Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [15]

Is Christianity Homophobic?

I continue with my review of Chaz Bufe, blues guitar playing Christian hater, and his 20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity.

With his next point, Chaz charges the Christian faith with promoting and engaging in homophobia. Because Chaz’s descriptions of Christian homophobia are a bit crass, I will not reproduce them in full, but direct readers here if they are interested in viewing them.

Like all of Chaz’s previous complaints against Christianity, he demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding of what it is he criticizes.

He begins by launching an attack against the book of Leviticus and the specific laws by which the people of Israel were to be governed. Chaz’s reaction to those laws is to say they were unnecessarily harsh rules against what he describes as trivial offenses. The “trivial” offenses he lists as illustrations from the book of Leviticus include adultery, bestiality, high-handed rebellion against one’s parents, and of course, homosexual behavior. In the real world inhabited by rational people, not some anarchist utopian dreamland envisioned by Chaz, those are not trivial offenses.

Taking a page out of the gaystapo playbook, Chaz appeals to the cliched argument that Christians are selective in which laws from Leviticus they will emphasize. How can they agree with the prohibition against homosexuality when such prohibitions also exist against eating pork and lobster?

Yep. You read that right. A smug Christian hater, who doesn’t give the slightest indication he has even read the Bible, telling me what I am supposed to believe about the Bible. Amazing.

Anyone giving a surface reading to Leviticus will quickly note Chaz draws a ridiculous imbalance from the text. The death penalty was not administered against those who ate Outback Steakhouse’s coconut shrimp or Chili’s baby back pork ribs. The death penalty was only prescribed for those individuals who engaged in behaviors, like homosexual sex and bestiality, that were extremely detrimental to society, and I would add, cut sharply against the holiness of God as revealed to God’s redeemed people.

Additionally, in regards to Leviticus, the laws against eating unclean animals were put away at the coming of Christ. See Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for the key example. Those food laws had the specific purpose of keeping God’s special people, Israel, separated from the pagan nations surrounding them at the time. The food laws were only necessary for the time Israel was a theocratic nation dwelling in the land. The laws which define, regulate, and prohibit human sexual behavior, including homosexuality, are a reflection of God’s moral attributes and thus transcend both Testaments as well as all people groups across the world.

Chaz further accuses Christians as being purveyors of general homophobia. I can certainly understand the aversion a common person, either Christian or non-Christian, would have toward homosexual behavior. People instinctively know homosexuality is against what is natural concerning human sexuality, and generally, those engaged in the lifestyle are involved with such vile perversions of the flesh that the expressions of such shock the senses with a gut churning revulsion. If one should witness the wretched scenes from a typical San Francisco street fair catering to the sexual fetishes frequently occurring in the homosexual community, a person in his right mind would be homophobic.

Chaz has made it clear that he doesn’t like Christians because they stifle sexual expression. He noted under points 9 and 10 of his booklet that, in his anarchist opinion, Christians have an unhealthy preoccupation with sex and produce a lifestyle of sexual misery. Christians are foolish, he argues, thinking they can prohibit sex among people to total monogamy because “human beings are by nature highly sexual beings. Their urges very often do not fit into the only officially sanctioned Christian form of sexuality (monogamous, heterosexual marriage).”

But I will go out on a limb and venture a guess that Chaz would be a “pedophobe,” a person fearful of adults having sex with young teens or even pre-teen children. Would he be willing to grant Jack McClellan (I let the reader Google his name), a notorious self-confessed pedophile (even though he says he never has touched a child), the freedom to indulge his urges even if it was with a consensual young teen?

Jack argued during an interview a number of years ago on local LA talk radio that his desires were really just his orientation. In fact, Jack even made the comparison of his sexual attraction for little girls to that of a man or woman’s homosexual attraction to the same sex. Will Chaz advocate for Jack against stodgy, sexually repressive Christianity? Jack even says he is an atheist with anarchist leanings, so he is a kindred spirit with Chaz.

I personally believe the Christian church can do better with ministering to people caught in the sin of homosexuality. I think Christian’s overall have stumbled in this area of outreach. But an aversion to homosexuality as a lifestyle and a conviction that homosexuals are trapped in a filthy sin from which they need to repent is hardly “homophobia.”

