On Hell pt. 2

I am busy with other things and had not planned on blogging for a few weeks. However, my divisive nature tempts me too greatly and, alas, I could not help but check up to see what Matthew Cart was saying about Universalism.

Since I'm still busy with other things, I don't have time to respond in full. Thus, I offer this short analysis now and will respond to the rest of the conversation if I think it necessary (and as time permits).

Matthew Cart: "Just because someone does not become born again and saved while
living on the earth does not mean he is going to be separated from God forever
burning for eternity."

It seems that Matthew thinks this works in his favor. If so, the method of reasoning we see being employed here is unfortunate. However, it is by no means rare. For example, you can see my discussion here with a Christian who did not believe that homosexuality was in any way genetic. Why did she not believe homosexuality was genetic? Because no one proved to her that it was genetic. Ergo, in her mind, it must be the case that it is not genetic. It goes like this: "No one has shown that X is not the case. Therefore, I am warranted in my belief that X is the case."

When such a method occurs, the person employing it can feel quite good about himself if all he does is show that the opponents conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. They seem to be under the illusion that if they can say "but not necessarily" that they have thereby secured their own position.

But maybe I'm jumping to conclusions with Matt. After all, he doesn't say that this thereby proves his position. So, what leads me to believe that he is in fact employing this irrational method? Namely, the fact that Matt doesn't even attempt to go on and support his own position. This could either mean that (a) he doesn't care to argue his own position, (b) he doesn't think it needs to be argued (for the aforementioned reason), or that (c) he doesn't have the space or time to argue it.

(a) seems highly unlikely to me as Matt is the one who started the entire discussion to begin with and, furthermore, from the fact that he keeps attempting to demonstrate that his opponents argument do not follow through.

(c) would be a silly or insufficient reason. He could easily have the space if he didn't quote so much from his opponents. If nothing else, he could give a thumb nail sketch of what an argument might look like. And, judging by his frequent responses, he certainly has the time.

Therefore, (b) seems likely to me. Of course, If I'm wrong Matt is free to comment and tell me otherwise.

Matthew Cart: "The work of Christ was absolutely neccessary but wasn't to keep
us from burning in torture forever. Jesus came to save us from our sins, not
from hell. There is no other way to be saved but by Jesus. He also came to bring
his kingdom into the world, which he did and it is expanding. He stripped Satan
of his power and triumphed over the powers of evil by his death on the cross."

Under Matt's view, sin does not lead to wrath or punishment from God and it definitely does not lead to "Hell" (despite the Bible's clear statements to the contrary. For example, Matthew 5:29; 13:41,42; Rom. 1:18; 2:5-8; 5:9; Eph. 2:3; Col. 3:5,6; and by implication: Lk 17:2; Jn 3:36). One starts to wonder whether Matthew has ever read the NT. Perhaps, though, Matt is just having a hard time drawing the logical connection between sin and sin's consequences. If so, reading the verses I quoted above would certainly help him. Given Matt's view, why would anyone want or need to be saved from sin?

Someone called "Moses" asked Matt: "if the end is ultimately the same for all men, even those outside of Christ, then the work of christ was not necessary. In fact, why not speak like the other universalist heathens of Paul's day and say "let's eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

Matt responded, "The context and verse says "If Christ is not risen" then let us eat drink and be merry, etc. Christ is risen." But he has completely missed the force of Moses's question. If Matt is a universalist, then it really doesn't matter if I obey Christ now or do not obey Christ now. Of course, Matt may say "But following Christ has benefits now..." But this is to misunderstand the hedonist's objection. For example, even IF Christ is not risen, we could still have temporary benefits of following his pious example and, yet, Paul still thinks they have a valid objection. The objection "let us eat..." has force because whatever benefits or punishments may come are only temporary. Ultimately, we're all in the same boat so we might as well live it up. Thus, Matt's view is subject to the same criticism as those who say Christ is not raised: let us eat, drink, and be merry.

Matt: "The main point I want to emphasize here is that the entire doctrine you
are promoting is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the Old Testament. There is
never a warning of being judge eternally and forever given to Adam, Moses, Noah,
Abraham (dealing w/ Sodom), etc. We need to first understand the Old Testament;
we cannot simply pull verses from the NT and interpret them in light of
nothing."

