Posted on 05/02/2017 6:07:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Its one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. Thats expected. Its another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But thats exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did on the Huffington Post on April 29th.
Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto, since her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?
He writes, To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?
The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when its enfolded in commitment and fidelity.
A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesnt make his adultery right.
As a thinking man (which he clearly is), Naff should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than ancient prejudices for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality, yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.
Thats because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia, and its not just ancient prejudices that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes its best for a child to have a mom and dad?
Naff asks, What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a bad example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, thered be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.
Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naffs argument regarding Catholicism, wouldnt he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?
Of course, Im not comparing Olivetos marriage to her partner to a priest abusing boys. Im simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.
Naff then focuses on the Bible itself, using the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Pauls categorical prohibition against male and female homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies).
Not only so, but he seems oblivious to the idea that, when Methodist leaders speak about Christian teaching on homosexuality, they do not refer exclusively to the Bible. Theyre speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And theyre speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.
But this is not important for Naff, since he feels theres a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce the way it bans homosexual practice?
The answer is that, according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce, and these are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is the question of remarriage that is in question, but thats a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)
Either way, Naff isnt calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains, I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.
So, its fine if we take the Bible to be sacred scripture, as long as we realize that its a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions, not to mention hopeless as a moral guide.
Thanks but no thanks.
That kind of sacred scripture is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if, in fact, the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?
After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes, Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and youll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and youll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 - 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.
Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so dont treat it as the Word of God.
Instead, Naff states, Ive shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient laws in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope Ive shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well to abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.
In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel.
But it is not merely Naffs attack on the Bible that falls short. Its his logic that falls short as well, since, if he is right in his description of the Bible, theres no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. Theres not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.
In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. Thats all that needs to be said.
Not only so, but if the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.
I do understand Naffs concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that: 1) the Bibles moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth; 2) scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more; and 3) there are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual marriage.
What is lacking, then, is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need Gods Word.
Human reasoning alone will always fail us. Gods Word will never fail.
Ah, but the Koran is fine Worship of Caliph Omar who beheaded his daughter is fiiine and so accademic. Same with worship of Stalin or Mao or Marxism...
Loved, this, some might have seen it before.
http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/stethoscope.html/
I asked her If my country or half its citizens,(her half)will still let me live in this country, being married to a man and all? Will they let me live the life I have chosen for the past half century or am I a homophobe, misogynists and deplorable for the rest of my life?
The author said ancient prejudice? Sorry, but God is still alive. He still views that as sin and the person is openly and willfully sinning without seeing it as sin.
How could they expect to be a pastor if they defy the book they claim to teach? They don’t even know right from wrong.
The folks who brought you The Living Constitution now bring you The Living Bible.
The Old Testament moral code was also a health code.
Got Trichanosis?
You probably would if you ate under cooked pork.
ESAD is a double extent for which the lesser known meaning is - if you do, you will.
Bon appetite, Bishop.
It's only "prejudice" for folks who are too psychotically disconnected from reality to be able to comprehend the self-evident fact that Natural Selection created sex, the genetic exchange between MALE and FEMALE, because it increases the fitness of species...
Folks who are too morally obtuse to observe that what abominators of nature like Naff and "bishop" Olivetto have selected isn't Sex, but the perversion of Nature and the psychotic worship of themselves and their perversion.
So thanks, Kaslin, for posting this. If I had an e-mail address for author Michael Brown I would thank him as well.
Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Leviticus niv
18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
Yes......and then the next article can be about telling people they shouldn’t use Owners’ Manuals when they buy a new car because that is too judgmental.....and then the third article can be about telling people that they are free to ignore the Drivers’ Manuals because those darn Rules of the Road are just too darn restrictive
Excellent, exactly.
Isnt living in contradiction to Divine and Natural Law a sure indication that, in that area of her life, she and her consort lack personal virtue?
They may be to each other good friends and sisters in Christ ---in important areas of life other than the sexual --- but sexually they are misusing a gift given to unite male and female in a lifelong, faithful and fertile Union.
Its misplacing a sacred faculty outside of its sacred use. They may not realize this --- so many people don't --- but objectively it is not just perversion, but sacrilege.
It's as wrong-headed as contraception, and for the same reason: it's sabotaging the Design.
My beard was 'designed' to keep growing forever; getting longer and longer.
I've modified that design.
Your beard is not a way to cooperate with God By contrast, your sexuality in the means of your cooperation His work of creating new images and likenesses of God on earth.
Your beard is OK to be modified in any way you want: dye it, braid it, trim it to a point or cut it off, and use what you've cut off to stuff a tiny pillow if you like. By contrast, your sexuality, whole and entire and complete in every detail, is an essential component of your humanity: you are not to switch it around to have different forms and functions: certainly not by reshaping it to achieve a fantasy gender, or disabling its procreative power.
Jews and Christians have always recognized a sacred aspect to sex. It has inherent deep meanings which go beyond "shave and a haircut, two bits."
Sorry Joseph; but you've been excluded from this UNION with YOUR wife.
By design; too; it appears!
This is not a generally applicable pattern for human marriage. It's a one-off thing.
About that role model thing...
Other than Mary, none of us can be literally virgin mothers of God. Surely you know that.
Strange...
I don't think God preserved her virginity at ALL!
It goes against EVERYTHING that a MARRIAGE is about!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.