So my question is, as I tweeted/Facebooked yesterday, “Does the notion that the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuality refer only to temple prostitution or abuse hold water with you?”

The overwhelming response (other than the “Tryin’ to start a twitter fight are ya?”) was “No.”  That’s not terribly surprising, given the circles I run in.  I have a gracious plenty of conservative friends and family.  It has inspired at least one person to right a blog post (unwritten as of yet) and I’m always glad of that.  So now’s the time to lay things out on the table.  What do I believe?

Well, first where do I get that notion anyway?  The Bible seems pretty clear on the issue, doesn’t it?  Aren’t there dozens of passage in the Bible that address it?

Oddly enough, not so much.  There are seven passages that ReligiousTolerance.org lists as “gotcha” passages.  These are the ones most often used by conservatives to point out how clear the Bible is on the subject.  You can find them listed here.

Let’s take them on one by one.

Genesis 19 - This is the Sodom passage.  This is ground that we’ve covered before on this blog in the comments here. While I maintain that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex (among other things) with the strangers, it wasn’t because they were homosexuals.  It was because they had gone so far down the rabbit hole that they had lost any sense of humanity.  They were complete sociopaths.

Leviticus 18:22 - This one seems to be an absolute slam dunk.  It’s worth noting though (as many have) that the rather long list of shall nots in Leviticus is ritual law and not moral law.  As such, does it apply to us today?  If it does, then there are a few of us who are in trouble.  If most of them don’t apply, then why pick this one out of the heap?

Leviticus 20:13 – Similar to 18:22 this seems to be solid.  What’s troublesome is that if you find such a person, you’re to stone them.  Even the most (non-wacko) conservative isn’t suggesting we stone homosexuals or any other “sinners” so why do we latch on to this passage?  Again this would seem to be listed firmly under ritual law.  Interestingly enough (and I’m not a Hebrew expert) apparently a literal translation of this passage is, “If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman’s bed, both have committed an abomination.” So it seems to be not so much a matter of who you can’t have sex with so much as where you can’t have sex.  That seems a bit of a stretch though.  Anyone care to help us out there?

Romans 1:26-27 – There’s some interesting qualification going on here.  It’s describing people who are obscuring the truth about God and because of that they are “given over” to these desires.  Apparently, and I’m just going by the passage here, those people were having “natural” relations with opposite sex partners and once God gave them over to their sinful desires (a thorny bit of prose) they started having sex with same gender partners.  Whatever this means it doesn’t seem to address folks who have grown up with the feelings of same sex attraction.  Did God “give them over” to that at a young age or is that attraction natural to them?  If the latter then aren’t these therapies getting passed around to convert homosexuals likewise “unnatural”?

I Corinthians 6:9-10 – This list mentions “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders” in the NIV.  It gets translated as just homosexual in a number of other translations.  That’s problematic because whatever you believe about “arsenokoitai” (and that ranges from straight up man on man sex to pimp to dirty old man) it’s definitely male focused.  So are lesbians left out of Paul’s list?  Is he really referencing the Levitical passages?  I’m tempted to say that ultimately is doesn’t matter since Paul goes on to say “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  There’s that pesky “were” though.  If you do translated “arsenokoitai” as “male homosexual” does that mean that Paul expects you to leave that behind you?

1 Timothy 1:9-10 – There’s that pesky “arsenokoitai” again.  What do we do with that?  Do we honestly believe that a man who loves another man or a woman another woman are in the same league with slave traders, liars, and perjurers?  If so, have you told a lie?  Did you stop telling lies when you became a Christian?  I haven’t.

Jude 1:7 – Here we go back to Sodom and Gomorrah.  Clearly the men in that town weren’t interested in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  Clearly they were sociopaths.  So is this really pointing to the majority of homosexuals?  I can’t see that.

Okay, a few notes.  I’m aware that these links all point to NIV passages.  Clearly KJV and other more “conservative” translations differ in their language.  So, don’t bag on the NIV and don’t use your favorite translation to poke holes in my argument.  I’m not relying on any particular translation.   Be aware that just because someone chose to use the word “homosexual” in your favorite translation, that is not proof from on high that God meant “people of the same sex who desire a faithful monogamous relationship with one another”.  It likely means that the translator has an interesting bias.   As an indication of that, apparently “arsenokotai” was apparently translated as “masturbator” once upon a time.

