CLARIFICATION…Chapter 0
I ran across this site today and I must say that it broke my heart… It physically pains me to see God’s word picked apart with little regard to the context and meaning of it as a whole. It is obvious that Marshall Brain is an intelligent, skillful, and thoughtful author (that is not even in debate here, actually); it is rather his selective and out-of-context attacks on God’s word that are in question, in my mind.
Take for instance, his first scripture-based “point” in Chapter 0 wherein he quotes Leviticus 20:13:
“Knowing whether God is real or not is incredibly important. For example, in Leviticus 20:13 the Bible says that we should kill all homosexuals. If God exists, and if God is the all-powerful creator of the universe, and if God wrote the Bible, then we should do that. God has commanded it and we should obey. On the other hand, if God is imaginary, we should throw the Bible away because it is absurd. The idea of human beings killing other innocent human beings is abhorrent, and a book that promotes murder and hate crimes has no place in our society. “
In this passage of text, Mr. Brain and I do agree on one thing: knowing whether God is real or not is incredibly important - in fact, I could not agree more! Further, I do not argue Mr. Brain’s summation of the scripture; Leviticus 20:13 tells us:
” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
HOWEVER, what Mr. Brain fails to tell his internet readership is the following - like all texts, when we examine scripture, it must be done IN CONTEXT. Now, if you examine this passage of scripture in context (i.e. with its surrounding verses and chapters), you’ll find that homosexuals are not the only people that God is saying should be stoned! Those who lie with animals, those who lie with their father’s mothers, those who like threesomes, those who sleep with their daughter-in-laws, those that curse their mothers and fathers - the list goes on and on… Further, there’s not just stoning - there’s burning with fire, separations from families, dishonoring folks - there’s LOTS of bad things going on in this passage.
So one has to ask - what exactly is going on here?!? That’s where CONTEXT comes in…
If you look at this entire chapter, you find that God is speaking to Moses prior to entering the Promised Land. He is basically, saying, “Look, Moses - you tell those Israelites that I know they’ve seen, heard, and even done a fair amount of bad things in the past but once they get to Canaan, we ARE NOT going to have any of this nonsense anymore! Moses, you tell them that if they do these things, these are the “bad things” that are going to happen…”
(An Aside)…As a matter of fact, if you read through the book of Leviticus, there’s quite a lot of “bad things” going on; this is because this book is primarily a “list of DO’s and DO NOT’s for the Children of Israel after their departure from slavery and subsequent journey to the Promised Land).
So, basically, God sets out the ground rules, and THEN comes the long laundry list of the PUNISHMENTS for these SINFUL ACTS. These were essentially the conditions that would follow sinful behavior! Now, doesn’t that sound a bit more familiar? Sounds a bit like our death penalty today, ya? Now, I know that we do not send people to the gas chamber for having sexual relations with their mother, but most folks who consider themselves moral citizens do not condone such behavior. This is also where another nugget of Mr. Brain’s mindset gleams forth for us to see - in his own words, we find that he does, in truth, not consider homosexuality a sin. In his own words, he says:
“The idea of human beings killing other innocent human beings …”
I wonder if Mr. Brain would feel the same way about sin (and it’s subsequent punishment) if someone he loved dearly (himself included) was harmed in some manner…
I have no doubt that in the day and age of the Old Testament, there were people killed for these acts, and it was done in accordance with God’s word, HOWEVER, this where Mr. Brain again elects to leave out the CONTEXT of the entirety of God’s Holy Word. To prove this point, we will play a little game, ok? You can do this at home - just follow along with my instructions.
- First, stand up and hop on one foot (go on, do it…)
- Now, sit down (thank you).
- Now, stand up and DO NOT HOP, but SAY that you hopped, and THINK about hopping
Ok - the game is over (you can sit down now…) - what does this prove? Well, first, I gave you some instructions to do something (which I’m assuming you did) and afterwards, we only admited that we did something and then concentrated on it.
In the same manner, this is how God has dealt with sin in our world. First, in the Old Testament (from which Leviticus comes), he told man TO DO SOMETHING. In this specific case, he told the Israelites to kill others that committed these sins. Then, after Christ came (we’re talking New Testament here), died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected, man no longer has to do anything but ADMIT that we sin and BELIEVE in Christ and that what He did has saved us from the penalty of those sins.
