(Photo courtesy of MEMRI JTTM)
From Gary Randall's Faith and Freedom Blog:
New York Times On Bigotry And The Bible
by Gary Randall, Thursday, April 16, 2015
The "truths," the New York Times' article explains, is "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere."
Many leaders in the mainline Christian denominations are cheering.
Hopefully leaders in the evangelical community are not exhaling, believing their silence has gotten them off the hook.
The oracle of progressive "truths" continues: "That many Christians understand them as incompatible is understandable, an example of not so much of hatred's pull, as of tradition's sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren't easily shaken," The New York Times publishes.
The Time's article explains that continuing to hold these "ossified" beliefs and teachings is "a choice" some Christians and their churches make because they are choosing to "prioritize scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since---as if time had stood still, as if advances of science and knowledge meant nothing."
We've evolved.
The Bible and those who believe it "disregard the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their author, culture and eras" we are told.
The Bible, they say, is neither "inspired" or "infallible." It's merely notions from the past.
Welcome to the Brave New World, relative and evolving "truth," and the shifting definition of religious freedom.
Frank Brurni, witting in the New York Times says holding to old biblical teachings "ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable."
"Therefore," he concludes "our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn't cling to and can indeed jettison..." while "rightly bowing down to the enlightenments of modernity."
In the mind of the secularist, this is about freeing the Bible believing Christian from the bondage of biblical teaching.
He quotes David Gushee, a so-called evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University, who says, "Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time."
Gushee teaches his Christian ethics students that "many Christians thought slavery wasn't sinful, until we finally concluded it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed."
Dr. Gushee says, "Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of LGBT people."
Bruni also quotes Matthew Vines, another “evangelical” author, who wrote the best selling book "God and the Gay Christian" and who explains that Paul's rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I "is akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony."
"Vines," Bruni says, explains "that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?"
Bruni shares a conversation he recently had with Mitchell Gold, a prominent and wealthy furniture maker and homosexual activist.
Bruni says, "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'."
The shifting definition of religious freedom, in the minds of the activists and their allies, now includes a list of acceptable and non acceptable beliefs we are free to believe.
To continue reading the entire article by Gary Randall, and I would encourage you to do so, please click here: http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2015/04/new-york-times-on-bigotry-and-bible.html#.VTVY0PB709k
New York Times On Bigotry And The Bible
by Gary Randall, Thursday, April 16, 2015
The "truths," the New York Times' article explains, is "homosexuality and Christianity don't have to be in conflict in any church anywhere."
Many leaders in the mainline Christian denominations are cheering.
Hopefully leaders in the evangelical community are not exhaling, believing their silence has gotten them off the hook.
The oracle of progressive "truths" continues: "That many Christians understand them as incompatible is understandable, an example of not so much of hatred's pull, as of tradition's sway. Beliefs ossified over centuries aren't easily shaken," The New York Times publishes.
The Time's article explains that continuing to hold these "ossified" beliefs and teachings is "a choice" some Christians and their churches make because they are choosing to "prioritize scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since---as if time had stood still, as if advances of science and knowledge meant nothing."
We've evolved.
The Bible and those who believe it "disregard the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their author, culture and eras" we are told.
The Bible, they say, is neither "inspired" or "infallible." It's merely notions from the past.
Welcome to the Brave New World, relative and evolving "truth," and the shifting definition of religious freedom.
Frank Brurni, witting in the New York Times says holding to old biblical teachings "ignores the extent to which interpretation is subjective, debatable."
"Therefore," he concludes "our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn't cling to and can indeed jettison..." while "rightly bowing down to the enlightenments of modernity."
In the mind of the secularist, this is about freeing the Bible believing Christian from the bondage of biblical teaching.
He quotes David Gushee, a so-called evangelical Christian who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University, who says, "Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time."
Gushee teaches his Christian ethics students that "many Christians thought slavery wasn't sinful, until we finally concluded it was. People thought contraception was sinful when it began to be developed."
Dr. Gushee says, "Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of LGBT people."
Bruni also quotes Matthew Vines, another “evangelical” author, who wrote the best selling book "God and the Gay Christian" and who explains that Paul's rejection of same-sex relations in Romans I "is akin to his rejection of drunkenness or his rejection of gluttony."
"Vines," Bruni says, explains "that the New Testament, like the Old Testament, outlines bad and good behaviors that almost everyone deems archaic and irrelevant today. Why deem the descriptions of homosexual behavior any differently?"
Bruni shares a conversation he recently had with Mitchell Gold, a prominent and wealthy furniture maker and homosexual activist.
Bruni says, "Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list'."
The shifting definition of religious freedom, in the minds of the activists and their allies, now includes a list of acceptable and non acceptable beliefs we are free to believe.
To continue reading the entire article by Gary Randall, and I would encourage you to do so, please click here: http://blog.faithandfreedom.us/2015/04/new-york-times-on-bigotry-and-bible.html#.VTVY0PB709k
RSS Feed
