Dr. Brown Takes Your Calls and Answers Your Questions

[Download MP3]

Does it matter if Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday? Did I lend my name to the controversial Jews for Jesus video “That Jew Died for You”? According to Galatian 1, how and when did Paul receive his revelation of Jesus and the gospel? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Look at your life and ask yourself, is this where I want to be ten years from now? If not, seek God like never before.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: No matter how much we grow in the Lord, no matter how mature we are, we never outgrow the foundations of the word of God.

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, you can pre-order a signed and numbered copy of Dr. Brown’s new groundbreaking book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, for $30 Postage Paid! (Release Date May 6th)
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

The Gospel as a Stumblingblock

Where Is Your Jewish Ministry Money Going? (And Answers to Your Jewish Questions)

Jews for Jesus Launches a New (and Controversial) Outreach, and a Shocking Attack on Religious Freedom in Our Schools

86 Comments
  1. Many times when witnessing we forget one of the most powerful evidences of all. And the one thing that God gave to us to prove to us that He was who He is, God. Prophecy.

    Jesus said in John 13:

    18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

    19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

    He said again in John 14:

    28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

    29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

    30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

    And in the Old Testament:

    Isaiah 42:

    9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

    Isaiah 46:9-10

    9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

    10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

    Isaiah 48:3,5

    3 I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

    5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

    That is the undeniable proof that God himself gave to us to prove who He is. Creation evidences are awesome too, but sometimes I think showing prophecy is more powerful, especially in getting the person to think and open up a bit.

  2. Dr. Brown’s ineffective use of apologetics, on today’s show, made me feel better about myself!

    Armed with a fresh bible school diploma, my NIV bible and a copy of “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” I went off to secular university sure I was going to use apologetics to lead a lot of people to the Lord.

    It never happened and I felt guilty about that.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’ve led a number of people to the Lord; just not through apologetics.

    And who has? Nobody I know. I’m sure some people have been argued into the Kingdom of God but none of my friends.

  3. Dr. Brown did tell one caller that the reason he addressed the issues the way he did was because this fellow had already been given the Gospel and the evidence for God previously. And since that didn’t convince the fellow, Dr. Brown addressed his questions rather than taking the conversation another direction.

  4. Shalom Dr.Brown, it was an honor to have spoken to you and to share the views of Genesis 18 and 19. I hope you take a hard look at them and let me know what you think.

    I do have to say that I heard a caller who asked your opinion about Genesis 6 and the sons of God. I have to say I strongly disagree with your thoughts of them being Angels from heaven. I was reading a book called The Concealed Light by Dr.Tsvi Sadan, an Israeli Hebrew scholar and he points out concerning the title Son of God on page 20 the following,

    “In his famous treaty, The Kuzari, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi qualifies the term: “We call Adam Son of God and all who are like him were called sons of God…and they all had perfect bodies and virtues and longevity, wisdom and ability to act well” (Kuzari Article 1, 95)

    In other words, a son of God is a righteous person who is doing the will of God, Genesis 7:1.

    If you consider chapters of 4-6 you see first the genealogies of Cain and of Seth. One is wicked and the other is righteous. The Torah does confirm that the Jews should not marry foreign unbelievers and this is also confirmed in the NT by Paul. It was forbidden and Genesis 6 shows why. The whole context is about MAN and the wickedness of MAN on the land. God was grieved over MAN and so was going to wipe MAN from the face of the land. He is FLESH and is going astray. Nothing in the entire context points to created Angels or sons of God being messengers from heaven. I hope you look carefully to this passages and the context of the chapters I listed. Thanks again for today and shalom, God bless Dr.Brown.

    Dr.Al Garza

  5. Al Garza,

    Why does the passage relate that the offspring of the son’s of god and daughters of men were giants? The context requires a different meaning and the ancient Hebrews (see Enoch) thought that they were fallen angels. So did the early church leaders. And Enoch was given credence by James, Peter, and especially Jude.

