
Bless you all and thanks for your contributions which -rightfully- test me by fire.

PB

PS - Stephen D

Sorry friend you are wrong; I NEVER said you should not literally read the bible on slavery; read it again. And I say it again, I NEVER have or will use OT laws to condemn homosexuality.
I DO say read the bible literally, but read it ALL literally - together. Otherwise you taking verses out of context to suit your pretext.

In fact i will say categorically that the OT and NT are really quite consistant in what they teach on both homsexuality and slavery; just make sure your take all the refs together AND understand relationships between OT law and grace as Leon began expounding in post 25. You think I am making this up about the OT law and the NT? I have gone over this in post 21 but you dont appear to have listened. Even Leon, who is clearly at odds with me knows this is normal C
hristian doctrine.
This all hangs together VERY clearly if you will read it again; but if you are determined not to understand, that is your choice.
sincerely
PB

Ok PB,

Comiskey's approach to 'curing' homosexuality is not unique nor is it widely accepted. What worked for him. might not work for you. He accepts that there are many potential precursors and causes of homosexuality but only offers a limited response - much of it seems to be based on guilt and repression. He (and you) make the unfounded leaps from

It worked for him therefore it will work for everybody.
If it does not work - they are at fault not him.

I wish you well in your struggle with your sexuality and hope that you find peace, joy, love and happiness, but I wouldn't bet on the guilt-mongers to help you do that.

The posts have crossed in the ether but my point remains.
In post 15 you say
"9) Many commentators draw distinctions between our concept of slavery and slavery in these times."

So is slavery when used in the bible to be taken literally or as it was in the context of the time it was written?

And if so why is the same not for the Sins of Sodom

You have been both literal and interpretive and which approach you choose is entirely consistent with your pretext.

Stephen
You seem to be seriously engaging and so will I, to the best of my ability.

The bible says it is all the inspired word of God profitable for teaching and rebuke. This would apply to all scripture references given on slavery and homosexuality above; and the rest which were not specified.

The line about commentators is obviously not God's word so it is fallible, and must be subject to the entire biblical worldview; the scripture refs I linked it to are relevant and stand on their own merits, in context.

The bottom line is, dont take my word for it, if your motives are pure, study the entire bible for yourself and you will have the full truth. That is actually a general command from both Christ and Paul.

I am all too aware that I am vulnerable to pretexts, but I guard against this by looking at the whole counsel of the word of God, not just pretext verses. Now if you think I am mispresenting anything from the complete biblical worldview, you have the stage and the world is watching.
I am honour bound to learn from you if you can demonstrate this.

Ref Comiskey etc, the bible says we are all sinners, we ALL have fallen sexuality, not just me. I am heterosexual but my sexuality is just as fallen as everything else in this world; but God always makes a way.
Comiskey is very clear that he cant help anyone who does not truly want to change (gay, bi straight or whatever); with respect, you do not sound like you would be willing to give him a serious go.
Apparently there is a very high success rate for those that do.
sincerely
PB

PB in post 31 You say

'the scripture refs I linked it to are relevant and stand on their own merits, in context.'

This is not a debate about the merits of the biblical approaches to slavery or sex but about the use of the word literal - You claim to be literal but are constantly being contextual.

Without getting tedious about this, if you cite something in a context, you chose the context and therefore are not being literal, logically you cannot have it both ways, yet are trying to do so or are unable or unwilling to see that you are doing so.

Apologies for jumping to the conclusion that you are gay, it may have had something to do with the strap line to the Comiskey book that you enthusiastically cited as helping you to put right your 'fallen sexuality'. It reads 'How Jesus Heals the Homosexual'

Also thank you for demonstrating one of my points about Comiskey (post 29) when you said 'Comiskey is very clear that he cant help anyone who does not truly want to change'. Therefore when his methods fail to achieve their stated aim, it is due to the lack of will in the participant. A neat cop out, I think you'll agree.

On a lighter note, I do not see too many eyepatches or prosthetic hands in fundamentalist congregations. (Matthew 5:29-30)

Stephen

On the subjects and references we have discussed, all refs appear self-evidently to be be literal. However it is entirely consistent with this to ensure that EVERY verse in the bible must be held in complete balance/context with every other verse in the bible.

Cultural context is something else entirely. Cultural historians may usefully inform scripture but they are not infallible like scripture and in my experience, where their findings declare something in contradiction to the entire balance of scripture they are later proved wrong and scripture right.

I think that is a very robust, consistant and logical methodology which I have followed from the start of this debate, before and after.

Now this does not mean that every verse in the bible is to be taken literally, and an honest scholar will appreciate this. eg Jesus said he was the light of the world, but he was not a lightbulb etc

If you delete my phrase that "many commentators believe ancient slavery was different to modern concepts of slavery" but allow my slavery scripture refs to Joseph and Jesus' parables etc to remain, it does not change the rest of what I have said one iota.

If you now wish to argue; "Many commentators believe ancient homosexuality is different to modern homosexuality because...." be my guest.
However to be consistent with what has gone before, everything you say must be subject to and consistent with the entire biblical worldview on homosexuality/heterosexuality.

CHALLENGE REPEATED; You accused me of sloppy thinking and using pretext and prejudice to misrepresent the bible but again you fail to demonstrate how. I have little doubt you are mistaken, but the challenge remains open to you!

Comiskey's programme does not discard people as uncommitted after they fail; it does intesnive screening BEFORE it begins, hence its high success rate. Seems you are not really as familiar with it as you suggest. This is a very central/major point in his book.

A friend gave me the book as a recommended read for all; the biblical pattern of sexuality Comiskey discusses is the biblical pattern for everyone, plus, the biblical lessons for beating sinful habits are applicable to any sinful habit, sexual or non-sexual.