So, when you examine the Bible in CONTEXT, you find that in fact, God, in his infinite mercy, has made it so that we humans here on earth do not have to concern ourselves with the stoning of others as a punishment for their sin - we have a way to free our souls from the wages of sin, which is death (Romans 6:23).
When you examine the Bible, much like any other book, and do not maintain the frame of reference that is context you can generally glean pretty much whatever you want from the text. You have to look at the text with a discerning, unbiased and thoughtful eye or else the results of your examination will be without any doubt slanted and unfair. This, I feel, is what Mr. Brain has done with his treatise.
I will endeavor over the next several weeks to ferret out and examine each one of these unfair characterizations within his writing and lay them bare before your feet. You may then judge, with an open mind, in which light you wish to view the text. My fervent hope and prayer is that each of you will come to the conclusion that the Bible is the source of authoritative truth for our world and our souls, and that if you have not done so before now, you would at least examine it personally, for yourselves.
-Brannon
I love the roleplaying aspects of your site, but when I came across this page I just had to comment and disagree. I’m sure you understand since you felt the same about Marshall’s work.
Now, to my mind (and the minds of many other compassionate individuals), stoning people to death for sleeping with others of the same gender, seems a touch extreme. A little too extreme to be ascribed to any omniscient being functioning as the absolute morality of the universe.
… and then you say “I wonder if Mr. Brain would feel the same way about sin (and it’s subsequent punishment) if someone he loved dearly (himself included) was harmed in some manner”
And I find myself wondering “aren’t we talking about homosexuality here? who precisely are we talking about being harmed?”, for someone so clear on context you’re jumping back to the generalistic awfully quickly.
Yes humans do have an inbuilt desire to avenge wrongs, studies found the part of the brain responsible for this recently. But surely to err is human, to forgive divine…?
Marshall found himself doubting the authorship of a piece of writing after seeing a particular passage of it was out of character. You’ve ignored the context in which he wrote this and condemned him for the same offense.
Perhaps you should take the plank from your eye…
Comment by Town Gate Guard — December 5, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
First of all, let me say thank you for the compliment! I’m glad you are enjoying the site and I just want you to know that you should feel free to express your opinions here, regardless of whether you agree with me or not.
You say that I have ignored the context of Mr. Brain’s piece. Perhaps, but I cannot see it. In my humble opinion, there can be little doubt of the context of Mr. Brain’s writing. He clearly disagrees with the scripture and has set out to point out the seeming inconsistencies of God’s Holy Word. Furthermore, he speaks to only a single point of a single piece of a much larger work, without any reference to the remainder of the scripture, the stone of which he has left utterly unturned.
However, in the quote above, I do have to admit that you are correct. I switched from talking about a single sin, slowly merged into speaking about a broad type of sin (i.e. sexual perversion) and then moved even further abroad to talking about sin in general. My point (which apparently was not very clearly stated) was that all sin hurts — someone. Just as often those hurt by the sins we commit are ourselves: there are not always those who commit sins on the one hand and those who were subjected to the sins (and thus wounded by them) on the other hand. Sin seperates us from God, and that is by and far the most grevious wound that our souls (saved or unsaved) can sustain.
You posted something that I find most intriguing; you said:
Comments like this will never cease to amaze me. People think that God, being an omnisicent being who is the absolute morality of the universe would for some reason, be accepting of absolutely everything and condemn nothing. I find this highly illogical and contrary to the world we live in. There are very real and clearly defined rules and laws reflected everywhere in the world around us in the form of absolutes, for example: gravity only works one way and displays very harsh boundaries between what it considers acceptable behavior (i.e. staying connected to terra firma) and non-acceptable (i.e. leaping out of a tree in an attempt to break its “physical absolute”).
If gravity (and that is only one example of MANY) operates on this fundamental principle, why, should God be any different?
Comment by Administrator — January 13, 2006 @ 1:48 am
This Marshall Brain was on Oprah today. I think that’s enough said.
Comment by Heather — January 19, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
This question of moral absolutes could be carried further–and on a far more microcosmic example–perhaps. Ourselves. Well, myself–a single person. If I truly love myself, I will try to keep myself alive. I’ll feed myself, clothe myself, and tend to my wounds. Yet, I don’t always like what I do in this protection of self. I may even find that if I truly love myself I might have to cause injury–or death–to stop me from doing pernicious acts. If I truly love myself, I don’t want to see me transform into a fiendish subhuman beast–so, I seek to extinquish those feral tendacies, hindering that rampant lust or bitter hate…whatever the cost.
