Bullshit is no longer a term of abuse but a philosophical category. It has been popularised in Harry G Frankfurt’s bestseller aptly titled On Bullshit. The author is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University.

Prof Frankfurt distinguishes between lying and bullshitting. The liar refuses to meet the demands of truth. ‘The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether.’ Like bluffing, bullshitting is a matter ‘not of falsity, but of fakery.’ The ‘essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony, writes the guru of bovine faeces.

‘One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit,’ claims Prof Frankfurt. As a test case let’s examine Archbishop Barry Morgan’s address to the Church of Wales, delivered on the eve of his retirement. Does it come under the category of bullshit?

This week “Bible-basher” Barry argued that the bishops have moved towards affirming same-sex marriage because ‘far from ignoring Holy Scripture,’ ‘we took seriously what the Bible has to say.’ There are many ways you can interpret the biblical texts on homosexuality, he said.

Is Barry bullshitting his audience? Either he is blissfully ignorant of recent biblical scholarship or he deliberately ignores it altogether. As someone with a PhD in Old Testament from the University of Cambridge, I have explored every conceivable avenue for an exegetical get-out clause on the issue of homosexuality. For over 10 years I have considered every major publication on the issue. Quite honestly, I wish we could interpret the Bible with academic integrity in a manner that would permit rather than prohibit gay relationships.

Archliberal Barry does not cite a single biblical scholar. Why am I not surprised? When the Church of England’s General Synod met for its round of ‘Shared Conversations’, it did not invite a single distinguished biblical scholar to Archbishop Welby’s charade. In fact, according to the Rev Dr Ian Paul, the ‘worst plenary session’ was the one on Scripture. Dr Paul, who is Honorary Assistant Professor at the University of Nottingham, described the biblical session as ‘an absolute travesty of process.’ According to Frankfurt, ‘Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.’

But why do the mitred mafia plaster the issues with cow dung? Not so much because the intellectual calibre of the House of Bishops is at its lowest since the Reformation, but because the evidence is against their agenda. The damning truth is that after years of painstaking research there is now an academic consensus on what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality. Biblical scholars who are liberal or conservative, believing or atheist, Jewish or Christian, gay or straight—agree that the Bible unequivocally prohibits homosexuality!

The well-known liberal scholar Dan O Via agrees with illustrious conservative scholar Robert Gagnon. ‘Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally,’ he writes. The get-out clause for Via is ‘what the church might or should make of this.’ This is honesty, not fakery, and Via should be applauded. Louis Crompton, a self-identified homosexual, pioneer of gay studies and Emeritus Professor at the University of Nebraska, debunks Barry Morgan’s spiel that the biblical texts ‘are not about committed, loving, faithful monogamous relationships with persons of the same sex.’ ‘Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance,’ he writes (emphasis mine).

Lesbian Prof Bernadette Brooten of Brandeis University pronounces her verdict. ‘I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.’ Prof Martti Nissinen from the University of Helsinki agrees that ‘nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behaviour.’ Nissinen is author of one of the best academic books on the Bible and homosexuality from a pro-gay perspective. Gay Professor Pim Pronk at the Free University in Amsterdam is emphatic: ‘To sum up: wherever homosexual intercourse is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned. …the New Testament adds no arguments to those of the Old. Rejection is a foregone conclusion.’

Archbishop Barry goes on to associate texts on matters like violence where the Bible speaks with many voices to prove that it does the same on homosexuality. Just because ‘there is no one settled understanding of what the Bible says about a number of subjects,’ it does not mean that there is no one settled understanding of what the Bible says about all subjects. Barry Morgan’s last throw of the dice in proposing a progression in the Bible from a ‘conservative’ to ‘liberal’ position on issues like slavery and therefore on the issue of homosexuality is a complete non sequitur. William J Webb’s book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis demolished this non-argument ages ago.

Webb demonstrates that while the Bible does demonstrate a progression in its attitude to women and slaves as it moves from Old to New Testament, the issue of homosexuality is decided and closed from beginning to end. That is why for Archbishop Morgan to use Jesus as his trump card is simply dishonest. Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality, but neither did Jesus say anything about the church having archbishops and synods!

Honesty is the best policy even in a culture of moral relativism. The Archbishop of Wales and his fellow bishops can decide to reject the biblical teaching on homosexuality. That would be a position of integrity. But to claim that they can interpret the Bible in a manner that condones and blesses what it explicitly and unambiguously forbids and prohibits is bullshit par excellence. That is why you need a bishop or an archbishop to deliver it in bucketfuls of blessed thoughts.

(Image: eGuide Travel)


    • “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

      Hard to interpret that as anything other than a prohibition.

        • Every word (regardless of the individual writer) is part of the great tapestry of Scripture. It is one, because all of it was inspired by the One true Author who inspired every human writer.

          As the late great Anglican Christian teacher John R.W. Stott wrote: “Out of whose mouth? ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim 3:16) is not the only account which Scripture gives of itself, since God’s mouth was not the only mouth involved in its production. The same Scripture which says ‘the mouth of the LORD has spoken’ (Is. 1:20) also says that God spoke ‘by the mouth of his holy prophets’ (Acts 3:18, 21). Out of whose mouth did Scripture come, then? God’s or man’s? The only biblical answer is ‘both’. Indeed, God spoke through the human authors in such a way that His words were simultaneously their words, and their words were simultaneously His. This is the double authorship of the Bible. Scripture is equally the Word of God and the words of human beings. Better, it is the Word of God through the words of human beings.

          We take our stand on the divine origin of the Bible because we believe the Bible itself requires us to do so. Indeed, it is a strange fact that theologians who are prepared to accept the biblical doctrine of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of man and of the church, are often not willing to accept the biblical doctrine of Scripture. But…if the Bible is authoritative and accurate when speaking about other matters, there is no reason why it should not be equally so when speaking about itself.”

          For example: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16) God-breathed!

          • Well the dead sea scrolls you can Google for a start and I believe that the first gospel was written about forty years after the supposed death of Jesus.

            Now all you need is a calculator.

            Do you think that the bible was somehow written by God?

    • Matthew 7:1 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

      That prohibits quite a lot of human behaviour, if you think about it.

    • Could you explain to us the logical process you have followed that has led you to this fantastic conclusion? Also how would you interpret the prohibition–Thou shalt not commit adultery?

      • The books of the bible were written by various people over a very long period of time.

        To suggest that `The Bible Prohibits’ is ridiculous.

        Certain writers who wrote in certain parts of the Bible suggested that homosexulity was wrong/prohibited etc etc etc or suggested that God is of that opinion which he well might be for all anyone knows.

        The Bible could not be said with any accuracy to prohibit anything although some writers featured within it may well have done.




        • You don’t seem to recognise that the 10 Commandments each begin with the Hebrew word “Lo”–in English, ‘No.’ Ten thou shalt nots! If you can deny that these are not prohibitions you must have a very twisted sense of logic.

          • You have absolutely no idea of what the “Canon” means for Christians or Jews. When Christians or Jews say, “The Bible says” they do understand very well that there are many books written by different authors. But because they believe all the biblical books to be inspired and incorporated in a single Canon (from the Greek word for ‘rule’) they understand it to be speaking with a unity.

          • Having studied the Bible for 50 years (6 in seminary), I have been amazed at how consistent the various scriptures are with each other, given the different human writers. It is because there is one primary influence to them all– God, the Holy Spirit. The issue of sexual morality (homosexuality in particular) is a perfect case in point. The various writings for thousands of years (both Old and New Testament) are completely consistent that homosexual behavior is a sin. No exceptions can be found throughout the scriptures.

            As the Bible says about itself:
            “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16) God-breathed!

            “And we have the words of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

  1. The CoE has decided that they would rather be popular with the world around them and politically correct, than morally upright and holding steadfast in the words of the bible.
    That is a decision the CoE has made for itself, and those of us with varying degrees of knowledge and understanding of God and the bible know exactly where this leads to.
    Only the CoE is in some kind of denial about what they are doing here and where this leads for the increasingly pathetic excuse for an organised/recognised Church in the UK. To be fair to them, the moral and intellectual somersaults they go through, only reflects what is going in our society in general today with regards to actual truth and morality.

