主播大秀

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Yes indeed. The Bible has a great deal to answer for. The apostle Paul, if he were alive today, would (rightly?) be hauled before the courts. He routinely maligns the behaviour of homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, alirs and many others. It's about time some of the victims of these repugnant prejudices started to stand up against the abusive language with which Paul and other Biblical writers lash out these practices. Let's not stop at homosexuals. All of us at some time or other cannot fail to feel that the Bible is "getting at us". Let's do something about it! Let's get that hideous book banned from the public square. What right does anyone have to tell us how we should be living or not be living? I recommend public book-burning, in the absence of the kind of legislation that would enable us to stage an auto da fe.

Well, listen: we shouldn't get offended every time someone uses their freedom of speech to utter contempt for something we do or something we are. The authors of the bible - if they do condemn homosexuality, which is far from demonstrated - were as entitled to say what they believed as anyone else, were they not?

On the other hand, if it weren't for the insane precedent a ruling in his favour would set, this guy may actually have a case. It could be argued that without the case against homosexuality from the bible there would be no oppression of gay people at all, or much less oppression of gay people. If this guy has suffered from such oppression then he may have a case.

But there's a problem with that. You see, the NIV translation of the bible came AFTER homosexuality was already regarded as sinful, not before. It seems to me that Zondervan only needs to show that the NIV in particular didn't cause the oppression against the plaintiff, and they're off the hook!

By the way, does anyone know of a 'better' translation of this text? I'd be interested to see some other translations of the Greek. I'll kick it off: the original authorised version, the King James Version, says that "...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind .... shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

That doesn't sound like a condemnation of homosexuality to me.

I hope this gay guy calls Virginia Mollenkott as one of his witnesses.

Do we ever get away from the subject of homosexuality on this blog? Anyone noticed the environmental crisis? Political apathy? Has anyone read Oliver James' "Selfish Capitalist?" What about the headstone Heliopolitan drew attention to?

Anything, please!

G Veale

Graham- What part of "William Crawley's broadcasting diary" don't you understand?

It's been a hot topic lately... that's all. This story was directly relevant and related to recent subjects, and if you manage to stick around for long enough you'll see that the tide will wash in many different subjects (some of which, like creationism, occupy people for weeks at a time). Thanks for the story Will, it was, as 'they' say, a doozie.

鈥淲ARNING鈥� Beware of William鈥檚 guard dog. Woof woof!

It was a stupid criticism, Puritan.

Grrr.

Very polite, John, much appreciated.

GV

John you鈥檙e Wrong, the dogs in the street know that the 主播大秀 over work the gay issue to the point of providing an unbalanced public service that does not cater for all, its all part of their lopsided agenda which is anti-protestant/reformed when it comes to the editorial control of 主播大秀 programmes and other media, and for you to let your friendship with William bias your comments when someone makes a valid point is not only condescending in tone but laboriously protective of the 主播大秀鈥檚 biased agenda. ?VOMIT?

Puritan:

So 'overworking' the gay issue is part of an anti-Protestant agenda.
Does this imply:

1. Fewer Protestants are gay than non-Protestants?

2. More Protestants are anti-gay than non-Protestants?

3. The 主播大秀 is run by gay anti-Protestants?

4. The 主播大秀 is run by anti-gay anti-Protestants?

The issue is a hot topic at the moment, whether you like it or not. And I personally don't need William or anyone else at the 主播大秀 to tell me that there is a tendency to greater homophobia among Ulster's evangelical/conservative/fundamentalist Christians than elsewhere in the UK. The dogs in the street know that. Woof woof.

Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Well, if John thinks I'm being stupid, I'd better respond to the issue of the hour.
1) Lay-man as I am, "Sodomite" is clearly inappropriate. It's an archaic and offensive term, and the story of Sodom is not in Paul's mind in 1 Corinthians 6. It will be interesting to hear why the NKJV chose this word.
2) Can I sue John for emotional distress, because he called my objection "stupid"? (I don't mind, but for all I know he might be worth a bob or two.)
3) Can John sue Puritan for calling him a dog? (Sort of).
4) The Greek terms are disputed - the impression I get is that homosexuality in general may be covered by the term "arsenokoitai" (yes, that really is the transliteration). But because "malakoi" is also condemned, Paul may be condemning pederastry, or male prostitution, or both. (This is the opinion of Conservative scholar Ben Witherington, for example, who does not consider homosexual practice compatible with Christian living).
The pairing of the two words (when "arsenokoitai" alone would have sufficed to condemn homosexuality in general) seems to point to a particular set of circumstances at Corinth.
5) So given that Conservative and Liberal scholars will probably agree that "Sodomite" was a poor choice of word, where does this debate take us? Some publicity for the NKJV. Some publicity for a gay man in Michigan. No resolution to the theological issue, no water on the fire of the Culture Wars.

Graham Veale

Puritan- My friendship with William has nothing to do with it and I've been critical of both the 主播大秀 and this blog in the past.... see examples and respectively.

John
Glad to see some other posters have the insomnia problem

This has generated a lot of conversation, but I'll try to squeeze a post in if everyone else doesn't mind.

Just on the arguments in general.
1) For a while it was fashionable to refer to the Temple prostitution in Corinth at Aphrodite's temple - but the reference is from Strabo who was talking about Greek Corinth, destroyed 146BC. I doubt prostitution was Paul's target.
2) The ancients were aware of homosexual orientation. This is not a modern discovery. For example, Aristophanes in Plato's "Symposium" talks about marriage for the homoerotically-inclined - "And when they reach manhood, they become lovers of boys and are not inclined by nature toward marriage and the procreation of children, yet are compelled to do so by law/custom."
3) In all the critiques of same-sex intercourse as contrary to nature that can be found in the ancient world, not a single one ever refers to the idolatrous or commercial dimension of same-sex intercourse. (Or so I'm told. I'm not going to read them all to check.)
4) For example, the physician Soranus believed homosexuality unnatural because it "subjugated to obscene uses parts not so intended" and disregarded "the places of our body which divine providence destined for definite functions" This throws light on Paul's argument in Romans 1, although the creation account forms the centre of his critique.
5) More illumination from Philo: "Nearly the whole of Plato鈥檚 Symposium is about erotic love, not simply about men mad after women or women after men鈥攆or these desires pay tribute to the laws of nature鈥攂ut about men after males"(Contemplative Life 59). For Philo, as for Jews and Christians generally, desire to engage in homosexual intercourse is "a pleasure that is contrary to nature". In other words, it involves doing with another male what God intended by creation design to be done with a woman. Paul is firmly within a Jewish tradition that looks to God'sdesign for our bodies.(eg. Testament of Naphtali 3:3-4, where both idolatry and same-sex intercourse are viewed as exchanging the order of nature. Josephus and the letter of Aristeas could also be mentioned.)
6) Would Paul change his mind in light of recent findings in psycho-biology? The ancients were not unaware of homosexual orientation, even if they did not use the terms, or have genetic explanations. Greek and Roman literature also makes reference to exclusive same-sex attraction on the part of some males, even among the married. (As we have noted).
7) Paul鈥檚 understood sin in Romans 5 and 7 as an deep impulse running through the human body, passed on by an ancestor and never entirely within human control. Yet this was not what God intended for mankind. This is a corruption of nature.
So Paul鈥檚 use of the term 鈥渘atural鈥� in Romans 1:26-27 refers to the embodied complementarity of males and females established by God at creation. He is not discussing innate desires.
8) In fact he makes reference to the desires in Rom 1 v 26. It is not the innateness of the desires which dictates how we should behave. According to Paul it is the material creation and the bodily design of human beings. Otherwise Paul would be forced to list all the vices of 1v29-31 as against nature. Paul鈥檚 point is that the conduct is dishonouring to God - not because it goes against natural orientation, but because it does not fit God'sdesign.
9) I imagine that there is a neurological correlate for promiscuity waiting to be found - there are certainly powerful psychological predictors. Would Paul change his mind on promiscuity given such evidence?
10) The purpose of marriage, given before the Fall, is to make One Flesh out of two complementary individuals, and to create the possibility of new life. Homosexual unions cannot achieve this goal - they can only approximate it. I cannot see how we can condone homosexual relationships analogous to marriage, and not consummated heterosexual relationships analogous to marriage. Love and some (any) level of commitment would suffice. In other words, the traditional Christian sexual ethic is at stake here.