Now, if I seek to do such things in myself to myself for the sake of myself, where did I develop this concept? Or, to rephrase it, where did I engender and cultivate this sense of morality? Did I spontaneously generate a list of strictures to restrain the base characteristics of my nature? Or, were these genetic imprints arising within me? Yet…if this was the indelible imprint on my genome, then why do I have that conflict–is my body fighting a virus? If so, then, where does this virus originate, especially since (according to the statement that its genetic imprint) it would be my genes attacking themselves?
Could it be Someone–some Maker—crafted this desire to combat and keep myself pure of something outside of general caretaking? If so, then wouldn’t this same desire sprout up around the world? And, if that is also true, wouldn’t that exemplify itself in the moral question, where other (yes, I’ve expanding my microcosm now) people battle this same issue, devoid of much of the genome and conditions I have? Isn’t this the very thing we are doing now–combatting the issue of morality, that desire to make oneself better than mere beast? Indeed, the very fact that the moral question spans back farther than global communications, displaying a general consensus that rape is awful, murder is heinous, and lying is unkind–along with many other sins–gives merit to a Higher Power, outside genes, conditions, and personal opinion. Now, yes, the fine tuning has been disagreed upon, but in a realm where the bestial and humane battle, where good and bad are often muddled in a death grip…like trying to dissect a raging tornado…this is understandable. Yet, there seems to be a cresendo of support from each cardinal direction that morality–in the most primal sense–is real and necessary. We wouldn’t have many of our laws and disputes if that wasn’t so.
As to Christianity and Judaism’s claim to summa prima morales…again, go back and look at the source. Here seems to be a highly composite collection of the “moral laws” (or “Natural laws”, as Aquinas would put it) displayed in every squabble, such as a man stealing a person’s wallet; a person squeezing into a chair, though someone else was already beginning to sit; or someone shouting an insult. Most of these (except the theft) are outside the judicial system, yet everyone seems to be appeal to some ruling system (”That’s mine!…”, “I saw the chair first…”, or “You shouldn’t say that!”). If there is such a system, carrying a heavy adherance that we all are probably going to call on it sometime today, then who wrote it? This Lawgiver would be above mere man, since the rules allude to a state of living higher than what we are now. We wouldn’t have a conflict with it, unless we were outside the Moral Absolute. For the idea to be conceived, some concept–or some example–would be needed, else the image is shoddy. We think of flying because we see a bird in the air…This moral Lawgiver instilled in man what He Himself lived: Moral Perfect.
Yes, this grew out into a macrocosm…but, Morality itself is a macrocosm, surrounding the entire existence of “I” and humanity as I whole. So, it would quite be a difficult task to keep to singular and microscopic terms and ideas. However, this is a good question to talk on. Thanks for stirring the brain.
Comment by Tsidkenu — June 7, 2006 @ 12:13 am
I have to disagree with you about homosexuality being a sin and a ‘perversion’, as you put it. You should read better books than Mr Brains. Then you would learn that homosexuality OCCURS NATURALLY in nature (or ‘God’s Creation’, whichever you prefer). The proof of this has been made in over 30 scientific studies since the late sixties.
No study has found any population on earth to have an incidence of more than 4.8% homosexuality (that means about one in twenty people is gay, globally). Furthermore, that incidence crops up in almost every study - including places where you might expect a higher incidence, such as, say, Thailand or Brazil, famous for their ‘ladyboys’, etc.) or where you might expect it to be lower (macho Australia, for example) So, even though the culture is different there, the number of gay people is actually just the same as in the US, UK or any other country: people do not CHOOSE to be gay. Their sexual drive, hardwired from birth, occurs naturally.
This has been proven by denying foetus’s certain waves of hormones which most foetuses usually receive during their time in the womb. It has been found that foetuses which do not receive the second wave (of eight) hormone waves are born homosexual. This missing wave is not an aberration; it has the potential to occur to any foetus, born anywhere in the world one twentieth of the time. The other foetuses get a different combination of hormone waves which decide their gender (i.e. straight male or female) for the other 47.5% each.
Studies in to animal sexuality show that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as well, and in many cases has a complex, distinct, active role in the habits of species.