Also, for the record, I’m not firmly convinced that all expressions of homosexuality are either “good” or “bad”, moral or immoral, sinful or not.  It is quite possible that there are expressions of homosexuality that are just as sinful as some expressions of heterosexuality are.  I think all blanket statement are stupid at worst and short-sighted at best.

If you can show me that what the Bible has to say makes such blanket statements without appeals to authority and with an eye towards awareness of confirmation bias (in other words let’s just say that I’m not going to take any particular Bible teacher has to say too seriously  unless you are that Bible teacher) then do so.  I want to know what you think, based on what these passages say.

Homosexuality – Big Sin or _______? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

That quest is what God used to ultimately lead Abram to believe in the promise to make him a great nation and for that to be “credited it to him as righteousness”. He was also faithful in the binding of Isaac and in his obedience to move where God told him to go. As faithful as he was though, I don’t think it was Abram’s overall faith that made him the patriarch and one of the examples of great men of faith that is lifted up in Hebrews 11. After all, this was also the man that laid with his servant to try and “make” the promise happen. This was the man who told his wife to lie about who she was, not just once but twice. He often questioned God and had troubles believing.

I say these things not to run down a person whom many hold in high esteem, but to give you and I hope. To remind us that God chose this very fallible man and made him into what he needed him to be. God made a covenant with him, knowing that if the man had any end to hold up, that he would fail. In that sense the covenant was unconditional. There was nothing special about Abraham, nothing unique in his character that made God choose him, at least nothing that you or I know of. God simply chose him and did with him what was necessary to fulfill his plan.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

1 Cor 1:26-31

That’s you and me right there. We have no place to boast, just as Abraham had no place to boast. What we do for God and what God does with us is a credit to him, not a feather in our caps. The lives I’ve touched I have only touched because of God’s calling. May I have faith and rest in that and not in my own abilities, the things that are not save for God’s intervention.

The Things That Are Not is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’d love a book that told us everything about the nature of the soul…

I’d love to be able to pick something up, read it, and know all there is to know about God…

The Bible, perhaps sadly, perhaps not, is not this book. There are many questions that the Bible leaves unanswered. There are topics it doesn’t address. I’ve been cruising around the internets having discussions with believers and non-believers for many a moon now. People have told me that if I would just really read the Bible the way they recommend that one of two things would happen, both involving seeing the light. The first comes from non-believers. They say if I would just open my eyes I would see God as a horrid being unworthy of worship (should he in fact exist at all). Some of my fellow believers argue that if I but read the Bible their way (oddly enough the same way some non-believers encourage) without baggage or preconceptions, that I would see the literal truth of the Flood or the Six Day Creation for instance.

Oddly enough I can’t manage either result, no matter how hard I try.

The Bible itself says in 2 Timothy “15 from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

So that seems to me that the main thrust of the Bible is to instruct us on how we are to be saved eternally and how we as Christians are to be righteous and do good works. We spend too much time using it to tell non-Christians how unrighteous they are and what bad works they do and I don’t see that here. It also seems based on this list that it’s not there to answer all of our questions about God and his nature, the age of the Earth, how we should “do church”, or a number of other topics that we go round and round about on a daily basis. Having those discussions is fine and good (to a degree) but I don’t think being dogmatic on them (since they’re basically solely based on our interpretations of the Bible and not on explicit teachings) is going to bear good fruit.

I suspect that if you want to argue these points you can find a book that will help you with them. It’ll be in the bookstore, written by your favorite saint/church father/pastor of the moment. Or maybe you can just make stuff up and blame it on the Holy Spirit (or angels, or God “giving you a word”, or whatever*). That seems pretty popular. How much weight you give that is between you and your conscience, just don’t try and make me believe it.

*hat tip to Jon.

