The Biblical Dilemma of Denouncing Slavery, Yet Opposing Homosexuality (again)

In light of recent claims that one most “possess the Holy Spirit” in order to interpret the Bible “properly”, I’d like to ask someone who believes he/she DOES possess the Holy Spirit and who is therefore eligible to translate this passage “properly” to interpret the following passage for me? (I only have a PhD in this subject, and have addressed this issue before, but those are the “thoughts of men” and multiple of my graduate degrees are from a “secular, public” university, so that doesn’t count to many who claim to possess the Holy Spirit.)

Would someone possessing the Holy Spirit please read the following verses and answer the following questions for me:

Lev. 25:44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that YOU MAY ACQUIRE MALE AND FEMALE SLAVES.

Lev. 25:45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; AND THEY MAY BE YOUR PROPERTY.

Lev. 25:46 You may KEEP THEM AS A POSSESSION for your children after you, for them TO INHERIT AS PROPERTY. THESE YOU MAY TREAT AS SLAVES

Q1. Is this the “inspired, word of God”?
Q2. Is God the objective ethical foundation for all morality in the world?
Q3. Does God of the Bible – at ANY point – ever rescind this command regarding slavery?
Q4. Does the NT command slaves to continue to obey their masters?
Q5. Do you believe that foreign persons can be acquired as slaves, bought and sold, and passed on to subsequent generations as inherited property?
Q6. Have you written your local congressman, or donated money to, or supported a constitutional amendment banning the “redefinition” of slavery?
Q7. Have you stated publicly that regardless what our “godless, secular government” does, you’re going to still listen to a “higher authority” and condemn homosexuals and endorse slavery?

Morality: Slavery vs. Homosexuality: Guess which one the Bible's OK with?Leviticus 25:44-46 is just as much the “words of God” as any other biblical command regarding social institutions in the Bible. The Bible never rescinds this command(!!), and the NT only reinforces the institution of slavery by commanding slaves to obey their masters (Col. 3:22; 1 Pet. 2:18; Eph. 6:5 – thus, you can’t dismiss it and say, “Well the Old Testament was nailed to the cross”.) It doesn’t matter how one “defines” slavery; it has been defined quite accurately in the verses above above: owning people as property, and passing them along as inherited property to children. And we FOUGHT A WAR against people who attempted to argue that the above biblical endorsement of slavery should still be valid in this country in this modern time.

(Seriously, I must ask: why do so many of those who oppose same-sex marriage hail from the former Confederacy? Is there some demographic connection? Has any research been done on this?)

If you’re not going to embrace and defend slavery, then WHY ON EARTH, would you continue to condemn homosexuals?
WHY ON EARTH, then, would ANYONE continue to deny gays the same privileges and rights enjoyed by heterosexual individuals?

The God of the Bible CLEARLY says it’s OK to own and pass on slaves as property. HOW DO YOU ARGUE AROUND THAT FACT? Seriously: Have you given ANY THOUGHT WHATSOEVER about how you theologically argue around God’s endorsement of slavery in the Bible? And if so, WHY can’t you do THE SAME THING with homosexuality??

If you’re going to appeal to the “inspired, revealed Word of God”, from which you cannot pick and choose the verses you want to follow and dismiss because, “culture isn’t the final arbiter of truth, revelation is,” then why aren’t you using THE SAME LOGIC (and same hermeneutic) toward gay people as you do toward slavery?

THIS IS WHAT I MEAN when I say, “YOU ARE THOSE PEOPLE“. That’s you. When you condemn homosexuals and when you argue that they shouldn’t have the same rights and privileges as we have, THAT’S YOU defending slavery. THAT’S YOU making the SAME argument. That’s you appealing to the Bible to condemn a victimless so-called “crime” against God.

The irony, of course, is that in SLAVERY, there IS a DEFINITE VICTIM – THE SLAVE! – and it is therefore a crime. BUT, in a HOMOSEXUAL relationship between two consenting adults, there IS NO VICTIM!!!!! Point to the victim. There is no victim! And if there is no victim, there is no crime!

Slavery is ENDORSED and AUTHORIZED by God, DESPITE the obvious hardships imposed on the victims/slaves. And yet, there is no victim in homosexuality, and yet THAT is the verse you choose to defend, and not slavery????

