Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

The LaBarbera-Birther-Dominionist link

Timothy Kincaid

March 11th, 2010

To paraphrase a common phrase, “wackadoodle extremist nutcakes of a feather flock together”. So it should be no surprise to find anti-gay activists dancing the tango with “birthers” and other fringe political gadflies.

Currently anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera is waging war on Dr. Warren Throckmorton. Throckmorton engages in the grievous sin of believing that therapists – even Christian therapists – should allow same-sex attracted clients who are seeking congruence with their religion to determine their path without overlaying the therapists’ views, even if it means that “some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity.”

But Throckmorton infuriates LaBarbera even more by questioning the efficacy of reparative therapy and noting that “it appears from the research that change is infrequent in attractions”. LaBarbera sees this as heresy or, in his words, Throckmorton has “lost his faith in God’s ability to change people.”

LaBarbera has begun a letter and media campaign seeking to threaten Throckmorton’s employment at Grove City College. And he’s rounded up a number of “concerned citizens” to assist in his quest. Not surprisingly, they are as, ummm, colorful as is Peter himself.

LindaHarveyFirst up was Linda Harvey. We know Linda well here at BTB and are familiar with her efforts to endanger the wellbeing of school children who may be discovering their same sex attractions.

But, for those who may not know the extent of Linda’s animus and how it goes to the very core of her self definition, these words from her “testimony” might shed some light.

It was 1992. I had spent months reading the Bible seriously for the first time in my life, and I was trembling on the brink of a stunning decision: to become a Christian, but not just another pew-warmer. I was increasingly tempted ­ beyond all conventional wisdom — to accept the Bible as true, which would make me one of “those” Christians.

So I continued on, hopeful in the joy of discovery. Plodding through the morality code passages in Leviticus ­ lambs being sacrificed, how to deal with boils and leprosy– I concluded some of the messages were symbolic, some were particular to that specific ancient time, while other messages were timeless. It was one of those timeless verses that stopped me cold.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Whoa. If ever there was a definitive statement, this was it. I read it again, then continued on a little farther, looking for the escape clause. Not finding any, I read the passage again. Then I did some cross-referencing to find relevant verses about homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. This led me to Leviticus 20, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6, passages conveying a consistent platform, strong and uncompromising. I mulled it over for a while, recognizing that it was probably a sub-category of the commandment against adultery. And for a woman thoroughly grounded in heterosexual desires, I had a very interesting reaction. I closed the Bible and stopped reading it for several weeks.

A troubling internal debate threatened my new faith. Even back then in 1992 ­ ancient history in the “gay rights” movement ­ I had absorbed the notion that only obtuse bigots opposed homosexuality. Every enlightened person knew that the freedom to practice homosexuality –responsibly, of course — would surely not threaten the mainstream, but would simply meet the needs of a small, harmless and kind of pitiful minority.

For several weeks I stewed about this, strongly tempted to return to the comfort of my familiar plastic beliefs. Opposing forces wrestled for authority in my mind and heart as I considered first one, then an alternative view of “truth.” What was the reality behind this issue? It was the first time, but not the last, where I would encounter a Joshua 24 moment. I needed to “choose this day whom I would serve.” I didn’t recognize the moving of the Holy Spirit yet, how He presents evidence before each of us in unique ways to drive us toward understanding. In deciding what to believe, or even how to sort it all out, I would be starting a journey toward either one or the other kingdom of two completely different masters.

Linda’s very essence – as “Christian not a pew-warmer” – is grounded in the rejection of the idea that gay people are non-threatening and the adoption as literal, relevant, and objectively true a Scriptural passage that calls for the execution of gay men. To Linda, this was the separation between “plastic beliefs” and choosing to serve God; her entire “journey” is based on the belief in death for homosexuals.

steve baldwinNext up was Steve Baldwin, “the former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy, a former State Assemblyman in California, and a longtime conservative Republican activist.” Baldwin wrote Grove City College’s president, seeking to discredit Throckmorton and threated to “no longer be recommending Grove City College” to “hundreds of conservative high school students” who ask him for a recommendation.

As might be expected, Baldwin is no friend of the gay community. His article written for the Regent University Law Review, Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, is a recitation of fabrications and oft-repeated but debunked demonizations.

It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh. However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization the nuclear family. An unmistakable manifestation of the attack on the family unit is the homosexual community’s efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement. The homosexual community and its allies in the media scoff at this argument. They insist it is merely a tactic to demonize the homosexual movement. After all, they argue, heterosexual molestation is a far more serious problem.

Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the legal age of consent.

The thesis is breathtaking in its dishonesty.

As we have shown, the premises behind such claims are based on the false assumption that every adult who molests a child of the same sex is, by default, homosexual even if he identifies as heterosexual, is married, and has a long string of opposite sex victims.

Of course, activists like Baldwin don’t limit their extremist to gays. He also advocates for library censorship. But his greatest influence was as the executive director of the Council for National Policy, a dominionist secretive right-wing umbrella group.

After Baldwin was Priscilla Smith, “a freelance writer based in Indiana”. Smith disapproved of an email that was purportedly sent by “David Bier, Grove City College Senior” to LaBarbera in which he states, “Your recent article on Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton is yet another of your pathetic attempts to mislead otherwise moral individuals into the belief that God disapproves of homosexuality.”

This convenient email – whether genuine or contrived – was Smith’s jumping off point. She ranted:

They are about to graduate a young man from their so-called Christian institution without teaching him that God not only disapproves of homosexuality, but He describes it as an abomination, unnatural, dishonorable, perversion, depravity.

I don’t know much about Ms. Smith. If she is a freelance writer, she’s rather selective about making her writings available.

After the elusive Ms. Smith, the Peter ran a commentary by Michael Glazte. As readers may recall, Glatze had been a gay activist (though few knew who he was, he thought of himself as a “rising star”) who became ex-gay and converted to Mormonism before settling on conservative Christianity while working at a Buddhist retreat. Currently he seems to hold a grudge against Throckmorton, and lent his voice to the attack.

I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek “my side” of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth. As we have all seen, throughout Christian history, it is quite easy for people to create false worlds, to skew human perception, to persecute Christian truth. Sadly, this professor at a seemingly-reputable Christian school, has engaged in these tactics, with the outcome of persecuting the very truth he supposedly is teaching, atop his perch.

Michael_Glatze
Aside from Glatze’s bitterness, he betrays a worldview that heightens the concerns that have been expressed about his mental stability. He seems to think that “objective” and “subjective” are filtered through dogma rather than observations so that “objective truth” becomes that which he’s been taught and now believes.

It is funny. In this world, truth seems to almost be subjective. Then, you meet Jesus. In Jesus, truth is objective. It is from this vantage point that I write this.

Such a way of thinking lends itself easily to cults and manipulation. It certainly has led to some peculiar political views. After advocating for bullying in schools (“Bullying in schools is a part of life, a part of growth“) and making some racists comments about President Obama, even NARTH removed him from their site.

But the very latest participant in LaBarbera’s campaign of personal destruction is also perhaps the most peculiar. Margaret Hemenway, described by the Peter as “a Virginia parent”. She pretended to be the mother of a 16 year-old girl who, after attending Catholic school, was considering attending the evangelical Grove City College.

We want our children to grow up to be healthy and happy–enjoying a wholesome college experience–not one which will undermine their years in a safe and nurturing Catholic educational environment. It is remarkable that the College would permit this professor, given your school’s Biblical charter, to crusade on behalf of homosexuality–would you also allow your staff to advocate openly for adultery, pornography or prostitution–other sexual sins? Where do you draw the line and how is the professor’s conduct and activity consistent with your Christian mission? We would look forward to your reply.

Hemenway first blipped my radar in 2008 when she claimed in an article hosted by Human Events that her daughter’s first grade teacher told her class that she was marrying another woman and “read aloud, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about two male “gay” guinea pigs, promoted by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender Lobby for children.” She claims to have lodged a complaint.

But Margaret Calhoun Hemenway is no Virginia parent new to politics. Her bio states

Mrs. Hemenway spent 15 years on Capitol Hill in various staff positions in the Senate and the House, followed by five years in the Pentagon. She is married to a native of Washington, D.C. and is a proud parent of three school-age children.

And Hemenway is not shy in expressing her views. Currently she contributes to FamilySecurityMatters.org. And it is from her writings there that we find Hemenway’s more peculiar political activism.

It seems that Hemenway’s father-in-law, John D. Hemenway, is a lawyer heavily involved with the “Birther” movement, a collection of conspiracy theorists who believe that President Obama is not eligible to be President because he was not born in the United States.

From a letter he wrote to Rupert Murdock:

That problem is this: the man now occupying the White House is likely Constitutionally unqualified to hold the office.

As an attorney, I facilitated a lawsuit (Hollister vs. Soetoro et al.) in the United States District Court (D.C. Circuit) demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate or satisfactory substitute evidence.

