Welcome to readers responses to this article

Name:  Jeff Jasko

Email:   N/A

Homepage URL

Comments:

Homosexuality and slavery, there is no comparison!

        A response to Ms. DiLemmo's article "The Bible is not meant to be taken so literally!"

        I would like to thank Ms. DiLemmo for taking the time to read and respond to my article.  Some of the objections she raises are crucial in one's understanding of the Bible, and they need to be answered.  For if the Bible does indeed condone slavery, why should we accept it, let alone believe that it is God's Word (as do those who hold to a Judeo-Christian worldview).

         First of all, I agree with Dilemmo's statement that "If one wishes to make the argument that the Bible is the literal word of God, it is subsequently necessary to read the ENTIRE text as such."  However, it is important to acknowledge that this does not mean to always take the Bible in a wooden-literal sense, but rather we need to interpret a text in the manner in which it was intended.  We can determine the author's intent by the context of what he writes. 

         For example, the book of Revelation has a lot of symbolic language that is not intended to be taken in a wooden literal sense.  But these symbols point toward literal truths.  Conversely, we would not want to wrongly interpret historical narratives (such as the Gospel accounts) as mere allegories.  They were written as historical narratives, and even non-Christian historians acknowledge them as such.

        (For centuries critics have questioned the historicity of many specific people, places, and events recorded in the Bible. However, no piece of evidence has ever contradicted what the Bible says.  On the contrary, new discoveries repeatedly verify the accuracy of the both the Old and New Testaments.)

         Furthermore, we must make a distinction between what the Bible records and what it condones.  For instance, the Bible records Satan's lies and David's adultery, but it doesn't approve of them.  Likewise, just because Genesis 16:6 records that Sarai mistreated her Egyptian maidservant Hagar, this doesn't mean that God is condoning slavery.

        The Bible doesn't commend slavery; rather, it recognizes the reality of it.  In the ancient world where slavery flourished, the Mosaic law thus instituted stringent guidelines such as a year of Jubilee in which slaves were released (Leviticus 25:40).  Indeed, it was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States.  Israel's liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. The liberating biblical truth is that all people are created innately equal (see Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:26-28; see also Galations 3:28).

       Furthermore, slavery within an Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices.  Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery.  A craftsman could, thus, use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt.  Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exodus 23:3).

      Finally, we should note that the Bible denounces slavery as sin.  The apostle Paul goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Timothy 1:10). 

     The New Testament explicitly forbids the evil system of this world that traded the "bodies and souls of men" (Revelation 18:13).  Slave trade is so repugnant to God that He pronounces His final judgment on the evil system that perpetrated it (Revelation 17-18).

     (For further information regarding apparent Bible difficulties, see "When Critics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe.)

       Regarding the physiological risks of homosexuality, I would appreciate it if DiLemmo would provide the source of her information from the Center for Disease Control so that I could look it up myself.

       According to her article, the Center for Disease Control reports that "one's risk of being infected with any STD is equal to any other regardless of the gender of your sexual partner."

         However, this seems difficult to believe, considering the harmful physical nature of homosexual activity, especially between two males.  In response, I would just refer the reader back to my original article "Homosexuality Examined in Light of Scripture and Science", which documents the physiological consequences of homosexual intercourse.  It is true that a male and a female can also abuse their bodies and therefore acquire a sexually-transmitted disease, but this doesn't negate the fact that such activity would be prevalent between two males.

         In conclusion, we should love all people because we were all created by God, and He loves us!  Nevertheless, an expression of God's love for us was to set up certain parameters by which we should live, in order to protect us from our own sinful tendencies.  An expression of our appreciation for His love is to live by the guidelines He has given us. 

         Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

         Only by accepting the love and the grace that He gives us can we learn how to truly love each other!

        "For further documented evidence of the physiological dangers of homosexual activity, see the article "Homosexuality:  Fact and Fiction (Part One)." 

         Specifically, read the section entitled "A Healthy Lifestyle?" (toward the end of the article)

http://www.equip.org/free/DH055-1.htm.

     This section sites several reputable medical sources which discuss the medical and surgical pathology directly related to the sexual practices typical of active homosexuals."

Give us your feedback if you agree or disagree