Experts and users discuss christianity, gay issues, religion in society: Seven Flawed Arguments
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.





Seven Flawed Arguments
- From Rick Brentlinger
By Rick Brentlinger - Gay Christian 101
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leviticus 18:22
Start with verse one of that chapter, where are temples mentioned? Maybe it's meaning is hidden in the hebrew, but in English it is not mentioned.
God is taking that chapter/time to address how we should not behave sexually, and then specifically mentions men laying with men... HELLO! If this was football, that would be a telegraphed pass...
- sfgiantsfanmike
September 11, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Please read Leviticus 18:3, 21-22 & 20:2-5, 13, 23
George Rawlinson, 1812-1902, in History of Phoenicia, written in 1889, describes Molech as a god worshiped by the Canaanites and Phoenicians. Here is Rawlinson's description of shrine prostitutes.
“At the head of the Pantheon stood a god and a goddess, Baal (Molech) and Ashtoreth... As Baal was the embodiment of the generative principle in nature, so was Ashtoreth of the receptive and productive principle. She was the great nature goddess, the Magna Mater, regent of the stars, queen of heaven, giver of life, and source of woman's fecundity...
[Canaanite religion was notable for] the prevalence of licentious orgies [involving shrine prostitutes] and of human sacrifice... Early rabbis describe the image of Moloch as a human figure with a bull's head and outstretched arms; and the account which they give is confirmed by what Diodorus relates of the Carthaginian Kronos...
“‘In the worship of Astarte [Ashtoreth, the ancient Canaanite fertility goddess]
prostitution of women, and of effeminate men [shrine prostitutes], played the same part that child murder did in the worship of Baal...
[Pagan worshipers believed] no service more acceptable could be rendered a deity than that of unchastity... Thus lust itself became a service of the gods...’
One fruit of this system was the extraordinary institution of the Galli. [Rawlinson equates the Galli [shrine prostitutes] with the KJV’s ‘sodomites’ - the ‘qedesha’ of the Hebrew text.]
The Galli were men, who made themselves as much like women as they could, and offered themselves for purposes of unnatural lust [unnatural in the sense of not procreative] to either sex [shrine prostitutes]. Their existence may be traced in Israel and Judah, [I Kings 14:24, 15:12] as well as in Syria and Phœnicia.
At great festivals, under the influence of strong excitement, amid the din of flutes and drums and wild songs, a number of the male devotees would snatch up swords or knives, which lay ready for the purpose, throw off their garments, and coming forward with a loud shout, proceed to castrate themselves openly...
They joined with the priests and the sacred women at festival times in frenzied dances and other wild orgies, shouting, and cutting themselves [much like the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:19, 28] on the arms, and submitting to be flogged one by another...”
(from George Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia, 1889, Chapter XI.)
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 11, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
18:3
"According to the doing of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do, nor shall you walk in their ordinances."*
I see where you are coming from when it comes to context, yet you forgot verse 4: "You shall observe My judgements and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD (YHWH) your God."* This then lets us know we are not to walk in the ways of the world (Egypt, Canaan), but in His ways. That changes the context.
I understand and knew about those practices, that they were destructive and the reason that the Canaanites were being purged (vomited) out of their land as well as the reason Egypt has never returned to the prominence it once had as the strongest nation; however, God specifically tells us to obey Him over the world, and what is the world telling us is okay now a days? Engage in sexual practices that would make the Canaanites blush and homosexuality. There is nothing new under the sun.
*Verses are from New King James Version
- sfgiantsfanmike
September 12, 2008 3:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It matters who is being addressed
Leviticus addressed a particular historical and religious situation. That is why Leviticus is addressed to the children of Israel living under the Law.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html
1. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 1:2
2. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 4:2
3. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 11:2
4. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 12:2
5. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 15:2
6. “Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 17:2
7. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 18:2
8. “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 19:2
9. “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...” Lev 20:2
10. “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron...” Lev 21:1
11. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 23:2
12. “Command the children of Israel...” Lev 24:2
13. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 25:2
14. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 27:2.
Remember Romans 6:14 -
"You are not under the law but under grace..."
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Torah-Observance.html
- Rick Brentlinger
September 12, 2008 7:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Romans 1?
Okay, first I want to say that you're bringing up good points and I respect that. If I'm coming off the wrong way (especially looking back at the HELLO comment), I appologize. I get a little to emphatic at times when disscussing the scriptures.