Not the Book You’re Looking For is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

My answer to Sid’s comment is going to be a very qualified yes. A good part of that is because human sexuality is an incredibly broad spectrum and the, imo, large slice that the Bible is in favor of is therefore narrow in comparison. I would say that most worldviews have their own narrowly prescribed range of acceptable sexuality, again in comparison. Are their people that think that “anything goes” when it comes to that emotionally charged topic? I’m sure that there are some that think they are and perhaps there are even some that are. But this isn’t about them. This is about the Bible’s own “narrow” point of view.

One of the things that I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to recently is the concept of polygamy. Oh don’t worry, I have no intention of ever practicing it. One wife is just plenty for me. But it’s something that the Bible doesn’t seem to be against. A number of the patriarchs in the Bible practiced it. It was and remains a common custom in that part of the world. The rare places that it’s spoken against that I’m aware of seem to nail the badness down in the area of marrying people who have radically different religious views than you. There’s also the admonition that elders should be the husband of only one wife, but it’s not (too my knowledge) listed anywhere as being a sin. Certainly you could say, as some have, that since Adam and Eve were apparently “married” and monogamous that this is God’s intention for all of us. I’m not so sure about that since Adam and Eve, to my knowledge never actually had a ceremony and were what I’d call common law spouses.

That leads to the topic of sex outside of marriage. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, never says what the act of getting married is actually like. There is no Biblically prescribed ceremony. It seems, getting back to Adam and Eve, that all that is required is for two people to pledge themselves to one another, and in the case of believers, to God. No need for a ring, a dress, or even a church and pastor. So, would it be accurate to say that in order to have sex “appropriately” all two people have to do is make such a pledge to one another? It certainly seems so. Granted there does seem to be some procedure for divorcing in the Old Testament and therefore it’s likely that there’s also a procedure for getting married, but I’m unaware of either.

The big buggaboo, and I suspect one of the things to which Sid was referring, would be homosexuality. I can’t argue there. The Bible does seem to be pretty clearly against it, both male and female. There aren’t exactly scores of verses pointing to it, but a few in the Old Testament and a few in the new are pretty clear. One of the passages that I don’t think is so completely clearly anti-gay sex is the whole Sodom incident. Those people weren’t so much homosexual as they were sexual predators. Otherwise though it is certainly clear that God designed man to be with woman and vice versa and doesn’t want it any other way. My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.

Masturbation is also pointed to pretty frequently as being a no-no. The Bible doesn’t really touch on that though. Onan is the only one who is listed as performing that particular act (if that was indeed what he was doing) and he gets killed by God. What gets glossed over there is that Onan was commanded by God to get his brother’s widow pregnant and he didn’t do it. That was the real issue.

So all of this to say, are their things the Bible seems to be against when it comes to sex? Sure. A lot of what Christians say the Bible/God is against is tied up in two thousand years of tradition and our own (at least as far as Western Christians are concerned) cultural baggage. I think the Bible is certainly pro-heterosexuality and that sexuality taking place in a mutually respectful, loving, committed relationship. What that sex looks like, whether it involves something you, I, or the fly on the wall might think of as “kink”, or the granular details aren’t really touched on. I think that the Bible shows clearly that bad things can come from anything else and often does. So with that I guess I’ll don my flame retardant suit, open up the floor, and ask what you think of this. Am I way off the mark here?

How Narrow Is That Gate? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.”

Not at all. How can I say that? Let’s recontextualize.

“The Bible has one monolithic message on absolutely anything at all.”

See what I mean?

What does the Bible say about sex? Lots of things. There are the rules in Leviticus that we’re all familiar with, which instruct an ancient tribe of Hebrews to get a wife or two, boink them as appropriate, not to boink them when it’s, yanno, that time, what to do when your wife bears your kid, and what to do when your slave bears your kid. Roughly. And it’s couched in the highly ritualized, black-and-white, OCD language and tradition that comes out of having a long-standing and very powerful priest class in control.

Up over in the New Testament, there’s Paul. Paul takes an entirely different tack, being quite certain that nobody should have sex at all, because it’s gross. Old definition. At best, Paul’s whole message is muddled, but he’s very well-known for at least being attributed with encouraging asceticism in the church. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that he was certain Jesus would return in his lifetime, combined with the firm possibility that he was also the world’s first armchair theologian. He was certain they were living in unique and urgent times. The result is that he picked weird priorities.