    Shalom

  6. Sorry for chiming in Dr. Garza,

    I believe without exception, unless I missed a reference somewhere, that every mention of ‘Sons of God’ or ‘Son of God’ in the Old Testament refers to angels.

    ben ‘elohiym

    Genesis 6:2
    That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    Genesis 6:4
    There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    (I note that is says ‘daughters of men’ and Seth was a man as well as Cain.)

    Job 1:6
    Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

    (this verse clearly without a doubt labels angels as sons of God.)

    Job 2:1
    Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

    Job 38:7
    When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

    (this was at creation before man was made.)

    Daniel 3:25
    He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    (Notice that the three devout Hebrews, godly men, are labeled ‘men’. The fourth, I believe to be Yeshua, but for sure is of the spirit realm/angelic, is called a ‘son of God’.)

    If there are other references I didn’t catch I will re-evaluate but I believe the Genesis 6 passage is speaking of fallen-angelic beings and is the only way the passage makes sense.

    Peace and Grace,
    -Benjamin

  7. Benjamin,

    >>Dr. Brown did tell one caller that the reason he addressed the issues the way he did was because this fellow had already been given the Gospel and the evidence for God previously.

    It was the book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.”

    I haven’t read the book, myself, but as Dr. Brown was using it — it seems like typical apologetics.

    And the guy was not convinced.

    And, my point was: I don’t know hardly anyone who accepts Jesus because of apologetics.

    At the end of the conversation, Dr. Brown encouraged the him to pray about it. I think prayer is far more likely to work than apologetics.

  8. Al,

    It’s interesting, to me personally, that you bring up the “Son of God” issue.

    Just this week I was in a bible study where the teacher said that “Son of God” and “Son of Man” mean the opposite of what they seem to mean.

    I have to say … I was doing mental skid marks! If that teacher is correct, I have been reading hundreds of verses wrong!

    It doesn’t change the divinity of Jesus, of course, because he is called both. But, still!

  9. Oh, I should add:

    The teacher said more-or-less what you said,

    >> In other words, a son of God is a righteous person who is doing the will of God,

  10. Sons of God is used many times in the New Testament in reference to believers. The context is always to demonstrate salvation. The Old Testament never uses the term in such a way. There is never any mention of salvation or righteousness in the passages that use the terms “ben ‘elohiym”(Hebrew – sons of God) nor “bar ‘elahh”(Aramaic – son of God).

  11. Dr. Brown,

    It’s a small point – regarding James the agnostic/atheist.

    You said that DNA was the “design equivalent of software” and James disagreed.

    I think James has a more up-to-date understanding of DNA.

    In the ten years since human DNA was mapped, scientists have pretty-much stopped calling it a “blueprint” because there simply is not enough data in the DNA to design the whole human body.

    Yes, there is A LOT of information in human DNA but most of it is just empty repetition. It as if, in your library simile, half the books were blank!

    To be clear — I’m not arguing against your general perspective. I see God’s hand in creation, as you do.

    I’m just suggesting that you update your DNA argument for God.

  12. Benjamin,

    But what about my bible study teacher who claims that the term “son(s) of man” is the true claim for divinity?

    And, as you say, “son of God” is really about extra-good humanity.

    (if I understood her correctly.)

    And, by the way, this is not just some home bible study teacher. She a PHD in New Testament, I believe.

    Have I really been reading hundreds of verses exactly backwards all these years?

    But, if all you/Al/my teacher are claiming is that “Son of God” and “Son of Man” can have varying, contextual meanings. I have long understood that.

  13. I don’t know why there were giants in the earth in those days, but I know that Goliath of Gath was like a giant to David.

    I take the sons of God in Genesis 6 to be those God fearing men who walked by (see also Romans 8:14) the spirit of wisdom through the fear of the Lord.

  14. Well here are some examples of son of man that do not refer to divinity.

    Job 25:6
    How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

    Job 35:8
    Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.

    Psalm 8:4
    What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

    Psalm 146:3
    Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

    Isaiah 51:12
    I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass;

    Jeremiah 49:33
    And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

    Specific Titles of non-divine men, Ezekiel and Daniel.

    Ezekiel 2:1
    And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.

