This entry was posted on April 24, 2009 at 11:22 am and is filed under Christian Nation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
122 Responses to “Biblically Correct, Not Politically Correct”
What sort of debate are you willing to participate in regarding intelligent design? When scientists enter a real debate based on scientific evidence, both sides must be willing to come out of the debate with a different viewpoint than the one they came in with.
Are you willing to change your mind about the origins of life?
I am, and so are the scientists I’ve spoken to are as well. Even Richard Dawkins says he is willing to change his mind.
Ryan: of course he can show you God exists: it’s all over the Bible. And the Bible is the truth because it’s God’s word. And God exists because it’s all over the Bible. And the Bible is the truth because it’s God’s word. And God exists because … ad vitam eternam
I imagine that your straw man argument gets you lots of back slaps over at atheist sites, but it is completely false. If you want a real tautology you need to consider the naturalistic materialism worldview.
When you try to say that our only evidence is that the Bible claims there is a God that is hyperbole gone mad. We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc. If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.
Thanks for tipping your hand, though. That is very efficient for us who don’t want to waste time dealing with those who are currently in such transparent rebellion.
We know exactly why you hold your worldview:
Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
But your worldview has no rational explanation for ours. After all, in a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview we are purely material objects who just think we have choices. My chemical make up just happened to take me from a position of unbelief to trusting what I perceive as overwhelming evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It makes me see historical facts like these (among others) and infer that the most likely explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead and proved his divinity.
- Jesus was a real person who died on a cross.
- his disciples believed He rose from the dead.
- that the Apostle Paul converted from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity’s greatest advocated, including writing Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and more. These put essential Christian doctrines and beliefs in writing within 20-30 years of the crucifixion.
- After the crucifixion, Jesus’ brother James went from being a skeptic to a believer, a leader in the early church and a martyr.
For you to have pride in your worldview or to criticize ours would be completely irrational — if your worldview was true.
Neil, you claim that the Bible is not the only proof of God’s existence by citing more Bible passages. You claim you have evidence in “Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc.” I say you have no evidence of any of this beyond what is written in the Bible.
Were you there when JC resurrected? Were you there when God created Adam and Eve out of dirt? How can that story be accurately reported by the way? Do you think God gave them the ability to write right off the bat? Or do you think the story didn’t get distorted at all throughout the generations before writing came to be?
And by the way I don’t think many atheists will dispute the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Right up until the resurrection and son of God part, we’re both in agreement on that question. I think he was a great prophet, a great leader that people followed (like Muhammad was for Muslims).
I have no problem with what you think, you can believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too for all I care. I start having a problem when the politicians buy into it and enact parts of it to law.
Neil, you claim that the Bible is not the only proof of God’s existence by citing more Bible passages.
Actually, that was not part of my claim. We can demonstrate that the Bible is the word of God. What is says is true and that passage helps explain why atheists are atheists. But I did not cite it as a reason for the veracity of the Bible, and I don’t expect you to view it authoritatively at this stage.
You must live an interesting life if you only trust what you see. You couldn’t trust any history or even the evening news (ok, you probably can’t trust the news either way). Have you replicated every single scientific experiment and finding that you rely upon? Did you create all the test equipment yourself from scratch? Otherwise, how could you trust it?
I don’t know when writing came into being. I do know that God is fully capable of leading people to accurately record events. The Biblical record is such that we can be highly confident (99.5%) of what the originals said (via the Dead Sea scrolls and manuscript testing and such). Even skeptics like Bart Erhman concede that. And none of typos and minor changes (e.g., the woman caught in adultery in John 8) impact any major church doctrines.
I appreciate your concession that Jesus was a real figure in history. I have found that some extreme atheists deny it but most realize that virtually all historians (secular and believers) look at the data inside and outside the Bible and realize that He lived.
I’m curious, though. What makes you think He was a great prophet and leader?
I’m not sure what you were thinking of precisely re. not enacting things into law. I would never want a state religion. You can’t coerce real faith. The rich young ruler went away sad when Jesus challenged him to give up everything to follow him (Matthew 19). Jesus didn’t run after him and tackle him. In the book of Acts, Paul and others lay out the facts and reasons for the faith over and over. Some believed, some did not. No one was ever forced.
But if you mean that religious views shouldn’t inform our political views then I would disagree. I have yet to find anyone who has issues with my voting in accordance with my religious views on the topics of murder, theft, perjury, etc., so I find it to be the height of disingenuousness when some want to silence me for being against abortion (it kills an innocent human being) or oxymoronic “same sex marriage.” I can argue those issues without the Bible, but the fact that they agree with the Bible should not mean I have to vote the opposite of my religious views.
You claim you have evidence in “Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc.” I say you have no evidence of any of this beyond what is written in the Bible.
Neil, most atheists I know agree with me that Jesus lived, and was probably a great man. There’s no reason to doubt the historical evidence. His teachings of love and forgiveness are, in my opinion, fantastic models to live by. Atheists aren’t swine you know.
The thing is – Jesus didn’t invent compassion, generosity, love and friendship. There have always been good people in the world.
I simply don’t understand how you can invoke the “first cause” argument, when you are are not willing to apply that argument to God Himself. If you think there must be a first cause for everything, then who created God?
None of the evidence you have presented is testable. There is no physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. The fact that logic exists does not prove that God exists – in fact the two concepts are diametrically opposed.
I don’t know what else to say here. You have not presented any scientific arguments. Give me a reason the God exists, and allow me to test it. Then I will believe you.
Neil: I think he was a great prophet and leader because 2000 years later, there are still a lot of people who follow his teachings.
And you will never be able to convince us scientifically of God’s existence because it’s not science. Scientific methodology requires to start with an hypothesis, test it, and repeat until you find a conclusion. And that conclusion can be challenged and proven wrong at a later date when new evidence comes to light.
You, on the other hand, work backwards by starting with an immovable conclusion (God exists, and he created the universe in 7 days) and you try to make the rest fit around that conclusion. That is why intelligent design has no business in science classes. The school boards that force ID down the throats of children is one of the example of religion enacted by law. Abortion and gay mariage are two others.
But that’s fine. If you (United States in general) don’t mind breeding a generation of moron “scientists” who will believe in ID and not believe in evolution and will be laughed at by the rest of the world’s scientists, that will just mean more job for the real scientists from my country. It has already started anyways.
You have not presented any scientific arguments. Give me a reason the God exists, and allow me to test it. Then I will believe you.
I know that is a common atheist response, but the request itself warrants further examination. Science is used to test material things. God is immaterial. While I can appreciate your desire to do so, you wouldn’t use science to test for God any more than you’d use science to weigh the color blue. It is a category error and not the proper way to measure it.
People who use that argument are usually either unaware of the category error or are using it as a “heads I win, tails you lose” rhetorical move.
Also, you can’t use science to prove that only scientific evidence is useful.
Again, do you re-test every single scientific experiment and create all your own test equipment, or do you rely on others whom you have good reason to be trustworthy? In the same way, I have many reasons to trust the accuracy of the accounts in the Bible.
I didn’t start with an immovable conclusion. I was a skeptic until my late 20′s. I’ve examined the evidence and trust in Jesus for my salvation because I believe the best explanation for the evidence is that He really rose from the dead and that He is God and has the best explanations for the world as it really is.