What does Jesus say about sex? Not a whole lot, especially if you don’t spend a lot of time deconstructing the implications of his big anti-legalism shtick.

Let’s see, what else? The parts of the old testament that aren’t made entirely of “begats” and “thou shalt nots” are mostly made up of good old-fashioned bronze and iron age myths and legends, and like any good set of ancient religious myths and legends, they’re full of rum, buggery and the lash. Taken on the whole, it shows a very human sexuality – kind of lusty, kind of confused, kind of not stopped by all the rules present over sexual behavior. It’s also worth mentioning that, as far as I’ve ever found, there’s no story in the old testament of anyone being smote by god for sexual misdeeds. Folks are smote for a lack of faith, a lack of ritual cleanliness, a lack of cooperation, or out of sheer bloody-mindedness, but not for having naughty sex. (No, I’m not convinced that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexuality, either. If you ignore the analysis of the passage later in the bible and just read the story, it seems quite clear that those cities were destroyed because they were populated entirely by assholes. And, as the currently totally trendy Book of Job shows, God does not abide assholes.)

You know what’s really terrible, though? The bible has a dirty book. Song of Songs. You could say that it’s a love letter to god using the metaphor of sexual lust. Or it’s just a marvelous letter of longing between lovers. Doesn’t matter. It’s a celebration of beautiful bodies, wonderful scents, textures, tastes, soaring feelings and all of the other wonderful stuff that goes with that intense first blush of love. It’s all the best things sex can do for us. Right there. In the bible.

So, no. The bible is prescriptive about sex, it’s against sex entirely, it’s got an unknown position, it accepts sex as a part of life, and it’s totally into it, and those are just the big swipes. It’s all these all at the same time, plus more.

All These Things and More is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

This statement seems designed to provoke a reaction without speaking to the real issue at hand. Let us examine that instead.

The Bible certainly condemns specific behavior. In addition to specific sexual acts and relationships, the Bible also condemns: lying, murder, tax evasion, slander, disobeying one’s parents, idol worship, eating pork, and a whole host of other things. The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text.

When applying Biblical teaching to human sexuality, as to any aspect of life, one must first accept the authority and legitimacy of the Bible to govern that aspect of life. If one is to accept that the Bible has this authority, no issue may then be taken against whatever statements may be found therein – whether they condemn us for a sexual act, a malicious act, or even a well-intentioned act.

We may be thankful that the Bible does not teach perfect adherence to Biblical Law as the only means of salvation, but that salvation instead is the free gift of God to all who ask. It further /describes/ the practices of those who are saved, rather than attempting to /proscribe/ the actions of those who have no interest in the teachings of the Bible.

In the act of maintaining citizenship within a country, one agree to the legitimacy of the government to set whatever laws it deems necessary, with or without explaining the necessity of those laws. Only once one has agreed to accept Biblical salvation does any other practice described therein become necessary or prohibited. A salvation which attempts to add to or leave behind any portion of the Bible is inconsistent with Biblical text, and comes from human invention rather than divine revelation.

Many world religions use the Christian Bible as their primary sacred text, but reject the divine authorship and complete nature of the manuscript. These religions, which include the Mormons, the Emerging Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and certain movements within multiple Protestant denominations, are legitimately free to change the nature of salvation doctrine and prohibited human behavior to match their own desires. These religions should not be mistaken for, and often do not claim to be, Biblical Christianity.

Should one find oneself in conflict with any portion of the Biblical text, one may adopt a completely legitimate response in rejecting the text in part or in whole and seeking their own religious path. One who does so must understand without error that the freely-given salvation described in the Bible and internally consistent therin applies only to those who accept the authority of Biblical teaching as a whole.

To sum this argument in modern parlance: “If you want to play the game, you have to abide by the rules. If you change the rules, you’re playing a different game.”

