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

AlbertMohler.com ^ | February 9, 2011 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[wmfights]

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.”

[wmfights]

Ping to Mohler

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

[aruanan]

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

Poor boob.

[Lurker]

One need read no further than “Jesuit”.

[frogjerk]

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.

[frogjerk]

One need read no further than “Jesuit”.

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

[kingu]

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.

[butterdezillion]

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?

[Tax-chick]

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.

[newheart]

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.

[Just mythoughts]

Now what happened to Lot's wife? Satan sure seems to have a monopoly on preachers for hire.

[trubolotta]

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

[Gamecock]

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

[Skooz]

“new scholarship ... blah blah blah”

[GeronL]

Newsweak magazine?? A source for biblical truths??

really??

[VOA]

“
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???

[wmfights]

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.

[wmfights]

Me too!

[Brookhaven]

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.

[Skooz]

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.