    • A friendly correction if I may.
      You rightly describe what the majority of the leadership of the C of E have opted for, popularity above orthodoxy and upholding Biblical truth. But lower down the ranks there are many faithful vicars honestly preaching and teaching the Word, and slowly building their churches with faithful, orthodox Christians.

      • Yes, David. But sadly like the parable of the frog in the kettle these good vicars are slowly being boiled to death. Thank God for such faithful clergy and may their tribe increase. Don’t you think it is time for them to leave the C of E and no longer be contaminated by the polluted doctrine of the hierarchy? I know many faithful clergy who were very orthodox but slowly began to feel the pressure and go with the tide. I agree there are still a small number of orthodox men preaching biblical doctrine and in many cases even standing against their liberal bishops. But how long can they continue to battle this tidal wave of liberal left-wing insanity?

          • He was bullied for years, forced to resign and felt unwilling to continue being bullied and nitpicked by the PC police leadership

            I am sure he sought some legal advice but ultimately it was best to just resign and lead a Church outside of the CoE

          • Schism has sometimes been necessary in the Church. http://www.virtueonline.org/schism-and-sword-spirit-bruce-atkinson#.UtyJRRAo7IU

            “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate,” says the Lord. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17a)

        • Hopefully until the cancer of theological liberalism dies.
          The liberal local churches are ageing and dying. The younger up and coming vicar hopefuls, ordinands, are more orthodox. Some of course have left and entered Free Churches. But many feel that the foundational documents of the C oF E (Prayer Book, Ordinal and 39 Articles ) which are reformed, Biblical protestantism, will protect them until, hopefully, the heterodox tide turns.
          What exactly will happen only God knows.

  2. I couldn’t give a bullshit what the bible says. However,even as an atheist, I, like Christians, do find homosexuality repellent – and all atheists that claim to believe in science and evolution should also,. Man has a penis and a lady has a vagina and all the other biological bits and pieces to go with them for one reason – to make babies. Yes, it is also fun, the act, and of course those that find it fun are more likely to have sex more often and therefore replicate. Sticking your penis up another mans bottom is not part of this equation.

    • I read the best argument against the Homosexual Lobby in an online American blogsite. This American stood back when asked the question, and replied, ‘God made Adam and Eve; not ‘Adam and Steve’. He might get awards for brevity, but his argument as to what is ‘right’ should have been awarded the Nobel prize.

  3. A brilliantly objective argument;from Genesis to Revelation scripture upholds man and woman to be made for each other ,by God. That intimacy can never be truly known in Homosexual relationships,where bodies can never physically interlock as our Maker intended ,with the reproduction of mankind as a result.

  4. Over the last few years our local newspaper has had little homilies written by CoE clergymen, and it is disturbing how little they know or understand the New Testament…..
    A couple of examples:

    One clergyman wrote how Jesus had a sense of fun and made a pun on Peter’s name, calling him “the rock”. He was oblivious to the fact that his name was originally Simon…..

    Another time an esteemed vicar decided that the demon’s name Legion” was in the singular, and did not realise it represents “Many”.

    Small examples I know, but with ignorance like that is it any wonder they can interpret the Bible at all?

    • C of E clergy hardly study the Bible at theological colleges–that is, if they go to a proper one–most of them now undergo Mickey Mouse training at a local fly-by-night non-residential “Regional Training Institute.” They have more courses in Safeguarding, Child Protection, Postcolonialism, Feminism, Anti-Racism and Climate Change/Carbon Emissions than courses in the Bible. God help the poor parishioner in the pew!

  5. I desire it so it must be right?

    To be faithful to God, we have to assert that what He says is true. That
    includes the truth about human sexuality, and marriage. That includes the overarching concept of sin. Homosexuality is not a disability. It is toevah. It is a behavior that proceeds from a temptation. I don’t know where the temptation comes from. I don’t know why some are more susceptible than others. Those questions are relevant pastorally, but not morally. The fact the people want to behave in a certain way is not moral justification for that behaviour. The fact the adults willfully consent to the behavior is not justification for the behaviour.