Learning as we progress...
PB

PS Seriously, you are not going to pick random verses out of the bible as red herrings to the debate and expect me to explain them all? Make good on your accusations of my prejudice/pretext/ and sloppy thinking.

PS I have just discovered another massive blooper in the Sunday Sequence argument William puts forward above.

Ezekial 16:49 does say Sodom oppressed the poor but also that "they were haughty and committed abomination before me, therefore I took them away as I saw fit." nkjv

Stephen this debate was not actually not about literal/contextual approaches to the bible, post 32, but about whether Sodom was destroyed for opressing the poor and attempted gang rape, as William suggests.
The scripture would seem to be strongly at odds with all William's assertions.

Lot's response to this very strange passage is certainly sinful, I'd say. But what about God's response? To destroy an entire city (men, women and children)? Isn't that hard to justify by any ethical standards? Even PB would have to accept, surely, that it's immoral to take the lives of innocent children (whatever the offences committed by their parents in Sodom, and I don't accept that those offences have to do with consensual same-sex behaviour).

Pb - It was the Trinity College theologian who raised the Ezekiel passage in the programme (just for the sake of accuracy I point that out). The passage mentions abominations committed before God, and that was mentioned too. The issue is WHICH abominations? You can't just read in your interpretation of the abominations. Gang rape is an abomination too - as is temple prositution.

Check out Isaiah 6 as well. verse 9 talks about jerusalem parading its sins like Sodom and how God will judge them and destroy them. What is the sin being parading (like Sodom)? The first 8 verses explain: mistreatment of the poor, injustice, abuse of strangers, greed ... and no mention of any civil partnerships guys. Hmmm.

I see Pb has gone quiet on slavery interpretations. I can understand why. Nuff said.

PB - at last you have got the point - that reference (point 9 in post 15) that you now wish to retract, was the sloppy thinking for a self professed literal reader of the bible.

However, without that point, a slave remains a slave as we 'literally' understand it.

I am only asking for consistency of approach.

Dear Anon...or Stephen D?
Ref your post 38, I really dont know what you are trying to prove here.

I have clearly laid out the common biblical interpretation approach used by bible believers, now you put a label on it that you will.

Yes I referred to commentators which is clearly not contained in scripture but I repeat, this does not change one iota of any of the actual scripture references I have given you.

YOU CANNOT SHOW ME ANYWHERE THAT I HAVE MISREPRESENTED SCRIPTURE ON SLAVERY OR HOMOSEXUALITY, and those are the issues you are contesting.

The mote is in my eye here (ref commentators) but the beam is actually the sloppy thinking and prejudging of the bible which is trying to blame Sodom's destruction on injustice and attempted gang rape, as described in the intro.

This interpretation now hangs by a thread; Genesis 18 shows the decision to destroy Sodom was made long before the attempted gang rape; Jude clearly says Sodom was destroyed for "sexual immorality"; Ezekial states it was oppression and "abomination" the hebrew for which is also used to describe homosexual acts elsewhere, (and idolatry).

Lets be honest guys, how many of you are poring over your bibles regularly to implement God's teaching in every other part of your lives apart from sexuality?
To a man and woman you seem to refuse to even acknowledge that the refs I listed on slavery in post 15 are there in your bibles, even though they are in black and white. This suggests you have already determined in your hearts to follow your own thinking regardless of what the bible says; post 5 is the perfect example of deciding what the bible "should" say before you have even opened it.

I pray God softens your hearts.

Sincerely
PB

PS Anon
ref post 38, as is quite frequent in this discussion people are accusing me of many things I have not done; Nowhere did I call myself "a literal reader of the bible".
My guidlines are laid out in brief in post 33, among others. Nowhere have I described them as "literal" - Jesus and the lightbulb, remember post 33??
Sincerely
PB

PB - sorry anon was me - dont know what happened

OK I have had enough of this nonsense. I do not know what delusional state you are in but my oringial post was pointing out internal inconsistencies in your approach. Now you are both prurpoting literal interpretations and denying them.

in post 40 you say

Nowhere did I call myself "a literal reader of the bible".

In post 33 you say - On the subjects and references we have discussed, all refs appear self-evidently to be be literal.

In post 28 you say - Sorry friend you are wrong; I NEVER said you should not literally read the bible on slavery;

In post 4 you defend literal readings of the bible and use them to support your arguments when you say inter alia '(What would happen if we objected to literal readings of medical textbooks? and... who decides which portions of the bible are to be read literally?'

Am I missing something here? Or is your literal different from ours and in need of special interpretation? Frankly I dont care if you want to bugger half of britain, or save our sons from sodomy, Just argue it consistently, logically and coherently.

Be nice, girls!

Isnt it curious how the pro-gay people here are only interested in trying to pick holes in my postings and yet see nothing wrong with the serious scriptural ommissions in Sunday Sequence?

To be sure, injustice was one of Sodom's sins, but homosexuality was also definitely one of them. Undoubted scholar that he is, William raises some valid points about the term Sodomite, but this is splitting hairs somewhat when we consider one of the main threads between all his programmes on homosexuality is that consenusal same sex relations are not forbidden by the bible.

Romans 1:26: "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even the women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men, committing that which is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." NKJV

If God really classes these as "vile passions" but was open to the idea of gay marriage, would he not, being God, have forseen this controversy and allowed some get-out clause for gay marriage in scripture?? There is no *hint* of endorsement of gay sex in the bible. Serious question.

The only interpretation method I can see to get around this is arbitrary use and dismissal of scripture to suit predetermined agendas.

One important point is that the bible is not just against homosexuality but clearly pro-heterosexual marriage; it is clearly against ANY other type of sexual relationships that fall outside of this, not "simply anti-gay".

