Friday, May 12, 2006

Starfish and "Doing Away With the Law"

Sharon continues to pick up and defend the broken pieces of her argument:

> What do asexual starfish have to do with homosexual humans?

Trans-sexual clams and homosexual seagulls?
‘God saw all he had created and said it is good.’ Long before the original sin.

And thus you make the same assertion with the same assumptions that I questioned in my last post.

1. Sharon assumes that the way the world is today is the same as it was before the fall. But the very Bible that states “God saw all he had created and said it is good” denies this. Sharon needs to re-read Genesis 1-3.

2. Seagulls and clams aren’t moral agents. They aren’t committing a moral wrong. Their actions may or may not be a result of another’s wrong, but they themselves do not make moral choices.

3. Sharon continues to make the syllogistic leap from the animal kingdom to God’s image-bearers. It is natural for a starfish to reproduce asexually. In other words, this is an effective means of reproduction. But last I heard, homosexuality is an ineffective means of reproduction for humans. So for Sharon to argue that natural non-heterosexual behavior in the animal kingdom proves that homosexual behavior in God’s image-bearers is “natural” is the same things as arguing that because sponges filter feed by straining suspended matter and food particles from water, it is “natural” and according to “God’s order of things” for humans to do the same.

God’s commandments apply to his image-bearers. The institution of marriage is a purely human institution.

Speaking of clams, are they clean to eat? Yes? All meat is good? Then why is homosexuality or bi-sexuality considered such a “mighty mighty abomination”?

Is Sharon really arguing like this? The self-debunkers are known to be theologically ignorant. The Old Covenant dietary laws were ceremonial laws. But sexual laws were purely moral. The instituted death penalty is a big red flag demonstrating this fact.

What is it, that is “so abominable” about homosexuality… I considered that earlier today and when I think about it, you know, I really cannot pinpoint anything specific… except the homophobia associated with it.

Homosexuality is sin because it transgresses God’s law. God, being the King of the Universe, has the right to impose laws upon his creation. Stealing is a sin because it transgresses God’s law. Murder is a sin because it transgresses God’s law. Disobedience to parents is a sin because it transgresses God’s law. The same is the case with homosexuality.

Why are God’s laws the way they are? Well, God is not obligated to give an answer. The clay cannot object to the Potter. But God has, in his mercy, given us an answer in Scripture. Homosexuality redefines the family unit. It negates God’s very purpose for marriage. Ultimately, it slanders the marriage between Christ and the church.

Those old laws were done away with the Christians tell me.

Where does Sharon get her theology? Ceremonial laws were fulfilled in the High Priesthood of Christ. Yet moral laws are binding upon all of creation. They are the measure for both sin and sanctification.

Most don’t waste time reading the Old Testament.

That is terribly misfortunate, for the Old Testament, as Jesus says, is all about Christ (John 5:39).

But notice that Sharon has persistently ignored those New Testament verses clearly and explicitly condemning homosexuality that I have presented to her. Here are only two:

Romans 1:26-27 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.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

In fact, eating pork and shellfish can be more hazardous to your health than homosexuality.

1. While I could reasonably argue against this statement, evil isn’t evil because it is hazardous to your health. As far as I know, theft isn’t immediately hazardous to the health.

2. Sharon continues to commit category errors between ceremonial and moral laws. She doesn’t recognize divisions which the text itself recognizes. Her arguments are strawmen.

And what of Circumcision? It too was of such a great importance to Jehovah, it is written Moses came close to getting stricken dead, for his son wasn’t circumsized. Yet, in the New Testament circumcision is no longer a mandatory requirement, is that not part of the reason the Jews wanted to kill Paul? Paul was doing away with the laws.

1. Paul wasn’t “doing away with the laws.” He rightly viewed the ceremonial laws as being fulfilled in the High Priesthood of Christ and his perfect sacrifice on the cross. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, so sacrificial laws no longer apply.

But does that mean that Paul would then assert “there are no more laws” and so that we can go on sinning? He answers for himself:

Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

Romans 13:13-14 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

2. Sharon persists to confuse ceremonial and moral laws, and she continues to ignore the New Testament condemnation of homosexuality.

Do we pick and choose which laws are still in effect and which ones not? Jesus said he had not came to do away with the law, but to fulfil. Do you believe it is okay to get blood transfusions? The Jehovah Witnesses don’t, and they too base their teachings on scripture –an old law.

Shall I quote the verses from the Old Testament about the abomination of eating the flesh of swine? Then why do you and other Christians eat swine?

The fact that Sharon cannot recognize the obvious distinction that the Old Covenant makes between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws speaks much more about the nature of Sharon’s research than the law itself. The fact that she persistently ignores what the New Testament states concerning this subject speaks volumes.

And remember, this isn’t some ad hoc answer made on the fly in order to defend a particular theological position. This comes straight from the text. This is what the text itself states. Theologians have recognized this long before anyone like Sharon asked these questions concerning homosexuality. Just because Sharon ignores the answer that the text has already given does not mean that the answer is neither legitimate nor true.

Really, when is John Loftus going to come in with his seminary degree and put his team in line? Is he not honest and fair enough to inform his team concerning their bad arguments?

I gather, if a homosexual accepts Christ, he is a Christian… and God is no respector of persons. His christianity is as good as yours.

“Christianity” is much more than a name: it means something. A Christian is a sinner that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ and has received his work by grace through faith. But it doesn’t end there. A Christian has been saved that he might proclaim something about God in his holiness (1 Peter 2:9). Christ saves sinners, but then he transforms them into his image.

Last, but not least, I said my peace yesterday when I posted. Facts are facts, and I have seen nothing posted up to this point to debunk the science I presented you with. Homosexuality is as naturally occuring in nature, as heterosexuality.

It is very difficult to read this concluding statement with a straight face.

Sharon, why do you persist to commit category errors between the animal kingdom and God’s image-bearers? And why do you ignore the fact that the sexual behavior in these animals that is “natural” is able to reproduce, where homosexuality in humans is unable to reproduce? Why do you continue to equate asexual reproduction with homosexual activity?

Would you have us to believe that because sponges filter feed by straining suspended matter and food particles from water, it is “natural” and according to “God’s order of things” for humans to do the same?

Sharon, why do you continue to ignore the Scriptural facts that have been presented to you? Why do you continue to mishandle texts like Genesis 19? Why do you persist in committing a category error with ceremonial and moral laws?

Evan May.

3 comments:

  1. The problem with the health issue is that, for a utilitarian, this is the only measure of good or evil.

    And utilitarianism led to the Workhouse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Irrational Entity5/13/2006 12:50 PM

    I do not see how this debate can move beyond each side's presumptions. A deist holds that things operate as God intended, so homosexuality in humans and other animals is quite natural and moral if it causes no harm. A Christian can argue that homosexuality is the result of sin's corruption of the world, so homosexuality in humans and animals is unnatural in the sense of being against God's intentions for nature.

    Evolution might throw things a bit here, as our animal origins could indicate how homosexuality could develop. A theistic evolutionist could argue the soul that seperates humans from animals makes the difference, but the animal disposition would remain and leaves open the possibility of homosexuality being a natural part of God's developing process. Of course a special creationist can avoid the problem by denying evolution, which works theologically but will present signficant problems when dealing with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's okay to love us. We taste delicious!

    ReplyDelete