    How many verses do we need to know that the behaviour is condemned? How many verses in the Bible condemn burning children in the fires of Molech? One…. Do I need more?

    We should accept homosexuality

    This isn’t about accepting people. This is about refusing to justify behavior. Acceptance is not identical to saying “Your truth is true for you.”
    Love and compassion do not require me to suspend moral judgment. Consider John the Baptist and the wife of Herod. Was John unloving and unaccepting?

    This entire argument regarding homosexuality revolves around the quest to substitute one disagreeable authority (God) for a more compliant one. (Self).

  6. Homosexuality has appeared through all of history and throughout all cultures. I personally don’t think its wrong at all. It does not bother me in the least.
    But I respect the views of others that do. I also respect the fact that faiths and people of faith I dont agree with it have a right to their views. There is a small and diagreeable part of the Gay Lobby that in recent years have provoked (entrapment) criminal cases against Christians. Noticeable the Belfast bakery case and the case of the Christian couple who run a B&B. A large body in the gay community do not agree with these actions. They also beleive in free speech and the right of people to be true to thier faiths.
    I am not a church goer but I am interested if the reference to Homosexuality in the Bible are just from the old testament or are they from the New testament also?

    • The verses prohibiting homosexuality are from both Testaments. That is one reason why William J Webb, whom the author has quoted in the above article, says that it is not possible for the church to change its mind on homosexual practice. Romans 1 would be a good example of the problem of homosexuality as dealt with in the New Testament.

      • Revisionists might want to read these OT laws: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 23:18. And their NT confirmation: Romans 1:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10. I challenge them find some clear refutations of these passages. There are none. The Bible is completely consistent on this issue. Any attempts to debate the context and/or intended meaning of the writers need to understand that 2000 years of scholars (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed Protestant) have agreed on the interpretation of these passages. Only in the past millisecond of human history has anyone attempted to deny their agreed-upon truth and consistency— and only because of the pagan pansexual culture now popular in the west.

    • Men having sex with men and apparently rarer (or less recorded) women having sex with women is indeed historical. How these were formulated were often very different to our culture’s current “Homosexuality”. For instance the frequently given example of classical Greece was very different in that the relationship was between a boy/young man and an older lover/coach. There were social codes about the age gap and in particular injunctions against such relationships continuing long into adulthood and disrupting marriage and the duty to reproduce. Today we have formulation of sorts of separate “gender” with rather encompassing notions far beyond liking same sex sex. The really interesting thing about this is that its more rigid than what we know of historical societies. That often took the view that this predilection may not be exclusive, or long lasting or conflicting with other predilections or duties (particularly reproduction which was a huge concern prior to the 20th Century). In short it was presumed to be a “choice” about some specific behaviours rather than a permanent and encompassing state of being. I think its this latter that is probably entirely novel .

      • Apparently around 3% of the population are gay, it isn’t clear whether they are temporarily gay or permanently gay. Maybe those who consider themselves ‘bisexual’ fall into the ancient Greece scenario, and have brains somewhere between the two.

  7. Just to echo the need for honesty – I remember a few years after leaving university the annual magazine came round with entries about who was doing what. One of the CU reps had put an entry in – “Renounced Christianity and came out as gay”. Not what I had hoped to read, but I had to admire the fact he wasn’t going to mess about and try to say well actually if you read it this way etc etc – he saw that the two things were incompatible and made his choice.

  8. Excellent article. It would have been good if the Rev Gomez had given a little more documentation (eg. the publication dates of the books cited, the page-numbers of the quotations); obviously, in an article of this size, we should not expect PhD-standard referencing. Personally, I think the strongest argument relates to the leading, of the Church, by the Holy Spirit: the Church has always considered homosexuality sinful. Was it misled, in this ancient belief, by the Spirit? Was the Spirit, therefore, a spirit of lies, not Truth, as we were promised? Or has the Holy Spirit just up-dated itself, and come round to the popular media/materialist culture version of Truth?

    • God does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8). He knows all that will happen to the end of time so His Word does not need updating.