If anything, such a concern on the part of Christians is genuine love toward those enslaved to the sin. Statistics and real life facts show that the young men and women engaged in homosexuality live destructive lifestyles which only shorten their lives. To warn them to flee from that bondage of deceptive foolishness by calling them to repentance and submission to their creator who is the only one who can provide genuine redemption is not a phobia to be criticized, but a compassion which should be commended.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Twenty Ways to Answer A Fool [15]

  1. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

  2. A good source of information about the Christian perspective on homosexuality is “Washed and Waiting” by Wesley Hill. Hill is a Christian who believes all of the Bible, including its teaching on homosexuality, but who also is sexually attracted to other men. He decided to base his lifestyle on the Bible rather than on his desires and chose to live out his life as a celibate rather than sin against God.

  3. Fred, I’m beginning to think that you find questions bothersome and, if so, just let me know and I won’t ask you questions. But if you are open to questions, where you say…

    Additionally, in regards to Leviticus, the laws against eating unclean animals were put away at the coming of Christ. See Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for the key example

    I think the problem that some people have with what we might call “the literalists” (but loosely, since even those who might claim to be literalists DO take the portions of the Bible figuratively that they think are figurative – it’s just that we don’t agree on what is and isn’t figurative) is that there appears to be a loosey-goosey, “cherry-picked” feel to the way they approach interpreting/using the Bible. It often appears to come down to “When I say it’s literal and applicable to ALL, then it is. When I say it isn’t literal and/or applicable to all, it isn’t…” when it comes to biblical passages.

    So, perhaps it would help if you could explain a few points:

    In your opinion, are ALL the rules found in the OT universal rules… rules for all people and all places and all times?

    I’m pretty sure the answer is “No,” as you just clarified that the “pork” rule is not a universal rule. But your reason for that was because Jesus specifically ended that rule, saying “this used to be wrong, but now it’s not…” or whatever it is you’re saying.

    So, given that you probably do not think OT rules are all universal rules, on what basis do you know if a rule is universally applicable or not? You’ve given one example: If Jesus says, “This rule is no longer applicable…” then, that rule is no longer applicable, right?

    But I believe the food rule is the one and only OT law that is specifically categorized as no longer valid/not universally valid.

    So, the command to use capital punishment for disrespectful children and adulterers is an OT command from God to Israel, why is that not a universal command?

    The commands about how men are to cut their hair (or not) is an OT command, why is that not a universal command?

    The commands about no menstrual sex is an OT command: Universal or not?

    The commands about tattoos: Universal or not?

    The commands to farmers/land owners to return the land to the original owners every 50 years: Universal?

    And for each of these, on what basis do you know if it is a universal rule or not?

    Further: Are ONLY those behaviors condemned in the OT and NT “sinful” and any other behaviors are not sinful? Is it not a sin to pollute, since that’s not a bible rule?

    On what basis do you know if something is right or wrong?

    And in all of that, is there any rational consistency to your opinions?

    These sorts of questions point to what seem to be inconsistencies on the “biblical literalists” or “Bible as rulebook” types of believers. If you could clarify and directly answer these questions, you might be able to strengthen your case.

    If you can’t/won’t clarify, I hope perhaps you can see why this approach is dismissed by many – not because they/we are not interested in moral behavior, but because there is no moral, rational or biblical consistency to this “rule book” approach.

    And, as I’ve said, if you prefer to NOT answer reasonable questions respectfully asked, let me know and I’ll quit asking. Unless you say so, though, I’ll assume you’re prepared to offer a reasonable defense to your positions.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  4. I find it quite amusing that these people who don’t believe in God have the temerity to make judgements about God’s rules. I have to ask, by what standard are they making such judgments? it’s just their opinion, so what makes their opinion better than anyone else’s?

  5. Whilst waiting to see if you’re interested in answering questions or not, a few other points. In addition to the ad hom attacks against me (and presumably “liberal Christians” like me) – questioning my sincerity when I have only been polite, respectful and quite sincere in our conversations, and my very Christianity for the “crime” of disagreeing with your opinions, here’s the language you use in talking about a non-theist…

    “answer a fool…”

    “blues guitar playing Christian hater…”

    “Taking a page out of the gaystapo playbook…”

    “A smug Christian hater…”

    ad hom upon ad hom. Comparing him to Nazis for disagreeing with you (gaystapo…)? Isn’t that a bit extreme? And how effective is it to approach those with whom you disagree with insults and smear attacks? Does that often help you win folks over with your love and patience, as Christianity teaches?

    Admittedly, this non-theist did do a blanket comparison of Christians to KKK members, so I guess you could argue “He did it first!” But is that the most Christian or adult way of handling disagreements?

    Something to consider.

