thanx for your questions. in response, i offer the following (keeping in mind that the questions you ask are the grist for entire semesters of university courses in ethics ;-):

1) the bible is not inerrant, nor is it infallible. it is a record of people’s reflections about god over time, made by different authors in vastly different time periods (i.e., centuries).
for a quick summary of some of the flat out contradictions in the bible, see this video:

while i’m still technically undecided on the question of an objective moral law, i’m about 95% in the camp that argues that all ethics and morality are relative to the culture in which they are espoused. that is, some things were considered ‘unethical’ centuries ago that are fine today (working on sabbath, eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of different fabrics, etc. ). likewise, some things are considered unethical today that were considered fine centuries ago (slavery).

while there are some rules that are near universal to all cultures and all times (e.g., murder is usually considered bad, as is stealing, and bearing false witness in court, although exceptions are often made in some cases (like self-defense, starvation, etc.)), just because the bible contains prohibitions against some of these ethical prohibitions common to all religions, cultures, and time periods, does not mean that all of the bible’s commands are appropriate. all squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares. a good source to illustrate this is here:

2) the concept of ‘inspiration’ is decided by a collective of people, not the other way around. people ascribe holiness. it is this reason that some consider the koran holy (while others don’t), and others consider the bible ‘god-breathed’ and ‘inspired’ and ‘scripture’ (while some don’t). both books claim to be the ‘word(s) of god’ within their own pages (see surah 15:9 in the koran). the difference, of course, is how believers in a particular faith tradition consider the texts. what is ‘inspired’ is the collective decision of a faith community (whether they be ‘church fathers,’ ‘ecumenical conferences,’ or canonical councils, etc.). a text is not inherently inspired, but a claim made by the faithful.

imho, there is no crime in homosexuality. there is no such thing as a ‘victimless crime,’ as by definition all crimes have victims. (the exception, of course, is that peculiar category of religious ‘thought crimes’ that can only be determined by an omniscient being). thought crimes are the basis of thought control, which i would argue is what many of the more arbitrary commands in the bible are: attempts at thought control, which stand at odds with concepts of liberty, freedom, social justice, etc.

a man or woman that is attracted to members of the same sex are not necessarily sexually active (just as not all heterosexual men who have taken a vow of celibacy are sexually active). and those that are sexually active with their of-age, consensual partners have committed no crime, as there is no victim. they only so-called ‘crime’ they are said to have committed is against commands in the bible that prohibit homosexuality. however, how are these commands any different from other very biblical commands prohibiting the planting of different crops in the same field, breeding different animals, or wearing clothes of different fabrics? (lev. 19:19 “do not mate different kinds of animals. do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”) (note: while many claim that commands regarding the sabbath and kosher foods were rescinded in the nt, none of these commands were rescinded in the nt. jesus said in matt 5:18 that “for truly i tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” jesus says to keep the commandments, and to my knowledge, these commands were never ‘trumped’ by nt commands. so, those arguing that the bible contains the eternal, objective moral foundation for all people should not highlight the prohibitions against homosexuality, while ignoring equally ‘abominable’ sins like mixing fabrics and cross-breeding plants and animals.

one place to start for a summary of the problems with arguing for an objective morality that is rooted in the bible (and the god of the bible) is a video by nonstampcollector. although i’m not an atheist, he does a nice job of exposing the argument that the necessity for a moral law giver must equal the god of the bible. (in the video of the debate, you’ll note that william lane craig deliberately avoids drawing this connection because he simply cannot – for the reasons that nonstampcollector points out. and that’s the key: the argument that there must be a god – a prime mover responsible for setting all things in motion – is different from the argument identifying that god as the god of the bible. for the existence of god, there are arguments on both sides (no evidence either way, but arguments nonetheless). however, for that god to be the god of the bible, and to maintain the claim that yhwh/jesus must be the objective moral law giver, whose divine ethical code is revealed through the bible, there is far too much contradictory evidence in the bible itself!

if the bible is the objective code for all morality, and god’s nature is revealed to us by the acts recorded in his holy scripture, then one must explain how god’s commands to commit genocide (1 sam 15:2-3), the vengeful slaughter of children (ps 137:9) and to keep virgin foreigners captured in battle as sexual slaves/wives (num 31:15-18) or simply worshiping other gods (a command never rescinded by jesus), or his endorsement of slavery (1 pet 2:18) is somehow objectively moral and reveals to us the personal nature of god. remember, as soon as you invoke ‘cultural context’ you can no longer argue for ‘objective’ morality because you are, in fact, invoking context, which makes the moral command relative (that is, not objective) to the context and situation of the time.