Okay, so we're supposed to consider you is being addressed, so what about Romans 1? In verse 7 Paul states that he is addressing the saints, at least all the saints in Rome. Then in versus 18 to 32 he gives a long discourse on the "degeneration" of men who reject God. He calls men with men "shameful" and women leaving the natural use of the man. In this section he has nothing nice to say about the acts, and he is not addressing temples in the context but men in general.
It seems we may be destined to disagree, yet I feel it is worth while to hear your thoughts.
- sfgiantsfanmike
September 12, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How we determine what scripture means
Before we can determine what scripture means for us today, we must understand what it meant for the people to whom it was originally given back then.
In plainer words, what scripture means today is limited by what it meant back then.
Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
Whatever meaning we assign to Paul's words has to have been a probable understanding in the first century.
There are three areas which help us understand what Paul meant back then.
1. The historical context. First century Rome was an idolatrous culture with hundreds of temples to pagan gods and goddesses. One fertility goddess in particular was Cybele, known as the Protectress of Rome.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
2. The religious context. The most prominent goddess figure in first century Rome was Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess. Five worship sites honored her in Rome at the time Paul wrote Romans.
Roman coins bearing Cybele's likeness were inscribed with the words, Mater Deum, Mother of the gods.
Cybele was worshiped by castrated Galli priests who offered themselves sexually to male worshipers.
This is what Paul describes in Romans 1, citing the Old Testament experience of Jews who had rebelled against God and practiced fertility goddess worship.
3. The way Christians back then understood Paul's words in Romans 1.
Aristides, preaching before the Roman Emperor Hadrian, AD 126, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.
Justin Martyr, preaching around AD 150, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
To read Romans 1 today and say scripture is condemning a committed, faithful, non-cultic lesbian or gay partnership is to give the text a new meaning which was unknown to the original readers.
And if it was unknown to the original readers, then that interpretation cannot be true because:
Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.
- Rick Brentlinger
September 12, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anti-Gay?
First off, let me say thank you for your thoughtful comments. I can see that you have really looked into this issue. I have read the article on Romans and Shine Prostitution and found it to be well-argued. Although, I am a little bothered by the use of the term anti-gay. I have read portions of Gagnon's book and he, like yourself, struggled with this issue. Early on in the book, he writes about his heartfelt struggle.
When someone argues that homosexual practice is a sin, this does not make them anti-homosexual, or anti-anything. I have desperately struggled with this issue personally and for the sake of others. I would never characterize myself as anti-gay. As I grow closer to Jesus, I feel more and more his love for all people well up inside of me. I wish the church as a whole weren't homophobic. I wish I didn't have to hear people around me, most of whom are Christians, use "gay" and other words I won't mention, as derogatory comments. (When I am feeling bold, I gently correct them.) Sometimes I don't want to call myself a Christian because this associates me with some of the people who have incited hate-mongering against homosexuals. My heart aches over this struggle because I have personally been affected by it and I have met many others who have felt these affects as well.
In the sending of his only son, Jesus Christ, God offered all people a saving relationship with himself. This is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant: "I will bless you and make you a great nation and through you all people will be blessed". In this fulfillment, the people of God became all those who accepted, believed in, and followed the one whom God sent, Jesus Christ. In the Mosaic or Sinai covenant, Israel was required to obey the Mosaic law in order to receive salvation. But in Christ, the people of God, all people, Jew and Gentile, were freed from the law and now received salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ by faith.
So, to put it briefly, in Christ, God has removed the contractual obligation of the law and has offered a relationship. This never ceases to amaze me!! He wants to be in relationship with me!!
- Martin
September 14, 2008 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What do we do in relationship?
But what do we do in relationship? How do we treat our loved ones? People mess up in biblical interpretation when they either try to remove New Testament requirements of obedience or they once again put back on the "yoke of slavery" (the law) that they have been freed from. The fact is that true relationship demands love. Loving someone is wanting what's best for the person you love. What father or mother in their right minds, would want their child to do anything that would harm them?
I often here people quote out of context Matthew 7 about not judging others. People respond indignantly when anyone challenges their beliefs or their choice of lifestyles and simply say, "didn't Jesus say not to judge." Well actually, in Matthew 7:5, Jesus tells us to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. What he is condemning is hypocrisy, not judging. In other words, he is condemning being "judgmental," not judging your brother or sister in Christ. Read the passage. It says, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." In other words, if you have taken the time to examine yourself and to deal with your own sin, you can then, and only then, more on to judging a brother or sister in Christ for their sin issues.
But this must be done in love? Speak the truth in love and so on and so forth . . .