Graham Veale
Armagh

test

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

1 Cor 6 Young's Literal Translation;-

9have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

11And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

Will it seems the analysis you link to basically says this;-

The text may well condemn homosexuality but we cannot be 100 per cent sure, he claims, due to cultural and linguistic changes. The writer makes it clear that his goal is not to deny that Paul condemned homosexuality.

The writer appeals to "discourse" for a way forward. The key value to override all the discussion, according to the writer is love and he suggests the traditional approach is not loving but oppressive.

I suggest that as Paul wrote the supreme chapter on love in the very same letter as we are discussing (chapter 13) it is unfair to pull out two verses mentioning homosexuality and suggest he was not writing in a spirit of love when he wrote them.

...also Will

The writer you link to undermines the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the passage by margininalising it as "fundamentalist".

But fundamentalism is an Amercian invention of around 100 years ago while the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the issue in scriptures is 2000 years old for the church alone.

This confusion muddies the waters and does no justice to a full understanding of the issues.

Crazy - moderators deleted greek definitions of the two words in question!!!!

Original PB

I'm not sure "Sodomite" is a good translation. Paul was writing to a gentile city. I don't think "Sodomy" would have been the natural way for a Romanised culture to think of homosexuality.
The term "Sodomite" is offensive to many, and becomes something of a debate stopper. If we are trying to reach others, as Evangelicals, we may be wise to drop it. As good citizens, we must do all we can to avoid inflammatory language. We can defend the Biblical position without recourse to this word.

I do agree, though, that we need to be careful that we do not allow those we disgree with to set the terms of debate - for example to use "homophobia" as a conversation stopper.

Graham Veale

gveale's multi-pointed comments about homosexuality and the Bible have the air of authority, but he's well out of step with the leading biblical scholars in the world today. He is also out of step with psychological science. For example, he makes great play of the fact that 'the ancients were well aware of homosexual orientation'. Not true. The ancients were certainly well aware that certain men had sex with other men, sometimes in religious rituals involving prostitution, sometimes in pederastic relatonships, and sometimes in the context of abuse. The ancients, however, had no understanding of homosexual 'orientation'. This is a modern psychological category. The ancients would have considered same-sex relations entirely in terms of behaviour, not psychological or biological identity.

In terms of his comments on the Bible, much of these comments are speculative and some are simply wrong(e.g, his comments on Paul and the Temple). I refer interested readers to the wealth of new scholarship on these and related issues including: John Boswell鈥檚 book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

Graham

Cardinal Martini exhorted Christians, when they disagree, to 'quarrel peacefully' and that is what I hope to attempt now with regard to your post # 17.

Your arguments are rational and must proceed from a premise: some root truth on which all else stands. I may be wrong but I take it that for you that must be something along the lines of: the Bible is uniquely inspired by God and, as a corpus, presents a coherent picture of its author, his preferences for the right ordering of human society, and his blueprint for individual conduct.

This is a Bibliocentric viewpoint where any understanding of the nature of God must be shaped and constrained by the scriptures.

I start with a different premise: the God I know is love. When I take that as the given, I have to shape my understanding of the scriptures accordingly. I can only conform to my core truth by seeing the Bible as being of human origin and as portraying developing and conflicting approaches to man's relationship with the sacred.

I cannot square the circle of a loving God who not only condones but commands the slaughter of children, or a just God who would destroy the entire population of a city for the transgressions of but some of its male inhabitants, or a holy God who would allow (encourage?) Satan to destroy the life and family of one of his most faithful servants.

I have said before that people who have no difficulty seeing the evil of the holocaust and naming it so will not accept that if God were the instigator of the slaughter of the Amalekite women and children, the author of the total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the tempter of Job, then he, too, is indisputably evil.

I find the 'consistent' reading of the Bible deeply dishonouring of God. My reading of the scriptures, however, allows me to understand that people, for all sorts of reasons put words in the mouth of God. I have then to search the scriptures, and other accounts of man's encounters with God, for insights not instructions or injunctions. I believe they are there aplenty.

Micah 6 v. 8: "...what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

James 1 v. 27: "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Mark 12 vv. 30-31: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength ... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

In the last Jesus summarises the law - I tend to think there is a case to be made for saying this is the moral law and everything else is ceremonial.

Brian has made specific points about Jesus with which I tend to disagree, and about Paul where I tend perhaps to agree with parts, but for me the matter is much more fundamental - it is what do the opposing readings say about God. If a 'wholly consistent' reading pictures an unholy God then you have to question among many other things, as you put it, the whole Christian sexual ethic. That would bring us to the much more interesting and relevant question of how do we construct a sexuality morality for our age?

Portwyne
Of course, given our different approaches to Religion, I appreciate that our minds are not likely to meet on this issue. As always, I am simply trying to point out why I believe Scripture opposes homosexuality. I believe there is more coherence in Scripture than many would allow for. There are a few texts I struggle with. Hopefully we'll get a chance to talk about this some more.

G Veale

Augustine
Once again, I detect a little hostility, which I am not sure I have merited.
1) It should be obvious that I am replying to the arguments of Countryman, Boswell, Rogers etc. So to be told that they have books on the subject does not come as a great surprise
2) In my rather long conversation with William, I think it would be fair to say that we did not differ greatly over the science. Of course the Ancients didn't talk about "orientation, but they were fully aware of individuals with strong preferences for same sex relationships.
3) Strabo is the only author in antiquity who refers to Temple prostitution in Corinth. He is referring to a period of time that predates Julius' Caesars reconstruction of the city for his veterans
4) Post 14 began by making it clear that I am just a layman, trying to make what sense he can of the evidence. Why you should then imply that I am putting on an air of authority is quite beyond me.

Graham Veale

Graham

I found your discussions with Brian very interesting but it would be easy in this instance not to see the wood for the trees.

The issue is, for me, very simple. You, and Clive West, have based your opposition to homosexual practice on the unity of scripture, referring back to creation as establishing natural order.

That argument fails if scripture does not present a credible and coherent moral authority throughout.

I would ask the question - can we take seriously the Bible's other positions on human conduct unless we also accept that it is, on occasion, right (indeed required) to put a sword or a spear through a baby to kill him or her?

Graham:

Portwyne makes a pertinent point about the baby and the spear. If you accept the inerrancy of Scirpture, then you are forced to justify such activities as slaughtering innocents.

In a real sense, we can see why western society is so hung up on sex but tolerates violence. It has inherited a Christian tradition which does precisely that, despite the essentially pacifist message of its founder. I keep repeating the point, but that is by far THE BEST message of Christianity, but it gets buried in preoccupations with trivia. Sex IS morally trivial. You yourself have complained about this preoccupation above, yet you have entered into it with a certain amount of depth, if not wisdom.

References to 'embodied complementarities', 'material creation' and 'bodily design' don't obscure the essential homophobia of Paul's outlook.

I have just been reading an article in Scientific American (10th July issue) about unorthodox sex in the animal kingdom. If God designed humans for heterosexual sex, presumably he did the same for other animals, yet many of them seem unaware of this 'design'. Many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. Researchers are now revealing that "animals may engage in same-sex couplings to diffuse social tensions, to better protect their young or to maintain fecundity when opposite-sex partners are unavailable - or simply because it is fun".

Graham, it seems to me, to go back to your list to your list in post 5, that the immorality of 'selfish capitalism' or the cosmic 'design' by which we get endless rain and parts of Somalia get endless drought might be better for your scholarly exegeses than the alleged 'uncomplementarity' of gay sex.

Yep, "It's God they ought to crucify instead of you and me."