Here we finally have something that looks like an argument. I will restate the argument in a better form and put next to the premises Matt's words that I take to support my reformulation:

P1: The OT is our starting point. ("We need to first understand the OT")
P2: The NT can only reaffirm or clarify by expansion what the OT teaches. ("we cannot simply puss verses from the NT and interpret them in light of nothing")
P3: The OT does not teach a doctrine of Hell. ("the entire docrine [of Hell]... is mentioned ... nowhere in the OT")
C: Therefore, the NT cannot teach the doctrine of Hell. (implied by entire conversation)

Of course, P1 presents several problems for any Christian. If we start with the OT, in the sense that would be relevant to Matt's argument, then serious problems arise with how the NT authors make use of the OT ("out of Egypt I have called my son."). How can Matt start with the OT and arrive at Matthew's (the gospel writer) conclusion?

P2 creates, taken with P1, creates even more problems for a Christian. Take for example the doctrine of the Trinity. Robert Reymond states, as anyone who has surveyed the evidence must, that "It is unlikely that anyone familiar with or reading only the Old Testament today, with no knowledge of the New Testament, would conclude that within the inner life of the divine being resides a real and distinct personal manifoldness" (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 207). Reymond goes on to quote B.B. Warfield who admits, "The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament..." (Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity, 22).

It seems then that Matthew's "main point" that he "wants to emphasize" is a rather embarrassing one. I suggest he hide this point rather than emphasize it, or, better yet, ditch it all together. In Matthew's ad hoc attempt at finding an argument against the orthodox doctrine of Hell, he has put himself in a very dangerous position. But this really shouldn't come as a surprise since, '"Denial of [the] teaching [of hell] has, until recently, been limited almost exclusively to cultic or quasi-cultic groups... Furthermore, this movement away from the traditional doctrine of hell is part and parcel of a larger evangelical "megashift" away from other standard orthodox teachings — such as the substitutionary atonement, sin, and judgment — in favor of so-called "new-model" views. In other words, the rejection of eternal punishment is but one incident in the larger campaign to construct a kinder, gentler theology. " (Alan W. Gomes (Ph.D in historical theology from Fuller Theological Seminary) "Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One," Christian Research Journal, Spring 1991, 14ff.)

Beyond this, if Matthew had perhaps read the OT a little better he would find that there are passages which, at least prima facie, support the doctrine of Hell (Isa. 66:24; Dan. 12:2). Thus, even if we grant Matthew P1 and P2 we may still show P3 and the conclusion to be false.

Matthew: "Concerning the teaching of hell, this is foreign to the OT and NT
translations mistranslate and put "hell" instead of the grave, ghenna, etc. You
can read about this in depth here http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm"

I'm glad to see that Matthew at least took a little time to read up on the position he is defending. I can only wish that he took a little time to read the responses from the other side. If he has, he doesn't show any evidence of it. But it isn't even necessary to do research of the proponents of the orthodox view to see the ridiculousness of the word-concept or etymological fallacy, it should be obvious upon a little armchair reflection.

Still, I'm always amazed to see the Universalist or Annihilationist march out the "Gehenna/Tartarus/etc." argument as though everyone is unaware of it and no response has ever been put forth. If nothing else, it shows the shallow research skills that Universalists/Annihiliationists exert in examining the issue. I could quote from dozens of proponants of the orthodox position which have answered this issue. Take for example, C. Hodge, who uses for his example Annihilationists (who commit the same argument in principle as the Universalists) "The question is not, What certain words may mean? but, What were they intended to mean as used in certain connections? ... [The Annihilationist argues that] we are to go to our classical dictionaries to learn the meaning of the words they use... That the rule of interpretation here laid down is obviously incorrect, and its application would reduce the doctrines of the Bible to the level of heathenism. If Greek words as used in Scripture express no higher ideas than on the lips of Pagans, then we can have only the thoughts of Pagans in the Bible... the "usus loquendi" of every language varies more or less in different ages, and as spoken by different tribes and nations. Every one admits that Hellenistic Greek has a usage distinguishing it from the language of the classics. The language of the Bible must explain the language of the Bible. It has a "usus loquendi" of its own... The Scriptures written in the language of men use words as men are accustomed to use them, literally or figuratively, and in senses suited to the nature of the subjects to which they are applied" (Syst. Theo., 3:872,3).

Or, take for example what S.D.F. Salmond says in his entry on Hell in A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898):

"The Teutonic base [for "hell"], hal = hide, akin to kal, kar (in the older form), is supposed by Skeat to be a 'development from a root skar, of which the meaning was to cover.' Etymologically, therefore, the term denotes the covered, hidden, unseen place... In this employment of the word the AV translators were justified so far by the sense which it had in their day, and by the fact that it was applied to the world of the departed generally in the Creeds, in Spenser, in Chaucer, in mediæval miracle and mystery plays, and in Old English religious poetry... The word 'hell' is used (3), and more properly, as the equivalent of γεέννα, the designation of the place and state of the just retribution reserved for the finally impenitent after the judgment...

