What is a bigot? In Sullivan's mind it is anyone who thinks ill of homosexuality, including obviously, homosexual marriage. But when you slow down there you realize that that's a pretty wide net he's cast. It catches every Christian from the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Westboro wacko, to the liberal who is unsure whether it should be allowed because of the risk of congregational schism to the Reformed or Catholic conservative who opposes state-licensed marriage altogether. Sullivan won't see the possibility that maybe it's a lot more complicated than the simple "oppressed gay man versus wild-eyed zealot religious folk" dichotomy. For that very reason, he is a bigot in his own way because he has cast us all down to the level of the Phelps clan. Not to mention the fact that he's just plain counter-productive.
Non-Christians often get indignant at the suggestion that people like Sullivan really aren't Christians. They often harass conservative Christians about who they think they are to define Christianity, a train of thought they would never extend to another religion. There is, however, a simple explanation. If you don't believe that your religion's scripture is entirely true either as metaphor or literal text, you don't really believe in your religion. I'm not talking about mild translation problems, but rather basic ideas about sexual morality, for example. Andrew Sullivan is guilty of pointing to biblical injunctions against homosexual sex and saying "you are wrong." That means one of two things: God is wrong or it's not actually from God. The former makes him a heretic, the latter a non-believer on at least one critical aspect of Judao-Christian sexual conduct. Either way, it is a chink in his armor as a believer, calling into question how and why he actually believes other parts.
It would be better for Sullivan to simply admit the truth that his lifestyle is at odds with a basic reading of his own professed religion's teachings. There is room for him to reflect and repent, but sexuality is not a minor component of a person's identity and lifestyle. To continually engage in homosexual relationships while claiming to be a Christian (and while claiming that actual Christian scripture on homosexuality is bigoted) is not consistent with the religion itself. For him to admit that his lifestyle goes against his religion would ultimately force him to admit that by any objective reading of his religion's scripture, he is living an evil lifestyle according to its teachings. This obviously may mean little to non-Christian, but I can easily see how this might cause him to lose a little sleep at night.
Sullivan can appeal to faith all he wants and defend his fellow travelers for their devotion to their faith all he wants, but it won't change the fact that their way is the way defined in the Bible. Right or wrong, the Bible simply does not textually bear out their beliefs. Homosexual sex is a sin. Homosexuality itself, however, is a temptation, and the Bible is rather quick to recognize that each person struggles with temptation. No man or woman has been damned for a pang of temptation. Christ freely subjected himself to the temptations of the world so as to more boldly proclaim the truth that God is holy and man is sinful as he never succumbed to the temptations.
"2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
And Hosea has already warned that "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
What's even more telling is that Andrew Sullivan even gets taken seriously as a "gay Christian." You cannot point-blank disagree with such an important moral doctrine and consider yourself to be a pure Christian. If you disagree... well... that means you aren't 100% a believer, which means that you're not a "true Christian."
Sullivan just likes to make stuff up as he goes on issues like this. Though he and others like him ultimately serve the evil one, they do on a day-to-day basis just serve themselves. I have a lot more respect for the heathen who doesn't need any morals and things like that. At least they know where they stand.
THAT fact alone, MikeT, is sufficient to explain why I am now careful to distinguish between "Yeshua, HaMashiach", who came not to "change one yod or tiddle" of His Torah, and the imposter, the lawless "Torah-less one" (aka "another Jesus") that people like that guy follow.
I think that is why Yeshua was always clear, when He confronted evil, to simply say, "It is written."
God defined marriage, He defined sin, He wrote His own Word; ultimately those others ALL serve the Deceiver - regardless of what names they choose to accuse us by.
I'm not at all sure there's a distinction to be made there, Mike. (In fact, I'm convinced that they just THINK they know where they stand.)
"You can be like God." - The Original Big Lie.
Well, one thing is for certain. The vast majority of them don't even realize that what they are doing. I feel bad for them because I'll be the first to admit that I am screwed up, but I see the path that I need to follow and generally try to do it. It pains me to see these people running off wildly and being unable to show them what they're doing.
1. Prove God Exists.
2. Prove the Bible we read today, through thousands of years of translations between different languages and cultural interpretations is exactly the Bible that was written thousands of years ago.