    In regards to the theme of your post, “Is Christianity homophobic…?” When you use phrases like these…

    generally, those engaged in the lifestyle are involved with such vile perversions of the flesh that the expressions of such shock the senses with a gut churning revulsion…

    …trapped in a filthy sin…

    …are you able to see how that does come across as hateful, ungenerous and mean-spirited? Perhaps even a bit ignorant?

    Are you familiar with many gay couples in the real world? Are you familiar with the sweet little elderly grandmother lesbian couples who love the neighbors all around them, offering up prayers for them when they’re sick, visiting the family with soup when they’re hungry, offering a place to stay when they are seeking shelter?

    Are you familiar with the two dads, devoted to their children and attending their PTA meetings, offering time, effort and money to help the kids at their schools beyond their own children?

    How about the lesbian couple who’ve fostered and then adopted four siblings from a single mother home where the birth mother (straight, by the way) was strung out on drugs… these lovely ladies who are school teachers pouring out their lives and wisdom for other children… and social workers, helping the very least of these.

    Are you familiar with any of these beautiful, noble men and women? Do you know what they do in their sex lives? Do you know that they are devoted to their spouses, or do you merely guess, “They’re gay, therefore, they are engaged in repulsive, sick, icky behavior that I don’t want to even think about!…”?

    ARE there some licentious and “out there” gay folk who really act out on their sexuality in perhaps unhealthy, unwholesome ways? Sure, just as there are many (many, many more) straight people who really act out their sexuality in unhealthy ways.

    But just as surely, there are many good and decent gay and lesbian folk who are just living normal lives of decency and respect. They would never, for instance, dream of demonizing all Christian folk based on the actions of a few hateful people who call themselves Christian. Do you know any of them personally? Do you think they would find being called “filthy sinners” and “gut churning revulsion, generally…” a loving or a hateful description of them?

    Also, where you said…

    Statistics and real life facts show that the young men and women engaged in homosexuality live destructive lifestyles which only shorten their lives.

    To the degree that this is true (and of course it is true that many gay and straight people act out in less-than-healthy ways), isn’t the WISEST answer to their sexual acting out to encourage them to embrace healthy, loving, productive ways of embracing their God-given sexuality? In an arrangement where one is committed to one other exclusively, loving and celebrating sexuality within a safe monogamous relationship? And isn’t there a word for that… marriage?

    To the degree that it’s true that many gay and straight people act perhaps abusively of their sexuality, marriage is the answer, not an evil! Gay or straight, committed married lives will reduce the destructive aspects of some more licentious gay and straight people. Why not embrace this as the great moral and healthy Good that it is?

    Finally, where you say…

    The laws which define, regulate, and prohibit human sexual behavior, including homosexuality, are a reflection of God’s moral attributes and thus transcend both Testaments as well as all people groups across the world…

    Getting back to my first comment: Says who? On what rational basis are the SEXUAL laws transcendent/universal but not the others? Do you have any consistent criteria that establishes that, if so, what is it?

    And are ALL the sexual rules transcendent? What about the prohibition against menstrual sex? That’s a sexual rule from the OT, is it universal?

    In Christ,

    Dan

  6. Fred, I’m beginning to think that you find questions bothersome and, if so, just let me know and I won’t ask you questions. But if you are open to questions, where you say…

    After you have been answered a number of times, repeating the same answered questions over and over again with variation does get bothersome. But also, I have a job, family, life. I don’t have all the time in the world to answer every rabbit trail question and sub-question point by point.

    In your opinion, are ALL the rules found in the OT universal rules… rules for all people and all places and all times?

    Those laws that pertain to God’s moral law and His holy attributes and character that are reflected in the 10 commandments are universal rules for all people in all places at all times in history. Roman’s 2 says as much. Societies and cultures that never received the special revelation of Scripture, such as the 10 commandments, by nature, live according to those laws because God has hardwired all mankind by the means of the image of God in men.

    But your reason for that was because Jesus specifically ended that rule, saying “this used to be wrong, but now it’s not…” or whatever it is you’re saying.

    Again, your questions make me wonder about what you have been taught about Scripture. Who has taught you? Who do you read, or what have you read that shapes your theology of God. Which preachers/ theologians?

    The food laws were the civil laws specifically for Israel to keep the Jews separate from the pagan nations particularly. Eating a bbq pork rib sandwich doesn’t violate God’s moral holiness. There is no need for the food laws anymore, because there is no current theocratic kingdom.

    But I believe the food rule is the one and only OT law that is specifically categorized as no longer valid/not universally valid.

    No. Any civil law that pertains to mixed fabrics, eating unclean animals, priests touching dead bodies, men cutting their hair, tattoos, menstruation, ejaculation, etc (see the list you supplied).

