The Westboro Baptist Church and other Bible Thumpers

Post Reply New Topic

Ah, yes..."Liberal Christianity." Abandoning Biblical teaching to accommodate social pressures and political correctness.



I omitted 26-27 for the sake of brevity, but it specifically references homosexuality.

The best response churches should give to homosexuals is to open their doors to them so that they can hear the gospel. I don't think that a church guilty of relentless finger-pointing is going to be an inviting place for sinners, especially if the fingers are pointed at a specific type of sinner. But welcoming sinners doesn't mean the church has to cave to sinful practices.

What interesting about that video is that towards the end he admits that every theologian/translator/interpreter/reader brings his own bias into the Bible. So for whatever justification he can find for homosexuality in the Bible, isn't that just HIS bias? I realize this is part 1 of 3 videos, but his attack on Southern Baptists is based on misinterpretations of the Bible that we no longer believe. The logic seems to be "Southern Baptists were wrong on slavery and civil rights, therefore they are wrong about homosexuality." I would say that Biblical justification for slavery and racial civil rights violations is a corruption, therefore it follows that a Biblical justification for homosexuality is also a corruption (the Bible does not promote non-criminal involuntary servitude but does recognize that it is an institution that had become integral to various societies. Institutionalized slavery has been abandoned everywhere that Christianity has had a predominant influence).

Something else interesting about THIS video is that it doesn't really effectively address the relationship between the Bible and homosexuality. It looks to me like it's just setting up his main point about how he doesn't believe the Bible and why he's justified in not believing it.

Nope. It was "sexual impurity." And, it was God who delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity. If you're going to blame anyone, then blame God.

Apparently, a "heterophobe" is anyone who doesn't particularly think that homosexuals ought to be stoned to death.

I'm exaggerating. I was referring to this:


"...people like them..."? Really??? [/sarcasm]

The point is if making comments relating to a belief that homosexuality is morally wrong is hateful and homophobic, then making comments relating to the opposite view is likewise hateful towards those who hold those beliefs. Disparagement is not necessary to accuse someone of homophobia, therefore neither is it necessary to describe an idea as heterophobic. It's meant more as sarcasm.

Last edited by AngelRho on 27 Jul 2012, 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sexual impurity was just the start.



Paul traces the path of idolatry from abandoning God to worshiping idols to sexual impurity to homosexuality. I'm not saying homosexuality is somehow "more wrong" than any other sin mentioned in the Bible, but I AM saying that it is morally wrong according to the Bible and even specifically mentioned by it.

Coming from you, that would amount to an extreme endorsement.

Here is Part 2:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoPBB-H0_EM[/youtube]

And, here is Part 3:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyL-LHSO91w&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

Nope. The start was worshipping "images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles."



In this section, Paul is most like ragging against some of the competing Corinthian Pagan religions, which may have included temple prostitution, Bacchanalian orgies, and other attractive features.



Taken out of context, it might appear so. However, Paul is talking about Pagan orgies here, and not about two people of the same gender loving each other.

Yeah...interesting stuff.

Genesis 38:7 mentions that Er was put to death because what he did "was evil in the Lord's sight." It mentions nothing about spilling his seed. In verse 10, it says "What he did was evil in the Lord's sight, so He put him to death also" in reference to Onan. The reference to Onan doesn't seem to refer specifically to spilling seed as his only fault, just that it might have been one fault of many. It doesn't really have anything to do with justifying homosexuality, so it's odd to me that this is used as a supporting text to try to make a point, except other than that the average Christian probably doesn't really read it and pay attention to it.

At first I thought he was just selectively reordering words in regards to Leviticus. But after checking the original Hebrew, I have to conclude this is an outright lie. It doesn't say merely "ritually unclean." It doesn't even say anything about whether the act happens on a man's bed or a woman's bed. He talks about interpretation from one's personal background or whatever and proceeds to do so to make a point--but then he has to completely rewrite it to even support his argument.

His strongest argument that might even have a grain of truth to it is pointing to the fact that we don't follow Levitical law. The Levitical laws were a legal and ceremonial code for the ancient Israelites created for the sole purpose of setting up a theocracy. They indirectly inform Christianity with regard to morality, but the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were canceled by the blood of Jesus. Dietary laws and purity laws were cancelled because they prevented Jewish Christians from effective witness to others outside Palestine. Mixed fibers might either have referred to being honest about what you sell--don't mix superior/inferior to make a cheaper product and sell it at the higher-quality price, also in keeping with "honest weights and measures" and standards. But if that's not it, then it refers keeping holy things holy. Mixed fibers, for instance, were to be used in the Tabernacle, so the prohibition was against using holy things for common purposes. Something intended for holy use but seen outside the temple might mislead the laity into believing such worship was acceptable and ultimately mislead them into worshiping other deities than Yahweh.

