Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Bible Really Says About Sex . . . Really?
AlbertMohler.com ^ | February 9, 2011 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Posted on 02/09/2011 3:51:50 PM PST by wmfights

Has the church misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on sexuality for over two thousand years? The current issue of Newsweek magazine reports on “new scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits” that is supposed to turn our understanding of the Bible’s teachings on sex upside down.

Lisa Miller, Newsweek’s religion editor, wrote the article entitled “What the Bible Really Says About Sex.” Well, the one thing you need to know up front is that the article falls far short of its title.

Miller bases her report on two recent books — Michael Coogan’s God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says and Jennifer Wright Knust’s Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire. Neither of these books breaks new ground. Instead, the books distill arguments that have become common among liberal and revisionist Bible scholars and homosexual activist groups.

Coogan, trained as a Jesuit priest, has served as editor of The Oxford Annotated Bible, a favorite study Bible among theological liberals. He currently serves as director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum. In God and Sex, Coogan argues that the biblical condemnations of various sexual behaviors and relationships should not be considered normative for today. In his words, the biblical texts on sexuality “reflect the presuppositions and prejudices, the ideas and ideals of their authors.” He argues that we should not be bound by those same prejudices.

He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God. The guild of academic biblical scholars has adopted a liberal approach to the Bible, he affirms, and the real problem is that the great multitude of church-goers have not joined the scholars in this liberal approach. Coogan laments the fact that “we have not succeeded in changing the way most nonspecialists and even many in the clergy think about the Bible.” Instead, “people still maintain that the Bible is God’s word, plain and simple: that God is the author of scripture.”

Yes, Dr. Coogan, people do still maintain that belief.

To his credit, Coogan does not argue dishonestly. He is straightforward in presenting his rendering of the key biblical texts, for his main point is that the church is not bound by the “presuppositions and prejudices” of those texts.

Jennifer Wright Knust follows a very different game plan in Unprotected Texts, though she shares Coogan’s rejection of biblical inspiration. Knust, who teaches religion at Boston University, bases her revisionism on the claim that the Bible simply lacks any consistent sexual ethic. “The Bible is not only contradictory but complex,” she insists. Some parts of the Bible “promote points of view that, from a modern perspective anyway, are patently immoral.”

An ordained American Baptist pastor, Knust argues that the Bible is so contradictory when it comes to sexual matters that we cannot gain any consistent sexual ethic from its pages. Her agenda is clear from the start — she wants to overthrow the normative authority of the Bible on matters of sexual morality.

Lisa Miller summarizes the arguments of Coogan and Knust by explaining that they are each attempting “to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right.” Putting the two books together, Miller explains that they argue along these lines: first, that “the Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.” Second, that “sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.” Third, that “that which is forbidden is also allowed.” And fourth, that “accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.”

Well, one immediate problem with this set of arguments is that they are themselves contradictory. Is the Bible itself wrong, or just its interpretations? If the Bible is just an ancient text, which is not relevant in its particulars for the modern world, why argue over its interpretation? They need to get their story straight.

Knust and Coogan cannot even agree when it comes to the particulars. Knust claims that King David “enjoyed sexual satisfaction” with Jonathan, and that this thus serves as evidence of an authorized homosexual relationship within Scripture. Again, to his credit, Coogan is too careful a scholar to go with that kind of argument. David and Jonathan were covenant partners, he argues — “but despite the claims of some gay activists, they were not sexual partners.”

Lisa Miller notes that “Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible’s teachings on sex.” As a matter of fact, almost all of the arguments made in these books have been around for the past thirty years. Miller argues that it is the populism of these books that sets them apart. “With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books,” she explains. “But their greater cause is a fight against ‘official’ interpretations.”

In response to that, Lisa Miller quotes me: “That’s why Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservatism, concludes that one’s Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities.” I enjoyed my conversation with Ms. Miller, but my point was not that the church needs “proper authorities,” but that just any interpretation of the Bible will not do. The authority in this issue is that of the Bible itself. Those who read it as bearing the very authority of God will read the Bible quite differently than those who see it as a human book conditioned and warped by human frailty and fallibility.