    Daniel 8:17
    So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

    “And, as you say, “son of God” is really about extra-good humanity.”

    – I never said this. ‘son of God’ in the New Testament used of believers does not equate to extra-good humanity. It’s those believers that realize they are extra-bad you could say. It just means they/we have been adopted by God by faith in His Son.

    I would really need to have been in the Bible study, but from what you have said, I believe she is mistaken.

  15. Ray, If the sons of God were righteous men, how comes no daughters of God married sons of men? Small point but as Bo said, you still have to figure out why they produced irregular offspring.

  16. Dr. Al,

    Glad we could talk on the air, and thanks for your post here. Again, I’m not able to interact here at length, but I’d hardly take observations from the Kuzari as any kind of authoritative biblical interpretation, and the biblical evidence (as cited by others here), the ancient Jewish evidence (Enoch, etc.), and the evidence of the NT points to the interpretation I shared on the air re: Gen 6. Again, it’s quite peripheral to me, but I’m surprised that you’re surprised that I advocate this as the most coherent biblical interpretation of “the sons of God.”

  17. Benjamin,

    Thanks for the verses. I do remember most of them.

    I have to wonder if I understood this teacher correctly. But, I gotta say, I did press the issue with her.

    I’ve been reading and studying the bible for decades and it can make me a little dizzy to be told I’ve been reading huge parts of it exactly backwards!

    As for the visitation of the elohim in the Old Testament — the blurring of angels with a monotheistic God used to make me pretty uncomfortable.

    I worry about it less now. For starters, a lot of our modern concept of angels, demons, even Satan himself, often comes more from Milton, Dante or even “The Exorcist” than it does from the bible.

    For example, most modern Christians make a clear distinction between the personhood of God and angels. The bible seems less clear on that.

  18. Referring to those who were led by the spirit of wisdom prior to the flood as “sons of God”, seems rather incoherent to some Bible scholars.

  19. “seems rather incoherent to some Bible scholars.”

    > To an atheist, no one is more incoherent than a supposed Bible scholar. Only in religion can someone who cannot prove that any of the bogies they believe in actually exist be considered some kind of “expert.” Theology is the study of nothing making Bible scholars experts on nothing.

  20. Let’s consider the non-existence of God as a bogie.

    Van, Let’s see what you can do with that if you are as “expert” as you perceive some others to be.

    Can you prove that the bogie in question above, really does indeed exist?

    If I consider that God indeed does not exist, then the question immediately comes to mind, “Why then, is there so much good in the world?”

  21. Hello all.. I was that caller that questioned Dr Brown about the Sons of God. Sorry Dr Brown I disagree with your answer.

    Keep in Mind when Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven, 1/3 of the angels followed him. Those angels are called fallen angels. Fallen Angels no longer serve the Lord. So they can not be referred to as Sons of God. Sons of God are Holy. Fallen Angels are evil, rebellious and demonic. They are not labeled as Sons of God. In Job 2. Sons of God mentioned there are actually Holy Angels who serve God Almighty. Satan came to the throne of God and the members of the Heavenly court(Sons of God) were also present. Job 2 has nothing to do with fallen angels.

    There were NO extraterrestrial relations 1Corinthians 15:39-40 proves it…
    “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.”
    Spirits do not have flesh and blood. They can not produce offspring. They are not human.

    As for the BOOK OF ENOCH. That book is not Biblical and is unscriptural.

    Mark 12:25 Jesus tells us that angels do not marry. That is Scriptural Proof that Angels and Mankind Cannot Marry.

    God Bless you and it was a blessing to chat you.

  22. Genesis 6:7
    “So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

    “Angels” are NOT mentioned. Why? Because there were No Angels involved in Genesis 6.

  23. Good post Greg. I wish I had been in the class.

    Ray, you asked, “where in the Bible does it say that no daughters of God married sons of men?”. The verse is Genesis 6, verse 2:

    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    No mention of daughters of God, nor sons of Men. And this would lend more evidence to the sons of God being angelic since angels are male (no female angels).