Neil: I think he was a great prophet and leader because 2000 years later, there are still a lot of people who follow his teachings.
What teachings? The teachings that said He was the only way to salvation? The ones where He claimed to be God?
Atheists aren’t swine you know.
Agreed. I never make that claim. I know lots of atheists that are “good” people on human terms. I just know that 100% of us are sinners in need of a savior, and that without God there is no foundation for morality. It is just whatever those in power make up. I get irritated when Christians act like atheists don’t have morals. Most of them are fine folks, but their worldview can’t provide a logical foundation for the morality.
I don’t see how you think logic and God are opposed. Logic is immaterial and only makes sense in light of God.
Math, your ad hom about “moron scientists” does nothing but reinforce the stereotypes that evolutionists can’t handle any criticism of their theories. People who are so thin-skinned always seem like they are hiding something.
I am really, really surprised you’d use abortion as an example. It is a scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. I teach classes in pro-life reasoning and I only use the Bible when talking to Christians. I can rebut every pro-abortion argument with secular reasoning. The science couldn’t be more clear. If anyone thinks abortions are moral then they are ignorant of the scientific facts or they don’t think it is immoral to destroy an innocenth human being.
Speaking of logic, “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. And if there is no God then there is no foundation to say that homosexual behavior is universally moral or immoral. It would be whatever society wants to say it is.
Re. the first cause argument — there is nothing illogical about an uncaused being. In fact, it is the most logical conclusion of the evidence. The theory just states that everything that came into being had to have a cause. I find this scenario infinitely more likely than the notion that materials existed eternally without a cause and that life came from non-life.
if there can be no basis in science for the existence of God, as you have just stated, then you agree with me that there is no place for a discussion of an intelligent creator in science class. That is progress.
Neil, my morals are like incredibly similar to yours, yet mine have nothing to do with God. I would argue that a person like me – who does the right thing because he feels it is the right thing to do – is more moral than a Christian, who does the right thing to avoid hellfire. Now I’m not trying to say I’m more moral than you. I know many Christians who attribute their morals to God, when I believe they are just good people.
Also – please stop calling me a sinner. You don’t know me. If you want to be a sinner, then go ahead. I do my best with what I’ve been given. I’m honest and generous. If there is a god, then that would be good enough for him. If it’s not good enough for him, then I’ve got no interest in spending eternity in his living room.
First, I mainly want to have the flaws of evolutionary theory taught in the classroom. I don’t want schools to teach about God or the Bible, because they are virtually certain to get it wrong. There are “Christians” who support abortion, deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation, deny that He is God, etc., so I don’t want them or any atheists teaching these falsehoods.
Neil, my morals are like incredibly similar to yours, yet mine have nothing to do with God.
Actually, they have everything to do with God. See Romans 2. God wrote moral laws on our hearts but we suppress them in rebellion. I know you don’t believe that, but that is the explanation for the similarity in moral codes.
And what would it matter if our morals were similar? If we get to make up our own morals, we could have opposite views and still have no reason to claim the other person was wrong.
I would argue that a person like me – who does the right thing because he feels it is the right thing to do – is more moral than a Christian, who does the right thing to avoid hellfire.
First, that is an interesting conclusion you draw. I’ve heard many atheists make that claim and they appear to think they are superior because of it. But if their worldview is true, what is there to be proud about? Their bag of chemicals just leads them to think differently. How could you claim that one standard is better than another?
More importantly, that is not a proper characterization of the Christian worldview. Any Christian who claims that they are avoiding Hell because of good things they do is “saved and confused” at best. The Bible clearly teaches that no amount of good works, short of a 100.000% perfect life, will warrant Heaven for you. You only get that by trusting in Jesus. He took the punishment for your sins and his perfect righteousness is transferred to your account. It is the ultimate deal — I’d take it ;-) .
So to be clear: I do the right things more often now but not because I think I can avoid Hell under my own power. It is all because of Jesus.
If it bothers you to be lumped in with all humans when I say we’re all sinners in need of a Savior, then I’m not sure what to say. I have yet to meet an atheist who perfectly adheres to his own man-made standards, let alone anyone (Christian or not) who comes close to God’s standards of righteousness.
If there is a god, then that would be good enough for him. If it’s not good enough for him, then I’ve got no interest in spending eternity in his living room.
Really? So if there is a God who created the universe and everything in it, including you, and He provided a sacrifice so you could be forgiven for your sins, and that is the only way to avoid Hell as just punishment for your sins, you think you will sit in judgment of him? Eternity is a mighty long time. I’d think carefully about that.
I hope you also plan to teach the flaws of gravitational theory in class as well, since that theory is much less understood and proven than the theory of evolution.
Neil, I don’t think we are just a bag of chemicals. Literally, perhaps we are – so is everything else – but that’s not how I live my life. I view my life as a wondrous gift. It is obvious that we are here, and that we can think, love, learn, and enjoy the world we live in. My little boy just ran by me at my computer, and let me tell you – when I look at him I’m not thinking of a “bag of chemicals”.
I don’t clam to be righteous. We all make mistakes, and we all occasionally make poor choices. What makes you think that God is righteous? Other than the fact that He told you so, of course.
I’m not trying to gig you on a slip of the keyboard, but don’t gifts usually involve gift givers?
I am glad you are enjoying the gift of your son! Seriously, parenting is a joy.
Well, God did tell me He was righteous. And I believe him. He keeps his promises. And I think that we understand a big part of that righteousness (stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, etc.).
Gotta run . . . catch up later. I appreciate the dialogue with you guys. Sometimes these things deteriorate into nastiness and that isn’t productive for anyone.
Yes, and they don’t come with receipts so you can’t return or exchange them when they don’t listen to you ;-) . Other than that, parenting is a great gig.
A man and a woman joined, not two men, and not two women.
…let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
A man and a woman, not two men, and not two women.
You’ll find 115 instances of the phrase “his wife“, but you won’t find any instances of the phrase “her wife“.
You asked:
You say that you apply the same standards to adulterers as you do to gay people – so are you advocating that the Constitution be changed to prevent adulterers ever marrying again?
I advocate the Constitution being amended to define marriage the way it is defined in the Bible, and has been defined in this country for hundreds of years. It is only the recent attempts to redefine marriage that now require a Constitutional protection of marriage.
You question about “prevent adulterers ever marrying again” totally misses the point. Applying Biblical law consistently to adulterers and homosexuals (as was done in the laws of Massachusetts over 300 years ago) would result in both groups receiving capital punishment. So “marrying again” would not really be an option, would it?
Is Leviticus “extreme” in calling for capital punishment for numerous offenses?
By today’s “politically correct” standards, yes.
Were the laws of Massachusetts over 300 years ago “extreme” in calling for capital punishment for numerous offenses, and citing the revelant Bible passages?
By today’s “politically correct” standards, yes.
But the whole point of this thread is the difference between “Biblically correct” and “politically correct”. Over 300 years ago, there was no difference between the two. Today, they are almost 180 degrees apart.
Our nation was founded by people that would today be labelled “Dangerous Right-Wing Extremists”.
Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 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.
Also, the Bible sometimes gives an example with one of the sexes but if you consider the context it is pretty obvious that it applies to both.
Neil, most atheists I know agree with me that Jesus lived, and was probably a great man.
Math Said:
Neil: I think he was a great prophet and leader because 2000 years later, there are still a lot of people who follow his teachings.
Now consider if a leader today said:
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father [God] except through Me.
Would you consider that man “a great man”, “a great prophet and leader”?
It was C.S. Lewis (not Josh McDowell, though McDowell did reference Lewis’ work) who said
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)
Just as the residents of Flatland have difficulty understanding the concept of a third dimension and creatures who are not limited to two dimensions…
we have a have difficulty understanding the concept of time as a fourth dimension and a God who is not limited to three dimensions.
Asking “who created God?” implies that there was a time before God. But that is thinking from our time-limited perspective. The Bible makes it clear that God is independent of time. He is the beginning and the end. There is no such thing as a time without God, or a time “before” God.
Thanks for all of your comments. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion here.
Your discussion of Romans 1:18-20 and 26-28 are highly appropriate to this topic. I have decided to add Romans 1:18-28 to the list of scripture links in the original post above.
And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as president, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas — that’s their name for religion — or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.
You make it clear that you believe it is not politically correct today to call for capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers. You make it clear that you believe it is Biblically correct to do so. What does Mr Pill believe should be correct then? Do you believe that capital punishment be applied to homoxuals and adulterers?
This is a pretty black and white issue here. Do you, or do you not believe that homosexuals and adulterers, as stated in the Bible, should be put to death?
We all know that they should not be put to death now, or then. The Bible, in this instance, was wrong.
As for the 4th dimension analogy – I completely agree with much of that. The flatlanders experience applies here. The only difference is that you apply it to the existence of God, and I apply it to the origin of the universe. Neither could ever be fully understood by most of us, since it involves a different idea of time than that which we are used to, but creationists use that very argument to “prove” that God exists.
Your beef is with God’s word. You don’t like what it says. You don’t like that our country was founded by people who believed what it says, and made laws in agreement with what it says.
The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusets (1648; facsimile edition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929).
CAPITAL LAWES.
IF any man after legal conviction shall HAVE OR WORSHIP any other God, but the LORD GOD: he shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 20. Deut. 13. 6. & 10. Deut. 17. 2. 6.
2. If any man or woman be a WITCH, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death. Exod. 22. 18. Levit. 20. 27. Deut. 18. 10. 11.
3. If any person within this Jurisdiction whether Christian or Pagan shall wittingly and willingly presume to BLASPHEME the holy Name of God, Father, Son or Holy-Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or high-handed blasphemy, either by wilfull or obstinate denying the true God, or his Creation, or Government of the world: or shall curse God in like manner, or reproach the holy Religion of God as if it were but a politick device to keep ignorant men in awe; or shal utter any other kinde of Blasphemy of the like nature & degree they shall be put to death. Levit. 24, 15. 16.
4. If any person shall commit any wilfull MURTHER, which is Man slaughter, committed upon premeditate malice, hatred, or crueltie not in a mans necessary and just defence, nor by meer casualty against his will, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21. 12. 13. Numb. 35. 31.
5. If any person slayeth another suddenly in his ANGER, or CRUELTY of passion, he shall be put to death. Levit. 24. 17. Numb. 35. 20. 21.
6. If any person shall slay another through guile, either by POYSONING, or other such develish practice, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21. 14.
7. If any man or woman shall LYE WITH ANY BEAST, or bruit creature, by carnall copulation; they shall surely be put to death: and the beast shall be slain, & buried, and not eaten. Lev. 20, 15. 16.
8. If any man LYETH WITH MAN-KINDE as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shal surely be put to death: unles the one partie were forced (or be under fourteen years of age in which case he shall be seveerlypunished) Levit. 20. 13.
9. If any person commit ADULTERIE with a married, or espoused wife; the Adulterer & Adulteresse shal surely be put to death. Lev. 20. 19. & 18. 20. Deu. 22. 23. 27.
10. If any man STEALETH A MAN, or Man-kinde, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21. 16.
11. If any man rise up by FALSE-WITNES wittingly, and of purpose to take away any mans life: he shal be put to death. Deut. 19. 16. 18. 16.
12. If any man shall CONSPIRE, and attempt any Invasion, Insurrection, or publick Rebellion against our Common-Wealth: or shall indeavour to surprize any Town, or Townes, Fort, or Forts therin; or shall treacherously, & persidiously attempt the Alteration and Subversion of our frame of Politie, or Government fundamentally he shall be put to death. Numb. 16. 2 Sam. 3. 2 Sam. 18. 2 Sam. 20.
13. If any child, or children, above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding, shall CURSE, or SMITE their natural FATHER, or MOTHER; he or they shall be put to death: unles it can be sufficiently testified that the Parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the eduction of such children; or so provoked them by extream, and cruel correction; that they have been forced therunto to preserve themselves from death or maiming. Exod. 21. 17. Lev. 20. 9. Exod. 21. 15.
14. If a man have a stubborn or REBELLIOUS SON, of sufficient years & uderstanding (viz) sixteen years of age, which will not obey the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them: then shal his Father & Mother being his natural parets, lay hold on him, & bring him to the Magistrates assembled in Court & testifie unto them that their Son is stubborn & rebellious & will not obey their voice and chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a son shal be put to death. Deut. 21. 20. 21.
15. If any man shal RAVISH any maid or single womãn, cõmitting carnal copulation with her by force, against her own will; that is above the age of ten years he shal be punished either with death, or with some other greivous punishmet according to circumstances as the Judges, or General court shal determin.
You don’t like that anyone today believes what the Bible says.
The real culture war is over what the Bible says. It is spiritual warfare.
Some say The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism, and while they are correct that Capitalism is under attack, they don’t seem to realize that even that attack is spiritual. The war against Capitalism is being fought by Communists who want Socialism first, and then Communism. Vladimir Lenin himself said, ” The goal of socialism is communism.” Communism is a Godless system. Go back to this:
as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas — that’s their name for religion — or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.
Now, let’s focus on adultery – both how Jesus’ definition of it is larger than many people’s definition of it, and how Jesus has mercy for those who repent (turn away from their sin and don’t return to it).
Exodus 20:14
“You shall not commit adultery. Leviticus 20:10
‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 5:18
‘You shall not commit adultery. Proverbs 6:32
Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding; He who does so destroys his own soul. Jeremiah 23:14
Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: They commit adultery and walk in lies; They also strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah. Jeremiah 29:23
because they have done disgraceful things in Israel, have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and have spoken lying words in My name, which I have not commanded them. Indeed I know, and am a witness, says the LORD. Matthew 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
John 8:2-12
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
Romans 13:9
For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, James 2:11
For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 2 Peter 2:14
having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. Revelation 2:22
Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
The Bottom Line:
Jesus has mercy on sinners who repent. We are all sinners. We all need to repent and ask God for mercy and forgiveness of our sins through the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of His son Jesus Christ.
You didn’t answer the question, and leads me to believe that you also have some unanswered questions about the rules as set out in the Bible.
If a person commits adultery, or is a homosexual person, or is otherwise “unclean”, and rejects the idea that Jesus is God, should that person be put to death?
