Saturday, September 5, 2015

How to Silence Internet Atheists Who Try to Silence Kim Davis Supporters Who Cherry-Pick the Bible

Have you seen this video post run across your Facebook Newsfeed in the past 24 hours?

How to silence Kim Davis supporters who cherry-pick the Bible to discriminate against LGBT Americans.
In the comments, tag your friends who need to see this.
Video by Occupy Democrats, please LIKE our page!
Posted by Occupy Democrats on Friday, September 4, 2015

I wouldn't be surprised if you had, given that it's already been viewed almost 6,000,000 times since yesterday (at the time of this writing). It's definitely nothing new. And. It. Is. Tired! 

It was written and filmed by people who had no interest in having the "Dr. Laura" character provide a cogent biblical response to the ignorant speech given by the stupid president. And it's vomited out onto social media by people who like the force of the rhetoric of the LGBT apologetic being shown, but they don't have a clue whether the stuff that they're watching, and subsequently spreading around, has teeth. I can assure you, it does not.

But perhaps you've watched the video today, or you've seen it in the past, and you're worried that if someone were to challenge you in the same way, you wouldn't know how to respond. Well, you've come to the right place. Let's see if we can put this paper tiger to bed.

First, the laws being mockingly thrown about here (by the cafeteria "Catholic" Martin Sheen), were given by God to whom? Not to the Canaanite people, not to the Egyptians, not to the Hittites, and not to the citizens of the commonwealth of Kentucky. These laws were part of a covenant treaty, given by God, and mediated through Moses to the people of ________.

That's right. To the people of Israel.

Second, Hebrews 8:13 and 10:1 (two among many other passages) teach us that everything found in the former covenant (the OT, the Law given through Moses at Sinai) was made obsolete by a better covenant; and that the former covenant (with all it's stipulations, blessings and curses) were a mere shadow of the reality that was later to be revealed in the person of Jesus. Many of the laws in that covenant (dietary, grooming, agricultural, etc.) were given to show that Israel was a set apart people, distinct from their neighbors (who didn't have a law and who practiced many of the things that the God of Israel prohibited). Those particular laws only had relevance at a time when they were able to demonstrate the peculiarity of the nation of Israel and their law code. Those circumstances no longer exist. Therefore, the holiness (or, the set-apartness) that those laws once communicated to the nations no longer exists today. They were laws that were given at a particular time in history, to a very particular people, for very particular purposes.

Thirdly, if the laws given at Sinai were only given to the nation of Israel, and the covenant to which those laws belonged is now obsolete, doesn't that mean that the prohibition against the abomination of homosexuality was never binding upon gentiles; does it mean that prohibitions against sexual perversions are now obsolete for everyone? Nope. How do we know that? We know it for a few reasons: 

1) The LORD, God of Israel, punished gentiles for homosexuality before the nation of Israel was constituted and given the Law; 2) Jesus condemned all forms of sexual immorality in general; 3) Paul condemned homosexuality in particular; and 4) life-long, monogamous, heterosexual, covenanted relationships are the only sanctioned and celebrated sexual relationships found in the Scripture; it is the norm and the pattern from Genesis chapter 1 moving forward.

What have we learned? We've learned that we don’t let people who learn their theology from prime-time TV worry us. They don’t know what they’re talking about. If a man who pretends to act like other people for a living is the "go to guy" for internet atheism, do you really think you have that much to fear? This is just another bad argument given by people who spend their lives fighting against the God that they say they don't believe exists.

No comments: