Front page
Silflay Hraka?
The Warren?
The Warren's RSS feed

bigwig AT

Friends of the Warren
Silflay Hraka
Bad State Of Gruntledness
Jay Solo's Verbosity

Friends of Blackavar
Cold Fury
Sasha & Friends
Andrea Harris
Volokh Nation
Winds of Change
Chicago Boyz
The Dissident Frog, Man

December 14, 2003

Just whose Bible is he reading?

While surfing the blogosphere for reactions to the capture of Saddam Hussein (by the way, Blackavar, we scooped Instapundit!) I noticed this post that confirmed what I have always suspected: Andrew Sullivan has never actually read the Bible.

I know that from this howler of a quote: "Same-sex love - yes love - has been around since the dawn of time. Pauline Christianity (not Jesus) is mainly responsible for treating it as the equivalent of murder."

Really? So what on earth was the real reason Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed? And what about that stuff in Leviticus about "lying with mankind" being an abomination? True, Jesus never expressly condemned homosexuality. But He never said a word of approval, either.

Before his conversion to Christianity, Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a religious-political party, known for their strict observance of the law of Moses. They were the main opposition to the Lord's ministry and were constantly searching for a reason to discredit Him in the eyes of the people. They accused Jesus several times of breaking the Sabbath for simply performing miracles. Had Jesus been openly homosexual, or at least preached tolerance of homosexuality, it is inconceivable that the Pharisees would have allowed it to pass unnoticed or unpunished.

I expect Sullivan will continue in his efforts to reconcile homosexuality with traditional morality. But for those of us who have actually studied the Bible, his reasoning makes no sense. Either the Bible is a homophobic screed, or it is the Word of God. Sullivan should read it first, and then decide which is which.

Posted by Captain Holly at December 14, 2003 09:28 AM | TrackBack
I think Mr. Sullivan might be reading the "Gay" Bible where all offending passages relating to homosexuality have been removed or changed, things like "a man and a woman shall be come one flesh" have been changed to "a man and his male life partner shall become one flesh" and Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for commiting multiple "fashion faux pas". People read to much into Christ not condeming homosexuality. We have to remember that Christ was sent to only the Jews and not the Gentiles. The Lord had commanded the children of Israel on numerous occasions to avoid all heathen pratices of the Gentile nations around them and in accordance with the Law of Moses, they had been stoning homosexuals to death for years. Jesus didn't have to condemn the Jews about homosexuality since they were probably very good about keeping that commandment (I think they enjoyed stoning prostitutes and homosexuals a little too much). However, Paul the apostle was sent out specifically to teach the Gospel to the Gentiles, so it is normal for him to condemn homosexuallity so forcefully since many of the new Gentile converts came from societies, like ancient Greece, where homosexuality was celebrated, considered normal or at least tolerated. Using the Bible to support Mr. Sullivan's point that homosexuality is "normal" is like using the American Rifleman magazine to support gun control. Posted by: digrafid at December 14, 2003 10:29 AM
Sullivan is not to be taken seriously about anything romotely touching on homosexuality.He loses all perspective. Posted by: M. at December 14, 2003 02:19 PM
For those who defend homosexuality, a rallying cry is "if it's so bad, how come Christ never said anything about it?" Well, duh. Consider your audiences. Christ spoke mostly to Jews, and some other Semites and Romans. There was no tolerance in Jewish culture for homosexuality. It wasn't something on their minds. You'll notice that Christ doesn't specifically speak against software piracy, either. Paul was speaking to Greeks, for whom sleeping with boys was considered not only acceptable, but superior to sleeping with women. When Plato argued that man-boy relationships should be platonic, rather than sexual, he was viewed as a radical. Posted by: Robert Bauer at December 15, 2003 11:26 AM
"Mankind" does not mean men, and I am appaled by your blatant bigotry. Posted by: katherine at January 7, 2004 09:12 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.