3. People pick and choose their religous beliefs all the time. Why should this guy get flack for it? Why do you think there are so many different sects of Christianity? Why are there Protestants at all? Why is there the Church of England? Why is there anything other than the Catholic Church? I'll tell you why, because somewhere along the way one person didn't like a particular rule and decided to fork just like open source projects get forked. So if this guy says he's a christian while being gay how does that make him any worse than anyone who's any kind of a christian other than a Catholic?
4. Tell me when the Bible became a book to be literally interpreted instead of a historical guide post filled with fables and myths? I mean do you actually believe Noah built a boat out of wood thousands of years ago big enough to hold 2 of every animal on Earth? Do you really believe God would jerk around a guy like Lot just because he was bored and Satan came over and said "Dood lets totally screw Lot over, I'm bored!"?? I don't know if you interpret the Bible literally. But if you do, please recognize that this is why people of faith are mocked so much. Its because their positions while they have the right to hold them, are incredibly stupid.
1) You know that's a loaded question. You can no more prove that God does not exist than I can prove that God does exist.
2) Scholars of Greek and Hebrew painstakingly retranslated the Bible into English in the mid-20th century. This translation into modern English is called the New International Version. It is translated directly from scrolls written in the original dialects of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek used to write the Bible in the first place. It's not like the KJV which is translated from the Vulgate. Additionally, the Old Testament fragments found dating back a few thousand years beyond the time of Christ have proved that the Hebrew texts used in the NIV are the same that were used well before 1AD, some I believe going back to 1,500BC.
3) There is a standard of Christian belief that all orthodox (non-Gnostic) Christians adhere to. It's called the Nicene Creed. All Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestants accept it. Sullivan doesn't get to make up his own ideas. The Bible is the ONLY legitimate source of scripture, and that is something that all orthodox Christians agree on. A few extra books may be present in some canons, but the core texts are the same.
So how about if a group of Catholics decided to ignore "You shall not murder" and began to wage war on homosexual Catholics? Who are you then to criticize their religion? If he gets to make up his own rules, so do they. Since you are not God, your opinion is subjective. In other words, you're just a human. If you say "murder is wrong," your opinion is on par with the murderer's in terms of power and eternal reach. Doesn't matter if everyone else agrees with you.
4) The Bible is not entirely metaphorical. In fact most of it is not. I think if you look at the Book of Leviticus you will see a lot of things which are intended to be taken quite literally. The New Testament is also the same way, except for Revelation. See, if you actually read the Bible, you might realize this, that the actual "fables" are few and far between. Most of the Bible is actually teaching people how to live and telling the history of the Jewish people.
Btw, don't you love how at every step of the way that modern scientists have tried to disprove the Bible, they've failed? How about the non-existance of the Assyrians and the Hittites? The march of Jacob and the Israelites that was recently proven to have happend through Canaanite territory as the Bible said it did.
It must really bother you that there are a lot of Christians like myself who are not bothered by the question of whether Lot's fate or Noah's Ark are literal or metaphorical. Why do you let it bother you? Because it very well might be true? One of the most common currents in history is the "flood myth." I have seen historians point out that virtually every gentile culture has one.
The good news is, if you're right, you've got nothing to worry about when you meet God. If you're wrong, well, I'd like to say that you'd have some explaining to do, but that'd give a mere human a little too much credit before God.
As a side note. You might be pleasantly surprised to find that there are a lot of Christians who just want to be left alone. We don't want the government to tell us what to do, especially not what is "good behavior." Do you want to do drugs? We're cool with that. It's your life, not ours. As long as you're not attacking us or our property, there are a lot of us who see a social evil in the nanny state making you not use drugs or screw around. To paraphrase Martin Luther, if you make someone behave like a Christian when they're not a Christian, the moment you take the gun from their head, they'll revert to a heathen.
People like me, Mark Call and the others you see on my blogroll are not the ones you need to worry about. We're content with going to church, working for Jesus through charity and spiritual outreach and leaving those that don't to believe to their own devices. People like Sullivan, who believe in what makes them comfortable, are the ones that will force their views on you. They're the ones that will try to use the state to "correct" your behavior. We won't. That's why you ought to be afraid of the "Christian" who picks and chooses what to believe. They don't feel the weight of scripture on their own life because they believe they are God and get to make up their own rules, and when those rules make them uncomfortable, they toss them aside and act all morally justified.
That's very interesting. If those checksums match up, it would be mathematically almost impossible for a passage to be forged. To anyone with basic knowledge of programming, that alone is a pretty damning argument against the "Roman Papists made it up" line of thought from the Da Vinci Code and elsewhere.