[Gehenna] under Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon was made the scene of the gross and cruel rites of heathen worship, idolatrous Jews passing their children through the fire there to Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31). Hence king Josiah, when he put down the idolatrous priests who had burned incense to Baal under the apostate kings of Judah, also 'defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech' (2 Kings 23:5, 10). It was also declared by Jeremiah that the place should be 'no more called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter' (Jeremiah 19:6). After its pollution by the pious son of Amon it became an object of horror to the Jews, and is said to have been made a receptacle for bones, the bodies of beasts and criminals, refuse and all unclean things (so Kimchi). The terrible associations of the place, the recollections of the horrors perpetrated in it and the defilement inflicted on it, the fires said to have been kept burning in it in order to consume the foul and corrupt objects that were thrown into it, made it a natural and unmistakable symbol of dire evil, torment, wasting penalty, absolute ruin. So it came to designate the place of future punishment, and the Talmudic theology spoke of the door of hell as being in the valley of Hinnom (Barclay, City of the Great King, p. 90)" (ibid, emphasis mine).

For Matthew to simply march out the old arguments shows that he's either not read much of anything from the other side or else he's hopping that his audience hasn't so that he can capitalize on their ignorance.

I'll be gone for a few weeks. Until then listen to some Weezer.

Pig - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT4O9ZTp1Ww

Buddy Holly - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiIC5qcXeNU

Island in the Sun - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hyoszso38E

Photograph - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhXXqL3RMqs

El Scorcho - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CEqVTWo4EI (Warning: Contains the word "damn" in the beginning of the song. You can skip in to 25 seconds if you want to skip it.)

On Hell

Matthollycart over at the AV forums is throwing around some ideas on universalism. Unfortunately, the AV forums have some rules that make having in depth discussions rather difficult (2000 word limit, no consecutive posting, etc.). For that reason, I'm posting a more detailed response here.

matthollycart:...what I am referring to is not that everyone gets saved in this lifetime but that perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God. In this life no one can be saved (and being saved has to do with this life) without being born again and have faith in Jesus.

The claim that "being saved has to do with this life" is completely unsubstantiated. Of course, being saved can be and is now a present reality for many in this life, but it seems that for Matthew's remarks to have any value to his own position, he must demonstrate that it pertains only (or merely)to this present state. So, I take Matt to mean there are two categories of people in the following sense. Category 1 consists of those who receive salvation and are at some point reconciled to God. Rconciliation to God and salvation are two distinct concepts. One does not imply the other. Category 2 consists of those who do not receive slavation and go on to be reconciled to God at some point after death.

Of course, so far, this is nothing more than wild speculation. Romans 8:29-30 and John 3:18 (aside from a hundred other texts) present salvation as extending beyond our mere earthly, temporal life and as something that encompasses reconciliation to God (see Acts. 16:30 where belief is tied to salvation). 1 Cor. 1:18 contrasts "those who are perishing" with those who are being saved. Since even the saved a perishing in a physical sense, the contrast must be more than simply an observation of physical, temporal death. In othe words, salvation extends beyond the mere physical, earthly state (see also 2 Cor. 2:15). Matthew 10:22 doesn't make much sense if salvation is only a temporal, earthly state.

But maybe Matthew means something else. Maybe he means there are two categories of people in this sense: category 1 consists of those who are reconciled to God (saved) in this life and category 2 consists of those who are reconciled to God in the next life (this category would include everyone who doesn't fall into category 1). This is the normal universalist position. But in Matt. 25:46 the duration of the punishment of the wicked is directly parallelled to the duration of the life of the righteous. So when he speculates, "perhaps there is not punishment for ever and ever and that eventually these will be reconciled to God" on what grounds does he do so? If eternal punishment for the wicked doesn't mean for ever and ever, then neither does eternal life for the righteous mean for ever and ever. If his argument is predicated on "αἰώνιος" being temporal, then he will be hardpressed to argue for eternal life.

matthollycart: Nowhere in my post did I say that being thrown into a lake of
fire is symbolic for universal salvation. But what I am saying is that it
perhaps does not mean what we have always imagined it means.