Ryan, can you point me to the verses where the Bible says that rejecting the idea that Jesus is God requires capital punishment?
To clarify, many things resulted in the Israelites being “unclean,” but only 15 or so involved the death penalty. Most of them, like eating unclean foods, involved some ceremonial type things but not death.
Yes, the Israelite theocracy had laws that included capital punishment for adultery or homosexual behavior (but not orientation, as your comment implies).
I would definitely say that I agree with the Bible in what it means to convey. But sometimes people (deliberately or not) try to take that in a hyper-literal sense and imply that I agree that Lot’s incest or some other sin described in the Bible is something I agree with. That’s not the case, of course.
My prior comment was directed at Ryan, not you.
I’ve updated the comment to clarify that.
I agree with you that the Bible contains commandments from God as well as historical records of both righteous and unrighteous actions by people. Just because there is an historical record of unrighteous behavior doesn’t mean that God is commanding us to mirror that unrighteous behavior.
I didn’t mean to say that the Bible condemn people to death for not believing in Jesus. I added that statement because saying the person does not believe in Jesus would imply, to a Christian, that the person has committed said crime, and has not “asked to be forgiven”. I used that modifier for the scenario to clarify my question to Mr. Pill, and make it clear that the person is in direct violation of the Bible.
I was hoping for the type of reply that you gave Neil. I also agree with much of what the Bible has to convey, but I find it difficult to argue with those that will not agree that some of the “rules” and “punishments” in the Bible are from an earlier time, and simply do not apply any longer.
If Mr. Pill truly believes what he says he believes, he would be obligated to kill me, and pretty much every non-Christian he encounters. I don’t believe he would, of course, and that is the basis for the point I’m trying to make.
If the Bible says one thing (adulterers deserve to die) and your mind tells you that’s wrong, then we have evidence that morals do not come from the Bible.
Ryan, I followed you to a point. But there are two important things about the commands for capital punishment for adultery and homosexual behavior. First, they were for the Israelite theocracy that no longer exists. That doesn’t mean the behaviors are not sins any more, but the government system that applied the punishments is gone.
Second, other than a one time clearing out of the Promised Land of a culture that had done despicable, unrepentant things for 400 years (child sacrifice, etc.), the Israelites never set out to apply these laws to outsiders.
Neither you nor Mr. Pill live in the OT Israelite theocracy, so I’m pretty sure you are safe from harm. He is under no obligation to harm you. I think he’d share the Gospel with you if you are interested, though ;-) .
Re. evidence about morality: The Bible teaches that there are universal morals, but it also teaches that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness and deny them.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
You make some incorrect assumptions about me. Firstly, you said that “You don’t like that anyone today believes what the Bible says.”. That is completely incorrect. I have no problem with you believing in whatever you like.
What I do have a problem with is hypopcrisy. And that is what I’m seeing here. Even though you’ve been dancing around the issue, from what I can gather you believe that todays laws regarding homosexuality and adultery should be the same as why they applied in 1672 – i.e they should be put to death. You’re too gutless to spell it out explicitly, but you’re still saying it.
And yet you then can say “love the sinner, hate the sin”. How is that not hypocrisy of the highest order?`
Mr. Pill, I’m not sure what you are saying. No it does not make a difference that you would apply the same judgement to yourself. It does not make sense that a person deserves to die for glancing at an attractive person and having “adulterous thoughts”. I don’t know a single Christian that could carry out that sentence, or allow it to happen to another human being. Yet you supposedly believe it should be the law.
You’ve dug yourself a hole here, which is common amongst those who get their rules from a book that can’t seem to get them straight either.
And I don’t believe Jesus died for me. That’s just a silly story that makes no sense at all. The fact that people still believe it happened blows my mind.
Neil: where does it say that those verses apply only to Israelites? Isn’t it written in the Bible, therefore God’s word, therefore your command? How is it not cherry-picking to say “oh this only applies to them not me”?
Math, you make a lot of criticisms about something you don’t appear to have read. The concept of the Old and New Covenants are pretty well covered in the Bible.
Also, people weren’t killed for adulterous thoughts, but for the act of adultery. Jesus’ points in Matthew (and elsewhere) were merely that our thoughts make us guilty before God as well.
Re. Jesus dying for you: It actually makes a lot of sense. You have sinned against a perfect and holy God. There is nothing you can do to make up for that. No amount of good behavior can undo the penalty for your sins. You need someone worthy enough to die in your place, and He’s the only one.
P.S. I forgot who was offended that I labeled them a sinner, but just to be clear, I mean that you don’t meet God’s standard. You may be much nicer / better than me and whatever standard I set.
No hypocrisy here. Leviticus 20:13 and the other verses listed in the original post above make it perfectly clear that homosexual behavior is sinful and offensive to God. Yet God loves all sinners and has provided a way for us to be reconcilled to Him, through His son Jesus.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of murder? Yes.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of lying? Yes.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of stealing? Yes.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of homosexuality? Yes.
I have many friends who have been friends for over 20 years, some of whom have lived a homosexual lifestyle that entire time. I do not hate them.
I think the real issue you have is not in my ability to “love the sinner but hate the sin”, but rather you don’t agree with anyone thinking homosexuality is sinful. In today’s culture, homosexuality is not treated as sin, it is treated as something to be celebrated with pride. Those practicing homosexuality do not want to repent. They would rather exchange the truth of God for the lie.
Your definition of love must be different to mine then, because believing that homosexuals should be put to death certainly does not equal love in my book.
And how exactly can the homosexual reconcile their sins when you would have them put to death?
And again, I’ve got no problem with you believing that homosexuality is a sin. Thats fine. My problem comes when you want to codify your beliefs in law.
Neil, just to be clear, I’m not offended by you calling me a sinner. I understand you don’t mean to judge me, and that it’s just a term Christians use to say we are fallible. I agree with that. Of course we are fallible. I am occasionally “extra-fallible”.
But if I was to assume that God exists, and created us all, then he created me that way. He made me fallible. He gave me the skepticism that has prevented me from believing in him as well. Why would he do all that, and then make me beg for forgiveness? That is what does not make sense to me.
And to you Mr. Pill, those poor people who have “turned away from” homosexuality are doing so out of fear of God, or fear of a family who will not accept them. It’s terribly sad to see a person destroy his life for hopes of an afterlife that will not come.
Earlier, you expressed that you think it is hypocritical to believe that someone is guilty of a capital offense, yet still say you love them.
You’re really saying that God is a hypocrite, and anyone who follows God’s Word is a hypocrite.
I think it is hypocritical for someone to be an ordained minster, professing to follow and teach God’s Word, and then perform a “marriage” ceremony between two homosexuals. That is hypocrisy.
And to you Mr. Pill, those poor people who have “turned away from” homosexuality are doing so out of fear of God, or fear of a family who will not accept them. It’s terribly sad to see a person destroy his life for hopes of an afterlife that will not come.
Totally backwards. They are joyful to be set free. What is sad is to see someone choose to remain in a lifestyle that God describes as “vile passions”, “men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due”, “a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting”.
I think it is hypocritical for someone to be an ordained minster, professing to follow and teach God’s Word, and then perform a “marriage” ceremony between two homosexuals. That is hypocrisy.