Hi Graham

If you read my post again I never expressed a view on the term sodomite and I never identify myself as an evangelical BTW.

Sodomite is not a term I ever use, I cited Young's at the request of another poster for a literal translation.

But now that you raise the question, is it fair and honest to forbid useage of the term altogther?

Is this not too easily bowing to an agenda that somehow wishes to put clear blue water between the story of Sodom and modern same-sex relations?

I am not at all sure that is fairly justified on grounds of the full bibical record.


PB

The widely respected Strong's Concordance renders the terms from this passage thus;-

Effeminate ;-
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute

Abusers of themselves with mankind;-
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

eg Graham this tallies neatly with Paul's writings in Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6;-

Jude: 3 Beloved... I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God[b] and our Lord Jesus Christ.

... as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

ref post 32

I really cant take seriously the idea that there is any real doubt about the meaning of these two greek words.

I checked modern greek dictionary and it appears they still retain exactly the same meanings as we traditionally understand from 1 Cor 6, expanded in my post 32.

In fact the analysis Will hyperlinks to above does not try to make a case that they mean anything different, he more or less says we just cannot be 100 per cent certain of what the terms meant at the time they were written.

But to me if you look at the author and forum it has all the hallmarks of a modern fringe radical with a serious agenda.

Why didnt we get a contrasting analysis also posted Will?

...before the pedants appear, when I say "he more or less says" in post 35 I mean the the author of the analysis Will links to and not Will himself...

any word on that impartial and informative counteranalysis Will?

;-)

Can we slow down for a minute? At the minute, Brian wants me to respond to the problem of evil, the slaughter of the Canaanites, Portwyne needs me to define inerrancy, what I mean by the authority of Scripture, and the Tin Clipper expects me to be much more humble and stop pretending that I know more than I do.
On top of which I'm trying to argue that the witness of Scripture is uniformly against homosexual practice.

A few points
(a) I view the Problem of Evil in the light of the Cross, where God suffered too. IF this is true, then I have reason to trust God, and believe that he can overwhelm evil.
(b) I'm doing some reading on the invasion of Canaan at the moment - but for the moment I'll note that the command was an exception to the Torah, confined to a time and place; so if I find myself wandering with an exiled semitic community 1350 years BCE, I might be under a divine command to destroy populations. As Bomber command did in World War Two.
(c) I'm a little confused now Portwyne - God may not exist outside our minds, but you are sure that he is love? If our concepts cannot describe him (assuming he exists) what does it mean to say that he is love? Are you referring to your own religious experience, rather than an objectively real Being?
(d) I don't even consider myself a gifted amateur. I'm just an RE teacher who likes to read.

Graham Veale

Portwyne and Brian

Can we return to (b) in a few weeks? I'm happy to go into my opinions on the other points whenever you like, if you like.

Ever so humbly

Graham Veale

PB
The residents of Sodom were planning a male rape - I don't think most homosexuals would approve. So I don't think it is an appropriate term.

I'm not fond of the term "evangelical" either - but I don't have an alternative to propose.

And is it wise to keep challenging Will directly? It makes your objections SEEM a little personal.
I've noticed one or two folk seem to take a personal grudge against you. I'm NOT in that group. I've only been here a short while, so I don't know what the issue is, or was. So if I critique one of your posts, please don't assume I've joined your detractors.


Graham Veale

Graham #37

I would consider just about every combatant soldier who has ever existed a 'war criminal' and the men of bomber command among the most culpable of all.

My intuition tells me that God has an existence beyond my perception of him but when I speak of him I speak of whom I know but not of what I 'know'. Our concepts are at best hopelessly inadequate to describe God and when I say that God is love I can mean only that my experience of him has been one of love. When I attempt to relate God to my life in the world that notion of practical but engaging love is the foundation on which I build.

The issue of the hour has stalled, so I'll give a reply to Augutine of Clippo.

