Obviously he doesn’t understand hermeneutics, old vs. new covenant or the purpose of the Levitical Law.

“…to get into Heaven the most important thing to know is that He expects all of us to treat every other person with love and respect.”
Is THAT how we get into heaven? Maybe I missed that in the Bible…

Wow the hermeneutics of this post are on par with a sunday school answer. I’m not meaning to be disrespectful, but its a very sloppy way of interpreting scripture. Surely, we can handle the text of scripture better than this. The issue of homosexuality is repeated in both of the covenants, so even with throwing out the OT (which I don’t think we should do) seems like we still have the same “problem” with Paul.
Furthermore, I don’t think this conversation should be moved forward on the basis of a conversation with a nine-year old. Obviously, the situation is far more complex than this answer reveals.

Repenting of our sins, crying out to Christ (and Christ alone) to save us, and believing that Christ, being both fully man and fully God, paid the price for all of our sins by dying on the cross and then being raised from the dead on the third day is the only way to heaven.
This is what God wants us to believe. Salvation is not in our hands; it is in God’s.
If you want to understand and have a conversation about homosexuality, then you must understand the fundamentals of sin and the salvation through Christ.

Cheers, Ben.
In your words is where the peace that passes understanding lies. Even hermeneutical understanding.

“Marriage today isn’t at all the same as it was in biblical times.” Maybe not Tony, but the Bible is; and the God that wrote it are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Two words: Exodus International.
Peace, Jeff

That Tony would post this as a “comment of the day” just further confirms his “in the strike zone” analogy at Wheaton has fallen into calling foul balls fair. The lack of theological understanding is really hard to fathom. For example:
“It’s always amazed me how so many of the rules of God can be dismissed by man, while others are so violently upheld.”
Such a comment totally ignores that fairly obvious reality that many Old Covenant rules were superceded in the New Testament, not by man but by God. (Unless one dismisses all notion of the inspriration of the text.) Or this one:
“God recognized that there was one really big rule that He needed everybody to understand.”
So God had to figure things out and changed his mind about basic moral truths? So when Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more, it was because God hadn’t filled Jesus in on the new total sexual freedom program?
This is chaos. No wonder Tony feels comfortable in Gene Robinson and Kate Schiori’s Episcopal free-for-all.

Perhaps someone can help explain to me why exactly this is considered “the comment of the day”. It seems a poorly compiled comment about a contentious issue and is only based on one’s perception of something that somebody else said?! Or am I missing something? I have to say I generally agree with what has been said above, and am especially worried about the definition of “How to get into heaven” – as if it is all about obtaining a ticket thru how we treat people!! Ben says that is the best piece of advice he has ever been given on religion… That saddens me deeply. The comment seems to suggest that we just change the rules as we go, to fit the culture, environment, changing morals of society. Or even worse, that God changes his rules as society changes?! Surely that puts God on par with the erratic characters of the pagan gods of years gone by. Is that really how it is or should be? Should moral standards remain the same throughout the ages? Is there a godly standard of morality that does not change but has different applications?
Do all people need to be treated with love and respect? YES for sure. However, the Bible clearly defines what is sin and what separates people from full relationship with the Lord.

Tony,
Wonderful illustration. I’m sorry the other readers have only ridicule for the wonderful wisdom your mother passed on. Sounds like she was a wonderful example. Peace, friend. May we all strive to love unconditionally without judgment.

Woops … meant to address that to Ben. Sorry. Thank you, Ben.

Is God omnipresent?
If yes, then gays are part of God the eternal no less and no more than anyone or anything else.
If no, then why call such a thing God?
And finally, just for the record: Why is Christianity and specifically a Christianity that cherry-picks the Old Testament rules, any more the One True Way, than Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Islam, and any one of the many indigenous religions?

For the record, I totally meant my comment seriously and from the heart!! In support of Ben!! Peace. : )

Maybe I missed that in the Bible…
Brian (of the second comment): See Matthew 25: 34-45.