In his programme William asked if Jesus was gay, ref 1 Cor 6.9. The greek word malakoi means "soft to the touch" so there is absolutely no problem using it to describe Jesus elsewhere. But why would Paul say in 1 Cor 6.9 that anyone "soft to the touch" will be excluded from the Kindgom of God? Any suggestions scholars??
The logical answer is in the following greek word, arsenokoitai, means "male in a bed". In greek these words taken together are understood to mean the passion active and active partners in gay sex.
Please dont just boil over at this because it doesn't suit preconcieved notions; if you find this offensive it is your responsibility to provide a more accurate translation.
The Jerusalem and Moffatt bibles translate the words as Catamite and Sodomite, which is perhaps not 100% satisfactory, for reasons William has outlined ref the term "Sodomite" but it is perhaps heading in the right direction.

Please, my intention is not to hammer down on anyone here, but this blog entry is about biblical interpretation, so please accept this on the same terms as William offered his discussion and let's use reason and not emotion.

sincerely

PB

Grrrrr, please take note, I have never been anything else but nice here ;-)

Stephen, please. Ref your post 41. If you read my post 40 and 33 again carefully it clearly addresses your concerns about literalism.
I sincerely believe it is logical if you will cool down and read them again.

I dont pretend I have it all right or that these points are simple. You raise important points and rightly keep me honest about how I read the bible.

But please, I think you have got me wrong here. Posts 33 and 40 again please.

Sincerely
PB

Stephen
You are rightly challenging me to look again at myself and how I must appear to you.
I apprecite that may come across as patronising and biased here, but I would like to acknowledge that all your concerns and objections have validity in my eyes and at the same time demonstrate some hopefully basic validity to my foundational views too.
May I presume to guess you have spent a lifetime being hit over the head with a bible by people who wouldn't even socialise with you, accept you as a human being or give a jot about your feelings? Could I appear as one of those people to you?
If had been dealt the hand you have, I dont doubt I would be gay and, indeed, reading Comiskey's book, I think I probably came pretty close, but I am not trying to be patronising at all.
I often question received church wisdom on "watertight" traditional interpretations and do think some are thoughtlessly "smug" in light of all scripture.
I know I and churches generally are susceptible to pretextual interpetation to suit prejudices. If Christ returned as a joiner today, we would probably crucify him again.
I dont presume I have a watertight methodology for reading the bible and my articulation of what I do understand is doubtless even worse.
Also, studying the biblical regulations on slavery is the most challenging thing that has ever happened to my faith.
I struggle with and tolerate sin in my life like most everyone else; I am no "super saint".
How do I go on? I have met Christ and know he is a real person, though I still let him down.
He came to earth as a joiner and to me that is my first encouragement to even read the bible; If God came down to that level then surely he meant the bible to be intelligible, else why even write it? There are actually very few big words in the bible, it is for plain people.
So I take it that it's obvious reading would in 9 cases out of 10 be the correct one; why would Christ send us a book the other way round? Is he a cruel joker? No. That gets us moving anyway. I believe in a God of love.
The next point is that Christ asks us all to surrender our lives to him (daily). I think any God worth his salt would ask this, yes? He did give his life for us.
God also asks me to surrender my sexuality to him too. Isnt that fair? It also means he asks LGBT people to surrender theirs. Now after that is the controversy; does he really want everyone straight?
Well again I think it is only fair to say that unless you are willing to give him the right, at least, you are not treating him as God (the same goes for him asking me to be gay, of course).
After that, all I would say is, if anyone is really interested, let no man persuade us - and you wont anyway - but ask Christ to prove himself to you as a real person. I say if our motives are pure, he will lead us aright in reading scripture. I say this is evidenced by a peace at the core of our being and not an uneasiness. I will not be there to batter you, you are free to live your life as you choose, it is between you and God.
You may say, will Christ ask me to become gay? of course my understanding is that he won't, but of course I am not trying to create a neutral position on that particular issue.
I reckon we have probably nearly flogged this all to death for now, and want to take a break, if poss.
best regards
PB

correction ref post 43 ref iCor6:9
I should have said the two greek words refer to the passive and active partners in gay sex, not passion active and active (you nitwit PB!).

Also David from Oxford and anyone else who has been putting scripture refs forward for me to explain, I just dont have the time do this, you understand. Suffice to say if they are scriptural refs they are 100% valid, but MUST be read alongside the ones I have also quoted to make sense.

Post 35, Jill Hails, this is such a big topic, worthy of a dissertation.
If you really want an answer, go look up a bible commentary in a library or online.

PB

PB
As you say - it is time to finish this off.

Firstly, I defend your right to express your position and applaud your openness and honesty in doing so. Debates like this help us understand each others' positions and I have enjoyed it. (Pardon the tetchy nature of the odd post)

Secondly, in post 45 you presume some things about my life that are not the case, my challenge to your logic has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. It was merely that to satisfactorily explain slavery you went outside the hermetic world of literalism (even your form of literalism which (and I hope I paraphrase you correctly here) is within the context of the whole bible and not the literal form of literalism which is taking words at their usual or most basic sense).

You accept that your methodology for understanding the bible not perfect. That is the only point I ever wanted to demonstrate.

I accept that you are a genuine seeker of spiritual truth and see the bible as an literally infallible guide to that. I genuinely belive that such an approach leads to inconsistencies that get in the way of the message the bible teaches. (Slavery is a good example) It begets a legalistic and formulaic approach that can have a tendency to miss the point of what the stories are trying to teach us.

I believe that this becomes even more apparent when the bible is taken as a literal guide to fact as well as moral and spiritual guidance. (Astronomy, Geology, Biology)

I will leave with a non-biblical quote that explains my position more clearly than I ever could.