But I am not trying to peg Margaret with guilt by association. She has written or her own faith in the birther movement.

Mr. Obama’s lawyers are now threatening my 84-year-old father-in-law, through Judge Robertson, with penalties of legal fees for pursuing the truth about Mr. Obama’s birth. This threat of financial sanctions is meant to silence all of us who remain unsatisfied with equivocations by the Obama camp about his legal qualifications to become President, and to punish us for pursuing our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to redress.

The Obama campaign, with questions about his birth in Kenya to his Kenyan father (a British citizen), and his years in Indonesia where he was known as Barry Soetoro (taking the surname of his stepfather), was not nearly as forthcoming as the McCain campaign. What was posted in support of Mr. Obama’s eligibility was not a birth certificate, but something that resembles a “Certification of Live Birth” or COLB, which, even if authentic, does not prove “natural born” U.S. citizenship. In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth overseas or one that takes place outside of a hospital.

So in his desire to punish and discredit Dr. Throckmorton, anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera has surrounded himself with a most fascinating collection of characters: a woman who’s very identity is defined by her adoption of death-penalty based Levitical prohibition on homosexuality, a dominionist whose writings on homosexuality mirror those of Paul Cameron, an unknown freelance writer named Smith, an ex-gay with a grudge and a history of sporadic religious associations and a questionable worldview, and a Birther.

As history progresses and even conservatives begin to see gay people as human – as their friends, family, neighbors and co-workers – those who are left behind are increasingly appearing as fringe and, frankly, more than a little weird. And these are just the ones that Peter is taking public.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Ben in Oakland
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

So Linda Harvey had never picked up a bible before, but suddenly knew which passages were literally true, which were symbolic, which were time and culture bound, and which were timeless. something people who have devoted their lives to studying the bible have been unable to do, or not in agreement about.

Amazing.

I wonder if there is such a thing as biblical melagomania.

Does “Judge not lest ye be judged” fall under the category of Symbolic or culture bound?

Fill in the blanks: “The _____ can quote Scripture to suit his purposes.”

You can catch the drift.

Honey, if you are reading this: I would suggest you consider that it wasn’t the holdy spirit moving in you. so much fear and hatred, so little kindness and mercy. I must wonder what you are like when you are not under the influence of your homohatred. Are you peaceful, or do other things excite so much rage in you? Do you only take it out on gay people, or does everyone in your life suffer from it?

Somehow, I suspect being you bites the big one.

David
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

So people in Throckmorton’s ideological demographic have turned on him and given him a taste of what they inflict on GLBTQ people.

The million dollar question is whether this will cause Throckmorton to completely repudiate the anti-gay beliefs he has long helped promote, or cause him to return to the goat pen.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25&version=NIV

Matthew 25

31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Rebecca
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

“If ever there was a definitive statement, this was it.”

…unlike every other commandment in the Bible?

Sarah
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

Hear, hear, David. Those who quote Scripture to support their own beliefs rarely pay attention to the ones which admonish them to love others. The Old Testament God was one of anger and repudiation, but these folks almost always purport to be Christians, and Christ was a man of love, bringing God’s love to the world. If such people truly are Christians, they’d choose the path of light, love, and kindness which Christ taught. And even if God does hate and judge it is His job to do so. I was always taught that Pride was one of the Seven Deadly Sins, myself and I have to believe it is the worst kind of Pride to pretend to know God’s mind and who He hates and does not hate.

Lindoro Almaviva
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

So Linda Harvey had never picked up a bible before, but suddenly knew which passages were literally true, which were symbolic, which were time and culture bound, and which were timeless.

Never underestimate the power of the “Holy Spirit” to bring people to the side of hatred and bigotry. Just like Jesus himself said: You’ll recognize them by their fruits

Paul
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

I’ve always been mystified by the religious rights arrogance and sense of self-entitlement that assumes that gays and lesbians aren’t as ‘in touch’ with God, the Holy Spirit and/or the Sacred as they profess to be. Vilification of all LGBTQ people is a cop-out- dehumanizing LGBTQ people allows the religiously arrogant to be ‘comfortable’ in their hatred, bigotry and ignorance. I would guess, even ‘bet’ that should any of them meet someone with a strong moral and ethical life, and find out they were not heterosexual, they’d not know what to say or think.

It would be interesting to know if any of these ‘over-the-top’ hate-mongers would be singing the same tune if one of their own children were to ‘come out’ (with the exception of M. Ssempa who would be willing to kill them himself).