As a kid, when I asked my mom (as she was frying pork chops!) about why we don’t follow all the rules in the Old Testament she wisely explained her take on it in terms that her 9 year old could understand. It may or may not have been entirely accurate, but it made an impression on me and has served me well. She told me that, at the time God made them, every rule had a purpose whether man [sic] understood it or not. For instance, pork wasn’t able to be easily preserved so it could be dangerous to eat it. There were reasons for the rules, but as time passed and people and situations naturally changed there needed to be new rules. Eventually, as people followed the rules, God recognized that there was one really big rule that He needed everybody to understand.
I hate to put a damper on Ben’s enthusiasm for his mother’s spiritual acumen, but noted Hebrew/Old Testament/Torah scholar Richard Elliott Friedman in his Commentary on the Torah says that there is no rhyme or reason for a lot of the laws. :^)

Ben’s mom’s view is dangerous and a completely jacked-up view of the Law and the Gospel. I fear for Ben and Tony as they quote her approvingly.

To keep this dialogue going and try to ‘enlighten’ those that want to water down the Gospel and adulterate Holy Scripture not only feeds Tony’s immense ego, but also drags His precious Word through the mud … “cast not pearls before swine”
Peace, Jeff

“Obviously he doesn’t understand hermeneutics…”
Brian Post 1: Brian, there is so much arrogance displayed through this post. I question not your knowledge of the subject, because more than likely you know a great deal more so than I, but I do question why you believe it okay to make such a snide comment.
“Is THAT how we get into heaven? Maybe I missed that in the Bible…”
Brian Post 2: Why do you believe a sardonic response is appropriate? We are called to Love, as I am sure you know, so how does approaching Ben’s post with mockery enable you to do this?
Jason Myers: Your first paragraph iterates a position that many hold and have stated. I am not sure to what extent you have been following TJ blog on SSM but he has, more than once, given a structure to how the conversation is taking place. The hermeneutics conversation is slated in the weeks to come.
“Your Name:” It feels like you are not interested in having a discussion. You preached a short sermon, as to refute the theology of salvation that was displayed in Ben’s post. Keep in mind that there are many faithful, pious, god-fearing men and women that do not share your theology. Also, this clause: “then you must understand the fundamentals of sin,” is confusing in context. Could you please articulate what you mean by this? And can you start posting your real name please?
Jeff Eilenberger, you said: “…Maybe not Tony, but the Bible is; and the God that wrote it [sic] are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Two words: Exodus International.” I have two unrelated questions for you Jeff – 1: Do you believe that God’s ‘mind’ can be changed? and 2: Are you implying that Tony is a homosexual in your last sentence. In context it looks suspiciously like that is what you are doing.
Dan: Sorry man, my response here would take more time than I have right now. In the weeks to come I hope we can continue on discussing some of the things you brought up.
Otiusanc: You wrote: “…and is only based on one’s perception of something that somebody else said?!” Is that not how we come to understanding? Our perception of what people say (or write) + experience + genetics, don’t they shape how we understand and therefore perceive the world?
Albert the Abstainer: I didn’t understand this line in context: “If no, then why call such a thing God?” As far as the finale paragraph, that is an entirely long and different conversation to be had at another time.
EricW: You wrote: “…Hebrew/Old Testament/Torah scholar Richard Elliott Friedman in his Commentary on the Torah says that there is no rhyme or reason for a lot of the laws.” Throwing out a statement like that is not very helpful for me. Could you please at least summarize the main arguments Friedman used?
Rhology or Allan: I am sincerely (sad that in this thread I feel the need to even have to use such a modifier) curious what your fears are when you write: “I fear for Ben and Tony…”
Jeff: Are you in the habit of signing posts with “Peace” at the end or do you really wish that? It is hard for me to believe someone who goes on a personal attack of another brother just words away is really desiring peace. Can you justify?