1) Boswell wrote his book in 1980.There has been some reaserch since. Scroggs criticised his exegesis of Rom 1, and I get the impression that his views have not swept all before them.
2) Have you a reference from antiquity that shows that the Temple of Aphrodite continued using protitution on a large scale post 44BC? Further more Paul mentions lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26 which in the ancient world was not conducted in the context of cult prostitution. It's difficult to conceive of lesbian pederasts.
3) The ancients explained homosexuality in different ways - and I did make it clear in my first post that they did not use modern scientific or psychological concepts .One explanation was an excess of passion. 4) They did not confine their discussion to acts. Paul in fact critiques the "passions" that societies idolatry has produced. (Pagan society, not individual choice is the target of this critique.)
5) If they were inflamed in their passions for "each other" how is any form of exploitation in view?
6) Romans 5 and 7 make it clear that for Paul our innate desires are not guides to God's plan for nature.
7) True, I would agree that there is a certain amount of social construction in homosexuality, and in homosexual identity. Cultures separated by millenia will use varying concepts. For example there existed in the first-century Roman world people called "cinaedi". These were adult males who perpetuated an effeminate appearance in order to attract male sex partners. Moreover they were exclusively attracted to other males. Philo -a first-century Jew- was quite aware of their existence. Since the cinaedi appear frequently in the literature of the period it is highly unlikely that Paul was unaware of their existence. But in any case, homosexuality went beyond pederastry and cultic activity in the ancient world.
8) Given the unanimous opinion of Jewish thinkers that Homosexuality was wrong, not because of exploitation or idolatyry, but because it was against nature, isn't there a strong burden of proof on revisionists to show Paul was condemning something else altogether?

Graham Veale
Armagh

Brian

1) I don't think sex is morally trivial - humans woule be rare without it. But, yes, I confess, I find our preoccupation with sex boring. Other posters told me how wrong I was, and that this was an important issue.
2) My views are only relevant to those who accept scriptures authority. I'd much rather discuss the issues that Portwyne and you have raised.
3) You haven't replied to one question I asked some time ago. Wouldn't Natural Selection have good "reasons" for preserving homophobia? Wouldn't this make homophobia naturally occurring? But of course, you want to condemn homophobia. So shouldn't you concede there is more to humans than genes and natural selection?

Graham Veale

Right wrong or otherwise, the man is wasting his money, he has no legal case. In fact, if it is a clear miisuse of the courts, he could be liable himself. The bible however it is translated or mistranslated is a) protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees free speech and b) is in the public doman meaning nobody has any exclusive copyright protection for its content. It's an open and shut case even if the mental anguish it causes him drives him to murder or suicide. BTW, both murder and suicide are felonies. I always wondered how such a law making suicide a felony makes sense. What would they do, put the dead body in prison as punishment for a few years before they bury it?

Portwyne
You ask if I believe that "the Bible is uniquely inspired by God and, as a corpus, presents a coherent picture of its author, his preferences for the right ordering of human society, and his blueprint for individual conduct."

I agree with this statement, and I'll outline some reasons why, but with one qualification - Scripture is intended to order the Church and not Society. One of the central themes of the whole canon of Scripture is that not only should we love God, but we should love what he loves. If the latter is lacking, transformation of society is not possible. Christian utopias should not be pursued.

I daresay that we'll need to discuss this in more depth, but to outline my reasons for accepting the authority of Scripture:
1) The example of Christ.
(a)In "My Archbishop is a 'false teacher' says priest" I outline my reasons for believing that the New Testament portrayal for Jesus is historically reliable. I also outline some of my reasons for accepting the historicity of the Resurrection, and ask why !st Century Jews should predicate properties of Jesus that were the unique properties of I AM. In other words they included Jesus in the identity of I AM.
(b) Jesus is the central authoritative figure in Christianity; he demanded that his followers take a high view of Scripture by his teaching, and his example.