- Martin
September 14, 2008 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interpretation of Scripture
You said Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. This is a true statement. However, Scripture can have a different application then it did back then. You seem to be very concerned with the cultural context of cult prostitution in ancient Rome. And you seem to define "idolatry" in a very narrow sense. But Paul does not do this. Go on to Romans 1:28 when he begins to describe all manner of idolatry (which is simply worshipping anything besides creator God--today this could include worship of another person, worship of self, worship of money, worship of television, etc.):
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (ESV).
So, is Paul still only talking about cult prostitutes here? He seems to be talking about everyone. I am thinking about the times I have envied, or gossiped, or was disobedient to my parents. The question I am asking is: why would Paul have switched so rapidly from talking about a specific group of people to talking about everyone?
First and foremost, we must understand what Paul was trying to say with his words. What was the author intended meaning. This is primary. It is strongly related to how the original audience would have understood Paul's letter, but they are not the same thing. You seem to have given precedence to the cultural context of the passage over and above the context of the passage in the letter itself. Both are equally important. I would argue that placing a passage within the context of its surrounding passages, within the context of the letter itself, and within the context of the Bible as a whole is first and foremost in biblical interpretation. Cultural context is our aide along the way, but if our findings do not fit the context of the surrounding passages, then we need to go back to the drawing board and reassess what Paul was trying to say.
What do you think?
- Martin
September 14, 2008 9:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part (2)
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
Scripture as we know it - is only scripture because the whole book (all 66 chapters) flow together in a common theme. Therefore, topics that talk about man and woman and man and woman being the exclusive partnership that God blesses (marriage) are crucial. I'm sorry to see that you've not mentioned it(Mark 10:6-9) in your Seven Flawed Arguments. It may be that you cannot explain the matter, or that it doesn't flow with your interpretation of what you feel Scripture is saying.
Scripture is clear here, what God has joined let no man separate. Now you may rightfully say that the context in which Jesus elaborates is a context of a discussion of adultery. (see Mark 10:2-4)
"2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
However, it is within the context of speaking of adultery that we understand what God has put together. God has put together man and woman, this is the pure blessing of God.
I quote "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, we discover a polygamous marriage in Genesis 4:19, on man with two women."
However this assertion is not correct. He makes that assertion in Mark 10:6-9. Also, just because a listing is in the Bible does not authenticate itself because it is listed, nor because it appears to be blessed. What do I mean?
God created man and woman to be the perfect union, and when we read about the union with the man and two women, it does not say that God blessed that union. We do know that this happened after sin entered into the world and was not the joining that God entitled for humans (see Mark 10:7). Therefore, just because you have a listed (correctly as it's mentioned in the Bible) a union between man and two women, doesn't mean it's authenticated by the Bible.
Your statement about (4) Matthew 19:3-12 is also quite incorrect. Why so?
First, Jesus doesn't make an exception for heterosexual marriage. Jesus only replies to his disciples assertion in verse 10 that it is better not to marry. Jesus doesn't say it is better not to marry a woman but instead a man. Actually, there are no contradictions to marriage between a man and a woman, only Jesus' response to his disciples. His response details why it's better not to marry.
Second, you are right about three classes of eunuchs, but understand this - that a eunuch is one who has sexual organs removed (castration). And note the three classes, one born without sexual organs v.12, and one made that way by men (or humans) and finally one who has renounced marriage or become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven(for ministry or the work of the clergy). There is no mention about exceptions for the case of homosexuality here, it appears to be your own interpretation.
- Lux
October 25, 2008 8:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part (3)
The exception to being joined in a union that is blessed by God (as referred to in Mark 10:5-9 or Matthew 19:4-6) is not an exception about the type of union but about remaining single. There are three classes of people who it is better for them not to marry (enter a union blessed by God). It simply means being single. There is no inclusion for those who are not inclined as you define - toward heterosexual marriage.
"11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Your point(7) about Jude 7 has been answered in another post by another post-er, strange flesh is a statement about relationships with angelic beings. So I won't elaborate about it.
Your arguments seem well thought out and I appreciate the depth to which you've gone to illustrate them. However, you've missed using Scripture as a whole, in it's appropriate context.
God is very clear about marriage, and I've made the due change in my life. I've listened to a lot of what society as a whole today deems as truth, but it doesn't mean that society is correct.
However, God is a good God, he has given anyone the opportunity to decide for himself/herself.
If I can choose no longer to be a homosexual, ask God for forgiveness of sin and am now entered in a marriage relationship - anyone can with God's guidance.
I've only tackled some of your arguments, since I've noted that other post-ers have rebutted your other arguments.
God bless.
- Lux
October 25, 2008 8:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.