    So, the command to use capital punishment for disrespectful children and adulterers is an OT command from God to Israel, why is that not a universal command?

    It is a universal command, because they both violate the ten commandments. Only the penal aspects of those laws being implemented by capital punishment has been suspended, or better, postponed. However, it will not be the death penalty, but eternal judgment, unless the violators have come to Christ for forgiveness and salvation.

    On what basis do you know if something is right or wrong?
    And in all of that, is there any rational consistency to your opinions?

    I just explained why it’s right and wrong, and they are not opinions, but stated biblical doctrine. There is no need to create imaginary strawmen like “bible literalists” and “Bible rulebook” believers. Besides, you have already admitted in previous comments that you believe the Bible is just a man-made book that has numerous errors, so why do you care for any answers to begin with?

  7. In addition to the ad hom attacks against me (and presumably “liberal Christians” like me) – questioning my sincerity when I have only been polite, respectful and quite sincere in our conversations, and my very Christianity for the “crime” of disagreeing with your opinions, here’s the language you use in talking about a non-theist…ad hom upon ad hom.

    How are you defining ad hom attacks? You keep using that term, but I wonder if you really know what it means.

    An ad hom attack would be something like a person making a stated argument, and then an opponent ignoring the substance of the argument just pointing out how that person has an anonymous blog account and so nothing the person says is worth considering. Using sarcasm and humor when engaging what is a smug opponent of the Christian faith is not ad hom. Chaz has identified himself as one who hates Christians and he plays blues guitar, so saying as much is not ad hom. Moreover, I deal with his stated arguments.

    Does that often help you win folks over with your love and patience, as Christianity teaches?

    When Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, was he using ad hom? When he had them executed with the sword, was he a bit too extreme?

    …are you able to see how that does come across as hateful, ungenerous and mean-spirited? Perhaps even a bit ignorant?

    No. If you want me to coddle and white-wash sexual perversion, that’s not going to happen.

    Are you familiar with many gay couples in the real world?

    Yes. I live in LA. I wonder if you really do?

    Are you familiar with the sweet little elderly grandmother lesbian couples who love the neighbors all around them, offering up prayers for them when they’re sick, visiting the family with soup when they’re hungry, offering a place to stay when they are seeking shelter?

    Are you familiar with the lesbian couples who adopted boys for the purpose of raising them as girls? I am sure you are, right?

    Are you familiar with the two dads, devoted to their children and attending their PTA meetings, offering time, effort and money to help the kids at their schools beyond their own children?

    Are you familiar with the two dads who adopt children for the purposes of sexualizing them? They offer time and effort and money to “help” the kids at their school too. I bet you probably are not, or you don’t care, or you think it is a myth or something.

    I could go on and on, of course.

    Getting back to my first comment: Says who? On what rational basis are the SEXUAL laws transcendent/universal but not the others? Do you have any consistent criteria that establishes that, if so, what is it?

    And would encourage you to educate yourself on these things. Do you believe gays are born that way? That God ordains and approves homosexual behavior and sex? That homosexual desires and behavior is healthy and okay? If so, what do you say to the thousands of former, practicing homosexuals men and women who have turned from that lifestyle and call it for what it is? Have you read Robert Gagnon, Michael Brown, and James White and their responses to Christians who think God is okay with homosexual sex and behavior?

  8. To answer your questions to me:

    Who has taught you?

    For the first half of my life, conservative Christian (mostly Southern Baptist and Church of the Nazarene) preachers and sunday school teachers and other teachers. The second half of my life, pretty much the Bible and Anabaptist types (Yoder, Stassen, Gish, etc) as well as my local congregation, full of Bible believers and anbaptist types.

    Who do you read, or what have you read that shapes your theology of God. Which preachers/ theologians?

    I read a good bit of traditionalists growing up: CS Lewis, Oswald Chambers, Jonathan Edwards, Leonard Ravenhill, RA Torrey, John Bunyan, Charles Sheldon, John Wesley, Tozer, Watchman Nee… like that. Also, many of the more modern favorites including Charles Colson, Charles Swindoll, James Dobson, Adrian Rogers… I read no “liberal” authors/theologians growing up and, really, still haven’t read that many (unless you count Jesus and the Anabaptists as “liberal,” which I would).

    No, it was mostly the teachings of my S Baptist teachers who drilled it in my head to take the Bible seriously and strive to follow God no matter what that has actually driven me away from most of these more conservative teachings. It’s just the more I listened to a Dobson or Swindoll or Rogers and compared what they were teaching to what Jesus taught, the less compelling I found their arguments.