YOU ARE THOSE PEOPLE! Those who oppose slavery yet condemn homosexuals are UNABASHED HYPOCRITES, because they read the Bible one way to dismiss slavery, and the opposite way to condemn homosexuality.

YOU ARE AN ILLOGICAL, UNASHAMED HYPOCRITE if you condemn homosexuals and do NOT endorse slavery. You are unworthy of being called “righteous”, or “scholar”, or even “humane”.

It’s that simple: YOU ARE “THOSE PEOPLE”. You should walk around with a sandwich sign around your neck saying, “I’m a Christian hypocrite, because I think some explicit social commands of God can be ignored, but others must be maintained”, especially those commands that condemn victimless activities like picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) and homosexuality.

Let me say this to those who oppose same-sex marriage – ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF GOD: You are deserving of all public shame, chastisement, loss of reputation, and abandonment of friends and colleagues (both secular and Christian) that accompanied those who freely chose to defend the divinely ordained institution of slavery. You deserve the loathing you receive, for you have chosen to suppress the rights and privileges of your fellow human because you think God told you to do so, but you don’t condemn evenhandedly. You deserve to be intellectually exposed and called out publicly, because you condemn in the name of a god who ENDORSED, LEGISLATED, and MAINTAINED SLAVERY!


56 Responses

  1. Why not just study the Bible Bob – slavery in the bible meant employment and was highly regulated . Abrahams bond servants were lucky. Homosexuality is condemned as an abomination in the OT and the NT by God and Jesus – who referred to Sodom like behaviour in the last days. Many other things are condemned as well such as adultery , fornication , drunkenness, sensuality – they all lead to the lake of fire.

    It would be hypocrisy (also a sin) for an adulterer or drunkard etc to condemn a homosexual but there would be nothing wrong if he told that person the truth in order to save him from damnation with his repentance .
    Do you believe in any part of the bible or only your chosen bits.

    Either it is from God or traditions written by men – you have to choose.

  2. Thanx, Charles, for providing yet another an excellent example of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Much appreciated.

    (btw, i choose ‘written by men’.)

  3. Robert, I’ve read your blog & FB often for a while now.
    I know you are on the correct side of history. I know you mean well.
    I know you don’t suffer fools lightly. (you explode in front of them like
    a storm out of nowhere). But you’re never gonna run out of fools.
    They will always say the same thing, with the same blind conviction.
    I think your commentaries make a difference.

  4. Charles, for someone who believes the Bible, you don’t know it very well. Sodom’s sin, if you were remotely familiar with the Bible (hint: Ezekiel) was being unjust to the poor. But thanks for explaining hypocrisy to the rest of us.

    So apparently one can accuse a group of people of immorality, tell them they are damned for eternity and responsible for the decline of Western civilization, and yet still love them. Funny the bad guys don’t get that all the criticism is a sign of love.

    Also funny is that all these “love the sinners” types get hysterical at the first little hint of criticism. They should see it as a sign of love, no?

    Seriously, if you love someone, you have to actually act with, you know, uh, LOVE toward them.

  5. thanx.

    and i don’t always explode out of a whirlwind when there are differences of opinion. it’s just that at this time, on this particular issue, the only people left opposing it are the fundies, and a few of my friends – and some scholars – are hiding silently in the background hoping that they never get called on. and that’s ok. we all pick and choose our battles. BUT, those who are have picked THIS battle, and regularly condemn any number of my friends, and argue that because of the BIBLE my friends should not receive the same privileges and protections under the law, well, the time has come to call them out.

    thanx again. – bc

  6. Ultimately, what I have never been able to understand is why anyone, especially members of the LGBT community would even want to be Abrahamics of any version. There are many perfectly good gods out there who do not have sex hangups, several who are know for their own homosexualilty even. Sorry Yahweh, you actually arn’t the only god (or god group for the trinitarians). Even Yahweh admitted this in Genesis when Adam and Eve had both eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and he said “Look, they have become as one of us!” Yeah, right.

  7. Telling the truth is acting with love – that’s why Jesus told the truth – he loves to help us give up our sin which He says will lead to damnation if not repented of – He gives us time and power to change if we read and obey His word.

    Jesus forgave the adulteress but she was to sin no more. He also forgave the woman at the well for fornication – but once she
    believed she would not do this again.
    Surely if the Bible is true warning the sheep of danger is love.