'When a wise man points at the stars, all the fool sees is his finger'

I was that fool.

Stephen

There is one other point I think which must inform this discussion.

It does not conclusively prove anything but it is too significant not to be mentioned.

This traditional teaching on homosexuality is not something dreamed up by the far right US religious right fundamentalists such as George Bush etc.
This has been the position of the entire spectrum of the Judeo-Christian tradition for 6000 years

That means every historical Judeo-Christian leader, preacher and thinker of note that you ever heard of has adopted this position, even if by default.

These new biblical interpretations on homosexuality have arisen ONLY in parallel with the rise of the gay rights movement in the late 20th century.

Therefore it is very easy to see that the movement's drive has demanded a rethink of scripture in favour of its aims; the movement is not theologically centred.
Of course this argument is not fooproof, but there is a strong logic to it and it has to be mentioned.

PB

PB

I know this topic is part of a moral struggle for you but as I said (quite rudely, for which I apologise) the topic is really of little personal interest to me. I repeat, my issue is not with scriptural implications of homosexuality, but with consistency of method. It was an epistemological point I was making, not a moral one.

I just couldn't follow the internal logic of your argument and said so.

If you read through my posts, you will find no references to the bible (apart from a weak attempt at humour) or to my being part of the LGBT community or even my attitude to either of them. This might just be because I am not LBGT nor a biblical scholar.

Good luck with your journey to fulfillment and joy and be careful of jumping to conclusions lest they be the wrong ones.

Stephen

Is this a therapy blog for Pb?

Stephen

Apologies fully accepted and no offense taken.
I too apologise for any assumptions made.

On biblical interpretation, I have been musing on the points you made and can now offer this suggestion.

The bible is a mixture of history, poetry, civil, ceremonial and criminal law, doctrinal letters, proverbs, prophecies etc; Impossible to take every line literally.

I guess my guide to what should be taken literally, as a rule of thumb is this.

Whichever passage is in question read it in within the relevant chapters and imagine it is being read to you by a benevolent teacher and that you are his pupil.

In our normal human relations we instinctlively know when someone means something to be taken literally or not. As a rule of thumb, this should be a good starting point for discerning whether the text is meant to be literal or not. The bible is a letter from a Father to his children, after all.

Grrrrrrr is this therapy? Of a sort. My faith and destiny rests on the bible. If it doesnt stand up to scrutiny then all that is worthless.
When people appear to twist it in front of the world and nobody challenges them, I explore whether they are correct. Then I test the validity of my findings against them. Others can learn incidentally. I do.

PB

Does the bible support slavery? (addendum).

Having studied this a little more (without the internet) there are a few more points to make.

1) I have to repeat, NOWHERE does the bible "defend" slavery [post 23], as nobody was critising it at that point. Further, nowhere does the bible exhort people to take part in slavery. eg See refs in post 9 which show it was tolerated and regulated to give slaves protection, not promoted; "You may" buy and "if" you buy slaves, for example. But why even tolerate and defend it, you ask?

2) With my current understanding, I believe slavery in the bible could be largely summed up thus; "One part of ancient Israel's welfare state which people freely opted into when destitute; and a form of community service for thieves, debtors and POWs."
The refs in post 15 clearly show that the wholesale kidnapping of Africans by European traders who grew fat on their misery was clearly forbidden by scripture, as is modern sex slavery. The profeesion of slave trading is also forbidden by scripture, refs in post 15.

3) I am reminded also that the only book in the bible devoted to slavery (Philemon) has been widely reprinted by anti-slavery campigners through history as a stand alone booklet to support their cause.
In it Paul asks the addressee to accept a runaway slave back "not as a slave" but as a "brother" and to treat the slave as though he was Paul himself, which is a theme echoed in other NT refs given above.

4) The NT clearly forbids its members to foment political revolution; Romans, Submit yourself to the authorities etc; Jesus commands followers not to use force when arrested in Gethsemenae by Roman soldiers; Jesus avoids confronting Rome when questioned about taxes. There is no way the church was going to openly confront the might of Rome on slavery.

But Philemon has also, accurately I say, been described as a charter for a silent internal revolution of slavery by Christians. This is the ONLY logical reason why it was included in the bible; this is why it was widely used by anti-slavery campaigners as a stand-alone booklet.

Obviously many churches refused to seriously consider the booklet and the full biblical teaching on slavery for centuries, causing untold suffering. But Christians were to the forefront in making sure the Philemon message was heard, eg Wilberforce.

Incidentally, the terms for slave in the NT is also the term used to describe Christians relationship to God, (Doulos 'Love slave' I believe, no greek books with me here right now).

I dont necessarily like all the facts, but facts are facts.

PB

OK Jill Hails Post 35

Men were executed for several forms of rape of women under OT law.
In genesis 18/19 an ENTIRE city ("all the people", led by the men) came out to take part in the public gang rape of two visitors.

I guess this was not a one off, a city would descend slowly into this, and I also guess they were not "upright" citizens in every other aspect of their lives.

Therefore, God executed them.

Lot's two "Sodom-tainted" daughters tricked him into committed incest with him and two evil nations were born, Ammonites and Moabites; that could explain why God did not want any Sodomite children to survive; perhaps also as a warning to others like us.

Scripture clearly says, and life attests, that we inflict the penalty of our sins on our children.

Dont forget that Genesis 18/19 also clearly attest that God's man in Sodom, Lot, had been long warning them to give up their evil ways.

God always gives us plenty of warning - if we will listen.