Agreed. It’s also hypocritical for that minister to drive a Bentley, while preaching the “word of God”.
They are joyful to be set free.
No, YOU are joyful that they are not homosexuals anymore. They are tormented inside because they are torn between desires, and what they believe God wants for them. Many people have committed suicide after going through these programs. One of the more well known of these cases is the tragic case of Alan Turing.
But if I was to assume that God exists, and created us all, then he created me that way. He made me fallible. He gave me the skepticism that has prevented me from believing in him as well. Why would he do all that, and then make me beg for forgiveness? That is what does not make sense to me.
Hi Ryan,
The paradox of free will used to be a barrier for me as well. It made things seem pointless, as if I was pre-wired to do every last thing. But deep down I sure don’t feel like a puppet. I make of decisions a day, big and small.
All illustrations fail at some point, but I think the parenting analogy fits well. You create your kids and give them rules but they obviously make more and more of their own decisions and live with the consequences.
Christianity teaches that He didn’t give you that skepticism but that you chose it.
I agree that we have free will for all intents and purposes, and I don’t feel like a puppet either.
I don’t feel bad at all about being a skeptic, and I did chose to be one. i’ve never heard a good argument against skepticism.
There’s one thing that you can’t choose though. You can’t choose to believe something. You can choose to look in different places for truth, and you can choose to look the other way when faced with evidence. You can think very hard, and sometimes your mind will change about certain things, but you can’t make it change without lying to yourself.
April 28, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Mr Pill,
What sort of debate are you willing to participate in regarding intelligent design? When scientists enter a real debate based on scientific evidence, both sides must be willing to come out of the debate with a different viewpoint than the one they came in with.
Are you willing to change your mind about the origins of life?
I am, and so are the scientists I’ve spoken to are as well. Even Richard Dawkins says he is willing to change his mind.
You simply cannot show me that God exists.
April 29, 2009 at 9:07 am
Ryan: of course he can show you God exists: it’s all over the Bible. And the Bible is the truth because it’s God’s word. And God exists because it’s all over the Bible. And the Bible is the truth because it’s God’s word. And God exists because … ad vitam eternam
April 29, 2009 at 10:32 am
Math,
I imagine that your straw man argument gets you lots of back slaps over at atheist sites, but it is completely false. If you want a real tautology you need to consider the naturalistic materialism worldview.
When you try to say that our only evidence is that the Bible claims there is a God that is hyperbole gone mad. We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc. If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.
Thanks for tipping your hand, though. That is very efficient for us who don’t want to waste time dealing with those who are currently in such transparent rebellion.
We know exactly why you hold your worldview:
But your worldview has no rational explanation for ours. After all, in a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview we are purely material objects who just think we have choices. My chemical make up just happened to take me from a position of unbelief to trusting what I perceive as overwhelming evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It makes me see historical facts like these (among others) and infer that the most likely explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead and proved his divinity.
- Jesus was a real person who died on a cross.
- his disciples believed He rose from the dead.
- that the Apostle Paul converted from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity’s greatest advocated, including writing Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and more. These put essential Christian doctrines and beliefs in writing within 20-30 years of the crucifixion.
- After the crucifixion, Jesus’ brother James went from being a skeptic to a believer, a leader in the early church and a martyr.
For you to have pride in your worldview or to criticize ours would be completely irrational — if your worldview was true.
All the best,
Neil
April 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Neil, you claim that the Bible is not the only proof of God’s existence by citing more Bible passages. You claim you have evidence in “Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, archeological support and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, etc.” I say you have no evidence of any of this beyond what is written in the Bible.
Were you there when JC resurrected? Were you there when God created Adam and Eve out of dirt? How can that story be accurately reported by the way? Do you think God gave them the ability to write right off the bat? Or do you think the story didn’t get distorted at all throughout the generations before writing came to be?
And by the way I don’t think many atheists will dispute the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Right up until the resurrection and son of God part, we’re both in agreement on that question. I think he was a great prophet, a great leader that people followed (like Muhammad was for Muslims).
I have no problem with what you think, you can believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too for all I care. I start having a problem when the politicians buy into it and enact parts of it to law.
April 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Hi Math,
Actually, that was not part of my claim. We can demonstrate that the Bible is the word of God. What is says is true and that passage helps explain why atheists are atheists. But I did not cite it as a reason for the veracity of the Bible, and I don’t expect you to view it authoritatively at this stage.
You must live an interesting life if you only trust what you see. You couldn’t trust any history or even the evening news (ok, you probably can’t trust the news either way). Have you replicated every single scientific experiment and finding that you rely upon? Did you create all the test equipment yourself from scratch? Otherwise, how could you trust it?
I don’t know when writing came into being. I do know that God is fully capable of leading people to accurately record events. The Biblical record is such that we can be highly confident (99.5%) of what the originals said (via the Dead Sea scrolls and manuscript testing and such). Even skeptics like Bart Erhman concede that. And none of typos and minor changes (e.g., the woman caught in adultery in John 8) impact any major church doctrines.
I appreciate your concession that Jesus was a real figure in history. I have found that some extreme atheists deny it but most realize that virtually all historians (secular and believers) look at the data inside and outside the Bible and realize that He lived.
I’m curious, though. What makes you think He was a great prophet and leader?
I’m not sure what you were thinking of precisely re. not enacting things into law. I would never want a state religion. You can’t coerce real faith. The rich young ruler went away sad when Jesus challenged him to give up everything to follow him (Matthew 19). Jesus didn’t run after him and tackle him. In the book of Acts, Paul and others lay out the facts and reasons for the faith over and over. Some believed, some did not. No one was ever forced.
But if you mean that religious views shouldn’t inform our political views then I would disagree. I have yet to find anyone who has issues with my voting in accordance with my religious views on the topics of murder, theft, perjury, etc., so I find it to be the height of disingenuousness when some want to silence me for being against abortion (it kills an innocent human being) or oxymoronic “same sex marriage.” I can argue those issues without the Bible, but the fact that they agree with the Bible should not mean I have to vote the opposite of my religious views.
April 29, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Well, you can say that if you like, but the truth is that the link I provided has many examples of those categories and more, and they don’t need the Bible to demonstrate them — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/hyperbole-gone-mad/ .
Having said that, I do encourage Bible reading for believers and non-believers. It is a powerful book.
April 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Neil, most atheists I know agree with me that Jesus lived, and was probably a great man. There’s no reason to doubt the historical evidence. His teachings of love and forgiveness are, in my opinion, fantastic models to live by. Atheists aren’t swine you know.
The thing is – Jesus didn’t invent compassion, generosity, love and friendship. There have always been good people in the world.
I simply don’t understand how you can invoke the “first cause” argument, when you are are not willing to apply that argument to God Himself. If you think there must be a first cause for everything, then who created God?
None of the evidence you have presented is testable. There is no physical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. The fact that logic exists does not prove that God exists – in fact the two concepts are diametrically opposed.
I don’t know what else to say here. You have not presented any scientific arguments. Give me a reason the God exists, and allow me to test it. Then I will believe you.
April 29, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Neil: I think he was a great prophet and leader because 2000 years later, there are still a lot of people who follow his teachings.