I didn't say he made that connection, I simply used it as an example. I fail to see how "perhaps [it] does not mean what we have always imagined" is an adequate alternative to how the text is usually understood. It's like someone says "I espouse X because of A, C, and D" and another person responds "But maybe that's not the case." Well... okay, but you haven't offered much of an alternative by simply saying "maybe it's not that's not right." Matthew doesn't provide any argument, just conjecture. And of course to phrase it "what we have always imagined" is simply a rhetorical spin. As though all the theologians who believe in a literal, eternal hell are doing so on the basis of their imagination.

matthollycart: The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah was earthly. People were killed physically, not tortured forever and ever.

First of all, what makes Matthew think the fact that S & G was earthly is the parallel the author wants to draw in 2 Peter 2? In that case, maybe paradise is acidic since it's in Abraham's bosom. The entire chapter makes little sense under Matthew's reading (see esp. vs 9, the end of vs. 12, 17b, & 21).As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out, "God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire is a classic example of universal destruction of the ungodly." For proof of this see Jude 7.

Furthermore, if Matthew is correct and the passage teaches that the ungodly will receive punishment in this life, it is obviously false (since many do not: see Job 24).

matthollycart: Matthew 5:30 The word is Ghenna, which was an actual place in the
time of Jesus. He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and those who
would be killed would be thrown in Ghenna. John 3:14-16, John 6:40, etc.

In typical universalist fashion, Matthew committs the etymological fallacy.

Mat. 5:27-30 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that jeveryone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye lcauses you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into the garbage dump when Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (P.S. most of you will have probably died before then anyway).

Does this interpretation really warrant a response? Did only adulterers and lustful persons get thrown into the dump? I guess if you were one of the Christians who happened to be killed and thrown into the dump your piety didn't really work out so well, huh? Oops, Matthew 18:8 makes the contrast of "eternal fire" with "entering life"... Guess that blows the whole "Ghenna is just a spatio-temporal place" fallacy out of the water.

matthollycart: Eternal life is God's life. It is not referring to a period of
time. Those who do not love their brother do not have "eternal life" in them.
Eternal life is something that is in you, not living forever in heaven.

To bad no one told that to John when he contrasted perishing with eternal life (Jn 3:16). Not to mention the fact that this makes nonsense out of Jn 4:36; 6:27; 10:28; 12:25; 12:50; 17:2; Rom. 5:21; 6:23; or Jude 21, to give just a few examples.

Matthew hints that this is coming from 1 John where we read: the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (2:1). But has it not occured to Matthew that there are different senses in which the apostle speaks of eternal life? After all, at 5:11 John says, "is in his Son." So which is it? Is Christ eternal life (2:1; 5:20) or is eternal life simply something that is with/in Christ (5:11)? Or perhaps eternal life is something Christ gives (Jn 10:28)? After all, 1 Jn also says God is love. Does this mean that we go back and read that sense into every instance of the word love so that it becomes "Love is God"? It should be obvious that "love is God" is a different proposition than "God is love," as is the case with eternal life.

matthollycart: Its not as simple as you are implying otherwise there would not
be a debate and many of the early church fathers would not have believed it.

If it is simple, there is no debate over it and there is unanimity amongst the church fathers on it? So, basically, there is no personal variable that factors into these issues... No comment.

matthollycart: Jude verse 7 actually support my points and hurts your view Red
Monkey. It says that Sodom and Gormorrah suffered (past tense) the vengence of
eternal fire. Again, we have a misunderstanding of the word eternal. From all
the years and conditioning in our minds that "eternal" is referring to living
forever, we make wrong interpretations of scripture. Jude is basically saying
that Sodom and Gormorrah received divine judgment from God in heaven.

Of course, Matthew is here to reveal to us all the true meaning of "eternal," (via the etymological fallacy) which has escaped majority notice for the last 2000 years. And in Jude 7 Matthew simply imports his meaning into the text which says "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." Notice that "ὑπέχουσαι" (undergoing/suffering) is present active, but Matthew wants it to read "underwent" or "suffered." Someone has certainly had their mind conditioned.

Of course, salvation or damnation doesn't make much difference in this view. We all get a taste of heaven for a time and then disappear, I guess. Let us eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

God's Ethic or Man's?

Over at "Bock's Blog" some commentators have been challenging the idea of Biblical ethics in relation to homosexuality. Here is my response:

Steph: "You [Bock,] still use the bible as a textbook yet you fail to see that
the historical Jesus and Paul are poles apart. In fact you do not differentiate
between the Aramaic speaking Jesus with his mission to return Jews to God, and
the Jesus of later tradition - the Greek translators and the evangelists. As far
as the homosexuality debate goes, the Bible got it wrong. They didn't know
everything. Jesus would have thought it was a sin, just as he thought eating
shellfish was. Personally I don't see why homosexuals would want to marry in a
church and belong to a religion that treats them as lesser beings, but I hope
one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be
married by the state in the same way I was."