    But if you don’t believe the word of God then that’s another story.
    Bob can vilify me but I am just repeating what the Bible says. The sin
    of sodom was not just gay sins , it was , I agree a lack of hospitality and violence and many other – such as adultery fornication etc – but the immorality is plainly there since it was repeated in the NT with reference to Sodom.

    Belief in Sodom ? – google up the archeological proof.

  8. I am just attaching a link that I respectfully ask that you read … This is for anyone with an open mind and I am not looking to criticize others.

  9. The last post of Jim West is way over the line. Why is he respected when his hate-filled blog adds nothing to biblical understanding? Whatever contribution he makes regarding scholarship is over-shadowed by his contempt for innocent people that have done nothing to him. I wish the Fab Five would wisk him away give him a makeover. Jim would get to go shopping, learn to cook a gourmet dish, and have his house redecorated. He would also receive many useful parting gifts. Each cretin they makeover ends up having an epiphany which leads to an attitude adjustment. Fab Five; JIM WEST NEEDS YOU!!!

  10. Isn’t this David Barton’s nonsense website?
    I’ve dealt with the myth of a Christin nation here and here.

  11. There’s archaeological evidence for Sodom? And finding Sodom will prove that gays are bad?

  12. Finding Sodom will prove the Bible and that the sinners in Sodom had crossed the line and were destroyed by fire and brimstone – so if seeing the evidence that it did happen would you then continue to reject God’s judgement

  13. There’s a new book out about discovering Sodom – havent read it yet. The article on Wallbuilders above discusses the verses in Leviticus on slavery. You may not agree with Barton’s ideology but I encourage you to read his answers on slavery and Treaty of Tripoli. I don’t agree with all of your ideology but ,as you know,educating and learning is based on weighing all sides of the issues.

  14. The only problem is that not all sides of every issue merit continued conversation. I believe we can safely dismiss astrology, as astronomy is the legitimate science. We can dismiss alchemy, as chemistry has proved time and again to be correct, while alchemy has proved to be wrong. Physics has demonstrated to be quite reliable, certainly over its alternative, magic.

    Likewise, the claims made by David Barton have been proved time and again to be absolutely false. It is for this reason that no legitimate scholar considers him to be credible (although Glenn Beck thinks he’s the tops)!

    David Barton lies. He has highly illogical, skewed, and invented views of the church fathers. My freshman students can dismiss his arguments in no time.

    So yes, while all are entitled to their own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

  15. So finding Sodom will prove that God burns down cities because they sin?

  16. …finding Sodom will prove Sodom existed. Please point me to pointed references that disprove Barton…need to see all sides. Again, look at Barton didn’t write this article – borrowed it. It also is referenced well. I still haven’t had clarity as to whether or not you read this take on biblical slavery or have just dismissed it altogether.

    Have a blessed weekend.

  17. If you haven’t seen this, please do. It’s really good.
    He even pulls a quote from the bible at the end.

  18. Good Dr. Cargill,

    Although I greatly appreciate an open and honest discussion on the issue AND what you are trying to say, the syllogism to begin with is flawed. For example: a horse has four legs. My chair that I am sitting on has four legs. Why can’t my chair then be called a breed of horse and win the Kentucky Derby this year? To say that if one denounces homosexuality one MUST also support slavery is a flawed premise because the logic is faulty. You are thereby catching your leg in a bear-trap of twisted logic when you are in actuality attempting to deny twisted logic by using twisted logic.

    Secondly, although I again appreciate that you are pointing to what you feel is the moral hypocrisy on the part of Biblical literalists who forget that the Word of God is complex, subtle, and nuanced, you are falling into the same trap because in essence you are attempting to somehow accept there underlying literalism as a valid premise to begin with which is in and of itself an automatically disqualifying notion. Biblical literalism started circa 1900 in reaction to mechanization and modernism. Prior to the last eleven decades, even during the height of the Protestant Reformation there was NO known tradition of Biblical truth equated to literalist interpretation of God’s Word. No Orthodox or Protestant or Catholic or Hebrew tradition practiced this until the recent modern era. Hence, it is a tradition that will never be FULLY scholarly because it narrows the range of thought to self-fulfilling and self-sustaining conclusions with to mass of critical review as you have adroitly illustrated.