And you will never be able to convince us scientifically of God’s existence because it’s not science. Scientific methodology requires to start with an hypothesis, test it, and repeat until you find a conclusion. And that conclusion can be challenged and proven wrong at a later date when new evidence comes to light.
You, on the other hand, work backwards by starting with an immovable conclusion (God exists, and he created the universe in 7 days) and you try to make the rest fit around that conclusion. That is why intelligent design has no business in science classes. The school boards that force ID down the throats of children is one of the example of religion enacted by law. Abortion and gay mariage are two others.
But that’s fine. If you (United States in general) don’t mind breeding a generation of moron “scientists” who will believe in ID and not believe in evolution and will be laughed at by the rest of the world’s scientists, that will just mean more job for the real scientists from my country. It has already started anyways.
April 29, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I know that is a common atheist response, but the request itself warrants further examination. Science is used to test material things. God is immaterial. While I can appreciate your desire to do so, you wouldn’t use science to test for God any more than you’d use science to weigh the color blue. It is a category error and not the proper way to measure it.
People who use that argument are usually either unaware of the category error or are using it as a “heads I win, tails you lose” rhetorical move.
Also, you can’t use science to prove that only scientific evidence is useful.
Again, do you re-test every single scientific experiment and create all your own test equipment, or do you rely on others whom you have good reason to be trustworthy? In the same way, I have many reasons to trust the accuracy of the accounts in the Bible.
I didn’t start with an immovable conclusion. I was a skeptic until my late 20′s. I’ve examined the evidence and trust in Jesus for my salvation because I believe the best explanation for the evidence is that He really rose from the dead and that He is God and has the best explanations for the world as it really is.
What teachings? The teachings that said He was the only way to salvation? The ones where He claimed to be God?
Agreed. I never make that claim. I know lots of atheists that are “good” people on human terms. I just know that 100% of us are sinners in need of a savior, and that without God there is no foundation for morality. It is just whatever those in power make up. I get irritated when Christians act like atheists don’t have morals. Most of them are fine folks, but their worldview can’t provide a logical foundation for the morality.
I don’t see how you think logic and God are opposed. Logic is immaterial and only makes sense in light of God.
Math, your ad hom about “moron scientists” does nothing but reinforce the stereotypes that evolutionists can’t handle any criticism of their theories. People who are so thin-skinned always seem like they are hiding something.
I am really, really surprised you’d use abortion as an example. It is a scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. I teach classes in pro-life reasoning and I only use the Bible when talking to Christians. I can rebut every pro-abortion argument with secular reasoning. The science couldn’t be more clear. If anyone thinks abortions are moral then they are ignorant of the scientific facts or they don’t think it is immoral to destroy an innocenth human being.
Speaking of logic, “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. And if there is no God then there is no foundation to say that homosexual behavior is universally moral or immoral. It would be whatever society wants to say it is.
Re. the first cause argument — there is nothing illogical about an uncaused being. In fact, it is the most logical conclusion of the evidence. The theory just states that everything that came into being had to have a cause. I find this scenario infinitely more likely than the notion that materials existed eternally without a cause and that life came from non-life.
April 29, 2009 at 4:34 pm
if there can be no basis in science for the existence of God, as you have just stated, then you agree with me that there is no place for a discussion of an intelligent creator in science class. That is progress.
Neil, my morals are like incredibly similar to yours, yet mine have nothing to do with God. I would argue that a person like me – who does the right thing because he feels it is the right thing to do – is more moral than a Christian, who does the right thing to avoid hellfire. Now I’m not trying to say I’m more moral than you. I know many Christians who attribute their morals to God, when I believe they are just good people.
Also – please stop calling me a sinner. You don’t know me. If you want to be a sinner, then go ahead. I do my best with what I’ve been given. I’m honest and generous. If there is a god, then that would be good enough for him. If it’s not good enough for him, then I’ve got no interest in spending eternity in his living room.
April 29, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Hi Ryan,
First, I mainly want to have the flaws of evolutionary theory taught in the classroom. I don’t want schools to teach about God or the Bible, because they are virtually certain to get it wrong. There are “Christians” who support abortion, deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation, deny that He is God, etc., so I don’t want them or any atheists teaching these falsehoods.
Actually, they have everything to do with God. See Romans 2. God wrote moral laws on our hearts but we suppress them in rebellion. I know you don’t believe that, but that is the explanation for the similarity in moral codes.
And what would it matter if our morals were similar? If we get to make up our own morals, we could have opposite views and still have no reason to claim the other person was wrong.
First, that is an interesting conclusion you draw. I’ve heard many atheists make that claim and they appear to think they are superior because of it. But if their worldview is true, what is there to be proud about? Their bag of chemicals just leads them to think differently. How could you claim that one standard is better than another?
More importantly, that is not a proper characterization of the Christian worldview. Any Christian who claims that they are avoiding Hell because of good things they do is “saved and confused” at best. The Bible clearly teaches that no amount of good works, short of a 100.000% perfect life, will warrant Heaven for you. You only get that by trusting in Jesus. He took the punishment for your sins and his perfect righteousness is transferred to your account. It is the ultimate deal — I’d take it ;-) .
So to be clear: I do the right things more often now but not because I think I can avoid Hell under my own power. It is all because of Jesus.
If it bothers you to be lumped in with all humans when I say we’re all sinners in need of a Savior, then I’m not sure what to say. I have yet to meet an atheist who perfectly adheres to his own man-made standards, let alone anyone (Christian or not) who comes close to God’s standards of righteousness.
Really? So if there is a God who created the universe and everything in it, including you, and He provided a sacrifice so you could be forgiven for your sins, and that is the only way to avoid Hell as just punishment for your sins, you think you will sit in judgment of him? Eternity is a mighty long time. I’d think carefully about that.
April 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I hope you also plan to teach the flaws of gravitational theory in class as well, since that theory is much less understood and proven than the theory of evolution.
Neil, I don’t think we are just a bag of chemicals. Literally, perhaps we are – so is everything else – but that’s not how I live my life. I view my life as a wondrous gift. It is obvious that we are here, and that we can think, love, learn, and enjoy the world we live in. My little boy just ran by me at my computer, and let me tell you – when I look at him I’m not thinking of a “bag of chemicals”.
I don’t clam to be righteous. We all make mistakes, and we all occasionally make poor choices. What makes you think that God is righteous? Other than the fact that He told you so, of course.
April 29, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I’m not trying to gig you on a slip of the keyboard, but don’t gifts usually involve gift givers?
I am glad you are enjoying the gift of your son! Seriously, parenting is a joy.
Well, God did tell me He was righteous. And I believe him. He keeps his promises. And I think that we understand a big part of that righteousness (stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, etc.).
Gotta run . . . catch up later. I appreciate the dialogue with you guys. Sometimes these things deteriorate into nastiness and that isn’t productive for anyone.
Peace,
Neil
April 29, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I knew you would say that :-) The gift I got did not have a tag, so there’s no way to tell.
April 29, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Yes, and they don’t come with receipts so you can’t return or exchange them when they don’t listen to you ;-) . Other than that, parenting is a great gig.
April 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Frin,
Delayed response to your question about lesbians…
A man and a woman joined, not two men, and not two women.
A man and a woman, not two men, and not two women.