    I hope that answers your questions.

    ~Dan

  9. Fred…

    When Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, was he using ad hom?

    Having read the Bible, do you know who the ONLY people that Jesus mocked or spoke with sarcastically? The ONLY ones?

    The Pharisees… those religious leaders with their emphases on rule-following and their lack of grace. Jesus came down very hard on those people, but not one time on the unbelievers.

    As a follower of Jesus, I strive to model my approach based on Jesus’ example.

    I repeat my question to you: Do you win many people over with your bullying name-calling and abusive belittling? How many?

    ~Dan

  10. Dan, you’re obviously determined to stand your ground. I have no idea why you’re bothering to ask Fred anything at all – you have no desire at all to change your position. This is just you and Fred, sparring. Your written correspondence just drips with an intentioned and determined will to reject anything and everything Fred says that doesn’t match your convictions. I’ll bet you really do know how OT laws and regulatory statutes get sorted out in the NT. I’ll bet Fred is really wasting precious time with you. The fact is, I don’t believe you care one wit whatever is posited against your position.

    Fred, I had a roommate 30 years ago who was a closet homosexual in the church. After he was confronted, it occurred to me that “tough love” just never worked with him! You and I couldn’t say anything one way or the other – it wouldn’t matter if our language was gentle or direct, peaceful or incendiary. He was just not interested in trading in his lifestyle. I seriously doubt Dan would respond to anything you say, even if you did the best exposition with the best dramatized delivery. I know you know that. I wish our blogs were more compelling, and guys like Dan would drop this pretense of kindness. He thinks his diplomatic and “nice” response puts him on better ground.

    When he wrote that he listened to Dobson, Swindoll, et. al. and said their teachings were uncompelling, all I heard was Jesus saying, “If Dan doesn’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, he won’t budge even if someone is raised from the dead.”

  11. Fivepointer,

    I don’t know if you’ve dealt with Dan before, but Dan has been banned from many blogs. He claims to be a Christian and yet supports abortion, same-sex fake marriage – and actually the entire homosexual agenda – as well as every politically-liberal agenda and the social gospel. His favorite defense is to claim everyone is using “ad homs.” He rails against “bullying” and “name-calling” but when his is shown for what he is, he becomes a champion bully and calls lots of names, and even uses foul language. He is a time-waster, who always seems to have more experience at everything than anyone else.

    Dan has proven many times that the Jesus he follows is NOT the Jesus of the Bible.

  12. So Dan. At the behest of Glenn (see comment immediately above this one), I spent a little bit last night and again this morning researching your past. You have made quite a name for yourself as a notorious troll. I figured as much as our interaction went along, but I didn’t realize to what extent and how far back it went. The same issues you repeat here in your odd, sort of OCD/Asperger’s like fashion, have also been stated in a number of places elsewhere in which other men have given you sound and solid answers.

    Those exchanges took place a few years ago before you even wandered over here to my place. I can only guess you came here looking to feed your hungry narcissistic tendencies because those individuals have banished you from leaving comments on their blogs and want no further interaction with you and so you had to find fresh prey.

    A lot of what I have experienced with you the last month or so and what I have been suspecting about you, was captured expertly with this post, which I will reference for anyone who may have had the misfortune of encountering you online. https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/false-teacher-profile/ I encourage those commenters who are subscribed to the thread here to check it out.

    With that stated, and before I become entangled even further with this tar baby, I likewise am asking you to leave. As of this day, I will no longer approve any of your comments and they will be permanently deleted without so much as me reading them, so you will be wasting your time writing them, but I imagine pounding them out in spite of what I just stated brings some cathartic soothing to your troubled soul. If you wish to conclude I am lazy or a coward, then fine, but I happen to know I have a ten year track record that easily defends against such ridiculous accusations.

    Again, I reiterate what I wrote in another comment thread: You need to Christ, Dan. You need to repent of your sin, trust Christ alone for salvation, believe ALL of His Word, obey it. The Jesus you claim you are following is a false Christ. He will only lead you to eternal damnation. Heed the words of the real Jesus who said that many will say to me on that day Lord, Lord, but I will say to them that I never knew you depart from me you who practice lawlessness (Matthew 5:21-23). I am fearful, Dan, that you will be numbered among that group.

  13. Great blog (I’m a reader, but haven’t had time to comment anywhere lately) and great post. Sorry you had to get the Dan experience. Glad the link was helpful! That has been a huge time saver for me.

  14. Pingback: End of April 2015 Van Tillian Apologetics’ Links | The Domain for Truth

  15. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s