2) My Religious Experience
(a) Central to the story of my life is the Gospel - which depends on the historicity of the Incarnation, the Atonement and the Resurrection. It also depends on concepts like Sin and Reconciliation. The only place that I can learn about the Gospel is Scripture.
b(i) What do I mean by Religious Experience?
The convinction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which I would describe as analogous to moral or aesthetic experiences. Of course my experience is of no weight to anyone else, but I have to deal with it. I would accept the finding of my conscience so long as (i) they cohered with my other beliefs (ii) I could find others with similar experiences (iii) I am sure that I am not creating the experience myself, or that others are manipulating me and (iv) no convincing arguments can be advanced against the beliefs resulting from my experience.
b(ii) That I can only make sense of the world and my experiences through the teachings of Scripture
b(iii) I have no choice but to belief - I've bet my life on this. John 6 v 60 -68 describes how I feel.

3) The witness and traditions of the Church. It seesm to me that we are in a state of moral and intellectual paralysis until we have some sense of who we are, what values we should pursue, and what virtues we should inculcate. We need some grounding for our trust in our moral and intellectual faculties. We need a sense of significance, belonging, and hope. So we need to ground ourselves in some set of teachings if we are not to end up like a Woody Allen character - so unsure of who he is, he is perpetually unable to act.
4) Before Brian jumps in at this point and talks about autonomy, let me point out two things. 1 - He grounds himslef in a tradition going back to Toland, Voltaire and Russell. The fact that Brian darws on this tradition makes his arguments all the more forceful 2 - We cannot switch reason off. Our worldviews need to be criticised from within and without. I should not only look for incoherence in my beliefs, but I should also ask if other Religions, or Atheism, can give a better account of the world.
5) At this point I am arguing for the authority of Scripture, not inerrancy. Scripture can be authoritaitive without being inerrant. Conervatives, who reject inerrancy, look for central coherent themes, and key events in the WHOLE CANON. Teaching on sexuality varies little in Scripture.
6) Progressive revelation is allowed for. God's grace can become clearer as the narrative unfolds.
7) Each passage is to be interpreted according to it's historical literary type. One of the key questions is - how were the first readers to understand this?
8) As to the Canaanite slaughter, this is anomalous, to say the least. It does not even seem to fit with OT teachings on conduct in warfare. A Conservative can just drop the whole affair as unhistorical. As a evangelical, I've to try to explain the anomaly. But neither group believes that there is a command for groups to slaughter children applicable to any other context.

Hope this answers some of your queries. I patiently await the onslaught from Brian.

Graham Veale

Hi Graham
I have to correct you, the sin of Sodom was NOT male gang rape.
Pauls letter to Jude says (in the greek) the sexual sin of Sodom was actually that it was completely sold out to sexual lust.
See post 34. In genesis Sodom was already condemned by God when the attempted gang rape took place. cheers PB

PS Graham I know you have directly challenged Will before but am open to a better approach; how and when should Will be challenged, if at all, do you think? cheers PB

PPS The reason for the grudge from some posters is because I have persistently denuded their attempts to assert that science disallows God as the creator of the universe. This was done over several years and has been strongly resented. I have avoided a personal approach; they have insisted on it!

John Stott points out the two greek words in 1 Cor 6 mean the passive and active partners in homosexuality. He points out the second term comes from two words and literally means, "male-in-bed" in contrast to the passive partner.
Many former members of the homosexual community and also professionals working with them say that the lifstyle is often a subconscious sexualised search for a missing father figure.
Govt figures predicted the uptake of civil partnerships in this community would be only around 3%. One former member of the community told me physcial monogamy was a very very rare thing in it. This seems to link accounts in Genesis, Romans 1 and Jude fairly well, IMHO. PB

ref post 47, if my point was clear Graham sorry.
I should have concluded by saying that if the lifestyle is often motivated by the sexualised search for an approving father figure, and that if such a search is bound to failure, then a person in such circumstances would be bound to continue in an endless search which is sexually driven, so the theory goes; hence the biblical use of the term "lust".
It has been suggested that artistically intellectual and even effeminte boys may be more prone to this predicament because their peers, brothers and fathers may find it difficult to accept them as masculine, thus accentuating their need of acceptance, which becomes sexualised at puberty. This was the received wisdom in the professional research prior to the mid-1970s and is still the thinking with many mental health professionals and former members of the community itself. eg James Parker and Andy Comiskey to name but two.
PB