Rules of the Game is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Ever since the 60′s, there’s been much change afoot when it comes to perspectives on human sexual flourishing. In the past, the Bible’s prescribed sexual mores were accepted with greater frequency and ease. The sexual revolution changed all that. Some even go so far as to ascribe to what I call the “no limits” philosophy: anything two adults consent to is within bounds, as long as it doesn’t harm the parties involved (harm is usually defined in very minimal physical terms), and the “as long as it doesn’t harm” bit is negotiable. Even where that extreme isn’t proclaimed, many hold that the sexual boundaries in the Bible are quite narrow, and therefore anti-human.

So that’s the popular view, but we should pause and ask, “is the popular view wise?” If lived out, will rejecting the Bible’s sexual boundaries really lead to human flourishing?

The short answer is “no.”

There’s no doubt that God’s prescriptions in the Bible are, in some sense, narrow, but suggesting that it’s therefore anti-human is a non sequitur. Afterall, no one would accuse my mom of being “anti-child” because she had restrictive rules about what belongs in an electrical socket (NOT my fingers!) or about what goes on top of a hot burning stove (NOT my hand, knees, or bum!). Get over the fact that the illustration is a cliche’, because the point applies perfectly in the realm of sexuality. The mere fact of “narrowness” isn’t good enough to prove “anti-humanness,” especially when we have good reason to think there’s a protection behind the boundary.

Well,are the boundaries protective? Yes. Most take it for granted that our physical bodies are like machines; they require the right food, rest, and exercise to run right. If you are one of the few that are skeptical of this, one look at Keith Richards will cure you of that skepticism.

What many miss, though, is that we have various non-physical parts to us that operate by the same design principle. It is very possible and easy to deaden your emotions, warp your reasoning skills, and tear your soul to shreds. Perhaps the quickest way to do all that at once is through fast sexual living. J.I Packer put it well:

“Nowadays some will maintain, in the name of humanism, that the ‘Puritan’ sexual morality of the Bible is inimical to the attainment of true human maturity, and that a little more license makes for richer living. Of this ideology…the proper name for it is not humanism but brutism. Sexual laxity does not make you more human, but less so; it brutalizes you and tears your soul to pieces. The same is true wherever any of God’s commandments are disregarded.”

Moreover, behind every “thou shalt not,” lies a “thou shalt;” behind every boundary is a provision. God’s prescriptions in the Bible are meant to save you not only from something, but towards something greater. His commands provide for us relationships where true commitment, trust, and agape (sacrificial, giving) love–the greatest love–can flourish. This is true humanity, for those things that are so necessary for our full well being are not found in the slightest in any of the temporary sexual arrangements that we contrive up. Fun–yes. “The thrill”–yes. A thin sort of happiness?–kinda. But you will also find suspicion, envy, competition and worry…trust and commitment are nowhere to be found.

There’s also a sense in which the “prevailing wisdom” is just plain morally wrong. Ever heard the following: “We need to find out if we are sexually compatible before we are married. You wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first, would you?”

Isn’t that every woman’s dream–to be compared to a car. How much more degrading can you get?

In case any are wondering, this is a life I’ve lived–on both sides of the equation. For a number of years, I attended a 12 step group for sexual addicts. I lost count of the number of men (myself included) who started out with what most would consider “trivial” things, but lost control and ended up in the gutter. The pain, loss, and grief I saw in the faces of men in that group was quite enough to get me to question the standard line I led with above. What’s more, in most cases, the biggest grief was not from any physical ailments the men (and I) contracted but from the hurt we caused loved ones in our pursuit of self-fulfillment.

As UCLA psychiatrist Miriam Grossman states, “you cannot live the life of *Friends* and *Sex in the City* and not pay dues.” (Check out the link. It offers a psychiatrist’s perspective on this subject.

Though I have experienced addiction in the past, that’s not the end of the story! God is a God of resurrection and healing. I am currently experiencing the flip side. Due to heeding God’s commands in Scripture while we were single, there’s a lot my wife and I don’t have to deal with in our marriage. In turn, that gives us a freedom that words cannot capture.

As designer of human nature, God knows what He’s talking about. Perhaps a little trust on our part would go a long way.

Are Boundaries On Sexual Morality Good? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There are so many problems here that it might be easier to just start with what they have right. I will agree that there are certainly issues with the most popular translation, the NIV.  The primary issue, as I understand it, comes from the effort on the part of the translators to make it easier to understand and in trying to communicate what they believe that the original authors intended they did what is commonly called a “thought for thought” translation.  Other translations including the English Standard Version use a “word for word” approach.