The most important point I made to Lisa Miller is that revisionist interpreters of the Bible are playing a dishonest game. Consider the audacity of their claim: they claim that no one has rightly understood the Bible for over two thousand years. No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual — at least not until recent decades. The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?

I have far greater respect for the intellectual integrity of the scholar who reads the Bible and interprets it honestly, but then rejects it with candor. This is far superior to evasive and clever attempts to make the Bible say what it plainly does not say. The Bible is brutally honest about human sinfulness in all its forms, including sexuality. Nevertheless, the Bible presents a consistent and clear sexual ethic. The issue is not a lack of clarity.

The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision. To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last
He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God. The guild of academic biblical scholars has adopted a liberal approach to the Bible, he affirms, and the real problem is that the great multitude of church-goers have not joined the scholars in this liberal approach. Coogan laments the fact that “we have not succeeded in changing the way most nonspecialists and even many in the clergy think about the Bible.” Instead, “people still maintain that the Bible is God’s word, plain and simple: that God is the author of scripture.”


1 posted on 02/09/2011 3:51:57 PM PST by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Ping to Mohler

I think he sums up nicely why Scripture must be preeminent.

2 posted on 02/09/2011 3:53:38 PM PST by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God.

Poor boob.
3 posted on 02/09/2011 3:55:13 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

One need read no further than “Jesuit”.


4 posted on 02/09/2011 3:58:02 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Instead, “people still maintain that the Bible is God’s word, plain and simple: that God is the author of scripture.”

The salt of the earth.

5 posted on 02/09/2011 3:58:13 PM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
One need read no further than “Jesuit”.

There are many great Jesuits. Unfortunately, they are overshadowed by the heretic ones.

6 posted on 02/09/2011 3:59:59 PM PST by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
So, if someone doesn't believe it's the word of God, why continue to study it for any great revelations? Why even argue the point? After all, it's just some bunch of stories that's unrelated except in founding of a religion and doesn't have God's voice within the pages...

Oh, right, because they can use it to ‘beat up on Christians’, but don't you dare do this to the Koran, or they're going first condemn you, then second understand when your head is cut off.

I'm sorry, liberals, but the bible doesn't give permission to shack up. And that's the whole basis of your homosexual or free-sex philosophy. There goes homosexual ‘marriage’, which is just a legally binding version of shacking up, and not a union of a man and a woman. And there also goes empty marriages, as again, it's not a union of a man and a woman, it's two people shacking up for some other reason.

7 posted on 02/09/2011 4:00:30 PM PST by kingu (Legislators should read what they write!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

When people take the liberty of C&P’ing to include only the parts they like and the interpretations they like for those parts, somehow any text ends up saying exactly what the “interpreter” WANTS it to say.

“You will be wise like God....” Where have we heard that before?


8 posted on 02/09/2011 4:02:25 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; Mrs. Don-o
To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled.

Indeed, that is true. There are few easier ways to find oneself rejected, reviled, and ridiculed than by affirming traditional (pre-1930s) Christian sexual morality.

9 posted on 02/09/2011 4:04:01 PM PST by Tax-chick (With my new haircut, I look like Judi Dench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
I'm sorry, liberals, but the bible doesn't give permission to shack up.

You nailed it. I have always wondered, if the homosexual interpretation of scripture were accepted, why is it ok for them to have casual sex, but that heterosexuals can only have sex within the bonds of matrimony.

10 posted on 02/09/2011 4:06:06 PM PST by newheart (The trouble ain't too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right. -Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Now what happened to Lot's wife? Satan sure seems to have a monopoly on preachers for hire.
11 posted on 02/09/2011 4:07:40 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

That was exceptionally well written, direct and concise. The conclusion is also point blank. Well done.


12 posted on 02/09/2011 4:07:59 PM PST by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

I love Mohler. He is one of my favorite Baptists.


13 posted on 02/09/2011 4:08:43 PM PST by Gamecock (The resurrection of Jesus Christ is both historically credible and existentially satisfying. T.K.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

“new scholarship ... blah blah blah”


14 posted on 02/09/2011 4:10:46 PM PST by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Newsweak magazine?? A source for biblical truths??

really??