A gay man, as a result of his differing hormonal legacy, has -among other things- a more enlarged hypothalamus (the central section of the brain near the stem) which is also true of women. The hypothalamus is responsible for -among other things- communication and spatial awareness: a gay man literally has a more female brain than a heterosexual man. The result for him is a different perspective on the world: on the one hand, he is more feminine-minded, on the other, he is capable of all the usual testosterone-derived aggression that a heterosexual male body also has. Throughout history, many cultures have had appreciation for this unique perspective. In our own time it has been maligned be exponents of religions which derive from similar or shared ancient texts (Christianity, Judaism and Islam, for example) which describe homosexuality as a perversion.
You should bear in mind that these original texts were as much social documents as they were religious ones. They were written by patriarchal (man-led) primitive (aggressive, tribal, fearful) cultures. They reflect the primitive instinct in all people; namely to fear what is unknown or unusual (a deep, useful instinct… the unknown may be dangerous!). An affinity for the familiar is a similar instinct; human beings are social animals which have always banded together, at first to survive, then to watch football matches in order to feel ‘part of a whole’ etc.
Identifying difference, and especially weakness, is part of Man’s primitive heritage with which he struggles to this day. The process is as visible today in our playgrounds as ever, and the mental scars which children receive for being different (be it being short, fat, red-haired, slow, glasses-wearing, gay, god-bothering, stupid etc.) effect their lives and decisions well into adulthood. Often the cycle of ‘attack others before they get a chance to attack you’ goes from parent to child.
Further, the instinct for highlighting difference allows us to band together: to draw lines in the sand beyond which others shall not pass. To build borders. To have wars. The next world war will see the end of the human race as we know it.
You should read more, so that you know enough about the Bible to really discern the important truths in it, rather than dwelling on the primitive testosterone driven fear mongering and priestly laws designed to control populations.
You might meditate on the question of whether, since homosexuality is naturally occurring, God might actually have nothing against gays, and loves them just as much as every other creature in his creation. And that a human being wrote the sections of text to which you are clinging.
To learn about the links between faith’s origins, a fascinating place to start is Wikipedia’s entry for Adam and Eve, followed by, say, Lilith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Comment by Frazer — January 3, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
some are born that way, others are not, to ever think its 100% one way or another.. is plain stupidity. there are some 5-6 billion people on earth, some few hundred million may be “homosexual”. 100% dont choose it? 100% choose it? nonsense, ignorants. some aren’t in fact born that way, more prominently among females where its more of a fad thing, and dont even try to act as if it isn’t, the huge surge of “bi” and “lesbian” women is complete BS and you girls know you are just choosing it alot of the time. unless somehow someway the number of lesbians at birth just sky rocketed. but let me be the first to say i doubt that, drop the act, its annoying. its just a little fetish you have/way to attract/ward off flirting boys. moving on, this “fake” portion of homosexuals contributes to it all as well, but i do know there are some that are de facto born that way. point is, sometimes the answers to lifes questions arent one set simple thing, but more complex. 100% barely ever exists in the real world, so sometimes, you both may be right and wrong at the same time. think on it.
As far as Christianity goes, i believe in it but i’m not a zealot. Though due to certain times in my life, my faith wont ever disappear. This is hard for many Atheists to understand as they desperately try again and again to prove this and that as for some odd reason they cant possibly accept the fact not everyone believes in evolution, ((get over it.. honestly.. no ones here to convert you [except the annoying ones].. so stop trying what is in effect the Atheist equivalent of attempted converting. just because you cant understand why we believe doesn’t mean you have to be an asshole about it , learn respect)). i suppose i’ve been ranting a bit here but dont we all? this was my opinion and im sticking to it.
Comment by just walking by — December 31, 2007 @ 6:02 am
Alright, speaking of homosexuality, there’s an arguement I’ve always wanted to get into with a Christian man. Gay Marriage. Contrary to popular belief, the US government was not started on Christian terms. Democracy dates to Roman, which, pre-Constantine and even post, was NOT a holy land. Our Founding Fathers were not without guilt or “sin”, including extramarital affairs and supposed ties to the Masons. Now, this being said, the Constitution preaches Seperation of Church and State. Church’s only role is the lost little lamb to be protected, by the highest law of the land, straight from the 1700s.
Now..if this holds true, I leave my question to you all. “Give a SECULAR” reason against homosexual marriage.
Comment by Thomas Delacroix — February 24, 2008 @ 1:24 am