Hi Daniel, thanks for your response.
In answer to your query, if what is called God does not have the property of omnipresence, then it is limited. If God is limited then there is also not-God, which is any and all that is outside of God. Presumably, if outside of God is without bound, then that which is greater than God could exist, and a philosophical argument can be made that it must exist, but we can leave that for another day.
The long and the short of it is, if God is limited (i.e. not omnipresent), then God is only scalably different, not infinite. We are scalably different from an ant, but we are not infinitely greater than an ant.
And so the alternatives are: God is omnipresent with the implications outlined previously, or there is no God, (merely a scalably greater and very powerful entity.)
Is that more clear?

Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
For those of you who are questioning why Tony would choose Ben’s comment I don’t think it was because he believed it perfectly interpreted scripture…I think it was because Ben’s comment captured God’s heart in the matter at hand. There is a time and place to scrutinize the scriptures but there is also a time to let stories, poems, illustrations, paintings, music and the sort tell us something about God. Ben’s comment gave me a glimpse at God’s heart and immediately reminded me of Jesus saying that the law was completely wrapped up in loving God and loving others.

EricW: You wrote: “…Hebrew/Old Testament/Torah scholar Richard Elliott Friedman in his Commentary on the Torah says that there is no rhyme or reason for a lot of the laws.” Throwing out a statement like that is not very helpful for me. Could you please at least summarize the main arguments Friedman used?
I may have exaggerated a bit, but in his running Commentary – which is in footnotes to the English translation (Friedman’s own) and Hebrew text side-by-side format of the book – Friedman discusses the text and when there are problems with interpretation, including the dietary laws and other laws. There is no way to “summarize” Friedman’s arguments; you have to read the book and see what he says about the various passages and laws, etc. He has an interesting solution to the problem of how the Tabernacle was constructed per the dimensions given.

Daniel E King,
As I said in the post to which I linked, there are numerous, grave problems with Ben and Tony here, but the grandest error of the Emergent whatever-it-is and the social “gospel” as a whole is a complete screw-up of the biblical doctrine of man. Where is any recognition evidenced of Romans 3-8? Of Ephesians 1-2′s pronouncements of humanity’s lying dead in transgression and sin? Of Isaiah’s denunciation of our good works as dirty, disgusting menstrual cloths in God’s sight?
Why do we need a Savior at all? We don’t. We apparently just need a good moral teacher.
One wonders why Jesus bothered at all – just stay up there in Your heavenly glory, Jesus; we don’t need You. Just send another prophet, or even just a nice, charismatic man who makes cool videos. We promise that THIS time we won’t abuse, scorn, persecute, or murder him! We’re more enlightened in this day and age to be so barbaric!
No, the problem is that we CAN’T treat every other person with love and respect. We sin. We sin against others and against God.
No one is arguing that GLBTQ people should be mistreated.
Perversely, Ben would have us withhold the greatest news and greatest love that a GLBTQ person could ever hear – you may not think you have sinned (or you might), but you have, and you have no hope of eternal life by yourself, but a wonderful and wonderfully loving God has given Himself FOR YOU, to stand in your place, to redeem your whole life and to redeem you for eternity. Walk His road and give up on your own, the one that leads to death.
No, Ben would prefer we blow sunshine in their faces to blind them from their greatest need. These men are serious hindrances to God’s work in the world. I pray they will repent.

Daniel,
Ben brought up what God wanted us to believe by sending us His son (which implies reading and using the Bible to understand what God wants us know). I was just clarifying what the Bible actually teaches about how to get to heaven. That’s the gospel, short and simple. Calling it a “sermon” makes me think that you are trying to mock/degrade it. And if it is a sermon, so be it. What’s wrong with saying what the Bible teaches, if we let the Bible interpret itself and not inject our own beliefs?
There is not a tone of questioning the “many pious, god-fearing men and women” in my post. I’m happy if they don’t share “my theology” but if they are going to quote the Bible as a source of forming their thoughts on salvation, then they (and all of us) should be open for comments/discussion.
The “your name” comment is just trivial. Just an error that was overlooked. Thanks for pointing it out.
I like your shotgun tactic with everyone’s comments, btw.
michael

see? it did it again! i think it has to do with the “refresh” button.