  9. The Old Testament records the giving of God’s Law, and the New Testament shows how Jesus the Messiah fulfilled that Law (Matthew 5:17; Hebrews 10:9). In the Old Testament, God’s dealings are mainly with His chosen people, the Jews; in the New Testament, God’s dealings are mainly with His church (Matthew 16:18).
    In the New Testament (NT) there are at least three passages that may refer to homosexual activity: Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:9–10. A fourth passage, Jude 1:7, is often interpreted as referring to homosexuality. None of the four gospels mentions the subject directly, and there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, and John. Jesus may be restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples when he cites Genesis during a discussion of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9).

    ‘homosexuality’ in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words: arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), andporneia (πορνεία) and its cognates.[1][2] While it is not disputed that the three Greek words apply to sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars have presented counter arguments.The historical context of the passages has also been a subject of debate.

    Homosexuality in the Old Testament (Leviticus)
    There is, however, a big problem with quoting Leviticus. The problem is that Christians are no longer under the Law. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear. It is not something fabricated to win an argument, or made up in the twentieth century, or manufactured to get around something somebody doesn’t like. It is clearly stated in the Greek scriptures. The Apostle Paul wrote it in Galatians:
    All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”(Galatians 3:10) If we rely on following the Law (the Torah, the first five books of the Bible) we are under a curse. The passage above, Galatians 3:10, contains a quote from the Law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26. According to Paul’s statement below, things have changed.
    Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.(Galatians 3:13)

    • My sister in law, bless her, believes in quasi analytical drivel like that and wastes so much time on it.

      She never seems very happy either.

    • “. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear”

      You need to read it again. Paul said we are no longer saved by thelaw

    • You wrote: “some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars have presented counter arguments.The historical context of the passages has also been a subject of debate.” What you have omitted is the context of these debates and who the scholars are. Until the last half century, the debate did not exist because Christian scholars have agreed on the interpretation of these passages for 2000 years. Biblical scholars have debated heatedly a number of issues from the earliest times, but not about what the scriptures reveal about God’s perspective on sexuality. This is a very recent phenomena in the history of Christianity (and Judaism) and all due clearly to the direction of the western secular culture toward pansexualism (as well as relativism and PCultural Marxism).

  10. Nothing demonstrates the problem with religions more than Scholars, Bishops, Imams, Rabbis, etc etc squabbling over collections of writings, whilst humanity tries to evolve despite them.

      • Actually churches all over the world that teach the Bible seriously and with careful attention to detail are registering significant growth.

          • The liberal churches which do not fully accept the authority of the scriptures are all shrinking fast. The conservative churches are holding their own. The only ones growing significantly are the Pentecostals and assorted independent evangelical churches.

          • Places which are no doubt short of funding for education, but now no doubt suffering a population explosion the rest of the world doesn’t want.

          • Mary F,
            You must find some reason to insult the growth of the gospel, mustn’t you? Your bigotry is showing. You are now even putting down third world countries like racists do. You must be a really nice person.

          • You know what they say, when somebody has no argument they resort to personal insults?. The impact of the Catholic Church and their premise on family planning and the impact of that on the poor, and HIV positive in the third world is well known. So is the fact that the global population explosion is centred around Asia and Africa, people who badly need access to family planning education and resources – a current United Nations project to relieve poverty and suffering, that doesn’t require pay back.
            Which is yet another example of so called gospel thumping Christian behaviour being anything “other” than Christian. Still you must be another “exceptional” person who (on record) believes murder of children is worse than homosexuality, apparently anything goes just so long as the Bible doesn’t have to be criticised..

          • Both murder of children (which includes abortion) and homosexuality is against the only true morality– which is clearly found in the scriptures. Continue to try to discredit the Bible… we will see where that gets you in the end. You and I will both die, you know.

          • Abortion isn’t the murder of children, it’s the removal of clumps of cells which have the potential to become an embryo, not even a child. Flushing sperm down the loo same difference, offers the potential for life, not life in itself, and not cells which in your warped opinion take priority over living breathing adults. True pro life approves of abortion, because the only life involved (by law), is the mother’s. Killing a healthy new born is murder by anyone’s standard. Even “worshipping false gods” is one of the ten commandments.
            I don’t doubt that Jesus lived, and he taught anything it was to be kind to other people, something which is sorely missing in today’s bible thumping Christianity which thinks their personal interpretation of a book (no numerous books) written by people, not God’s, comes first.

          • I have to give you credit for consistency… for being a far left radical liberal who has been brainwashed by the PC police.

            Once human life has begun in the womb, it is a person. Killing that person is murder. You need to talk to God about the value of life.

          • Unlike the education system of the leftist West which now produces children who cannot even read, write or do arithmetic and hence we have to depend on India for doctors! And because the West is committing demographic suicide we do not have enough people to either pay taxes or do the work to support and ageing population. Mary F, your comment betrays your propensity towards your racial superiority and your patronising attitude towards the rest of the world.

      • Google physical differences+ homosexuality+ brain, and you’ll find a lengthy science based article in brainblogger dot com web site called “homosexuality in the brain”. There are over 500 animals which exhibit some form of homosexuality

        • This simply proves that many animals, like humans, are easily confused.

          The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally, foolishly, and ignorantly remove themselves from it. Some of the true stories are quite humorous despite the tragic element. A friend of mine and I have laughed over these awards through the years. My friend opined that the Darwin Awards should also be given to entire groups and movements as well, especially those which eliminate future generations through deliberate acts which make producing descendants impossible (pro-abortion groups, LGBTQers, porn addicts, etc.). Hmmm. Makes some kind of sense.

          • “Satan and his minions have messed up much of creation.” LOL.
            I would agree on giving the Darwin award to whole groups, maybe the group whose beliefs caused him so much anxiety about publishing his findings would qualify.

        • And there are over 500 animals which kill other animals–animals also have incestuous relationships–you want us human beings to base our morality on animals? So let’s start practising cannibalism and kill other human beings for food!

          • The point I was making is that science is pointing towards homosexuality being an inbred defect, and one which apparently exists in the animal kingdom. Morality is an entirely different issue, of course we can all avoid sex when we choose to.

          • From a Christian perspective, all of us have “inbred defects.” We call it the effects of “original sin.” However, homosexuality has so far been proven to be NOT a genetically caused problem, but rather due to environmental factors. Therefore choice and the possibility of change is far more in play. Which brings morality to the forefront of the discussion. And yes, we can all avoid sex when we choose to.

    • First, there is serious debate and discussion over any ancient text worth discussing. Scholars ‘squabble’ over Petrarch. That does not in itself invalidate scholarly discussions of ancient texts. Secondly, any historian of ideas will tell you that the Western world is a product of the Hebrew and Christian Bible and Greek philosophy. Humanity, as you understand it, would not have evolved if it were not for these ancient writings.

        • You might want to read the book “Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion”, edited by Ronald L Numbers and published by Harvard University Press for an excellent scholarly treatment of the Galileo story and the way it is twisted by leftist revisionists.

          • OK William Tyndale then, religions have ever dragged their feet and have had to be hauled, kicking and screaming, into the future. Luckily, apart from large chunks of Islam of course, they can no longer burn you at the stake for having the impertinence to think for yourself.

          • This is such an unqualified statement, a gross generalisation and a grotesque exaggeration. I think some nuance might actually enhance an intellectual discussion.

          • Ok then Scientology is pretty forward looking and uses tech to audit for little green men. As for the rest I do not think I grotesquely exaggerated anything, there is a vast amount of religiously-inspired beastliness on record, far too much to list.

          • No can deny the amount of religiously-inspired beastliness on record. But none of this is in least bit God (or Christ) inspired. If Christ has enemies (of course He has many, even from within the churches), then we know there is a spiritual evil that inspires it… to discredit His truth.

          • Much of the justification for the beastliness was taken from the Bible (the word of God?), in the same way as it is still being used to condemn perfectly decent people for their sexuality. Your last statement much better describes yourself. If there were a god I think he would approve of people using their god-given brains to think (presumably because that is how he made them) and free themselves from dogma, superstition, and fear as part of an evolution towards a truly pan-human future and universal truth. Various religions, all claiming to know the truth already are not helpful.

          • When Christians act violently they are acting in flagrant defiance of the life and teachings of their Lord Jesus Christ. However, you need to demonstrate the motives for the alleged violence committed by so-called Christians. For example, what does the Northern Ireland problem have to do with the doctrine of Christianity?

          • Here we go, attempting to set the terms of a debate is a tactic usually deployed by the left but as that is a form of religion as well I shouldn’t be too surprised. I don’t need to demonstrate anything, you do. I have pointed out that religion has and does incite some very bad things. I think it is for the religious to explain that one. As for Northern Ireland, I served three emergency tours there as a young soldier and need no lessons from you. Father James Chesney, I doubt if you have ever heard of him, directed the car bombing in the village of Claudy, 9 dead three of them children, he was spirited out of the Province by the Catholic Church and never faced charges in a deal done with the government to prevent an escalation in sectarian violence. He wasn’t the only priest to aid the terrorists, just the worst.

          • That is a complete non sequitur. I’d really like to see you prove your point by citing serious academic literature. Ironically, by dismissing all other truth claims you are implicitly claiming to possess the truth–in your case–atheism. And in the 20th century the atheist regimes were the most brutal and murdered millions of people. Their morality came directly from their atheism.

  11. It’s standard procedure to excuse the sin of Sodom by denying the plain sense of the scriptures and replacing it with sophistry. Of course, many people entirely reject the authority of the scriptures on any question of human conduct.

    In these cases, the best line of argument against the practice of sodomy (following what Aquinas has to say) would depend on the use of right reason and the principles of natural law. But even this approach is of no avail against those who won’t listen to propositions concerning the complementary biology of the sexes and the sterility of same sex partnerships.

    As a last resort, apologists for homosexual intercourse will simply call their opponents “bigots”. That accusation is intended to close down discussion, and usually does.

    • Here is my response to the accusation of bigot. Dictionary definition of “bigot”– A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. In other words, you pretty much cannot accuse anyone of being a bigot without being one yourself.

      • Yup, Bruce. Another good definition of a bigot is a conservative with a good intellectual argument that the liberal-leftist has no answer to. A bigot is also a person who holds a different view and who the tolerant liberal cannot tolerate.

  12. “Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality?” Hang on, what about Matthew 10:15 where indirectly He does indeed lay down His view on homosexual activity. Preparing the disciples for their first mission trip he warned them that some would reject their message. In that event, Jesus said, they should shake the dust off their feet and move on. “It will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that town.”

    The mention of Sodom at that time, just as now, immediately invoked a picture of homosexual activity disapproved and punished by God. So Jesus used the destiny of brazen unrepentant homosexual sinners as the standard by which to warn of the consequence of rejecting Him. “…more bearable” presumably because Sodom had not been presented with the Kingdom of God in the person of Jesus, or maybe it is an instance of Jesus’ use of hyperbole. Note that the judgement Jesus referred to was not an ancient Old Testament event but the judgement to come – which even today is still to come. It is not even a First Century event but an event so up to date that is has not yet happened. So much for those who say our sexuality has somehow changed over the centuries or that resistance to the gay lobby puts one on the wrong side of history.

    • I think you’re confusing the name of the place with an action. Reference points. Web site called hoperemains dot com, article called Sodom and Gomorrah. The Jewish word S`dom means to burn and Amorah means a ruined heap, which appears to be an outcome rather than actual place names. I suggest you look into the numerous old testament references to child sacrifice and the God Molech. The Canaanites sacrificed their new born and then put them through the burning arms of Molech the ancient pagan God of child sacrifice, a false God probably based on sun worship. A huge statue stood in a valley of Hinnom, definitely an “abomination”. According to Genesis they also practised cannibalism, and prostitution. No wonder then that all the villages with one exception were destroyed.

      • Yes, their sins were many and not only sexual immorality. However, most of the NT references to Sodom are to the sins of the people pertaining to the original episode described in Genesis 18-19. Especially check out 2 Peter 2:6-9.

        • “While homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.”

          as opposed to people sacrificing and burning their new born really? and where exactly is the scripture which states that ‘homosexuality’ is worse than “murdering your children?”, murder is one of the 10 commandments,
          homosexuality doesn’t feature, correct me if I’m wrong

Comments are closed.