15 posted on 02/09/2011 4:13:46 PM PST by GeronL (http://www.stink-eye.net/forum/index.php for FR backup site!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights


What the Bible Really Says About Sex . . . Really?

Uh, it’s a good thing and should be done in a moral/ethical fashion.
So that you don’t ever feel ashamed of how you treat the person willing
to participate.

Actually, I was a bit shocked when hearing a reading from (IIRC) proceedings
from a Puritan church proceedings when a husband was being chastized for
not have “intimate relations” with his spouse as often as she desired.

And I grew up thinking Puritans were a bunch of prudes?
Who knew???


16 posted on 02/09/2011 4:16:34 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; Mrs. Don-o
There are few easier ways to find oneself rejected, reviled, and ridiculed than by affirming traditional (pre-1930s) Christian sexual morality.

That's it in a nut shell! Also, they don't care if they discredit Scripture and it's author in the process.

17 posted on 02/09/2011 4:17:21 PM PST by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Me too!
18 posted on 02/09/2011 4:18:29 PM PST by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God.

"Scholars" like this show the worst kind of logic.

If the Bible isn't the Word of God, then it isn't anything. If the Bible isn't the Word of God, then it should be completely ignored.

19 posted on 02/09/2011 4:20:16 PM PST by Brookhaven (Moderates = non-thinkers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA

Maybe no subculture in history has been more misunderstood than the Puritans. They were a life-loving, exuberant people who believed that God gave life to be enjoyed. They tended to wear colorful clothing, had some of the most well-stocked wine cellars anywhere, and knew how to get busy in the sack.


20 posted on 02/09/2011 4:23:13 PM PST by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
One need read no further than “Jesuit”.

Far from all Jesuits are like this. It's an order that takes an additional vow of loyalty to the Pope, who for Catholics is the final authority on Catholic Church doctrine. It's very possible this particular Jesuit will soon leave the order or be otherwise censured, especially by this particular Pope, who before becoming leader of the Catholic Church was in charge of the commission for enforcing orthodoxy among Catholics. I don't see how any devout Catholic, Jesuit or otherwise, could agree with his views, even if some of them do.

21 posted on 02/09/2011 4:25:09 PM PST by OldNewYork (social justice isn't justice; it's just socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

You mean there was more?

“The current issue of Newsweek magazine reports...”

That’s as far as I got.


22 posted on 02/09/2011 4:27:05 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newheart

Can’t wait to see how the Military sorts all that out with DADT repeal. If a hetero is prosecuted for adultery or sexual misconduct with prison sentences, will the homosexuals be kept to the same standard? If a two-tiered code is set up, then we’re in for the destruction of our armed forces... which is likely what the intent was all along.


23 posted on 02/09/2011 4:30:48 PM PST by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Typical passive-agressive, anti-hero, deconstructionist Marxist crap. Make yourself the standard by tearing down the other guy so you’re not on the hook for any promises or statements. When the opposition is gone, enforce your standard brutally and without compromise.


24 posted on 02/09/2011 4:40:34 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Lisa Miller is, and always has been, a complete and total prat.


25 posted on 02/09/2011 4:42:14 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Coogan argues that the biblical condemnations of various sexual behaviors and relationships should not be considered normative for today. In his words, the biblical texts on sexuality “reflect the presuppositions and prejudices, the ideas and ideals of their authors.” He argues that we should not be bound by those same prejudices.

Yeah, Jesus is SO passe! /S

Sad the depths to which the Jebbies have fallen in their attempt to be considered sophisticated, and relevant, to the intellectual elites of the world.

26 posted on 02/09/2011 4:46:27 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNewYork

The article’s phrase, “trained as a Jesuit priest,” implies that the gentleman is not, presently, a Jesuit priest. Maybe he never was one, but only attended seminary for a time.