I suspect that the very hatred and contempt they have for LGBTQ people is based solidly on an inner self-loathing and lack of true inner/spiritual contentment – and fear.

As disgusting as these actions and words are, I pity these people, for they live in dark, lonely and unhappy places.

My grandmother used to say: “the person you are when you are all alone and by yourself, is the person you really are.” I wonder who these folks are when they are by themselves, late at night, lying in bed – just them, alone?

John
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy,

In all fairness to LaBarbera, who else is he going to be able to convince to put their names alongside his under any circumstances. For people this far out there, they really don’t have a lot of good options.

Candace
March 11th, 2010 | LINK

+1, Ben. Good post.

Frijondi
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

The passages in Leviticus she seems to dismiss as too symbolic or too hopelessly culturally specific to consider binding all have to do with things that aren’t a feature of modern life anymore. Sacrificing lambs, for example — correct me if I’m wrong, but they don’t do this at First Presbyterian. Leprosy? Still around, but not in Pennsylvania. Boils? Never mind…

But the verse about a man lying with another man… that has to do with people. And it says, “abomination.” So her ears prick up. And she feels a little thrill of –? What?

As she tells us, she’d “a woman thoroughly grounded in heterosexual desires” (too much information, imo), and thinks this verse may have to do with prohibition on adultery. Here’s where the little thrill comes from: 1) the realization her secret lust for Jim the personal trainer could be viewed by her new denomination as SINFUL, and I mean Go Directly to Hell Do Not Pass Go Do Not Collect $200 SINFUL and 2) the realization that she now has permission to hate someone.

There are plenty of passages in Leviticus having to do with people, as opposed to boils or sacrificial lambs, that she could have landed on and stayed up all night thinking about. I’m fond of these, from Ch. 19:

11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

(But is anyone going to give you a cookie for not stealing? No. And there’s not sex mentioned anywhere. BORING.)

Then there’s this:

14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I [am] the LORD.

(Don’t mock or assault people who can’t defend themselves? BORING, and no fun at all.)

How about these?

16 Thou shalt not go up and down [as] a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I [am] the LORD.

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

The problem with these, though, is that they’re hard. And poor Linda Harvey had been asked to do something very hard back in the Gay Nineties, which was be nice to the icky homosexuals lest she be seen as an obtuse bigot. (Am I really that old, that I do a double take when someone says, dramatically, “It was 1992″ as if they were talking about 1066? That was hardly the early days of the gay rights movement, as she seems to think. But I digress.)

So getting back to that thrilling feeling of permission. She was excited, thrilled to her core, even, at having permission to hate. So much so that she even had to take a few weeks to get used to the idea.

I suspect that everyone, at some point, flirts with some idea that seems to give that kind of permission. It’s a very funny feeling. Most of us pull back from the brink. Linda Harvey apparently jumped right over it, eagerly, and found people to reward her for it. In exchange for the fling she didn’t have with Jim from 24 Hour Fitness, she got to hate without guilt. Renunciation and violence in one exhilarating package. If you’re a drama junkie, it’s a good deal.

And a note about the pew-warmers she mentions with such contempt: she may not realize it, these are the ones for whom faith is not a form of thrill-seeking.

Bill S
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

She found an excuse to be an a$$hole, and went with it. Nobody put a gun to her head and forced her to treat the Bible as the literal word of God, and nobody put a gun to her head and forced her to interpret that as a definityive statement (“lie with a man as with a woman” is, technically, impossible, unless men have vaginas. Also, isn’t that a mistranslation of the original text anyway? But then we have to get into a discussion of which translation of the Bible is the “right” one, which would hurt Ms. Harvey’s brain, if she had one.) She reads a passage calling for the murder of fellow human beings, and instead of being repulsed, instead of saying, “Now wait, what kind of loving God would order people to kill each other?” and entertain the possibility that the Bible could be, like all other “holy books”, a human invention, the she brainlessly agrees with it. Because as long as SHE donesn’t have to be the target of abuse, she doesn’t give a sh!t.

William
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

So let’s see. Linda Harvey read the Book of Leviticus, which represents what the authors of the Pentateuch (and God knows who they were) wrote (several hundred years after the alleged events) that Moses (whose historical existence is as problematical as that of King Arthur) said that God told him to tell the Israelites. The archetype of hearsay.

She then decided that the laws in Leviticus could be divided into symbolic, time-specific and timeless, although no such division is mentioned, implied or allowed for.