I think we are too quick to assume that 21st Century Western values are more advanced that the thinking of God.

sincerely
PB

PB

I thought this was going to end, (and to the rest of the readers i apologise that this is becoming a dialogue and not a discussion) but in post 51 you say

"In our normal human relations we instinctlively know when someone means something to be taken literally or not."

This is a complete fudge - if my instinct is different from yours which is right? Albert Einstein once defined common sense as a set of prejudices learned by the age of 18.

You also say

The bible is a mixture of history, poetry, civil, ceremonial and criminal law, doctrinal letters, proverbs, prophecies etc; Impossible to take every line literally.

At least you accept that it is impossible to take every line literally. What then must be the case is that we all choose to take some lines literally and some lines figuratively. What guides our choice must come from outside the text of the bible. (Otherwise you read it all literally) and so there really is no such thing as a literal reading of the bible. It must be informed by an understanding of metaphor, history, language, translation etc.

We choose our contexts to fit our pretexts

So please, can we at last let the idea of a literal or common sense reading be exposed for the nonsense that it is and get me out of the way and let you scholars get back to the interpretation of the words and what the bible is trying to teach us and what we think of that teaching.

I know I am being picky here but either you interpret it all as literal or accept that you chose the contexts for how to interpret it, there is no middle ground.

Stephen

All your objections in post 54 are logical and valid.

Again, I emphasise that this "instinctive" point is a rule of thumb, in fact, my rule of thumb. But we all use it everyday in all our relationships, based on our experience of knowing people, so it is not at all absurd.
But it is not the beginning or the end of the matter and I do not presume to impose it on others, but I have no doubt it is a very helpful tool.

I repeat, my articulation is poor but please try and understand my logic. Take the point first that all scripture must be balanced against all other scripture.
Then for other "awkward" verses, take the point that scripture says itself that it is divinely inspired by a loving Father to mankind.
Then read the awkward passage with that in mind, in context of its surrounding text. I have never studied hermeneutics so I do not pretend this is a watertight "academic technique".

You talk about using outside influences to pre-judge scripture and I a sense I can think of two. One is a presumption about what a loving father figure/teacher ie ( the character of God) and another sooner or later has to be understanding the spirit in which the texts were meant (ie ultimately the Holy Spirit).

You are 100% right that scholars can be a big help in metaphor, history, language and translation. A human being cannot pick up the bible without bringing their own prejudices to it too, you are 100% right again.
But that is quite different to saying that only scholars can REALLY understand the bible and ordinary people cannot. That is actually the line some churches used to take when it was outlawed for people to read the bible, and the bible encourages ALL people to study and know it.

I may be wrong, but what I am 'hearing' from you is that you cannot be 100% sure that you will correctly interpret everything in the bible, therefore you should not begin to read it until you can be sure you will never make a mistake. In fact the opposite is true. The more you study the bible for yourself the more you understand the character and the spirit of the author and therefore know 'instinctively' what he means.
The NT explicitly requires Christians to study the bible in depth so they will not be vulnerable to being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and will grow up into mature disciples who can discern good from evil. Paul commends the Bereans for testing everything he says against ascripture.

Until you begin this for yourself you will never really begin to have the ability for yourself to judge which scholars have which prejudices and agendas; they all have their own too. (This is not unlike learning to read different newspapers, in a sense).

If you trust yourself only to "scholars" you are left with the question "which scholars?". You are also wide open to micro or macro religio-political manipulation as you cannot think through the issues for yourself with a broad biblical worldview. This has ALWAYS happened down through history and WILL always happen until the end of history. I suspect SOME of us use these literal-figurative-scholar arguments when in our heart we are really just angry at God's loving voice breaking into our self-centred lives.

I personally doubt there will ever be a formula to accurately interpret every part of the bible 100%. I know the Christian faith is about a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, not a relationship with a formula, or in fact the Bible itself per se. That is why the line about "relationship" context for understanding literal/figurative interpretations is valid.

Another useful tool for testing your bias in the bible is to meet people with opposite views and see if what they say is true, as we are doing. As I have said, you keep me honest.

If I may come full circle, I humbly suggest that I have submitted fairly substantial (but not exhaustive) biblical expositions on homosexuality and slavery which nobody has yet shown are founded on a prejudice (despite my internal prejudices). I contest this is because they are based on a broad biblical worldview.

So I will argue that my logic and methods outlined above are very, though not 100%, reliable.

I doubt you will be 100% satisfied with my responses but I have taken you as far along this road as I have travelled myself at this time.

Stephen thanks for your time, you help me grow, keep me honest.
Anyone bored, apologies, but feel free to join in. Our Beeb no doubt loves hits on the site and we are not wasting paper!

Sincerely
PB

PB
Just a quick clarification - when you say "I may be wrong but what I am 'hearing' from you..." and go on to talk about 100% correctness and the sole use of scholars bears no relation to the text.

The phrase 'you scholars' was a merely compliment to the level and detail of the substantive posts on this topic (yours inlcuded).

I urge you to look at the assumptions that lead you to that position and examine them in relationship to what was actually written.

Stephen

Sorry, I dont understand your question in post 56. Rephrase?

I have done my self critism, might you consider some?

I never said the sole use of scholars bears no relation to the text, just that if you do not study it in depth for yourself you are vulnerable to manipulation. Scholars have the same prejudices as us.

My major assumption was about your sexuality and was flagged up as just that and I also marked it "a guess".

If you are really concerned about accurate scholarship why only focus on mine? Nobody has yet shown I have mispresented the bible on homosexualty or slavery and yet I am the only one being challenged. Why is this?

My understanding is backed up by 6000 years of solid scholarship and yet you only challenge my view. Why?

The major and blatant flaws here are in post 1 and 39 from William and you never even mention them.