27 posted on 02/09/2011 4:50:08 PM PST by Tax-chick (With my new haircut, I look like Judi Dench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
The article’s phrase, “trained as a Jesuit priest,” implies that the gentleman is not, presently, a Jesuit priest. Maybe he never was one, but only attended seminary for a time. Thanks, I missed that subtext.
28 posted on 02/09/2011 4:55:13 PM PST by OldNewYork (social justice isn't justice; it's just socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Actually, I was a bit shocked when hearing a reading from (IIRC) proceedings from a Puritan church proceedings when a husband was being chastized for not have “intimate relations” with his spouse as often as she desired.

Wow, wish I was guilty of that!
29 posted on 02/09/2011 4:59:14 PM PST by RushingWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; Tax-chick
I enjoy and respect Dr. Mohler: he often has me punching the air and yipping, "You tell 'em, Rev!"

I think he sums up nicely why Scripture can be properly understood only in continuity with a coherent 2,000-year-old interpretive community.

I would love --- love--- to hear Dr. Mohler's thoughts on the moral implication of the Onan incident, i.e. sex deliberately deprived of its procreative power via contraception and/or sodomy.

30 posted on 02/09/2011 5:01:48 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

The usual sort of blasphemy spouted by the corrupt.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:6, KJV


31 posted on 02/09/2011 5:04:30 PM PST by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Bookmark.


32 posted on 02/09/2011 5:07:04 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
I have far greater respect for the intellectual integrity of the scholar who reads the Bible and interprets it honestly, but then rejects it with candor. This is far superior to evasive and clever attempts to make the Bible say what it plainly does not say. The Bible is brutally honest about human sinfulness in all its forms, including sexuality.

Works for me...

nice post...

33 posted on 02/09/2011 5:07:04 PM PST by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php - World Disaster Map)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; Lurker; frogjerk; OldNewYork; Tax-chick
From Wikipedia: "Coogan holds a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from Harvard University."

Not another word about his educational credentials; nothing about him being a present or former Jesuit (priest or ex-priest, seminarian or ex-seminarian.)

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

34 posted on 02/09/2011 5:11:58 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("As it is written, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." Romans 2:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Exactly, if the Bible isn't the Word of God, then why go to the trouble to tell anyone what it says?

I take issue with his contention that “most scholars” don't hold to the "arcane" view that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God...the reality is that “most liberal scholars” may hold this view, but true Christian scholars acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

35 posted on 02/09/2011 5:48:33 PM PST by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Song of Solomon ...


36 posted on 02/09/2011 5:49:46 PM PST by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
feh...
37 posted on 02/09/2011 5:57:49 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Three scriptures come to mind:
38 posted on 02/09/2011 6:18:35 PM PST by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

[He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God.]

So, after reaching that sentence in the artcle, why would I care what opinions follow?


39 posted on 02/09/2011 7:33:25 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNewYork; Lurker; frogjerk; Tax-chick

Wikipedia does not refer to Coogan as “Rev.” or “Fr.,” so it’s safe to assume he’s not a priest. Also, he teaches “Religious Studies,” not “Theology” at a Catholic university, which probably means he is acknowledged to be a heretic.


40 posted on 02/09/2011 9:02:00 PM PST by dangus ("The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" -- St. John Crysostom ("the Golden-Mouthed"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

You’re right, of course. I do agree with GeronL, though. As soon as I saw Newsweek, I almost stopped reading.


41 posted on 02/10/2011 3:25:51 AM PST by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Yes, it would be very interesting.


42 posted on 02/10/2011 4:20:08 AM PST by Tax-chick (With my new haircut, I look like Judi Dench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Yes, it would be very interesting.


43 posted on 02/10/2011 4:20:15 AM PST by Tax-chick (With my new haircut, I look like Judi Dench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Actually, you don’t need to do much interpreting when it comes to the Bible passages on gay sex. 1 Corinthians chapter 6 says “no....homosexual shall enter the kingdom of God. Straight, direct - so simple even a caveman (or 6 year old) could understand it.


44 posted on 02/10/2011 4:23:51 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity; wmfights; Tax-chick; don-o
Circlecity, you and wmfights and I and 2,000 years of Church history agree that 1 Cor 6 condemns perverse sex acts. But what you may not realize is that (1) the word "homosexual" didn't exist until the late 19th century, and (2) some Christians (mistakenly, but persistently) argue that what is forbidden in Corinthians is not homosexual acts per se, but specific additional offenses like rape or boy-prostitution.