i hope this has answered your two questions. again, the issue of the bible as the objective moral foundation is quite simple once you remember that if it is the objective moral foundation for all humankind, then it needs to remain consistent for all time. (if it is not, then it is not objective, but relative to the present time and culture, meaning it can change as culture dictates.)

and, if the nature of god is revealed to us through his ‘inspired’ word, then passages like lev 21:9; eph 6:5; josh 10:39-40; deut 7:1-16; col 3:22; jer 20:7; 1 tim 2:12; lev 24:16; 2 kings 2:23-24; lev 20:9; deut 32:41-42; lev 26:21-22; and deut 13:6-9 must tell us just as much as john 3:16; 2 sam 7:28; 1 john 4:8; john 13:34; josh 1:9; ps 23; prov 30:5; 2 tim 3:16; and 1 john 4:7.

i would argue that the simple fact that most christians do not endorse slavery (in concept or in practice) despite the fact that the bible commands and/or endorses it in both ot and nt is evidence enough that ethics are relative to culture and time.

one more:

-bc

that is, his success in his 20-30 something aggressive males is only due to his distortion of the gospel message so that these men do NOT have to alter their attitudes toward women. as long as they remove some detrimental activity from their lives, they can continue to dominate their women (in a ‘complimentarian’ manner, of course) as long as they submit to the central male in their new world – mark driscoll.

it is more than a cult of personality. it’s an authoritarian cult, with penalties for failing to submit to driscoll’s authority, and further shame and humiliation-based penalties for attempting to leave.

bc

I mean, he argues using multisyllabic words and can grasp the concept of context vs content, yet he continually uses hyper-masculine phrases like “chickified”, “macho”, and appealing to violence as a defining characteristic of the men he wishes to appeal to – all the things that many (but not all!) young urban males (at least, here in Australia) appear to aspire to.

It just seems that there’s a rational, intelligent human buried inside the veneer of homophobic brutality, but his business model comes first, so the inner “rational” Driscoll can do naught but direct some language, not risk appearing lest he scare off his accolytes.

That’s a big stretch, but on reflection, it _is_ possible. Isn’t it?

I have a couple of questions…

1. So, am I to gather that you are a Christian but do not believe in the Divine infallibility of the Bible? If that’s the case, what/where is the basis of your moral standard? I’m not trying to be snarky, I genuinely would like to know.

2, If you *do* believe that the Bible is “God breathed,” then do you still believe that homosexuals who decide they want to get married should remain pure and/or virgins until their wedding night to be righteous before the Lord?

I’m very curious to read your insights on these inquiries.

Full disclosure: I’m approving your comments purely for the comedic value. People need to see the sheer irrationality of those brainwashed few who support Driscoll.

I have never had ads on my blog. But, that doesn’t stop you from perpetuating your earlier false statement. You simply insinuate that I recently changed that. Fundy rule #7: When caught in a lie with a lack of evidence, appeal to conspiracy or foul play.

Again, you make claims about Jesus, but offer no evidence. You simply attack my credentials without offering any of your own. And my offense is simply that you disagree with me.

Your very tone is irrational and hostile – precisely what I’d expect from a follower of Driscoll who argues from misinformed emotion rather than evidence and facts.

Please keep responding because you’re making my point: you (or your dear leader Driscoll) cannot argue on the facts and the merits of the argument. All you can do is call names, attempt to bully, scoff at those with actual education in the field, and express your frustration by offering one sided faith claims and proclamations without evidence or even the consideration of an alternative point of view. Again, classic fundy practices.

You serve Mark Driscoll well, and are a perfectly typical representative for him.

Thank you.

bc

1) what ad(d)s? i don’t have ads on my blog.
2) and whitney, if you’re tired of ‘effeminate’ men, especially in ‘church leadership’ roles, how would you characterize jesus?
3) are you going to offer any proof/evidence of your claims, or just yell, ‘no, no it’s not. that’s asinine!’ really loudly and hope that some people buy that as a cogent argument?

bc