Also, you presented as understanding of Comiskey's programme but it later appeared you did not know about its screening programme. And you appeared to have to reassess your understanding of my "literal" approach to the bible.

In all seriousness, I think we can all be guilty of faulty logic, inconsistent methods, invalid assumptions and yet be genuine but misguided.

I dont ask for a response to every point here except this - why not challenge the major scholarly mistakes in this post, as per Posts 1 and 39? As Ceejay said, God had decided to destroy Sodom long before the attempted gang rape.

Sincerely
PB

OK this is my final posting
1 - There was no question in post 56.
2 - My point was that I called you and the others in this topic 'scholars' (meant as a compliment) you made a false inference that I said that only scholars could understand the bible and then you went off on a tangent that bore no relation to my posting.
3 - Assumptions are guesses and they have distracted from the quality of the debate.
4 - As constantly stated, I have not given an opinion on your, anyone else's or the bible's attitude to homosexuality - there was a flaw in your logic, I pointed it out, and the consequent dialogue has been further clarification of that issue and a distraction to the main point of the topic.
5 - 6000 years of scholarship held that the world was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, slavery was to be tolerated etc. it is the quality of the argument not its longevity that matters.
6 - Comiskey's screening programme negates my first point about him and his attitude to failures demonstrates my second.
7 - Your use of the word literal is not consistent with the normal dictionary use of it, but even within your definition, you still have to resort to outside sources and assumptions to aid interpretation which was my original point way back in my first post.
7 - I am tired of repeating myself and of being this pedantic, I feel this dialogue is going round in circles.
8 - I genuinely wish you well in your life and your quest for truth.

Stephen

Moderator - did you block my last post?

Stephen

A genunine thanks for your time and effort, which has caused me to test how fair and consistent I am.

I'm sure we will blog again. :-)

PB

PS You scrupulously avoided any attempt to answer the only question I asked you to address in post 57.

You seem to say you will only trust professional scholars to interpret the bible but your track record on this blog has been to challenge ONLY the 99% of scholarship ever done on this subject (conservative scholarship for want of a better description) while failing to even once challenge the 1% (liberal) scholarship that only emerged late in the 20th century. This is despite the fact that there are several blatant errors in this position outlined in this blog. How consistent is that?

Nonetheless, it has been a pleasure and worthwhile.

Until next time

God bless
PB

To anyone else still interested...

To conclude on slavery, having read further studies from professional scholars (not on the internet) it appears that the bible was campaigning for slaves' rights long before anyone else thought of it. This was over a period of roughly 4000 years, where outside Israel slaves were not even considered real people.

The OT regulations did not promote or defend slavery but gave slaves human dignity and rights which were not allowed by other nations at that time, so professional IVP scholars are telling me (New Bible Dictionary).

The NT church, while not able to stand openly against Rome's legal position supporting slavery openly discarded the slave status in the church and beseeched church members not to regard slaves as that any more, but as brothers ((book of Philemon).

Dont forget that slaves in the ancient world were often teachers lawyers and doctors with Joseph becoming prime minister of Egypt while a slave during this time. The slaves in Jesus' parables were estate administrators typically hiring casual labour to do manual work.

Slaves in Israel could not be forced into the role unless to repay theft, debt or being a POW. The other way into slavery was by choice to avoid destitution. Others took the role as it suited their lifestyle not to worry about income.

Many types of misteatment resulted in immediate freedom in Israel eg injury or sexual abuse.
If a master beat a slave to death, he faced the death penalty.
And hebrew slaves were freed after six years and had to be set up in business by their owners.

(How many welfare spongers today refuse to work, I ask?)

I agree none of this may sit easily with 21st century sensibilities, but if we could wipe out this status in restrospect many would have been left destitute and without an important element of judicial community service.

Before we think we are superior in every way what about our legal structure? There are sex slaves from poor countries in every major town in the UK (all over Europe?). Many of us regularly rape them. Many know and dont care. Many dont know and dont care. Few really care and do anything about it. Does anyone protesting about biblical slavery on this blog do anything?

Under biblical law their traffickers would be executed and the victims set free. The same goes for the traditional African slave trade.

Do we really care about actual slaves at all or do we think it is a get out clause to strike out God's loving, rightful accountability on our lives?

Of course our own legal system is also being worn away at the edges to weed out the weak and unwanted whom we consider a burden on society, even to the point of sacrficing their lives in medical wards.

We appear to allow choice to some of these people but this also allows the elderly to "internalise" the not so subtle doctrine pervading society that they are no longer of any use and should just go and stop soaking up hosptial resrouces.
Sadly, 100% innocent, unborn people who are not wanted do not even get the choice to think about whether they should survive or not.

The mark of a civilised society is how it treats its weakest. The direction in which the UK is heading is not a tribute to that people.

It is the direct opposite of the direction Israel was taken by God in relation to its treatment of slaves.

PB

And finally on Lot...

I sympathise with this guy. Genesis records he had a reputation for urging his fellow citzen in Sodom not to be wicked.

The whole city came out to rape two tourists he was entertaining. The whole city surrounded his house demanding they be brought out and threatened to do even worse to Lot.

Middle Eastern hospitality is legendary for guests and it could well be he took this too far in his disgraceful proposal of sacrificing his daugthers to save his guests. Or perhaps it was just a tactic to buy time. Nobody can say for sure.

I wonder what William would have done in this situation? It is easy to be cool calm and collected while safely behind a PC in NI.

In any case, who and what has God made the main focus of this story? Read it for yourself and decide.

For sure Lot was weak and made a bad choice even going into Sodom to live.
But God also called him righteous.

A whole city comes out to rape two tourists in public and a preacher urges them not to do it.

Then fire and brimstone rains out of heaven and destroys the people of the city.

