The Town of Odyssey

This is an article from the New York Times written by two professors from a Christian University in the states.I thought this article was interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opini ... .html?_r=3

31899

I love the bit about the Bible not condemning gay marriage. Sure, there's no tried-and-true verse that says "Gay marriage is sinful," but you'd think the numerous references to the practice of homosexuality as a sin in a long list of sins to be condemnation.

I have to say, that article did a terrible job of representing the Evangelical view. Do they think they're doing anyone a favor, criticizing someone's strongly held beliefs and dismissing all these people of being ignorant and therefore less intelligent than individuals who hold the same views as they do? It's a lot harder in many cases to be a pro-life Creationist who believes that homosexuality is a sin than to go with the flow and assume the popular opinion.

Oh, and their little blip on James Dobson and Focus on the Family was extremely biased and inaccurate. Anyone who keeps up with their materials knows that the ridiculous, two-dimensional "pray away the gay" is far from the approach they take. These people are educated psychologists, and they use scientific research to back up their beliefs and stances on social issues.

...I could say more, but I don't want to start ranting. I'll just finish up by saying that I don't care if other Christians believe differently than I do; what I do care about is when they choose to put down the views of other Christians in favor of the secular opinion. Right wings get slandered if they take a harsh, one-sided approach to bashing the opposition, so why is it acceptable for left wings to do the same?

TigerintheShadows wrote:I love the bit about the Bible not condemning gay marriage. Sure, there's no tried-and-true verse that says "Gay marriage is sinful," but you'd think the numerous references to the practice of homosexuality as a sin in a long list of sins to be condemnation.

I love that bit too. I can't remember the exact verse, but I know there is a verse in Deuteronomy or Leviticus that says homosexuality is an abomination, which I believe makes it quite clear what God thinks about the subject.

I should have made myself clear. This was meant to be thought provoking. This was not meant to be an opportunity to bash an article because you may not agree with the content. By posting what you have posted you only prove the article's point. I'm pretty sure that is not what you were trying to do, so let's talk reasonably, use direct quotations, and not go on opinion rants.

Thank You

31899

31899 wrote:I should have made myself clear. This was meant to be thought provoking. This was not meant to be an opportunity to bash an article because you may not agree with the content. By posting what you have posted you only prove the article's point. I'm pretty sure that is not what you were trying to do, so let's talk reasonably, use direct quotations, and not go on opinion rants.

Thank You

31899

They weren't bashing or going on opinion rants. They were bringing to light certain "inconsistencies" about the article, which I'm sure can be backed up by quotes if you really don't trust them enough.

ric wrote:

31899 wrote:I should have made myself clear. This was meant to be thought provoking. This was not meant to be an opportunity to bash an article because you may not agree with the content. By posting what you have posted you only prove the article's point. I'm pretty sure that is not what you were trying to do, so let's talk reasonably, use direct quotations, and not go on opinion rants.

Thank You

31899

They weren't bashing or going on opinion rants. They were bringing to light certain "inconsistencies" about the article, which I'm sure can be backed up by quotes if you really don't trust them enough.

I would look again if I were you, but that is my opinion. I am not saying I agree with the article, I would just like there to be academic discussion. I would not like like rants and defensive arguments that were not provided with backing arguments because the article went outside their comfort or belief zone.

Please recognize that this article was probably designed to cause reaction, because they wanted people to think for a moment, even if you don't agree with the article.

Scholars like Dr. Collins and Mr. Noll, and publications like Books & Culture, Sojourners and The Christian Century, offer an alternative to the self-anointed leaders. They recognize that the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage. They understand that Christian theology can incorporate Darwin’s insights and flourish in a pluralistic society.

I believe this is the section TigerintheShadows, you were referring to. I think in this case they are saying that the Bible doesn't say anything specific about homosexual marriage. I do not think they are saying that the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality. Also I think the other point they are making there is that there are bigger issues that the Bible says a lot more about.

31899

31899 wrote:

Scholars like Dr. Collins and Mr. Noll, and publications like Books & Culture, Sojourners and The Christian Century, offer an alternative to the self-anointed leaders. They recognize that the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage. They understand that Christian theology can incorporate Darwin’s insights and flourish in a pluralistic society.

I believe this is the section TigerintheShadows, you were referring to. I think in this case they are saying that the Bible doesn't say anything specific about homosexual marriage.

31899

(Yes, I agree that they are saying that the Bible doesn't specifically address homosexuality. What I am merely attempting to point out is that the Bible actually does clearly state that homosexuality is against God's law.

Leviticus 18:22: Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (NIV)

I am mildly annoyed by anyone who says that the Bible doesn't specifically address homosexuality, so I just felt the need to point out that it does. My translation uses the word "abomination" to describe homosexual behavior, but same difference lol.)