On the contrary there are repeated admonitions that ALL the laws are to be kept (e.g. Leviticus 19:37; 20:22), and severe divine retribution is promised for those who do not keep EACH ONE of the laws (Leviticus 26:14-45); however, she must have decided to regard those particular parts of the infallible text as null and void. On what authority, I wonder? Did God send her a special message saying, “Linda, when I told Moses to say time and again that ALL the laws were to be kept, I was only kidding; that was hyperbole; I just meant that SOME of them were to be kept”? Or did she get her information by contacting the probably mythical Moses via the Ouija-board?

Whatever, her realization that the prohibition on men lying with men was the pièce de résistance of the Mosaic Law must indeed have been a gratifying revelation.

RCM
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

“simply meet the needs of a small, harmless and kind of pitiful minority.”

Excuse me “pitiful”? And this is apparently what she was thinking before she reluctantly took up hating gay people, because she had to for “god”?

Brady
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

If Glatze is so angry at Throckmorton for twisting his words in a public forum, maybe he could direct us to that. I was reading/commenting heavily on Warren’s blog when the most recent Glatze stuff broke, and Glatze was there too. His words never got twisted. He just couldn’t figure out how to get himself out of the bind he created.

Martin
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

Bill S.: “She found an excuse to be an a$$hole”
RCM: “pitiful…. this is apparently what she was thinking before”

DingDingDing, we have a winner!

Linda Harvey never thought gay people were her equals, or even deserving of anything but the most grudging tolerance. She latched on to this particular passage because it confirmed what she already felt.

Priya Lynn
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

Linda Harvey said “I concluded some of the messages were symbolic, some were particular to that specific ancient time, while other messages were timeless.”.

I’d sure like to hear from here what the flawless method was that she used to determine which was which.

Richard Rush
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy, as is the norm for BTB, this is a very illuminating post that exposes the story behind the story. I had previously been reading the original posts involving these people on Peeturd’s site, and in the case of Margaret Hemenway I accepted the description of her as just “a Virginia parent.” I should have known better.

Ever since I became aware that you and Jim have day jobs, I’ve been in heightened awe at all you do here at BTB. I really can’t imagine how you manage to do it all. You guys are amazing!

Ephilei
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

If anyone’s looking for a good project (dissertation?), they could have a field day examining how contemporary Christians see “objective” and “subjective.” Back when I assumed Christians should always be trusted, I was scared senseless from Josh McDowell when he “proved” Americans don’t believe in objective truth anymore.

toujoursdan
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

So this is somehow definitive:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

But these verses aren’t definitive?

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)

“20And [the parents] shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. (Deuteronomy 21)

or…

“Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)

“32While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.” (Numbers 15)

Why are these symbolic or time specific but the other isn’t? I see no consistency here, beyond a bending the Bible to fit a personal prejudice.

Clearly both the Romans 1 and the 1 Corinthians passage are condemning idolatry based prostitution. In Romans 1:23 Paul even describes the pagan gods and says that because of them their followers acted against their nature.

Jason D
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

This is definitive?

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

well then perhaps this :

“thou shall not kill”

should be adjusted to reflect the same clarity.

“thou shall not rub out”

There, simple and direct, right?

It never ceases to amaze me that a “rule” that involves a possible euphemism is somehow “clear”.

Taken literally, it’s quite problematic, especially when you consider the fact that some us wouldn’t lie with women period. Or the fact that I’ve never heard of a specific way to literally lie with a woman. Unless we’re talking lie as in fib. See where this literal crap gets us?

Course “to lie” as a euphemism for sex is just as problematic. Anatomically, it’s impossible to lie with a man as thou would with a woman; men don’t have vaginas!

Timothy Kincaid
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

Richard,

thanks. It is work, but we think it’s worth it.

Ephilei,

That would definitely be an interesting dissertation.

Timothy Kincaid
March 12th, 2010 | LINK

toujoursdan,

Therein lies the entire debate with Christendom:

Is the Bible the inspired Word of God as revealed to the apostles and prophets, without error, and eternally true? Is the Bible itself holy and complete?

Or is it man’s efforts to know the divine, full of inspiration and a guide to us as we seek God, but not the necessarily literal words of a deity? Is God still speaking and is current revelation as meaningful as the centuries-old words?

Or is it something in-between: inspired by God, but flawed by man, containing both absolute truths and obsolete time-specific prohibitions? A tool by which we measure revelation and which trumps modern thinking?

I think that the way in which each Christian views Scriptures says far more about their character than it does about either God or the Bible.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.