Steph hopes that "one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state," yet she hasn't provided any *argument* as to why those whith their "ancient prejudice" should adopt her view. I realize she can't do to much via blog comments, but perhaps if she did not spend time making assertions that are irrelevant (Jesus and Paul disagree, Jesus thought eating shellfish was a sin, etc...) she could at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what an argument for homosexual marriage would look like while avoiding straw-men (the church thinks homosexuals are lesser beings).

People will never have a meaningful dialogue or let go of their prejudices as long as they continue to react with such rhetoric. Such people are actually part of the problem.

PF: "Darrell, the fact that there is progression in the opinions of the
biblical authors about polygamy in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament actually
argues for a more logical explanation (although to be precise, the NT does not
say polygamy is a sin).

Did God change his mind about what is right and wrong, like polygamy,
slavery, eating pork and wearing clothes with dual fabrics? If he did, he's a
vacillating creature.

It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as
a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly. The books
assign to God's will their own prejudices. The ancient Israelites killed their
enemies and ascribed their blood lust to God (such as the prescription to take a
"vagina or two" as spoils of war). Jesus had a different idea (and no way to
defeat the Romans in battle even if he wanted to), so his theology was
different."

First, PF states, "It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly." But, like some other commentators, PF fails to provide any evidence or argumentation for such a view. How does one weigh that it is *more logical* that people changed their concept of God over time because their views on polygamy changed (since PF brings up that issue) than what Bock is saying, that polygamy was never condoned in the first place? It seems to me that the first thing you would have to do is find an OT *prescription* that says polygamy is good.

Even if one could find a prescription regarding how polygamy is to be carried out (can you?) this does not logically lead to saying God endorses polygamy. As one Christian apologist has cited G. Wenham, “The law sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction…What legislators and judges tolerate may not be what they approve. Laws generally set a floor for behaviour within society, they do not prescribe an ethical ceiling. Thus a study of the legal codes within the Bible is unlikely to disclose the ideals of the law-givers, but only the limits of their tolerance: if you do such and such, you will be punished. The laws thus tend to express the limits of socially acceptable behaviour: they do not describe ideal behavior,” (Story as Torah, 80).

Even if PF could prove that the Bible presents God as approving polygamy (rather than tolerating it) and then as disapproving it, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that *PF's explanation as to why this is the case* is more logical (probable) than some other explanation. For example, I think PF would agree that some "goods" are only relevant within a certain culture and yet just as morally binding, within that culture, as goods which transcend any particular culture. Thereofre, PF would have to show that the grounds of God's approval/disapproval is not tied to some temporary (like culture) circumstance. Because if my hypothetical "therefore" is the case, then it is not clear why PF's explanation is more logical than an explanation which may ground the command to something relevant only within that culture.

Of course, all of this will be extremely difficult (impossible) with PF's chosen issue of polygamy. I suggest PF try something more obvious like say, a cultic injunction, which Christians no longer follow. But then PF loses some of his rhetorical (emotional) force and then PF will have to deal with Bock's own explanation and show why it is less logical (probable) than PF's. In the end, my guess is that PF will have to push the entire question back as to whether it is more probable than not that the Christian God exists. In which case, we see that PF has really been begging the question to enter the discussion at this level.

Secondly, how does it logically follow that if God says at t1 under condition X that eating pork is bad and at t2 under condition Y that eating pork is not bad that God is therefore a "vacillating creature"? For the most part, what I've said above applies equally here. Does PF not believe that some moral imperatives are only culturally relevant? Does PF think that every law we have in 21st century American society is legitimately transferable to a culture in the 2nd century BC? PF has to demonstrate that God said whatever law or "good" which PF has in mind is transcendent of all cultures and all times and then, at some later point, went back on that.

PF responds,

"These things have everything to do with gay marriage. The point is that
the Bible is a book that reflects the ideas of its authors, not some divine
instruction. And thus arguing against gay marriage because the Bible says it
is a sin is to side with a primitive culture which had an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice.

To buttress this point, I note that many of the writers of the Bible had no
problems with slavery, polygamy and genocide and did have problems with so many
things that seem bizarre today.

And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as
"administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre.
What, God rolled out the new Coke? Either eating pork was a sin or it wasn't.
Why did God ever care what people ate? Either homosexuality is deserving of
death or it isn't."

