Allegedly, when activities (e.g., homosexual type of copulation) involve "consenting" individuals and do not involve outright violence, to denounce those activities a sin is to violate the culture's "absolute" and "invariant" laws of tolerance and inclusion.
The USA had its own brand of Christianity, with many denominations arising or evolving in USA territory. As the population expanded Southward and then Westward, the settlers developed a very strict form of Christianity, out of necessity. There was a clear distinction between appropriate behavior (lady like and gentleman like) and pagan behavior (the saloons and whorehouses). In church, sermons denounced sins, and preached hell & brimstone, because pioneering societies were fragile, and very interdependent if they were to succeed.
ReplyDeleteAfter USA became a much more convenient place to live, it started to be uncomfortable for members to be told constantly to stay away from sin against their brotherhood or "neighbor", and the "vertical" relationship with God began to be emphasized. The "horizontal" relationship was centered in charity and compassion, two concepts not exclusively Christian. Yet, the control of the mind away from sinful thoughts began to be left out of the sermons. As long as it didn't seems to "affect" other people, it was okay, or unavoidable. Soon enough, acts following from the mindset would also be condoned, as long as it didn't seem to "affect" anyone negatively. But the control of the mind away from sinful thoughts is one of Jesus' main teachings (because sinful thoughts, if not controlled, finally do "affect" oneself, if not someone else).
Some scholars who specialize in ancient Greek and Aramaic have made a name for themselves coming up (erroneously or unsubstantiated) with the conclusion that it is now perfectly reasonable for a Christian to be a homosexual, because the Bible only condemns the act within the Levitical purity laws, which are, therefore, not relevant for today.
But detailed exegesis of how the same ancient words are used in other parts of the Old Testament shows this conclusion to read modern tolerances back into the Bible. It is not easy reading, but great scholars have looked into it, and laid it out nicely for us to inform ourselves of the etymological trickery that some scholars play just to write best-selling books, and make a name for themselves and their college or institution which pays their salary.
FURTHER READING: A REFORMED RESPONSE TO DANIEL HELMINIAK'S GAY THEOLOGY (by D. Olliff and D. Hodges) Caché copy (temporary - some loss of font and paragraph format)
(Helminiak has written a response, followed by a counter-response from the above authors. See main link.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFURTHER READING: "WHITHER MARRIAGE?" (By R. R. Reno) Caché copy - pending upload
ReplyDelete