Putting that aside, please carry on with your academic discussion.

This article is not saying that Christians can or should be for homosexuality or gay marriage. It is decrying the use of Reparative or Conversion Therapies on homosexuals and in their view the simplistic approach of Focus on the Family to the issue. As to the age of the earth it is simply saying that the Bible does not clearly state that the earth is 10,000 or 6,000 years old and that Christians can legitimately believe in the old earth theory and even evolution.

Any way are you all really disputing the main point of this article? That many Protestant Evangelicals dislike or distrust what they view as the liberal academic culture of colleges and universities, that this distrust has lead to a sometimes over compensated decry of intellectualism in general, and that some denominations have established parallel cultures to isolate themselves from society as a whole?

Ayn Rand wrote:This article is not saying that Christians can or should be for homosexuality or gay marriage. It is decrying the use of Reparative or Conversion Therapies on homosexuals and in their view the simplistic approach of Focus on the Family to the issue. As to the age of the earth it is simply saying that the Bible does not clearly state that the earth is 10,000 or 6,000 years old and that Christians can legitimately believe in the old earth theory and even evolution.

I personally don't think Christians can "legitimately" believe in old-earth theories or even evolution and still be consistent with the rest of their theology. For one thing, any view that tries to stuff evolutionary thinking into the Bible is not trusting the Bible's authority and sufficiency enough. There are many, many evidences that the earth cannot possibly be much more than 10,000 years old, so those who reject a young earth reject a lot of observational science. And anyone who accepts the idea of millions of years of death before man came about is undermining the importance of the Fall of man when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's Law. Why not just accept what the Bible says as Truth about Creation and the Flood? It is entirely and completely scientifically provable, and it makes much more sense, and takes much less faith in God than evolution does in random chance mutations.

Christian A. wrote:

Ayn Rand wrote:This article is not saying that Christians can or should be for homosexuality or gay marriage. It is decrying the use of Reparative or Conversion Therapies on homosexuals and in their view the simplistic approach of Focus on the Family to the issue. As to the age of the earth it is simply saying that the Bible does not clearly state that the earth is 10,000 or 6,000 years old and that Christians can legitimately believe in the old earth theory and even evolution.

I personally don't think Christians can "legitimately" believe in old-earth theories or even evolution and still be consistent with the rest of their theology. For one thing, any view that tries to stuff evolutionary thinking into the Bible is not trusting the Bible's authority and sufficiency enough. There are many, many evidences that the earth cannot possibly be much more than 10,000 years old, so those who reject a young earth reject a lot of observational science. And anyone who accepts the idea of millions of years of death before man came about is undermining the importance of the Fall of man when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's Law. Why not just accept what the Bible says as Truth about Creation and the Flood? It is entirely and completely scientifically provable, and it makes much more sense, and takes much less faith in God than evolution does in random chance mutations.

Could you please provide scholarly evidence of your claims? :)Thanks.

This merely sates God created the Earth and does not continue to say how he created the Earth. It also follows to say

Which would seem to indicate an approach other than "poof, look, the Earth." To continue, things such as light before the stars would also indicate a different approach.

31899

Yeah I agree with 31899, the Bible doesn't say much about creation besides the fact that God created everything. It doesn't give a time for when it happened nor what happened afterwards.

Christian A. wrote:

Ayn Rand wrote:This article is not saying that Christians can or should be for homosexuality or gay marriage. It is decrying the use of Reparative or Conversion Therapies on homosexuals and in their view the simplistic approach of Focus on the Family to the issue. As to the age of the earth it is simply saying that the Bible does not clearly state that the earth is 10,000 or 6,000 years old and that Christians can legitimately believe in the old earth theory and even evolution.

I personally don't think Christians can "legitimately" believe in old-earth theories or even evolution and still be consistent with the rest of their theology. For one thing, any view that tries to stuff evolutionary thinking into the Bible is not trusting the Bible's authority and sufficiency enough. There are many, many evidences that the earth cannot possibly be much more than 10,000 years old, so those who reject a young earth reject a lot of observational science. And anyone who accepts the idea of millions of years of death before man came about is undermining the importance of the Fall of man when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's Law. Why not just accept what the Bible says as Truth about Creation and the Flood? It is entirely and completely scientifically provable, and it makes much more sense, and takes much less faith in God than evolution does in random chance mutations.

You seem to be saying that belief in old earth comes with evolution. As I stated in the recently started Old earth vs. Young earth thread (let's move this argument there, btw) this is false. Most old earth Christians believe that the creation week was not a literal week, and was much longer. This doesn't mean that they believe in evolution.

I gave you my answer in the second part of my comment responding to Ayn Rand in the Old vs. Young Earth thread.