A thought for thought approach, while commendable, has resulted in what many people consider to be a weaker translation theologiclaly speaking.  That by no means indicates that it is insufficient or unusable, but if what you’re looking for is something closer to the oldest manuscripts we have then you want to look elsewhere.  So if their goal is to make a more accurate translation (which doesn’t seem to be the case) then that’s commendable.  It’s already been done, but hey what’s one more translation, right?  Wrong.

If I were to take what they wrote at face value then it seems that they don’t want to do a translation at all.  If they are indeed “retranslating the KJV into modern English” then it’s really more of a paraphrase since translation implies moving from the original language into a different language.  Besides, if they just want that then there’s always the New King James Version which is essentially the KJV updated to modern English.  It uses the same manuscripts as the KJV but notes where other manuscripts differ.

But no, what they want to do here is take their political agenda and use “translation” to hammer God’s word into a shape that they find acceptable.  I’m really not okay with that.  Now I recognize that everyone on God’s green Earth has an agenda and that anyone who enters the field of translation is going to carry with them some sort of baggage.  We’re all human beings here.  The problem I have with this particular agenda is that it’s got nothing to do with trying to mine the word of God and divine what he is trying to say to us and everything to do with shaping the word of God to make something politically acceptable.

Let’s look at this point by point:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias - No what they want is a paraphrase of a translation acceptable to their constituents that’s corrupted by conservative bias.  That’s better somehow?  Oh and they admit that newer translations use more accurate manuscripts.
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity - I’d need some clarification here.  I’m aware of some translations that use more gender neutral terms to refer to God.  If that’s what they’re referring to then I might be okay with sticking strictly to the original language.  However, that’s got nothing to do with thinking that God is some big dude in the sky.  God is a spirit and possesses no gender, but chose to reveal himself in the masculine for specific reasons and hey why not stick with that?
   
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV^[3] is written at only the 7th grade level - So tempted to make a comment here about their target audience, but it’s not nice and not entirely true.  Instead I’ll just say that the NIV isn’t “written” at a certain grade level it’s translated and tool might place it at a certain grade level.  So what?  The KJV uses fewer English words and is only more challenging to read due to archaic language.
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”. – Language certainly evolves over  time.  Both the left and the right have “co-opted” language for their own arguments.  Still I’d like to know what the old meaning of peace is and what new “conservative” word they would use in its place.  This has got 1984 written all over it.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;^[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census- In the OT casting lots wasn’t gambling, it was used as a divining tool by prophets.  Non-believers may still believe that it works out to be the same, but these guys don’t know what they’re talking about.
   
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. - It’s nice of them to admit that conservatives are more interested in using guilt to push our buttons and get us in line.  The focus of the Bible is and always has been more about communion with God and what that means that about what being cast out is like.  The NT mentions Heaven ten times more often than Hell.  Hell should not be our focus.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning- Honestly, I don’t know what to even say here except that these people, the ones who were living during biblical times didn’t have a free market as we understand it.  Jesus wasn’t teaching an economic model and if he were?  Our current model wouldn’t be it.
   
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story- This is wrong on a number of levels.  I mean okay let’s assume that Jesus didn’t say “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone”, the idea of forgiveness and grace and that we are ALL sinners is pretty…. clear given the rest of God’s word.  They’re annoyed that “liberals” are using this as an anti-death penalty screed.  Guess what?  They’re wrong too.  Not the point of this passage.
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels - No idea what to say here that wouldn’t be ad hominem.
   
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.” – Okay so first they say that the liberal version is dumbed down.  Then this.  Make up your friggin’ mind people.

The rest of that page frankly just pisses me off. The whole idea is ridiculous on its face and does NOTHING, accomplishes NOTHING more than adding fuel to the notion that Christians are just a bunch of morons that want to use the Bible to accomplish some right-wing agenda. Are their Christians like that? Sure. Not all, or I hope and pray even most.

Okay that’s enough for now. I need to take my blood pressure meds.

Conservative Bible Project is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.