How can the religious community live in peace and harmony with the LGBT community? New York Times columnist Frank Bruni has the solution. Just rewrite the Bible.
In his April 3rd column, “Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni, himself gay, recognizes that Christian beliefs are not necessarily grounded in hatred. The problem, he claims, is that, “beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.”
Bruni, for his part, wants to shake us free from our fossilized faith.
According to Bruni, who evidences little or no understanding of how believers view the Scriptures (namely, as God’s inspired Word), if we hold to the view that homosexual practice is sinful, this is our “decision” and “choice.”
So, ironically, whereas homosexuality was once considered a choice, now what we believe about homosexuality is a choice.
After all, he argues, the belief that homosexual practice is sinful “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since—as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”
So, Bruni thinks he can simply dismiss the Scriptures as “ancient texts,” explaining that “all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”
But for devout Jews and Christians, the Scriptures are not just any writings, full of biases and blind spots.
If that was the case, there would be no basis for our faith whatsoever and no absolute moral foundations of any kind.
Forget about homosexuality. We would have no reason to hold to any of the fundamentals of our faith if Bruni’s description was accurate.
Not only so, but Bruni wrongly claims that for those of us who hold to the authority of the Bible, “the advances of science and knowledge” mean “nothing.”
To the contrary, all the scientific advances in the world cannot determine what is or is not moral, and there’s nothing we know today that changes our view that God did not design men to be with men and women to be with women. The new interpretations of Scripture that the “progressive” Christians are touting (and which Bruni applauds) are not based on new textual or archeological or linguistic discoveries. They are based primarily on emotional arguments, since there is nothing in the Bible that supports homosexual practice.
Bruni also repeats the common misconception that there are just a handful of “scattered” texts that deal with homosexual practice.
To the contrary, every law dealing with marriage and family, every positive example and precept, every illustration in the Bible about sexuality morality is based on heterosexual relationships (see, for example, Gen. 2:24; Ex. 20:12; Matt. 19:4-6; Eph. 5:22-33).
That’s why there was not a need to condemn homosexual practice on every page. Everything in Scripture was against it. (To be perfectly clear, the Bible plainly teaches that God loves every human being, that all of us are fallen and in need of redemption, and that Jesus died for heterosexual and homosexual alike. The issue here is the meaning of marriage and the standard of sexual morality.)
Bruni cannot countenance this for a moment. Instead, he claims that our biblically-based faith “elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance,” which is why “our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”
So, those of us who hold to biblical morality are “unthinking” and “prejudiced” people who need to be “freed” from our antiquated beliefs.
It’s high time, Bruni opines, for us to catch up with the 21st century. How utterly primitive of us to believe that there’s anything wrong with homosexual relationships or acts!
Source:
http://www.claytontraylor.com/the-new-york-times-wants-us-to-rewrite-the-bible/
New York Times
In his April 3rd column, “Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni, himself gay, recognizes that Christian beliefs are not necessarily grounded in hatred. The problem, he claims, is that, “beliefs ossified over centuries aren’t easily shaken.”
Bruni, for his part, wants to shake us free from our fossilized faith.
According to Bruni, who evidences little or no understanding of how believers view the Scriptures (namely, as God’s inspired Word), if we hold to the view that homosexual practice is sinful, this is our “decision” and “choice.”
So, ironically, whereas homosexuality was once considered a choice, now what we believe about homosexuality is a choice.
After all, he argues, the belief that homosexual practice is sinful “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since—as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”
So, Bruni thinks he can simply dismiss the Scriptures as “ancient texts,” explaining that “all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”
But for devout Jews and Christians, the Scriptures are not just any writings, full of biases and blind spots.
If that was the case, there would be no basis for our faith whatsoever and no absolute moral foundations of any kind.
Forget about homosexuality. We would have no reason to hold to any of the fundamentals of our faith if Bruni’s description was accurate.
Not only so, but Bruni wrongly claims that for those of us who hold to the authority of the Bible, “the advances of science and knowledge” mean “nothing.”
To the contrary, all the scientific advances in the world cannot determine what is or is not moral, and there’s nothing we know today that changes our view that God did not design men to be with men and women to be with women. The new interpretations of Scripture that the “progressive” Christians are touting (and which Bruni applauds) are not based on new textual or archeological or linguistic discoveries. They are based primarily on emotional arguments, since there is nothing in the Bible that supports homosexual practice.
Bruni also repeats the common misconception that there are just a handful of “scattered” texts that deal with homosexual practice.
To the contrary, every law dealing with marriage and family, every positive example and precept, every illustration in the Bible about sexuality morality is based on heterosexual relationships (see, for example, Gen. 2:24; Ex. 20:12; Matt. 19:4-6; Eph. 5:22-33).
That’s why there was not a need to condemn homosexual practice on every page. Everything in Scripture was against it. (To be perfectly clear, the Bible plainly teaches that God loves every human being, that all of us are fallen and in need of redemption, and that Jesus died for heterosexual and homosexual alike. The issue here is the meaning of marriage and the standard of sexual morality.)
Bruni cannot countenance this for a moment. Instead, he claims that our biblically-based faith “elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance,” which is why “our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”
So, those of us who hold to biblical morality are “unthinking” and “prejudiced” people who need to be “freed” from our antiquated beliefs.
It’s high time, Bruni opines, for us to catch up with the 21st century. How utterly primitive of us to believe that there’s anything wrong with homosexual relationships or acts!
Source:
http://www.claytontraylor.com/the-new-york-times-wants-us-to-rewrite-the-bible/
New York Times
.jpg)
Post a Comment