    Debbie, thanks for the post. Since angels are male, they are not given in marriage since their is no opposite sex for them to marry. Plus in the spirit realm there is no reproduction mentioned in Scripture. But when angels who chose evil and take on humanity invade our reality, they now have flesh and “they took them wives of all which they chose.” Does that sound like the actions of godly, righteous men? Sounds like they took them by force. And if you say that fallen angels cannot be referred to as sons of God, how can unrighteous, unholy men be referred to as sons of God? Just using your line of thought to show both sides.

    Regarding angels not being mentioned in Genesis 6:7, these angels took on flesh (Jude 1:6, And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.) it would seem they could also discard that flesh, and are reserved in chains for that evil act, awaiting judgement.

  24. Benjamin you seem to be a barbarian to me and me to you. I do not see the Bible say that no daughters of God married sons of men. I do not see Gen 6:2 as proving such a thing. Rather, I see it (the idea that daughters of God married sons of men) as a suggestion that the Bible does not specifically mention in Genesis 6. I only see that sons of God married daughters of men in Gen 6:2.

    Some have talked about the fear of God being the favor of God, and it’s true that God gives many of his gifts to his children and servants.

    When one walks for a long time in the favor of God, isn’t it that the fear of God can sometimes be so easily lost?

    I believe that’s one of the great teachings from the book of Job.

  25. Sorry I should have quoted Jude 1:7 along with verse 6.

    Jude 1:6-7

    6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

    7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    In verse seven, ‘even as’ means ‘just as’, and then it goes on to describe the same behavior of angels and Sodom and Gomorrha. They both gave themselves over to fornication (angels and men since ‘even as’ was used), and going after strange flesh (flesh not normal to them). This is what Dr. Brown was referencing up above.

    Thought I should add this since I forgot to include verse 7 above.

  26. I trust that both the angels and inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, left the place God wanted them to be and went on their own way somewhere else, whether it was this or that.

  27. Ray,

    Jude
    6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
    7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    The angels which “kept not their first estate” were “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah…giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.” The strange flesh that the fallen angels went after were human women. They were not allowed to them just as the men of Sodom and Gomorrah lusted after angels which were not allowed to them. It is “strange flesh” when either and angel or a human goes after the other. Granted, the men of Sodom and Gomorrah also gave themselves to fornication, whether it was homosexual or heterosexual too. They may have been attempting only the homosexual form of fornication at first, but by continuing after they were miraculously blinded by angels, they were also guilty of lusting after strange flesh…Angels…just like the fallen angels lusted after the daughters of men.

  28. Benjamin- Unrighteous, unholy men are not referred to as Sons of God. Fallen angels are not referred to as Sons of God either.

    I will explain the Book of Jude…

    Jude 1:5-7
    5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    The context of these verses shows us that there are consequences for those who do not obey the Lord. Destruction will come upon you.

    -vs 5 The Lord destroyed the Egyptians in the Red Sea and Saved the Hebrews
    -vs. 6 The angels rebelled against the Lord when they left Heaven to follow Satan.
    -vs. 7 Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they were sexual immorality(Homosexuality).

  29. Note- The men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexual lifestyle.

  30. “Note- The men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexual lifestyle.”

    > And did nothing at all when Adolf Hitler killed 11 million innocent people. God does nothing as 30,000 children starve to death every night. But God will throw rocks at gay people and then we expect Christians not to behave the same way as their God. Why?

  31. Good morning Debbie and everyone,

    What I meant when I spoke about unrighteous men was to show that these “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were clearly unrighteous since “they took them wives of all which they chose.” Would God fearing men rebel against God is this fashion? (seeing God is angered by this action) So if they were men, then they had ‘fallen from righteousness’ by this point and are no longer righteous, which by your first post above would disqualify them from being titled ‘sons of God’.

    On the other hand if these unrighteous men can be called sons of God, then so can fallen angels.

    But all of the above I used the line of thought you were using to think about the issues and then point out the difficulties I found. I think there are three ways in which ‘sons of God’ can be used.

    1. Son of God – Jesus the Messiah (The unique true Son of God).

    2. sons of God – Angels/Adam & Eve (They do not have parents so each one is a direct creation of God). I am not likening Adam and Eve to angles except by the sole fact that they are both direct creations.

    3. sons of God – People of true faith. Mankind which gets redeemed and adopted into the family of God.

    Turning to Jude, you explained Jude 1:5-7:

    “-vs 5 The Lord destroyed the Egyptians in the Red Sea and Saved the Hebrews”

    — Verse 5 does not deal with the Egyptians. The ones destroyed were the unbelieving Hebrews, the ones which believed not that they could take the land when the 10 spies with negative reports returned from scouting the land.

    Numbers 14:11

    11 And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

    Numbers 14:23

    23 Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:

    Numbers 14:28-29

    28 Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the Lord, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:

    29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me.

    “-vs. 6 The angels rebelled against the Lord when they left Heaven to follow Satan.”

    That is true, but only takes into consideration part of the passage. The ‘even as/just as’ in verse 7 makes them one unit. Verse 7 also uses ‘in like manner/likewise’ which also ties verse 7 into verse 6. In 7, Sodom and Gomorrha and the surrounding cities “likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” (the ESV footnote mentions that ‘unnatural desire’ in the Greek means ‘other flesh’.) but likewise to what? the angels back in verse 6 who also went after strange flesh, in Genesis 6.

    -vs. 7 Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they were sexual immorality(Homosexuality).

    — Bo made some great points in post 30 above regarding the homosexuality of Sodom and Gomorrha.

  32. Debbie:

    >>Note- The men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexual lifestyle.

    Where does the bible say this? Or are you projecting your homophobia on the bible by isolating only one sin in Sodom?

    And there seems to have been a lot of sin going on Sodom! Yet only one sin gets mentioned.

    One of the most horrifying, it strikes me, is Lot offering up his daughters for rape to a mob pounding on his door, demanding “strange flesh.”

    It’s one of the ugliest parts of scripture yet this often gets totally ignored by Evangelicals and only the homosexuality is focused-on.

    I think this fixation on only homosexuality has everything to do with conservative homophobia and very little with the mind of God about our gay brothers and sisters.

    (And, by the way, one can support monogamous gay marriage and still condemn homosexual mob rape!)

  33. Van,

    >>No one ever answered this: How did the holocaust fit in with God’s plan?

    I can only answer for myself (and, I am sure, others here will disagree) but my position would be fairly mainstream Christian.

    Evil is not God’s plan. But God has given humans the freedom to chose right or wrong. The Nazis chose to be very very wrong. And evil like the Holocaust happens.

    Obviously lots of people blame God for not stopping humans from being evil. It’s guilt by inaction This is actually a deal-breaker for them, in regards to faith in God.

    Fair enough. That argument has merit.

    But their argument has a moral flaw as well.

    If God had chosen to allow only good, and no bad, there would be no morality at all.

    In a very real way — we wouldn’t be humans at all. We’d be puppets.

    And, ironically, God would not allow you to raise the very question you are asking right now!

  34. Van, what have you done to save millions of people? Did you plead with the nations to come to their aid?

    Do you believe it’s your duty to judge God?

    Are you more righteous than him?

  35. Bo, Do you think it’s possible that Jude is speaking in a general sense about the fall of the angels and the consequences of their actions, rather than any specific sexual sins?

  36. Van,

    I think I asked you this once before:

    What in atheism makes the Holocaust wrong?

    I’ll add this question:

    In your way of seeing the world, isn’t the Holocaust just natural section?

    And, by the way, this is not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know where atheism provides any moral rights or wrong.

    I’ve asked several atheist why they are moral and the most common answer is: “we just are” which strikes me as a faith-based answer.

  37. Ray,

    >>Do you think it’s possible that Jude is speaking in a general sense about the fall of the angels and the consequences of their actions, rather than any specific sexual sins?

    The term “strange flesh” is fairly generic but Rienecker/Rogers say it insinuates unnaturalness.

    It’s highly debated how “unnatural” the rural ancients thought homo-sex was. Some scholars believe it was quite widely tolerated as long as it didn’t disrupt the clan (and especially the duty to procreate.)

    But, can one even debate the point that homosexuality was not the unnatural thing going on in Sodom!

    I think this isolating of homosexuality as the only sin of Sodom doesn’t come from the bible but comes from homophobia.

  38. And did some of the rain evolve into giving the earth it’s dew, or was it the sun and earth that evolved into giving us day and night?

  39. Oops!

    But, can one even debate the point that homosexuality was not the _only_ unnatural thing going on in Sodom?

    – – – –

    For example, it bothers me that so many Evangelicals proclaim that Sodomites were judged for their sexual orientation and then they blow right by the rape part!

    As if Sodom has done only hetersexual rape, it would exist today. Of course not. Its the gang rape — not the sexual orientation — that is a sin.

  40. >> And did some of the rain evolve into giving the earth it’s dew, or was it the sun and earth that evolved into giving us day and night?

    Or does the time-line of creation in Genesis 1 make no scientific sense because it is religious story-telling and never meant to be science?

  41. Or is it that God can bring light from so vast a region as space, and do it in time for whatever he’s doing, not being limited to light years, even as Jesus was not limited to the natural order of wine making at a wedding?

  42. Van,

    >> But God will throw rocks at gay people and then we expect Christians not to behave the same way as their God. Why?

    When did God do this?

    Jesus put an end to a capital punishment verdict this way.

    (and I believe, an end to all capital punishment, any which way.)

    Are you gay, by chance?

    I am still trying to figure you out! Nearly every person I’ve known, who argues like you do with Christians, has been deeply hurt by Christians.

    Normal atheists try steer clear of the fundamentalist Christians just to avoid the headache.

    But you come here, ginned up for a headache! I have a hard time understanding your motivation.

    If you are gay, I can understand you wanting to pound on the the homophobes here.

    And, if you have been victimized by Christians — I apologize to you as a Christian. Lots of us have repented of this and more are, every day.

    I honestly mean that. I really am sorry if you have been victimized by my fellow Christians. But are you sure that coming here, and getting yelled at even more, is the best path to healing?

  43. >> Or is it that God can bring light from so vast a region as space, and do it in time for whatever he’s doing, not being limited to light years,

    Or did the writer (and readers) of Genesis have absolutely no idea of the vastness of space? Or light years? And it is a fools errand to try and reconcile modern science with religious story telling from the Bronze Age?

  44. Ray,

    Even though I am a liberal Christian, my biggest problem with the conservative creationists is that they don’t take their bible literally!

    In the Genesis account, the stars are not “light years” away.

    They are hung, like lamps, on the ceiling of the vault which holds back the sea above us.

    Genesis doesn’t tell us exactly how far away that was but we do know that the residents of Babel thought they could build a tower that high.

    If anyone is reading Genesis while envisioning our modern understanding of space — they aren’t real biblical literalists — only selective ones.

  45. Ray,

    As for the wine — that’s another case where reading the bible with a scientific mindset can make one miss the point of the story.

    I don’t think the point of that story is that Jesus miraculously overrides the “natural order” of fermentation.

    It is well documented that in pre-scientific times, when a “new thing” showed-up, it was seen a miracle from God. The ancients weren’t thinking about yeast digesting the carbon in sugar and pooping out alcohol and carbon dioxide.

    It was more like — if you put grape juice in skin and pray… look! God gives you wine! What a blessing!

    And Jesus could do that too!

  46. Ray,

    As for the wine — that’s another case where reading the bible with a scientific mindset can make one miss the point of the story.

    I don’t think the point of that story is that Jesus miraculously overrides the “natural order” of fermentation.

    It is well documented that in pre-scientific times, when a “new thing” showed-up, it was seen a miracle from God. The ancients weren’t thinking about yeast digesting the carbon in sugar and excreting alcohol and carbon dioxide.

    It was more like — if you put grape juice in skin and pray… look! God gives you wine! What a blessing!

    And Jesus could do that too!

Comments are closed.