Vox writes on Tutu’s statement that he would not wish to go to a homophobic heaven.
The value judgments in that statement are amazing. Perfect example of cherry-picking the Bible, supposedly his text.
There’s no doubt whatever – the precedent of the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah was never spoken against by Jesus of Nazareth. True, [H]e didn’t dwell on it, just as we don’t dwell on the necessity to eat or sleep.
A biblical scholar cannot but conclude that the intent of those books, as regards homosexuality, is that they are dead against it on the grounds that it is unnatural, an aberration, an abomination. References abound.
A modern human, even me, must make of that as we will. Some will say to hell with the Bible then, as Tutu virtually is. And in Catholic terms, that’s mortal sin in leading others into sin as a result of his public position.
The Bible is uncompromising on many things – it contains moral absolutes. For example, you shall not lust after another man’s wife or another woman because in doing so, you’ve done it with her. You shall not divorce her, except for infidelity.
Our relativist age can’t handle this. In an anti-absolutes age, almost everyone takes umbrage and distances him or herself from these anteldiluvian ideas in the Bible. All sorts of rationalizing goes on – the net is full of it.
Yet the Bible is still the guidebook for a couple of billion people, either true believers or not and does not look likely to die out.
My own position took some getting to. I see what the Bible says but against that, I have homosexual friends, some very close. What am I to do? I shall not condemn them – and perhaps that’s what the Pope is trying to say – but the issue is that I’ll not condemn them as friends; however, on the issue of their homosexuality, it comes down to the thought and the act.
The Bible says the thought is the act. I don’t wish to condemn my homosexual friends. So I’m setting myself against what has been very clear throughout history. Easy enough to condemn the gay mafia, trying to get into schools to teach 5 year olds about their sexuality – on so many counts, that’s to be vehemently opposed.
But on two adults, with no children involved?
I always knew there was a falling away at the end, where everyone descended into the type of thing that girl did in an earlier post. When it comes out of the bedroom and the family and goes onto the street in large numbers, there’s another societal demise not far away.
That’s history, not morality.
I always wondered that when it came to pass, what would be the issue on which the vast majority would be moved enough to chase down and support the extermination of Christians. I never thought it was just that they were Christians but about some dearly held belief the people had, at odds with the Bible teaching and that Christians were duty-bound to oppose certain things.
Therefore there is a collision course and attempts to be all things to all people no longer wash. There is deep antipathy from the non-Christian and faux-Christian, the Laodicean, towards the “self-righteous” Christian and implacable opposition, even to death, by the Christian him or herself.
It’s black and white, unfortunately, a collision course.
I always wondered what that issue was going to be. Now the decision has been made for us through Cameron’s backers, the Pope, Tutu and others – the catalyst issue on which the church [meaning the worldwide congregation] is going to split is over homosexuality.
This has been decreed by Them as the surest way to kill off Christianity for once and for all, all the great things it supports notwithstanding.
And history has shown if you suppress the hegemony, using popular support on one issue, you can suppress all the other aspects too, e.g. compassion for others, faith, hope and charity, freedom of thought, speech, action and association – they’re all swept away in one torrent and the State steps in to be the mentor, the Nanny, the Mummy and Daddy.
And who’s behind the State? Niemoeller could tell you.
You might say that the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is a stance against freedom. That shows a flawed understanding of the whole point of Christianity – it’s about having the choice and then choosing or not to believe. The Church has coerced over the centuries but not as Christians. The Old Testament and New Testament have different parameters.
A Christian is only someone who, without coercion, has looked at scripture and he or she has decided, for himself or herself, on the basis of that text. That is freedom, that’s what freedom is all about. If you force me, at gunpoint, to believe, it’s an inanity. I can pay lip-service but it is false.
If I decide myself, it has meaning and that is the theology of Christianity, the whole point. John 3:16.
So, in a twisted way, supporting the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is done by people who had the freedom to choose whether to accept the Bible or not. Therefore, homophobia has no place in it. The theology is that everyone makes his or her own peace with his or her own Maker. You can shun, as that is your right, but you can’t attack the aberrant person, kill or incarcerate. You can’t step into a homosexual’s life and physically intervene. I would support the homosexual against any so-called Christian on this.
If there were a crowd of so-called Christians with their Bibles over there and a crowd of homosexuals and others over here, and the former meant to do the latter harm, I’d stand on the side of the latter and take up arms against the so-called Christians.
What so many professing to be Christian have done for two millennia is wrong – it’s a human reaction to force others to think like you. It’s wrong. You can present what you believe to be true – the Gideon’s Bible in the drawer method – but that’s all you can do. The rest is up to your Maker, if He [or She] exists. The Crucible’s theme is a theme of great wrong being done by both the Church and those girls.
And it works that way in politics too. I can present what is likely to be true on these pages, I can delete the opposition when they go ad hominem and show no signs of real debate but always that’s my choice. They had a good run, their words are preserved in the record, now it’s over. My gaff, my choice.
I just saw another blog which mentioned “the church’s claim to the right to be homophobic”. Sorry, the very use of the highly derogatory and loaded term “homophobic” is dishonest in this debate. No one within the church has used the term homophobic, much less defended the slur. Only the left uses it.
This is pure leftist strawman trickery. All that true Christians are doing is defending the Bible. So the person who made that statement is not taking on the men and women of the church – he’s taking on the Bible itself.
Which is precisely what Vox noted about Tutu.
When the left is allowed to frame the debate with their own weaselwords,then the result is dishonesty. You watch what happens now. The more I defend the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth’s stance on it, the greater the falling out with the relativists and then I’ll be vilified, then banned.
And who is the ultimate victor in this? Yep – the cynical global elite who started this ball rolling.
Sadly, a time is coming when others will say to the real Christian – you have no choice in what you say. You will follow the PC Religion or you will be incarcerated and eventually terminated. This is the start of the Final Dark Ages and half the church will fall away and aid and abet it.
It will start with suppression of speech – what one can say … but eventually, as everyone reading this knows full-well, it will come down to the thought police scrutinizing one’s thoughts as well. This has already started in the wake of Bradley Manning.
It’s going to become worse and because the State always uses a populist pretext to do its dirty work, the people will largely go along with this suppression. Settle in for the ride – it’s going to be very bumpy.