I. As I thought, PF simply has to say the Bible is not God's Word. But of course, when he/she goes on to say it is "an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice" he/she begs the question. To butress the point (I assume that the Biblical ethic is "unreasonable and barbaric"), he/she cites the fact that the Bible authors had no problem with slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Of course, he/she only continues to reason in a circle when he/she cites slavery and genocide (it's promotion of polygamy is an unfounded assertion, as we have seen).

II. To say, "And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as "administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre." is to work with a very narrow view of ethics which apparently either ignores or disregards the possibility of the moral value of thing being contingent on the situation (I'm not promoting anything like Fletcher's situational ethics).

III. I'm not sure I agree with Bock that, "Eating pork was a matter of clean and uncleanness for Israel. This is not the same as being sin or not. It was to be avoided but it did not mean one had sinned. It did prevent one entering the temple-- that is what cultic impurity was about. It is a distinct category from sin."

It certainly seems from the text that a person who disobeyed the dietary laws was guilty of sin: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Le 11:43-45). Even though the passage doesn't specifically say that the person who eats the unclean food is sinning, it seems reasonable to arrive at that conclusion because God's people were supposed to be sanctified. In other words, the text does make clear that they had a moral obligation to sanctify themselves and be holy. It wasn't optional. According to this text, it would seem that keeping the dietary laws was one of they ways that they maintained this sanctity. A person's failure to observe the dietary laws would result in a loss of sanctity and, therefore, would also fail to keep their moral obligation.

No doubt, Bock is probably more qualified than me in this issue. Perhaps he has something in mind that I've missed.

Conversations with Christians: An excercise in futility - Homosexuality, Genetics, and Logic

This series has the subtitle "an exercise in futility. There may be several reasons as to why the exercise or dialogue is futile. It may be the case that it is futile because I'm a dense idiot. (If you think so, feel free to comment and let me know. I only ask that you provide some reasons.) Or it may be the case, and often is, that the exercise is futile because the other person and/or myself has let pride get in the way. It may be an exercise in futility because we get side tracked on an issue that is insignificant in the face of what started the converstaion etc... Whatever it is, if I add to or am the sole factor in this futility feel free to let me know. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong if I'm wrong (though convincing me of it may be another matter). I often let my sin nature get the best of me and for that I apologize.

Why I am doing this series: (1) It helps me to see where I went wrong in the conversation. I'm able to reflect and think "I shouldn't have said that" or "I should have said this more clearly" or "I was wrong about that." I hope it will help you to see the same, learn from it, and avoid it yourself. (2) It is an often sad picture of where a lot of Christians stand on issues and how they tend to think. I've been having these conversations like this for quite a few years now, and these are by no means unique or out of the ordinary examples/representatives. (3) I hope that it will help some, including myself, when dealing with these issues in the future. We can leave behind that which was fruitless and develop that which seemed more productive in pushing the issue forward.

The conversation arose when one person, BB, asked what they should do about their friend who is a Christian struggling with the sin of homosexuality. This conversation became futile for a couple different reasons, some of which are my fault.


BB: I'm really confused on this. I don't know how to help [the person] or what to say, because I always thought you chose to be homosexual but after knowing [the person], I really think that people may be "born gay."


GO: people are not born with sin, BB.



Me (Red Monkey): There may be evidence that people can be genetically wired towards things we consider wrong.... that doesn't mean we say it is no longer wrong or that it is now acceptable. For an analysis of homosexuality and genetics see: Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy.


PR: That is the biggest lie the homosexual communtiy has sold to the common man, or is trying to sell, that it is genetic. Because, if it's genetic, then god screwed up. Right?



GO: Yes, PTR, there is NO evedence of it [being genetic].



PR: You can't say the [way] someone is is sin if you created it.


Me: There is nothing wrong with saying it is genetic (unless it isn't). But I believe there may be some evidence that it is genetic. I don't think that [the reasons you gave] logically follow.


PR: I've been in the homosexual community alot (not engaging [in it], understand, but had friends [who were homosexual]) and i can tell you i've talked to hundreds AND EVERY ONE had some kind of messed up back ground or was sexually abused.


Me: That may be, PR. But your limited experience does not prove that it is not genetic. It may simply be the case that you happen to have [only] met people who are homosexual by choice.


PR: If god created homosexuality and it's sin then is'nt it god's fault?


Me: No, that doesn't make sense.


PR: And [God] wll send you to hell and call you reprobate for something he made you to be... OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. I'm glad i follow a god like that.



GO: Homosexuals are trying to say that they are just born that way to justify their chosen lifestyle.