What sort of media would put the main headline the next day: "Preacher offers to sacrifice his two daughters".

Would that really be the real story here and what can we learn from about ourselves from our own personal answers to that question?

PB

{6942} vd"q; — qadash, kaw-dash'; a primitive root; to be (causatively,
make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): —
appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy(-er,
place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify(-ied one, self),
X wholly.
{6945} vdeq; — qadesh, kaw-dashe'; from 6942; a (quasi) sacred person,
i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious
idolatry: — sodomite, unclean. click to see {6942}

PB, I now believe you are being wilfully obtuse. The questions you have asked have all been answered in post 58 at points 1,2,4 and most emphatically at 7.

It is little wonder people in other threads are no longer willing to debate with you. You do not listen or read accurately, you make baseless inferences from what you think you have read and then use these to defend your position or attack others', with arguments that are littered with non sequiturs, irrelevancies and redundancies.

I am known by friends and colleagues as being a very, very patient man but I am beating my head off a particularly thick wall here.

Stephen

With respect. There are two theological views on this disussion.

The question I have repeatedly asked you is why you have ONLY challenged the certainties of my theological viewpoint when William's blatant shortcomings have been laid out here for all to see. (see posts 1, 13, 39, 43).

You have RESPONDED to my posts containing this point but you have never yet directly even attempted to ANSWER this specific question.

WHY ONLY CHALLENGE MY THEOLOGY AND NOT WILLIAM'S?

I repeat, it has been worthwhile and enjoyable and sincerely thank you for your engagement to date.

Sincerely

PB

PS I have also repeatedly made this point; Nobody yet has shown me where I have misrepresented scripture on homosexuality or slavery. I am honour bound to learn from you if you can show me this.

Okay I give up. What is the point of writing if you do not read? You are becoming ever more vexatiously specious.

If you check through you will see that I have answered the point on 4 different occasions.

'this is not a debate about the merits of the biblical approaches to slavery or sex but about the use of the word literal - You claim to be literal but are constantly being contextual.'

'Frankly I dont care if you want to bugger half of britain, or save our sons from sodomy, Just argue it consistently, logically and coherently.'

'If you read through my posts, you will find no references to the bible (apart from a weak attempt at humour) or to my being part of the LGBT community or even my attitude to either of them. This might just be because I am not LBGT nor a biblical scholar.'

'As constantly stated, I have not given an opinion on your, anyone else's or the bible's attitude to homosexuality - there was a flaw in your logic, I pointed it out, and the consequent dialogue has been further clarification of that issue and a distraction to the main point of the topic.'

So I hope it is now clear - I HAVE NOT CHALLENGED YOUR THEOLOGY, OR ANYONE ELSE'S, and I defy you to show me where I have. I challenged your willingness to go outside literal interpretation when it suited your argument. Nothing more nothing less.

Stephen

Again that is a [logical and coherent] response, but not actually a direct answer to the question I have posed.

Why have you never challeneged William's arguments?

You want me to argue "consistently, logically and coherently" and you are concerned about "a flaw in my logic" but William's arguments have the gravest errors here, as specified.

Why have you not challenged them, or if you prefer, do you accept that he has serious flaws in his argument, as I have outlined?

PB

Stephen

In your original post you criticise me as implying that the bible says that sodomy is sodomy but slavery is not slavery, making distinctions between modern and ancient concepts for both.

This was a good point to challenge me on, was I being fair?

I responded that the existence of a distinction between ancient and modern slavery I had taken from scholars (whom I conceded are not infalliuble) and I was not referring to scripture in that instance, but that did not make my point incorrect.

In fact, as I said later, under biblical law, modern sex slavery in Europe today and the African slave trade would have seen the traffickers executed and the victims freed, under scripture refereces I have given in post 15; sex slaves and Africans were/are tricked or kidnapped into slavery for profit etc (and prostituion is forbidden). So it was still a 100% fair and consistent reading of the bible, I believe.

Regarding homosexual practise, the OT and NT seem to consistently condemn the practise from start to finish with no semblence of qualification anywhere.

Those all appear to be fair and plain readings of the bible and I see no inconsistency in them. So in fact I dont actually see that this is switching my reading technique to suit my preconceptions on slavery or homosexuality AT ALL, though I have no doubt, as a fallible person, I could well do just that.

Have I switched my technique to suit my preconceptions? Its not easy for me, but if you show me this to be the case I have to be honest with myself and examine this.

Please do not assume this is a repeat of an old point, it is not. The bible clearly condemns modern sex slavery and the African slave trade; the bible itself makes a clear distinction between this and OT slavery, this is a new point here.

PB

Stephen
ref Post 67
Again, that is a [logical and coherent] response, but not actually a direct answer to the question I have posed.

Why have you never challeneged William's arguments?

You want me to argue "consistently, logically and coherently" and you are concerned about "a flaw in my logic" but William's arguments appear to have major errors here where I maintain that any flaw you have found in my logic is minor and does not affect my main argument on conclusion.

Why have you not challenged them, or if you prefer, do you accept that he has serious flaws in his argument, as I have outlined?

PB

Stephen

ref your post 67

If you will please try and "hear" me beyond my plain letters on the screen, there are a number of things which give me difficulty in believing you are a disinterested observer, simply standing for consistent argument, from whatever side it comes.

My aim is not to criticise for criticism's sake, but because of these issues, I find it difficult to understand where you are really coming from and therefore trust you and your position 100%. Please help me.

1) Nowhere do you seem to be open to the possibility that your own views have inconsistencies, flawed logic or are influenced by preconceptions or prejudice, in particular on the subjects discussed here. Do you? You forcefully challenge me continually, but do you see weakness in yourself?