You’ll find 115 instances of the phrase “his wife“, but you won’t find any instances of the phrase “her wife“.
You asked:
I advocate the Constitution being amended to define marriage the way it is defined in the Bible, and has been defined in this country for hundreds of years. It is only the recent attempts to redefine marriage that now require a Constitutional protection of marriage.
You question about “prevent adulterers ever marrying again” totally misses the point. Applying Biblical law consistently to adulterers and homosexuals (as was done in the laws of Massachusetts over 300 years ago) would result in both groups receiving capital punishment. So “marrying again” would not really be an option, would it?
Is Leviticus “extreme” in calling for capital punishment for numerous offenses?
By today’s “politically correct” standards, yes.
Were the laws of Massachusetts over 300 years ago “extreme” in calling for capital punishment for numerous offenses, and citing the revelant Bible passages?
By today’s “politically correct” standards, yes.
But the whole point of this thread is the difference between “Biblically correct” and “politically correct”. Over 300 years ago, there was no difference between the two. Today, they are almost 180 degrees apart.
Our nation was founded by people that would today be labelled “Dangerous Right-Wing Extremists”.
April 29, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Romans 1 specifically mentions lesbians.
Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 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.
Also, the Bible sometimes gives an example with one of the sexes but if you consider the context it is pretty obvious that it applies to both.
April 29, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Neil,
I really liked your comment on April 27, 2009 at 12:59 am.
April 29, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Ryan Said:
Math Said:
Now consider if a leader today said:
Would you consider that man “a great man”, “a great prophet and leader”?
It was C.S. Lewis (not Josh McDowell, though McDowell did reference Lewis’ work) who said
April 29, 2009 at 10:51 pm
April 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Ryan Said:
Just as the residents of Flatland have difficulty understanding the concept of a third dimension and creatures who are not limited to two dimensions…
we have a have difficulty understanding the concept of time as a fourth dimension and a God who is not limited to three dimensions.
Asking “who created God?” implies that there was a time before God. But that is thinking from our time-limited perspective. The Bible makes it clear that God is independent of time. He is the beginning and the end. There is no such thing as a time without God, or a time “before” God.
Thinking Outside the Box
April 29, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Neil,
Thanks for all of your comments. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion here.
Your discussion of Romans 1:18-20 and 26-28 are highly appropriate to this topic. I have decided to add Romans 1:18-28 to the list of scripture links in the original post above.
Thanks again,
Red Pill
April 29, 2009 at 11:14 pm
April 29, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Mr Pill,
You make it clear that you believe it is not politically correct today to call for capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers. You make it clear that you believe it is Biblically correct to do so. What does Mr Pill believe should be correct then? Do you believe that capital punishment be applied to homoxuals and adulterers?
April 29, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Frin,
Please re-read what I said here.
April 30, 2009 at 12:52 am
Mr. Pill,
This is a pretty black and white issue here. Do you, or do you not believe that homosexuals and adulterers, as stated in the Bible, should be put to death?
We all know that they should not be put to death now, or then. The Bible, in this instance, was wrong.
As for the 4th dimension analogy – I completely agree with much of that. The flatlanders experience applies here. The only difference is that you apply it to the existence of God, and I apply it to the origin of the universe. Neither could ever be fully understood by most of us, since it involves a different idea of time than that which we are used to, but creationists use that very argument to “prove” that God exists.
April 30, 2009 at 1:24 am
Mr Pill,
I want you to write it out explicitly. Do you believe that homosexuals and adulterers should be put to death? Yes or no?
April 30, 2009 at 11:09 am
Frin,
I made it clear 5 days ago:
Your beef is with God’s word. You don’t like what it says. You don’t like that our country was founded by people who believed what it says, and made laws in agreement with what it says.
You don’t like that anyone today believes what the Bible says.
The real culture war is over what the Bible says. It is spiritual warfare.
Some say The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism, and while they are correct that Capitalism is under attack, they don’t seem to realize that even that attack is spiritual. The war against Capitalism is being fought by Communists who want Socialism first, and then Communism. Vladimir Lenin himself said, ” The goal of socialism is communism.” Communism is a Godless system. Go back to this:
Now, let’s focus on adultery – both how Jesus’ definition of it is larger than many people’s definition of it, and how Jesus has mercy for those who repent (turn away from their sin and don’t return to it).
Exodus 20:14
“You shall not commit adultery.
Leviticus 20:10
‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 5:18
‘You shall not commit adultery.
Proverbs 6:32
Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding; He who does so destroys his own soul.
Jeremiah 23:14
Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: They commit adultery and walk in lies; They also strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.
Jeremiah 29:23
because they have done disgraceful things in Israel, have committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and have spoken lying words in My name, which I have not commanded them. Indeed I know, and am a witness, says the LORD.
Matthew 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
John 8:2-12
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
Romans 13:9
For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
James 2:11
For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
2 Peter 2:14
having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children.
Revelation 2:22
Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
The Bottom Line:
Jesus has mercy on sinners who repent. We are all sinners. We all need to repent and ask God for mercy and forgiveness of our sins through the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of His son Jesus Christ.
April 30, 2009 at 12:27 pm
You didn’t answer the question, and leads me to believe that you also have some unanswered questions about the rules as set out in the Bible.
If a person commits adultery, or is a homosexual person, or is otherwise “unclean”, and rejects the idea that Jesus is God, should that person be put to death?
The Bible says yes.
Do you agree with the Bible on this point?
April 30, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Ryan, can you point me to the verses where the Bible says that rejecting the idea that Jesus is God requires capital punishment?
To clarify, many things resulted in the Israelites being “unclean,” but only 15 or so involved the death penalty. Most of them, like eating unclean foods, involved some ceremonial type things but not death.
Yes, the Israelite theocracy had laws that included capital punishment for adultery or homosexual behavior (but not orientation, as your comment implies).
April 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Ryan, you ask:
That is the key issue.
Yes, I agree with the Bible. You want to demonize those who do.
April 30, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I would definitely say that I agree with the Bible in what it means to convey. But sometimes people (deliberately or not) try to take that in a hyper-literal sense and imply that I agree that Lot’s incest or some other sin described in the Bible is something I agree with. That’s not the case, of course.
April 30, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Neil,
My prior comment was directed at Ryan, not you.
I’ve updated the comment to clarify that.
I agree with you that the Bible contains commandments from God as well as historical records of both righteous and unrighteous actions by people. Just because there is an historical record of unrighteous behavior doesn’t mean that God is commanding us to mirror that unrighteous behavior.
April 30, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Thanks, Mr. Pill. I realized that, I was just chiming in.
April 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I didn’t mean to say that the Bible condemn people to death for not believing in Jesus. I added that statement because saying the person does not believe in Jesus would imply, to a Christian, that the person has committed said crime, and has not “asked to be forgiven”. I used that modifier for the scenario to clarify my question to Mr. Pill, and make it clear that the person is in direct violation of the Bible.
I was hoping for the type of reply that you gave Neil. I also agree with much of what the Bible has to convey, but I find it difficult to argue with those that will not agree that some of the “rules” and “punishments” in the Bible are from an earlier time, and simply do not apply any longer.
If Mr. Pill truly believes what he says he believes, he would be obligated to kill me, and pretty much every non-Christian he encounters. I don’t believe he would, of course, and that is the basis for the point I’m trying to make.