Me: PR, perhaps we could reason this out via [a more private conversation]?

[At this point, PR remains silent for a while and the person who originally
posed the question, BB, has started talking to other people about different
aspects of the problem. I think PR may have missed my question and so ask
again:]

Me: Could we talk about this more in depth [one on one], PR?

[PR is again silent for a while. Someone, D, enters the conversation:]

PR: Hey, D, what's up, bud?


Me: You could at least say "no," PR, so I don't have to wonder if you saw my question or not.

[Again, PR does not say anything. However, another person
who was watching the conversation decided to take PR's cause:]

SA: No one is born genetically gay.



Me: How do you know that?


SA: Studying A&P for two years.


Me: Two years of anatomy and physiology doesn't prove that there is no genetic factor to homosexuality.



SA: Show me that there is a gene that makes one homesexual and then we can talk about it.



Me: I don't have to do that. You claimed there wasn't. It seems to me the burden of proof is on YOU to show that there isn't or that there can't be.



SA: Actually kind of funny because in the old days when I studied new age metaphysics it was taught that people were born gay because they were once woman (if they were lesbians) or men (if they were gay) funny to see [you defending it] in a Christian chat room. The burden is on the people who choose to use that as an excuse to sin.



Me: Since no one [in this conversation] claimed it as an excuse to sin, then no one shoulders that burden. However, you still made an assertion that should be supported.



SA: Actually I think saying someone was genetically prone to be a homosexual says just that [they are trying to excuse it from being sin].



Me: Then you have another thing to demonstrate: you have to prove that it logically follows that if one is genetically predisposed to something that they are no longer morally culpable for it. I'd be happy to discuss that issue with you more in depth, SA, one on one.



SA: I have seen no proof that anyone is genetically predisposed to do that. So I beleive it's a crock of butter. Which would mean if someone wants to use that as a reason they need to show me proof. Really no point [in discussing it further with you] since my mind isn't going to be changed.



Me: I hope you recognize that is horrible logic. Let's make the statement more general to see the fallacy: "No one proved to me that X is the case. Therefore, I believe X is not the case." Your reason then for not believing that homosexuality is genetic is...well, illogical.

[At this point another person jumps into the foray, but he has other
interests:]

AK: Red Monkey, i believe alot of things that arent logical, dont u?



Me: AK, that depends on what you mean by "not logical." I suspect that you are simply equivocating on what I meant.

SA: It could very well be illogical. My first reason for believing homosexuality is not genetic is because I personally don't believe God would create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over.

[At this point, PR jumps back into the conversation and manages to create a
straw-man of my position and add some chaos and misdirection on the issue:]

PR: Red Monkey, will you, if i take you right, actaully sit in front of god and try to justify a homosexual lifestyle as being somehow correct or unavoidable?

[I decide it's best to ignore PR and AK so I don't get side
tracked and lose the point with SA:]

Me: SA, the reason you gave previously, which is not the reason you are now giving [that God wouldn't create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over], was illogical. The reason you are currently given is simply a different assertion that you would have to demonstrate... but I already asked you to do that and you said you wouldn't because you won't change your mind.



SA: I think a lot of people will be sitting in front of God explaining why they choose to do some of the things against his Word. To you it may seem illogical, to me it makes perfect sense.


Me: There is only one logic. To say [as you first said that] "No one has proven to me that X is the case. Ergo, I believe X is not the case" is clearly a fallacious line of thought. If that seems logical to you or makes perfect sense, then you have yet to substantiate this.



SA: I have my own brand of logic and it serves me well.




Me: Great. So what if the homosexual has HIS OWN brand of logic too that proves HIM right? Now what? Now you're kind of screwed... there are not "brands of logic"


SA: God will reveal the truth then won't he... for one of us. I have my own special brand of logic you don't have to agree.


Me: Oh? Too bad God didn't give us a unified logic or something like that to discern truth. I guess everyone just has to have God directly reveal to him the truth, right?


SA: God does give me my logic.



Me: Oh yeah? Well God gave the homosexual his logic too. So you're back at square one.



SA: Lol, I'm still at the same place I was at the beginning.



Me: So does it really not bother you, SA, to be stuck on an irrational position?



SA: Does it really not bother you that I don't care what you think about my logic?



AK: Red Monkey, I just dont think SA thinks it is a big deal.



SA: ....Basically.



Me: But you continue to make the same mistake. There are not different kinds of logic. Otherwise, we are all screwed. If that were the case, SA, let me ask you this: do you believe logic constrains us to conform to its conclusions?



SA: Red Monkey, as a Christian I love ya...