2) You come across as quite hostile to people holding normal committed Christian viewpoints ie "guiltmongers" etc.

3) You appear to argue for scholarship but dismiss 6000 years of biblical scholarship (which still solidly stands on its own academic merits) as though it was upheld by people of no integrity, academic standing or intelligence, which is simply not true.

4) You say you have not given your own attitude to homosexuality but you appear to defend a "liberal" viewpoint, that [in your words] it cannot be "cured" and those who help gays who wish to change are misguided "guiltmongers". No problem having a liberal view, but having it and denying you have it is difficult to understand.

5) You often appear to be quite hostile to me *personally* aside from the discussions we are having, with numerous statements that come across as personal attacks.

6) You suggest you are not attacking my theology but to me that seems splitting hairs when the effect of your challenges is directly that. Your approach is the normal apprach of anyone holding a "liberal" viewpoint to scripture, which call it what you will, is normally highly agressive and highly sceptical if not closed-minded. In my words, much, though not all, of your points come across as a direct attack on normal Christian theology. Your attitude does not seem to even show tolerance for its existence. Do you think the views of me and those like me should be tolerated and respected? I certainly do yours and those of everyone else on this blog, which i try to convey by my manner.

If you continue to "defy" me to show you anything I cannot, because that betrays a heated temper and a closed mind. But I am still genuinely interested in what you have to say if you can help me understand you in relation to the points that trouble me above.

PB

Last post for today Stephen,

I have no doubts if you wish to defend your position and previous posts as though this was a court case or a debating competition you will make an excellent job of it, ie post 67.....as *I* see it anyway.

But I sincerely ask you instead to try and directly address my questions IF you wish me to understand your position better.

I hope I practise what I preach here, and will in any case consciously attempt to from here, at least.

Have a good weekend, what is left of it, and I will check back at least in a few days to see if you have given me up as a lost case yet or not!

I hope you don't, I do enjoy it. It is a unique opportunity for me to learn and grow that I do not have in the real world at present with someone of your intelligence patience and vigour.

PB

Sorry Stephen

Just couldn't help myself and went back to read your posts as you requested and, as you said, I had missed some of your points or misheard you. I have clearly been guilty of both, though I actually think perhaps we have both not been always "hearing" what the other has really meant.

IF you have time, I would sincerely be interested to hear what you have to say on the following. I am NOT trying to catch you out or poke holes in your arguments but would genuninely be interested in your views, if you have time.

In Post 47 You say that my approach seems to get in the way of what the bible is trying to teach. You do not consider yourself a biblical scholar, ok, but what method do you think should/could be taken in discerning what is meant literally and figuratively? You are too intelligent not to be capable of a coherent answer!

And..... what message do you personally think the bible is trying to teach anyways (post 47)?

Post 54. At one point in this discussion (post 47) you seemed to give some credence to my understanding of how/why you cannot take everything literally in the bible ( I really appreciated you taking the effort with my views there).

I said I believed one good help with this was to use our understanding of how we differentiate between literal and figurative statements made to us by real people daily. I THINK you were trying to make the point that this is not a watertight academic approach and you are obviously correct there.

But do you not see this tool of mine could be a useful aid to understanding, albeit only used along with others, some of which you mention?

Finally, do you believe the bible is divinely inspired? How would your view of it differ to mine, do you think?

PB

correction post 71, 4
beore you pick me up, you did not say it could not be "cured" [your words] but you were highly sceptical about it.

Yet you made this assumption by jumping to false conclusions about comiskey's screening and treatment of "failures". His book weighs heavily on lifting people up not slapping them down. There is no "condemndation" or "guiltmongering" in it that I can see but a very candid view of his own journey and oft-times failures and how he battled through.

Why did you rush to judgement on comiskey when you MUST have known you did not have a good grasp of his work?
It appears you prejudged him in order to try and discredit my argument.
Was this a pretext?

I argue that the original prejudement you accuse me of in reading scripture in post 25 is now invalid. Yes I used outside material but later I realised that because the viewpoint was based on so many other scriptures it still turned out to be accurate; biblical law still condemns modern sex slavery and the African slave trade but not OT slavery, as discussed post 69..

Why did you prejudge comiskey?

PB

Hope you havent thrown the towel in Stephen...

Was thinking again about your last post. You say you havent attacked my theology but I my view every post I have made is presenting my theology and you have contested me at just about every post you have made.

The terms "guiltmonger" and "repression" are denials of my theology on some of the foundation stones of Christian theology and a dismissal of another. The gospel is the story of sin, Christ's sacrifice, redemption and grace. Christ's sacrifice for sinners and his grace towards them are in total opposition to the pejorative terms "guiltmonger" and "repression".

Comiskey's views fairly represent my understanding of the bible/theology and you incorrectly prejudged him to a very serious degree to support your argument and support yours, which you must have had a fair idea you were doing.

Lastly, if we are now agreed that my original error has been corrected and substantiated using the biblical text only?
If not then you will be challenging my theology?
If so, then you will have no further reason to challenge any other part of my theology?

Again, I am concerned that from your first post your tone has been scornful and cynical, which suggests you launched into this debate without any consciousness of your own possible prejudices; you were seriously mistaken on how I read the bible and yet my technique is that of all Christians I know and millions of others I dont. Prejudice?

I am also concerned you appear to try to deny and/or conceal your true views on homosexuality or slavery, but I argue your language, tone, and persistance in this debate suggest very clear positions.

You also appear to try to minimise the errors/weaknesses in your own arguements, while I flag most of mine up my self and let you openly test me on them.

Are we agreed then that you have now no objections to my expressed theology on on slavery or homosexuality or do you wish to challenge my theology?

Cheers
PB