    Lastly, one must always keep in mind that condemning opposing standpoints as inherently ignorant because they disagree with your morals or sensibilities is a very slippery slope leading to a bottom;less pit. Maybe a better way to see this is that those who stand against homosexuality are not ignorant yahoos but people who may GENUINELY adhere to and believe in an equally valid competing moral authority system that seeks to preserve a specific social values at its core, NOT just one that seeks to destroy your value system. This is why the two sides cannot communicate very well- neither accepts the inherent goodness and legitimacy of the other. Peace be unto to you all! Love the sinner, hate the sin!

  19. Ed,

    Please explain example 1. You say they are different. You used a nice analogy of things with legs. But you did not explain how the fact that they are different alters the logic. I’m not asking slaves to challenge homosexuals to a horse race. I’m saying that regarding slavery and homosexuality in the Bible, one is OK and one is condemned, and it’s the opposite of what most would expect.

    For example 2, you attempt to argue that I am interpreting the passages literally. Are you suggesting that commands to enslave people and condemning homosexuality are NOT to be taken literally? That the commands of God should NOT be followed in these two cases? Of course, I would agree with that, but those that disagree with us and condemn homosexuals do not. THEY believe the commands of God to be literal. *I* am not interpreting the commands literally, rather I am demonstrating the faulty logic of those who do.

    3, Condemning opposing standpoints is NOT ‘inherently’ ignorant when the viewpoints are themselves ignorant, illogical, or hypocritical. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. Likewise, one would hope that one’s justification for condemning certain individuals would be rational and logical. Condemning the ‘opposing standpoint’ of alchemy in an age of chemistry is not ‘inherently ignorant’, rather, those adhering to what can be easily disproved through reason and/or facts is inherently ignorant, and underscoring this ignorance is in itself NOT ignorant, but justified (in addition to having the added luxury of being true).

    And I’d suggest the reason that the two sides cannot communicate very well is that one of side is condemning the other because they take very literally the commands given by a god who endorses slavery and condemns homosexuals to death.

    I chose to love the sinner and hate crime. ‘Sin’ is all too often defined by those commands of God in a book that people take far too literally.

    cheers, bc

  20. Let’s start with this:

    The article never addresses the fact that God is commanding/allowing the Israelites to make slaves of foreigners after sin entered the world. You can argue that sin wrecked God’s plan until you’re blue in the face, it still doesn’t explain why God himself chose to exacerbate the consequences of their sin by permitting them to enslave foreigners. That’s the equivalent of my son disobeying me, and then me saying, “Well, since you already screwed up, go ahead and make the foreign neighbor kid your slave. I’m cool with that.”

    The fact that I can zap that entire article in one paragraph above probably explains why it was published on the wallbuilders site instead of a credible peer-reviewed journal or even a news site. It’s poorly argued apologetics for right-wingers.

  21. Yes finding the evidence for 4 cities destroyed by fire and sulphur should be a wake up call. As Jesus said if Sodom had the witness that we have and freedom to study scripture and spiritual books such as the early church fathers – they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. So we will have no excuse for a lack of knowledge.

    Pompeii was another example – it was a city that worshipped pornography and fornication – and had rejected Jesus if you study the graffiti and the surviving artefacts.
    God told Abraham if their were 10 righteous he would not destroy the city – in actual fact God led 4 out of Sodom – less than 10.

    So if you believe that God is in control of everything – even the hairs of your head – then God did destroy Sodom and Pompeii.

  22. Jesus mentioned the Church Fathers? Jesus mentions ‘spiritual books’ other than the Hebrew Scriptures??

    Charles, are you making this up as you go along?

    And now Pompeii? So to you, ANY city that has ever been destroyed is punishment for God because of sin? (Even if it’s not mentioned in the Bible?)

    I don’t believe God is in control of everything. You do? You believe God controls the drunk driver to kill the 16 year old? You believe god gives the 2 year old cancer? You believe God causes the unbeliever to stop believing in him? That would be part of ‘in control of everything’…

    To my readers – remember, Charles here volunteered as our example of those indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

  23. You misread my blog – the witness that Jesus was talking about is the knowledge of God – what I meant is in this present day we have access to many bibles and so much good commentary from watchmen that we will have no excuse if we go down the route of sodom and pompeii.
    I think as a minority gay people are more protected than any Bible believer – they can trash Christian ethics but we cant even speak a word against gay culture without being demonised.
    Christians are mainly trying to witness to gays to bring them to repentance- but in some Islamic countries they are executed without any chance of repentance – so which is worse.