Bear with me here. I am not defending these pro-gay interpretations; but I beg you to become better-equipped for the fight by looking into the actual argument being made.

Here's a website called Gay Christian 101 (Link) Which makes the following argument to support their position that the Corinthians passage does not refer to homosexuality per se:

"Many modern Christians have embraced false teaching about 1 Corinthians 6:9. They arrive at their false teaching by assuming that the Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai mean homosexual.

"Of course, there is nothing in the Bible and very little in church history to support their false teaching. In the first century AD, no one would define malakoi to mean homosexual. The Greek word malakoi was rarely, if ever, used in the first century to indicate homosexual men and was never used to indicate lesbians.

"In the first century AD, no one would define arsenokoitai to mean homosexual. Historical evidence - the way the arsenokoit stem was actually used in the first century AD - indicates that the arsenokoit stem referred to:

Rape

Sex with angels or the gods....

"Based on the extant Greek manuscripts available to us today, the Greek word arsenokoites was rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexual men and was never used to describe lesbians. "Therefore, when someone quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10 to "prove" that God is against homosexuality, they are conveying nothing more than their opinion, without any basis in fact."

Agree with this? No, you don't, and neither do I. But my point is that this is where the argument has gone. These people agree with "Sola Scriptura," "authentic Bible Chirstianity," And all the rest, but are convinced, and argue, that the Biblical words do not apply to such things as "gay marriage," but only to gay rape and angel abuse and the like.

That's the state of the argument now.

And Dr. Mohler is no fool: he knows this. Which is why he has to allude to "how Christians have understood this for 2,000 years." Because the interpretation of Scripture is NOT self-evident, absent the authority of the historic Church.

45 posted on 02/10/2011 8:03:25 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; circlecity; wmfights; Tax-chick; don-o
But my point is that this is where the argument has gone. These people agree with "Sola Scriptura," "authentic Bible Chirstianity," And all the rest, but are convinced, and argue, that the Biblical words do not apply to such things as "gay marriage," but only to gay rape and angel abuse and the like.

If someone wants to leave their understanding of Scripture to an apostate church, steeped in paganism, and full of made up "traditions" it won't be long before they are bowing down to men, praying to idols and calling men Father. I'll stick with the rough and tumble arguing with folks from Scripture Alone.

46 posted on 02/10/2011 9:20:31 AM PST by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
"...Has the church misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on sexuality for over two thousand years?...We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia? -- Albert Mohler

You are missing my point, wmfights. The GayChristian101 site (honestly, now: did you take a look at it?) adopts the POV of Sola Scriptura, and claims that the key Biblical terms "arsenatokoi" and "malakoi" refer not to homosexuality per se, but to rape, boy prostitution, etc.

It's Albert Mohler who makes the excellent point that these terms are not to be defined only in the context of the particular Scriptural examples (the threat to the angelic visitors at Sodom, the boy-prostitution prevalent at Corinth) but in the context of what the Church has said for 2,000 years.

I agree with Mohler here. Your argument isn't with me. It's with Mohler.

47 posted on 02/10/2011 9:42:02 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: circlecity; Tax-chick; don-o
I meant to ping you to this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2671210/posts?page=47#47

48 posted on 02/10/2011 9:44:08 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I usually wander off, once I find that someone’s flip-out button has been pushed. It’s too much like real life. “Why did you have to tell Pat he was perspicacious? Now he’ll spend an hour howling!”


49 posted on 02/10/2011 9:56:55 AM PST by Tax-chick (With my new haircut, I look like Judi Dench as "M.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: OldNewYork; Lurker
Far from all Jesuits are like this.

Michael Coogan, as far as I can determine, is not a Jesuit. (The article says, trained as a Jesuit ... not the same thing.)

I don't see any evidence that he's a priest of any kind. He's a college professor.

50 posted on 02/10/2011 9:57:55 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson