« Challenge Response: The Collection of Books in the Bible Changed Until the Printing Press | Main | When You Denigrate Objective Truth, This Is What You Get »

June 17, 2016

Comments

Truly speaking, the NYT is playing on the biblical ignorance of its readers in order to foster anti-Christian hatred.

Amen Jim. This is cherry picking of the worst kind.

Romans

pre....scribes.....

not...

ex...e... cution...

but...

in....stead....

good...

news....

The fundamental differences which we find in the terminus of explanation as to the immutable value of, reality of, and timeless worth of each and every human being when it comes to *pantheism and *non-theism / materialism and *Islam and *Christianity end within.... in all but the last.... a landscape that is factually alien to our notion of the irreducible essence of self-giving.

In the end the children learn of the Noble Lies, and do what we all do when we discover that our parents have in fact deceived us.

Another example of shoddy journalism. Gain only enough of the story to produce opinion and edit out all the portions which give the full story.

Context matters. The NYT should do better research and at least examine the logical flow Paul presented.
1). God holds wrath for the lifestyle with which the sinful world is enraptured (Chap One)
2). God judges all, even those whose religiosity presents them as morally pristine and outstanding (Chap. 2:1-16 ; note "All have sinned ... 2: 12)
3). Old Testament dependency on moral righteousness based on adherence to the Mosaic Law leads to failure. True spiritual Israel needs an alternative to a perfect righteousness. (Chap. 2:17-29)
4). If you haven't figured it out by now, all people are hardened, incorrigible sinners. (Chap 3: 1-20)
5). Sinners have redemption in Christ. Paul's Introduction to Gospel. (Chap 3: 21-31)
6). Beginnings of understanding Gospel as divine promise, as we see in the example of Abraham (Chap. 4)

And so we have a proper display of Law preparing one for the salvation declared in the Gospel. Both go together. Law without Gospel is horror. Gospel without Law is meaningless bather.

The NYT, playing for sensationalism, looks to the horror.

"All the News that is fit to print."

Yes, "fit" does explain a lot here.

Law is meaningless bather.

on further review, typo alert. Rather embarrassing one.

meant to say: Law is meaningless blather.

Mea culpa.

Many today use the "Rorschach" translation where the words turn into tiny ink blots that say whatever you want it to say.

But As God develops us spiritually the ink blots become more fixed and take on more precise meaning.

Ultimately the little blots become words and show us what God would have us see, and not what our depraved minds would prefer to see.

Some say the KJV Rorschach is best, some say other versions are better, but until we stop Rorschaching the Scriptures, we will never understand what any version says.

Two further observations:

(1) Modern society generally doesn't believe that any crime is sufficiently disruptive to society to invite execution. In contrast, pre-modern civilisations were much more willing to use severe punishments.

It's not as if homosexual behaviour was somehow a unique capital crime in the ancient world.

There's also a distinction between divine judgement and capital punishment. All sin is rebellion, and brings spiritual death. But few and far between are the societies that decree capital punishment for any and every social transgression. There were capital crimes in theocratic Israel, but the punishment for most crimes was restitution plus a fine, and sin was dealt with via temple sacrifice.

(2) Our society refuses to acknowledge the social destructiveness of free sexuality. Sexual reproduction is fundamental to a multi-generational society, and thus society has a vested interest in regulating it. "Me, now" is a moral benchmark that can only lead to destruction.

The current presenting issue is homosexuality. But the core issue is the contraceptive culture and the wedge being driven between family and sexuality. And this is why there is a convergence between Marxism and the free sex culture: both exalt the state and the now against tradition and the inheritance of culture.

This might sound odd, but Christians engaging in cultural preservation and reform should avoid talking about gays, specifically. Allowing the conversation to focus on homosexuality is like discussing a runny nose while you're running a 41 degree (Celsius) fever - it's a minor symptom of a far more critical problem. Every time we are invited to comment on homosexuality, we should critique the free sex culture instead.

Ancient societies understood this, which was why breaching sexual mores was often a capital crime. Even though Greek culture tolerated a degree of pederasty and homosexuality, there were rigid social boundaries in which this could be practiced and severe penalties for crossing them. The only social boundary our society wants to recognise is "consent", and even that is practiced inconsistently.

The comments to this entry are closed.