Your summary was on-target, Mike. I like to point out to people that the God of the Bible, who created "the Law" -- from physics to economics -- never FORCES people to do anything; He simply outlines the choices, and the consequences; "I AM" has real meaning.
The problem with people like Sullivan, obvious upon any honest reading even to people who don't accept the Bible as "Truth", is intellectual dishonesty. Whether one believes the Flood is history, allegory, or mere myth, there is no way other than Orwellian doublethink to claim that something the Book says repeatedly "do NOT DO, no how, no way" is somehow acceptable, much less meritorious of coercive Mandate by Big Brother.
Here's a brief take on my responses to the above straw-questions:
1. Prove God Exists.
Said mathematician Euler, centuries ago:
"e to the power i times pi plus one equals zero!!! Therefore, God exists!" And he left the debate...
Can't see it? Sorry. (The same people can somehow look at a heart-shaped figure on a sandy beach, with something that looks like "MG + JG" inside it and proclaim, "Wow, millions of years of sand, sun, erosion, and wind have produced something that LOOKS like an intelligent design! Ultimately, you have eyes to see, or not...)
2. "the Bible we read today...". Utter bunkum. Sorry, which - Satan's version, or God's? There are CLEARLY major differences, even to the most casual observer.
The answer requires doing what it says in some of those translations, at least, to do:
"Study to show yourself approved...see [for yourself] if these things be true."
It all depends on the original. As an engineer, the more I studied the Torah, and realized the original Hebrew had the information-theory equivalent of row and column CRC checks embedded, and how utterly CONSISTENT it all was, the more obvious that an Intelligence which exceeded anything we can imagine put it together.
As for #3, and so on - all the rest follows from the answer for #1:
Can't see it? Study some more; pray for wisdom, for "eyes to see", once you begin to realize the Truth.
The Hebrew Tanach (Torah and Prophets; I've gotten to the point where I do find the term "Old" Testament to be a slap at the Word of God) DOES predate any post-Yeshau canonization; this is what Paul and others referred to explicitly when they used the words equivalent to "Scripture". Not only are the rows and columns of the scrolls explicity layed-out, as are the "yods and tiddles", which are MODIFIED Hebrew characters, dots above the text, and so on, but there are many embedded character-skip sequences as well. (including "YHVH", symmetrical images, etc.)
All very fascinating, and compelling. Somewhere I've got some great articles with additional details...
What is the last book to have this? Does it carry over into Aramaic at all?
I found a reference on-line a while ago when I looked, and I'll have to find it again.
This I know is an excellent article and intro the the "yods and tiddles" by Monty Judah:
http://www.lionlamb.net/Yavoh/2004/print/Jul2004PN.htm
As for Aramaic, no - the character skips would not match, nor the columns.
OK - here's one reference:
http://www.torahcodes.co.il/
and an article on that same site:
Statistical Science
1994, Vol. 9, No. 3, 429-438 (abridged)
Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis
http://www.torahcodes.co.il/wrr1/wrr1.htm
What I meant was whether the texts written in Aramaic originally for the New Testament worked that way since, according to a Jewish professor I knew, Aramaic uses the same alphabet that Hebrew does.
OK; I'm not able to answer that question then. If so, it would be another indicator.
(bar and ben, the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "son of..." obviously have the same length, but different spelling, and so on. Still seems to me more likely that Hebrew would be the more likely place to look.)
I have referenced the book by Nehemiah Gordon (Hebrew Yeshua vs. Greek Jesus) that documents some differences between the Greek text of Matthew and the Hebrew (Shem Tov's) version, which provide strong evidence that the latter is the language in which that Gospel was originally written.
I thought that Hebrew was out of common use by that point in Jewish history. Speaking of which, why did Hebrew fall out of common use in the first place? I've never been able to find a good explanation for why they drifted over to Aramaic.
I guess I've never seen a specific study on it. Having watched a language degrade here, with words like "infringe" and then "is" being devolved, the process is no surprise ;)
I do recall having been informed that Hebrew was considered the "high-class" language, used by the Torah-educated, while Aramaic was the 'everyday' language.
Interestingly (and perhaps prophetically), Hebrew now remains the only ancient language ever to be literally resurrected and replaced into common usage. It would seem to allow people once again to read God's Word for themselves in a living tongue.