The problem with this argument is that Paul specifically calls out homosexuality as the end result of abandoning God. It's not merely unclean. It is the product of idolatry.

OK, I'll admit he makes some good points about what Christianity should be about--love, mercy, and all that. On this I agree, and we probably all do give the problem of homosexuality more attention than it deserves.

But when he says that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condemned, he's expressing an outright falsehood. When he mentions that nowhere did Jesus condemn homosexuals, he conveniently leaves out the fact that Jesus called sinners to repentance. He calls out Christians on interpreting the Bible with bias, but he can't even escape his own, which he even half-admits. When he says the scriptures as originally written no longer exist and uses that as an excuse to not even read the scriptures, exactly what does he even see as being the point of referring to scriptures? He says there's no point in arguing scripture because of differing interpretations and translations--well, ok, if he doesn't believe the Bible, then OF COURSE there's no point in arguing over it with someone who does! It boils down to using the Bible as a common language with Christians in order to convince them of something that isn't Biblical.

I already mentioned Paul describing the path from idolatry to homosexuality in a later comment. Thanks for the context. I had that in mind, but we tend to skip the context for the sake of time.

The thing is, though, even given the context, homosexuality is STILL the end result of idolatry.


Paul doesn't say that he's talking about any specific justification for homosexuality as being wrong, though. Even accounting for cultural context it's still wrong. One could say, "Well, it's ok because we aren't worshiping other gods." Well, that's fine, but it's not glorifying God, either. It is too closely tied with idolatry to have any redeeming qualities.

I don't know any Hebrew, but his interpretation seemed mighty fishy to me, too. I would tend to trust Jewish interpretations of Leviticus over anyone else's, but this fellow seemed to be going overboard in twisting the words around to give it a pro-homosexual spin.

I think that most modern psychologists would disagree.



I don't think that most modern homosexuals link their homosexuality to idolatry. Any more than I would link my love of p**** to Christianity.

I've been picking up a little Hebrew and Greek along the way. MOST of the time our OT is based on the Masoretic, but translators will sometimes refer to the LXX. Ruveyn's "litmus test" of Isaiah, for instance, is unnecessary because the word for virgin comes from the Greek, not the Hebrew. This is problematic, however, because the LXX was created by Jewish scholars fluent in both languages and apparently had been in existence prior to Jesus' birth. Your Christian Bible is going to presuppose Christology, which is why the Greek wording might be preferred. But since the Jewish compilers of the LXX would not have had the same understanding that we do after the fact, you can't say that the LXX is a product of Christian influence.

But more relevant to this discussion--the Greek word for "bed" is the same word from which we get "coitus." About the best case Piazza has for supporting his "translation" is that the word for "woman" follows the word for "bed." He's not just going overboard--he's not even in the same ocean!

I'm not an expert on Greek and Hebrew, either. I tend to stick with Hebrew/English interlinears most of the time. If someone claims something about the original language and it doesn't even remotely add up, if I think about it I'll check it with the LXX. Those are hard to find online, though, but this is the one I prefer to use:

Septuagint interlinear

For Hebrew OT interlinear and for Greek NT interlinear I like to go here:
http://scripturetext.com/

This one is weak on LXX Greek, and I really wish they would do transliterations as well. If you don't know Greek already, scripturetext.com isn't much help. I've learned to recognize some Greek words, but it's entirely too difficult for me to really make the kind of effort it deserves right now. Katabiblon is good for double-checking some things when I can't find what I'm looking for on scripturetext. I just wish I had the time to get less amateurish resources.

The way I read it, that seems to be the point Paul was trying to make. Their lifestyle of sin, and by that I mean the whole of it and not just homosexuality, had become so ingrained into their society that they forgot where it came from.

Incidentally, in reference to keeping Levitical laws, I'm in desperate need of losing some weight. So I've decided to gradually change my eating habits to help get rid of stuff that's bad for me and to help learn portion control. I'm your typical Southern Baptist who loves "fellowship" a little too much, and my prominent midsection is a constant reminder of that fact. I've decided to do this in several phases--the first being eliminating pork, shellfish, and catfish from my diet.

Do you have any IDEA how hard it is to eat one meal without bacon???

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EHsbIcV-6I[/youtube]

There are some fat Jews, too. Jews would eat catfish.

I find it weird that Jews have interpreted the prohibition against boiling a calf in its mothers milk to mean that they shouldn't eat cheeseburgers. But, the principal purpose of the Torah is for Jews to beat themselves over the heads with it. At least they don't insist that anyone else should try to imitate their lifestyles.