  24. Bob – I have often wondered what kind of God you believe in – is he all powerful ? Did He write the Bible ? Is God unable to control everything ? Did he promise a paradise on earth to people who do not obey his word ?
    Have you not made up your own God ?

  25. You didn’t answer my questions.

  26. Wow. You set the bar pretty high there. In your own words, Christians are just better than fundamentalist militant Islamic regimes. Something to hang your hat on.

    You say you’re ‘demonized’. Yet, you can get married. So do you equate being married with being demonized?

  27. No Bob, I am not going to rely on the Holy Spirit to respond. Please loosen the screws a bit my friend. I am so very fond of you. I am going to do some research on bible time slavery. I do agree with someone else who posted. There is a world of difference in modern day slavery and that of bible times. You will probably find that is a generally held consensus. Regards BYS.

    Sent from my iPhone

  28. Barbara,
    OF COURSE there’s a difference between slavery in different periods. But that argument is a red herring. The fact that slavery was different does not excuse the fact that GOD ORDAINED, LEGISLATED, AND ENDORSED the INSTITUTION of slavery. GOD said you could own other people, and NEVER RESCINDED IT! Arguing that slavery was different does not excuse the fact that God said you could own other people, and your children could inherit them as property.

    And yet who among us is in favor of slavery?

  29. Love the sinner/hate the sin-John Corvino

  30. Funny how those who argue that Old Testament slavery was “different” (i.e., nicer) than other slavery (as in the US, pre-Civil War) . . .

    are unable to provide PROOF to show the veracity of their argument.

    (And — No — citing to the Bible for such proof would be unavailing, as the Bible (any version) is a book of folklore, not history.)

    That argument is a mainstay of Conservative Christian teaching, but no proof has been brought forward to support it. Some think that merely REPEATING the claim somehow “proves” it. …. well, maybe in church circles it does, but not anywhere else.

  31. […] The Biblical Dilemma of Denouncing Slavery, Yet Opposing Homosexuality (again) […]

  32. “Hating the sin but loving the sinner” . . . is inherently condescending and mean-spirited, and is designed to dehumanize the “sinner” and to convince the speaker that he/she is only implementing “God’s Will” because, after all, he/she is a member of the “Saved Club” and so is able to “act on God’s Behalf.”

  33. I’d like to speak as a scholar and also as one of the gay people whom the religious right demonizes. Yes, demonizes. Organizations like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family accuse gay and lesbian people of doing things that we do not – they spread lies about us. Some Christian right groups are opposed to anti-bullying laws for students in public schools out of the fear that it would mean allowing gay and lesbian schoolchildren to live in peace. They use the pretext that this is limiting their religious freedom – freedom to harass and ostracize teenagers. People are still attacked and murdered for being gay. Children are thrown out of their homes for being gay by their bigoted parents. We have fought very hard to gain the rights that we have in American society, but we are still not equal in rights to heterosexual people. In many states, without anti-discrimination laws that include gay people, it is still legal to fire someone or evict someone if they are gay.

    If you read the Bible with care, you will see that Leviticus 18:22 does not speak of “homosexuality” as an identity – there was no such concept when the Bible was written. A certain act is forbidden – men having sex with other men in the manner that a man would have sex with a woman. There is no mention of lesbians at all in the Hebrew Bible.

    In Genesis 19, the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality – it is lack of hospitality and attempted gang rape. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah says nothing about a consensual relationship between two men.

    In 1 Samuel and the book of Ruth, close emotional relationships between people of the same sex are presented as praiseworthy – the close friendship between David and Jonathan and between Ruth and Naomi. It’s unknown to us whether sex would have been part of these relationships, but close emotional relationships are assumed.

    In the New Testament, Jesus never says anything about homosexuality. Since he consorted with people considered the dregs of society – prostitutes and tax collectors – one might think that were he alive today he would also be consorting with the gay children thrown out of their homes who subsist on the streets of our big cities by selling their bodies.

    I’m not a Christian – I’m Jewish, so I would not follow the New Testament as inspired scripture, but there are certainly beautiful prophetic lessons presented in the New Testament.