Me: Could you answer the question? How would you like it if a homosexual or an atheist treated you the same way? You refuse to answer my questions or adhere to any shared standard of reason. Instead, you have created your own private standard of "logic." So how can you possibly object to the homosexual who wants to create his own standard of ethics? If you can have your own logic, then why he can't he have his own ethic?

SA: Because you're trying to change my mind you can't. Sorry but I just don't want to continue going down the same path. And I have talked to many atheist, agnostics, homosexuals



Me: I didn't ask how many atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals you talked to... so I don't know why you made that statement. But I'm not surprised that I'm not changing your mind either. How could I expect to when you won't even interact with what I've said. You have simply put your foot down and said you have your own logic. When you do this, you can't go around telling homosexuals that they are sinning... or telling anyone that anything is a sin for that matter.



HH: Homosexuals are sinning.


SA: I will point them to scripture and I'm hoping that's what anyone else would do.



HH: What's your point, Red Monkey?


Me: But you would do that because you want them to conform to your logic and to your ethic. [But if your logic is a private affair,] what right do you have to tell someone that they should conform to your standard?



SA: It's called sharing the Gospel, Red Monkey.



Me: Call it whatever you want, that doesn't answer my question.


SA: I tell them what Scripture says, if they don't want to hear that then they can tell me.


Me: In other words, it isn't really YOUR OWN standard, it is a transcedent standard that applies to all men and women?



HH: I guess Red Monkey is not debating....just attacking



AK: It almost sounds like that, HH.



SA: I think we've resolved this, Red Monkey. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me.



Me: In other words, you don't have an answer... thanks.



LD: From an outsiders view here you seem to be mocking people, Red Monkey. If you really want a debate I'll be over here in my corner.


Me: How was I mocking anyone, LD?


LD: Red Monkey, [it was just] implied. That's my view of what I read.



Me: So, in other words, you can't or won't offer any proof or reasons as to why you think I was mocking someone... you just want to make the observation? Great...



LD: I said that is my view. I did not elaborate. I cannot change how you view things. If you wish to debate me I am here.



Me: A debate is the provision of premises for a conclusion. You concluded I was mocking Shell. I asked you to provide premises for that conclusion and you refused to do so. Instead, you simply said you made an observation... and now you act like you are open for debate? Why should I believe you?


[End of discussion]



Interestingly, in the recent Newsweek article they did ground the case for pro-homosexual marriage in their "makeup." - "Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color." Newsweek, Our Mutual Joy

Responses to Newsweek's Defense of Homosexuality

There have been many responses to the recent Newsweek article defending homosexuality and many blogs have linked to these articles. However, I haven't seen a single blog post linking to all of the best responses. Here it is:

(1) Albert Mohler: Turning the Bible on its Head, The Real Issues in the Newsweek Debat (NPR Interview with Lisa Miller!)

(2) Darrell Bock: The seriese of posts is still ongoing, I will update this to the complete seriese when it is finished: (a) Haircuts, Public Homilies, News Magazines, and Gay Marriage, (b) Journalistic Integrity, the Bible, and Marriage in Newsweek's Gay Marriage Piece, (c) Newsweek and Gay Marriage (Check out his comment section too for interaction.)

(3) Robert Gagnon: More than "Mutal Joy" (probably the best response.)

Job 23:3-5

"Oh, that I knew where I might find him,
that I might come even to his seat!

I would lay my case before him
and fill my mouth with arguments.

I would know what he would answer me
and understand what he would say to me."

Job was a righteous man. He had given his circumstance much thought (see vs 2, Hebrew word translated "complain"). He had reasons (or at least thought he had some) as to why he should be restored to favor with God.

As I look at my own life I don't find this is the case. I have not given deep thought as to why I'm in such a wretched state and I have no reasons to give as to why God should help me and treat me favorably. I can't say to God, as Job, "My foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his way and have not turned aside. I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food" (11-12) and I do not share his unbridled confidence that "when he has tried me, I shall come out as gold" (10). I wish I had that. I wish I were a better man. But as it is, I can only trust that God will be merciful to me, a sinner.

Whether your Christian life resembles that of Job's or that of a 1st century tax collector, rejoice because God likes you and will help you with His perfect wisdom in the right time. We can all be confident that "he will complete what he appoints for me..." (14). Though, Job, as Matthew Henry says, here (13-16) makes "a bad use of good truths" we can avoid that mistake knowing the grace of God through Christ.

But sinner, if you are unrepentant, beware. God will complete what he appoints for you, "and many such things are in his mind."