If the Bible says one thing (adulterers deserve to die) and your mind tells you that’s wrong, then we have evidence that morals do not come from the Bible.
April 30, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Ryan, I followed you to a point. But there are two important things about the commands for capital punishment for adultery and homosexual behavior. First, they were for the Israelite theocracy that no longer exists. That doesn’t mean the behaviors are not sins any more, but the government system that applied the punishments is gone.
Second, other than a one time clearing out of the Promised Land of a culture that had done despicable, unrepentant things for 400 years (child sacrifice, etc.), the Israelites never set out to apply these laws to outsiders.
Neither you nor Mr. Pill live in the OT Israelite theocracy, so I’m pretty sure you are safe from harm. He is under no obligation to harm you. I think he’d share the Gospel with you if you are interested, though ;-) .
Re. evidence about morality: The Bible teaches that there are universal morals, but it also teaches that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness and deny them.
April 30, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Ryan,
Does it make any difference to you that without Jesus I would be worthy of the death penalty?
Does it make any difference to you that Jesus, though completely innocent, willingly paid the death penalty for us?
April 30, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Mr Pill,
You make some incorrect assumptions about me. Firstly, you said that “You don’t like that anyone today believes what the Bible says.”. That is completely incorrect. I have no problem with you believing in whatever you like.
What I do have a problem with is hypopcrisy. And that is what I’m seeing here. Even though you’ve been dancing around the issue, from what I can gather you believe that todays laws regarding homosexuality and adultery should be the same as why they applied in 1672 – i.e they should be put to death. You’re too gutless to spell it out explicitly, but you’re still saying it.
And yet you then can say “love the sinner, hate the sin”. How is that not hypocrisy of the highest order?`
April 30, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Mr. Pill, I’m not sure what you are saying. No it does not make a difference that you would apply the same judgement to yourself. It does not make sense that a person deserves to die for glancing at an attractive person and having “adulterous thoughts”. I don’t know a single Christian that could carry out that sentence, or allow it to happen to another human being. Yet you supposedly believe it should be the law.
You’ve dug yourself a hole here, which is common amongst those who get their rules from a book that can’t seem to get them straight either.
And I don’t believe Jesus died for me. That’s just a silly story that makes no sense at all. The fact that people still believe it happened blows my mind.
April 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Neil: where does it say that those verses apply only to Israelites? Isn’t it written in the Bible, therefore God’s word, therefore your command? How is it not cherry-picking to say “oh this only applies to them not me”?
April 30, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Math, you make a lot of criticisms about something you don’t appear to have read. The concept of the Old and New Covenants are pretty well covered in the Bible.
Also, people weren’t killed for adulterous thoughts, but for the act of adultery. Jesus’ points in Matthew (and elsewhere) were merely that our thoughts make us guilty before God as well.
Re. Jesus dying for you: It actually makes a lot of sense. You have sinned against a perfect and holy God. There is nothing you can do to make up for that. No amount of good behavior can undo the penalty for your sins. You need someone worthy enough to die in your place, and He’s the only one.
April 30, 2009 at 11:36 pm
P.S. I forgot who was offended that I labeled them a sinner, but just to be clear, I mean that you don’t meet God’s standard. You may be much nicer / better than me and whatever standard I set.
May 1, 2009 at 12:23 am
Frin,
No hypocrisy here. Leviticus 20:13 and the other verses listed in the original post above make it perfectly clear that homosexual behavior is sinful and offensive to God. Yet God loves all sinners and has provided a way for us to be reconcilled to Him, through His son Jesus.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of murder? Yes.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of lying? Yes.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of stealing? Yes.
Is it possible to love someone who is guilty of homosexuality? Yes.
I have many friends who have been friends for over 20 years, some of whom have lived a homosexual lifestyle that entire time. I do not hate them.
I think the real issue you have is not in my ability to “love the sinner but hate the sin”, but rather you don’t agree with anyone thinking homosexuality is sinful. In today’s culture, homosexuality is not treated as sin, it is treated as something to be celebrated with pride. Those practicing homosexuality do not want to repent. They would rather exchange the truth of God for the lie.
May 1, 2009 at 12:30 am
Mr Pill,
Your definition of love must be different to mine then, because believing that homosexuals should be put to death certainly does not equal love in my book.
And how exactly can the homosexual reconcile their sins when you would have them put to death?
And again, I’ve got no problem with you believing that homosexuality is a sin. Thats fine. My problem comes when you want to codify your beliefs in law.
May 1, 2009 at 12:44 am
Many have turned away from the sin of homosexuality.
May 1, 2009 at 3:14 am
Neil, just to be clear, I’m not offended by you calling me a sinner. I understand you don’t mean to judge me, and that it’s just a term Christians use to say we are fallible. I agree with that. Of course we are fallible. I am occasionally “extra-fallible”.
But if I was to assume that God exists, and created us all, then he created me that way. He made me fallible. He gave me the skepticism that has prevented me from believing in him as well. Why would he do all that, and then make me beg for forgiveness? That is what does not make sense to me.
And to you Mr. Pill, those poor people who have “turned away from” homosexuality are doing so out of fear of God, or fear of a family who will not accept them. It’s terribly sad to see a person destroy his life for hopes of an afterlife that will not come.
May 1, 2009 at 9:00 am
Frin,
A few additional thoughts on hypocrisy.
Earlier, you expressed that you think it is hypocritical to believe that someone is guilty of a capital offense, yet still say you love them.
You’re really saying that God is a hypocrite, and anyone who follows God’s Word is a hypocrite.
I think it is hypocritical for someone to be an ordained minster, professing to follow and teach God’s Word, and then perform a “marriage” ceremony between two homosexuals. That is hypocrisy.
May 1, 2009 at 9:24 am
Ryan,
Totally backwards. They are joyful to be set free. What is sad is to see someone choose to remain in a lifestyle that God describes as “vile passions”, “men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due”, “a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting”.
May 1, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Agreed. It’s also hypocritical for that minister to drive a Bentley, while preaching the “word of God”.
No, YOU are joyful that they are not homosexuals anymore. They are tormented inside because they are torn between desires, and what they believe God wants for them. Many people have committed suicide after going through these programs. One of the more well known of these cases is the tragic case of Alan Turing.
May 1, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Hi Ryan,
The paradox of free will used to be a barrier for me as well. It made things seem pointless, as if I was pre-wired to do every last thing. But deep down I sure don’t feel like a puppet. I make of decisions a day, big and small.
All illustrations fail at some point, but I think the parenting analogy fits well. You create your kids and give them rules but they obviously make more and more of their own decisions and live with the consequences.
Christianity teaches that He didn’t give you that skepticism but that you chose it.
May 2, 2009 at 12:16 am
I agree that we have free will for all intents and purposes, and I don’t feel like a puppet either.
I don’t feel bad at all about being a skeptic, and I did chose to be one. i’ve never heard a good argument against skepticism.
There’s one thing that you can’t choose though. You can’t choose to believe something. You can choose to look in different places for truth, and you can choose to look the other way when faced with evidence. You can think very hard, and sometimes your mind will change about certain things, but you can’t make it change without lying to yourself.