    I do believe that the Bible should be read as a product of its historical period, which means that parts of it are not relevant to our lives today, including the two examples that Bob has been writing about, slavery and same sex relationships.

    And I also see no evidence whatsoever that biblical slavery was any more pleasant than American slavery. Slaves were at the mercy of their masters – a master could kill a slave with impunity, as long as he or she did not die immediately from a beating. Leviticus says that it’s permitted to treat foreign slaves בפרך – with harshness. Even Hebrew girls sold into slavery by their fathers had no choice about whom they had sex with – their masters or their masters’ sons. I do not think that biblical slavery is something that anyone living today should defend with the weak argument that somehow it was “better” than American slavery. Slavery is indefensible, period, regardless of the time period in which it was practiced.

  34. In 312 BC,Greek general Hieronymus of Cardia witnessed the harvesting of bitumen from the Dead Sea. A great “bull” of this petroleum product would seep from the bottom of the sea and float to the top. Arabic tribesmen would then paddle out in reed boats to bring the great blob to the shore. This highly prized and flammable commodity had many uses in the ancient world: waterproofing boat hulls, mortar for mud bricks, caulk for mosaic, etc. Storing bitumen would have been hazardous for the area. Does Charles Allen believe the explosion at the fertilizer plant in Texas was because of God’s judgement too?

    Also, what kind of a god calls a man righteous that would send his virgin daughters out to a murderous rabble?

  35. Someone more informed (perhaps the Jewish gentlemen above) will have to correct me, but I think that with Lot, the principle in play was the absolute sacredness of hospitality in Ancient Near Eastern cultures. If there is *anything* you can do to protect your guests from harm, you do it- even if it means sacrificing your daughters.

    Neither Lot nor his daughters would have felt particularly *good* about this to be sure, but they would have accepted it as an unquestionable part of the natural order of things, a lesser of two evils if there was any chance it would save their guests.

    As such, I don’t think it is fair to blame Lot for that particular episode. The incest on the other hand… I got nothin.

    Alternatively, there’s the classic Protestant response that Lot was only “righteous” in the sense that he was just another sinner saved by faith in God.

    Alternatively alternatively, there’s the option of saying that the “Abraham bargains with God” episode is just some post-Exile scribe’s attempt to explain the Sodom and Gomorrah tradition handed down to him at the same time as playing up *Abraham’s* righteousness, not Lot’s (later Jewish literature has a good number of “holyman bargains with God” stories, and S&G is likely one of the ultimate sources of that tradition).

  36. Oops! Sorry, Rebecca Lesses! I didn’t see your name before I commented.

    Guess my knee-jerk gender assumptions are on display for everyone to see now *embarrassed*

  37. @cd.dedalus, I admit that “love the sinner, hate the sin” has a pretty hollow ring in the mouths of many who use it today, but what option do you leave someone with who *honestly* (and not out of some sense of hubris) thinks that God calls homosexuality a sin?

    If you’re an atheist or something, it’s easy for you to just poo poo someone else’s sincere doctrinal beliefs, but try to walk a mile in their shoes, ok? When many Christians outside the looney Christian Right talking heads say “love the sinner, hate the sin,” they’re genuinely struggling with near-unbearable cognitive tension. Have some pity, they’re trying as hard as they can.

    I should know, I used to be one of those Christians. I began to change when I tried to see things from a gay person’s point of view and I’m still struggling a lot with cognitive dissonance even now. All I’m asking for is some mercy on both sides. Prejudice is never a good response to prejudice.

  38. Those interested in the story of the destruction of Sodom will find this book interesting:

    The Sumerian tablet known as the “plantesphere” has shown that during the early iron age an asteroid exploded over the Dead Sea area. Certainly the pitch and sulfur found there would have made matters even worse. Ice cores from around the world indicate massive climate changes during the period 3000bc supporting the date of this asteroid.
    Bob Cargill, would you elaborate? Love to hear your comments. As we know ancient civilizations thought everything of this nature was judgement or anger of their god.

  39. Barbara,

    Asteroids have hit the surface of the earth for millions of years. Hundreds of thousands of them. Some of them have been climate changing.

    Why is but one of those a divine punishment on a city no one can verifiably identify? All the rest of the asteroids were completely natural, but THIS ONE asteroid proves God hates gay marriage?

    We can’t even find Sodom (although many have claimed to…)

  40. Nick – first time I’ve been called a Jewish gentleman!

  41. This one apparently made a big impression and a story was passed down about it. that’s all i’m saying Bob. Ancients believed these events to be judgement did they not?

  42. They did, Barb. They also believed disease was caused by demons and spirits, not germs.

    Just because the ancients believed something does not make it so. Or has someone found the corners of the earth yet??


  44. So you’re saying you’re a flat earther lol?

  45. *Rebecca I’ll bet, lol!

  46. Nick: One’s religious beliefs are not “entitled’ to respect any more than one’s non-religious beliefs.

    The fact that one’s religious beliefs make it difficult to “be OK on” SSM is a personal matter, and nothing else. The fact that some people like (and willingly eat) Brussels Sprouts is something I find difficult to understand, but my view on the whole “Brussels Sprouts issue” is not “entitled” to respect or understanding.

  47. […] in the Bible (in my opinion, it is not), Dr. Robert Cargill has recently been writing on those uncomfortable parts of the Christian Bible. We can add violence to his list of things the Bible explicitly condones and even […]

  48. Is there a code of ethics that must be adhered to when publishing a blog under the auspices of biblical blogger? Bibliobloggers listed on blog rolls have the implicit recognition of recommendation. Surely there is some sort of ethical line that when crossed results in a loss of authority or, at least, respect. IMO, that line was crossed when this comment was published by Zwingli;“Authorities in New Zealand are struggling to contain a burdgeoning epidemic of beastiality unleashed by its recent legalization of gay marriage.” Published in scare quotes.

    Spreading hate-filled lies under the auspices of biblical authority should be grounds for a rebuke. I would protest myself on his blog but he would change my wording to suit his own purpose as he has done in the past.

  49. Yes, unfortunately, comparing bestiality to same-sex marriage is what passes for comedy some places. At the Apollo or the Laugh Factory or Comedy Store is one thing. On a Bible blog openly opposed to same-sex marriage isn’t quite as funny.

  50. I’ve just finished the blog and all the comments…I believe the Bible is the word of God, not just but blind faith but it proves itself to have its origins out of our dimension of time..
    I am amazed how people can misinterpret scripture…the truest thing in the blog was that if you don’t have the holy spirit you may aswell not read it cause you won’t understand the Bible…precepts on precepts line upon line here a little there a little….

  51. Quoting you in apost soon. Thanks for this. I recently wrote THIS: …and of course am now having to follow up with a bible based argument to better engage my ever so gentle and loving Christian friends scripture quoting me into a corner.

  52. (1) The problem with “interpreting Scripture properly” is . . . that there IS no ONE way to do this.

    . . . and there is no ONE set of “rules” for judging whether or not an interpretation of Scripture is “proper” or not. Too bad that “God” failed to supply this methodology (too busy ?)

    (2) What constitutes “Scripture” is also unsettled … what IS “the Biblical canon” ? Different churches and different traditions have different views on this and there is NO genuine answer to this question. Too bad that “God” failed to supply an answer to THIS question, either (too busy?)

    (3) What constitutes the “correct” translation of “Scripture” (assuming that the the matter of “canon” has been somehow — miraculously ? — answered) ? NIV ? KJV ? RSV ? other ? The NIV relegates to footnotes or simply DELETES verses in the KJV that the KJV states ARE “the Word of God”. LOL

    ALL of these questions are studiously avoided by Christians, OR they simply claim that these questions “have already been settled” and then quickly change the subject. IOW, they will do anything but admit that these problems have NOT been “settled” and they refuse to discuss them . . . they just scoff at the very asking of these questions and then change the subject.

    = yet another set of reasons NOT to be religious.

    (4) and as to the matter of slavery (the Bible is PRO-slavery) and homosexuality . . . either you buy the idea that the Bible (any version you choose) IS the “Word of God” or you don’t. Cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest. Christians are famous for changing the mode of interpretation re: different subjects in “the Bible,” depending on their various agendas, and really hate it when you call them on it. TOO BAD.

  53. […] 10.Bob Cargill.  The Biblical Dilemma of Denouncing Slavery, Yet Opposing Homosexuality (again) […]

  54. And here’s the post I quote you in and of course, credit your blog. Thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: