An Open Letter to CNN’s Piers Morgan
[Update: An expanded version of this letter, with additional information about how I read the Bible regarding homosexuality, is available on the Huffington Post. (June 5, 2012)]
Dear Mr. Morgan:
I believe you have been promoting bigotry and helping to perpetrate a fraud.
During both of your interviews with Pastor Joel Osteen on your CNN broadcast, you let the religious leader tell your audience that Scripture calls homosexuality a sin. But you didn’t ask him where the Bible says that.
It’s both an important point and an easy one to settle. You could have asked Pastor Osteen for the chapter and verse that he thinks calls homosexuality a sin. What you would have found is that he couldn’t provide it, because Pastor Osteen was expressing his personal opinion, not quoting the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin.
It seems to me that Pastor Osteen, as a religious leader, has a right to believe what he wants and to encourage others to follow. So if he doesn’t accept homosexuality, it’s his prerogative to spread his anti-homosexuality message. But I think it’s dishonest when he pretends that his opinions are those of the Bible.
Similarly, if you don’t like homosexuality, it’s your right to say so on air. But I think it’s irresponsible of you to let a guest tell your audience that something is in the Bible without even asking where.
This glaring omission is all the more surprising in light of your claim to be “challenging.” Why didn’t you challenge Pastor Osteen on this basic factual issue?
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Joel M. Hoffman, PhD
+1.718.834.1080
[email protected]
http://www.Lashon.net
| Copies: | Meghan McPartland, [email protected] |
| Jonathan Wald, [email protected] | |
Leave a reply to Roy Steele (@thespiansfo) Cancel reply
On Sale Everywhere!
My Fiction
| Watch the trailer: | Visit the site: |
 |  |
Joel M. Hoffman, PhD 
I’ve received more than a few e-mail replies asking if I’ve ever read Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13. Of course I have. But the Hebrew in those passages doesn’t say “sin,” as I discuss here: “Who Says Homosexuality is a Sin?“
Actually, the translation of the Hebrew to “abomination” is not accurate. Abomination is a translation of the Greek, and it is incorrect.
It would be very interesting to hear his response. As a Jew, I would also like to know where it is in the bible…..old or new testament. Leah Arujo
So a guest said something that wasn’t challenged by Piers Morgan and all the sudden Mr. Morgan is “promoting bigotry and helping to perpetrate a fraud”. I didn’t realize that Piers Morgan Tonight was the authority of the Christian viewpoint.
I think your vitriol is misplaced.
I understand why you might think so, and I might be inclined to agree, except that this wasn’t just a passing remark. This was a central (and highly promoted) aspect of the interview.
To me, this would be like if Mr. Morgan had a lawyer on his show who said that homosexuality was unconstitutional. I would expect the guest to have to provide at least some evidence, especially if the guest’s claim was that the Constitution was clear on the matter.
More likely, Piers is so secular that he not only didn’t know, he didn’t know enough to question what he heard. He just assumed that the Bible said what Osteen said it said, because he, like so many other people, have heard it said over and over and over to the extent that they take it for fact. I agree, I don’t believe Piers was promoting anything. I think he just dropped the ball.
You might be right. I’m not saying that he necessarily meant to promote bigotry, but even if his was a mistake borne of ignorance, I’d like to see it corrected.
So the hebrew in those passages say “stone to death” but because the word “sin” isn’t in there, that’s what you’re focusing on? Seriously?
Well, it doesn’t say “stone to death,” but that isn’t the point. The point is that there are lots of potential offenses in the Bible, and many of them are specifically called a “sin.” This one isn’t.
Some people assume that the phrase mot yamut only applies to sins, but (a) that’s an interpretation of the Bible, not “what the Bible the says,” and (b) it has its own set of problems. (For example, working on Saturday and cursing ones parents both end up as sins.)
For that matter, the texts in Leviticus only refer to a small subset of what we mean by the English “homosexuality.”
This is a complicated and nuanced issue, with very real ramifications for a lot of people. I think it’s destructive to turn all of that into an inaccurate one-liner, “here’s what the Bible says.”
Actually, the Hebrew doesn’t provide for stoning for same sex activities.
Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to degrading passions, for their females exchanged the natural relations for those contrary to nature, 27 and likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female, were inflamed in their desire toward one another, males with males committing the shameless deed, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was necessary for their error.
Hello,
You realize that Osteen believes in the New Testament also, right? Can you not see how the above describes homosexuality as a sin? When Scripture calls something a “shameless deed” and “error” which receives a necessary “penalty”, how can you defend the claim that that does not classify the act as sin? How is Osteen being dishonest? Because he didn’t “quote” the Bible? Isn’t sin a hypernym of “shameless deeds” necessitating “penalty” – if they are not coextensive – in Bible parlance? The fact that the passage I cite above does not mention sin is irrelevant. The question is whether that concept can be rightly subsumed under what is called sin. Requiring people to go around quoting sections of Scripture in order to get the wording right is silly. If the headline says, “The president of the United States announced his support for gay marriage,” then I can say accurately, “The headline said Obama announced…” Maybe I misunderstood you, but I’m apparently not the only one with this type of objection. Maybe you could explain a little better.
Thank you for your comments, Josh.
I do of course realize that Pastor Osteen is primarily following the NT. In fact, in this regard, I think that Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.’s recent piece, “My Take: The Bible condemns a lot, but here’s why we focus on homosexuality,” on CNN”s Belief blog, is helpful, even though Dr. Mohler and I disagree about almost everything: “As the Book of Acts makes clear,” he writes, “Christians are not obligated to follow [the] holiness code [in Leviticus, including in particular the laws about homosexuality there]. The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament.”
So I understand why you quote Romans, and I don’t disagree that it’s reasonable to interpret that passage as a list of sins.
I also think it’s reasonable to interpret the passage in other ways, for example, as a list of punishments for other sins. The phrase “because of this,” essentially repeated from verse 24, refers back to verses 21-23, which are about not following God’s true ways: Because they didn’t follow God’s ways, here’s what God did to them….
For that matter, Paul specifically says “sin” dozens of times in Romans, but this isn’t one of those times.
So I disagree with your claim that, “Requiring people to go around quoting sections of Scripture in order to get the wording right is silly.” I think people, and especially religious leaders, have an obligation to be clear about when they are quoting the Bible and when they are interpreting it.
I think it’s accurate to say “The Bible says that everyone is under the power of sin” (Romans 3:9). I don’t think it’s accurate to say, “the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.”
More importantly, though, these issues are complicated. All Mr. Morgan had to do was ask the question. But in spite of two prolonged conversations on the topic, he didn’t.
Hi Joel,
I appreciate the thoughtful response. By the way, I agree with the second interpretation you offer with an adjustment. The adjustment being that the punishment is a proclivity for a worse sin. That is why he does not just call it sin there. The situation calls for a description. But I reply, how is your alternative better for the listening homosexuals to say that it’s not technically a sin but that homosexuality is a shameless deed which is a punishment for sins? Wouldn’t just using the phrase “shameless deed” be considered “promoting bigotry” by homosexuals?
Every language has synonymy and uses descriptions. You surely know this. Your opinion seems to be that Biblical language is not allowed this luxury though. You seem to think whenever the Bible uses one word, it is not accurate to use another even though the evidence shows they are synonyms. Likewise, if the Bible uses a phrase which matches what we perceive to be a description of another word, it is inaccurate to use that word in place of the description – unless you mark it as an interpretation. But, it should go without saying that you are referring to an interpretation, because the translators had to interpret the Bible to get it into your language. Right? There is also polysemy, right? Just because the same lexical item appears twice doesn’t mean both will get the same English word or phrase. Thus any time you quote the Bible you are interpreting it, and you are at risk of being inaccurate since there is no perfect translation.
But I reply, how is your alternative better for the listening homosexuals to say that it’s not technically a sin but that homosexuality is a shameless deed which is a punishment for sins?
Josh,
It may not be better. I don’t know. That isn’t my point here.
Rather, my point is that “sin” is a word that’s laden with significance.
In my mind, a parallel case would be “illegal” in modern terms. For example, I just learned that it’s not illegal to curse at the police. I happen to like the police, and I think that they’re entitled to respect. So if one of my students asked if it was okay to curse at the police, I would certainly answer “no.” But even so, I think it would be a mistake for me to lie and say that it’s illegal. I think it would be worse if a judge told people that it was illegal. And if that judge were on a nationally televised talk show, I would expect the interviewer to ask for some evidence from a guest who said that it was illegal.
Similarly, I think it does everyone a disservice when a high-profile pastor like Joel Osteen tells people (wrongly) that “the Bible calls homosexuality a sin,” and I think that Piers Morgan should have called him on it. Or, at the very least, let Mr. Morgan set the record straight now.
Thus any time you quote the Bible you are interpreting it, and you are at risk of being inaccurate since there is no perfect translation.
Yes and no. Just because there’s no perfect translation doesn’t mean that every translation is equal. Some are still better than others. My professional opinion is that “sin” is obviously wrong here. It’s just a mistake. And unlike some other cases of Bible translation, the evidence is pretty clear, which is why — to best of my knowledge — all but one of the major Bible translations avoid the word “sin” in these contexts. In other words, you don’t have to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek to see that the Bible doesn’t call homosexuality a sin. You can see the same thing in English.
To put things another way: as a translator, I would have no problem with Pastor Osteen saying that in some places the Bible seems to frown on certain homosexual acts. Of course it does. And I would have no problem with him saying that the religious position of his church is that homosexuality is a sin. He’s the pastor, and he gets to decide religious doctrine.
But he doesn’t get to decide what the Bible says.
My apologies if this is taking things off-topic, but since you mention Mohler’s article on Acts re: homosexuality, you might be interested to read Fred Clark (aka “Slacktivist”) on this passage, which he’s been commenting on a fair bit recently. Here’s a single example that gets to the point rather well: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/05/21/al-mohler-says-the-apostle-peter-was-wrong-and-thats-why-evangelicals-should-focus-on-homosexuality/
The long and the short of it is that the Acts passage in question is less about dietary restrictions than it is about people, and that Peter actually verbalizes this interpretation of his dream to make it clear for the rest of us. Yet Mohler (and others) consistently seem to ignore that part.
Thank you, Mark.
It is a little off-topic, inasmuch as my point here isn’t to debate the entire issue (though it looks like that’s on its way!), but it’s also on-topic, in that it highlights, again, that the issue is vastly more complicated than “Scripture says homosexuality is a sin.”
And since you bring it up, I want to be clear: I also think that Dr. Mohler is wrong. But he’s not ignorant. He recognizes that he can’t simply quote Leviticus and be done with it, because he doesn’t follow all of Leviticus.
I wish Piers Morgan would use his time and considerable influence to present the complexity of the issue and the reasoning behind the various positions, rather than to promote bigotry though ignorance.
There is no biblical prohibition against lesbianism ANYWHERE in Bible.
There is no biblical prohibition against [other male homosexual acts].
There is only one prohibition that addresses anything having to do with homosexuality in the Bible, Leviticus 18:22, and that prohibition is that a man should not lie with another man as he “would with a woman.”
[…]
But even that prohibition is questionable, especially in light of the obvious homosexual relationship expressed as between David, son of Jesse, before he became King of Israel and his close and beloved friend, Jonathon. The reason the reference to not lying with a man as one would with a woman is the fact that that particular prohibition is in the priestly book of Torah, i.e., Leviticus, a book written for and by priests. My view is that this is a priestly prohibition that does not apply to anyone but priests. It would also be an admonition against sexually taking of captives after a war, which was in common practice at the time the Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah, was written.
Having said all of the foregoing, I challenge you to challenge Joel Osteen or any other homophobic minister who claims that the Bible condemns homosexuality to prove it. If and when you do, you will discover that they cannot prove it, because such a biblical condemnation does not exist anywhere in the Bible. Period.
Sorry, Piers, but you dropped the ball.
Here’s a better question: Why should I care what desert dwelling nomads from 2000 years ago thought was correct? If you go by the bible these are just a few of the things that you should be worried about (courtesy of my friends at Reddit):
1 Corinthians 11:14 (Men should not have long hair), 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Women should remain silent in church), Deuteronomy 13:6-16 (Death penalty for Apostasy), Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (Attack city, kill all men, keep women, children as spoils of war), Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (Death penalty for a rebellious son), Deuteronomy 22:19-25 (Kill non-virgin/kill adulterers/rapists), Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (Pay virgin’s parents for raping her), Ecclesiastes 1:18 (Knowledge is bad), Exodus 21:1-7 (Rules for buying slaves), Exodus 35:2 (Death for working on the Sabbath), Ezekiel 9:5-6 (Murder women/children), Galatians 5:2-4 (If you are circumcised, Christ has nothing for you), Genesis 3:16 (Man shall rule over woman), Jeremiah 19:9 (Cannibalism), John 3:18 (He who believes in Jesus is saved, he that doesn’t is condemned), Leviticus 19:19 (No mixed fabrics in clothing), Leviticus 19:27 (Don’t trim hair or beard), Leviticus 19:28 (No tattoos), Leviticus 20:9 (Death for cursing father or mother), Leviticus 20:10 (Death for adultery), Leviticus 20:13 (Death for gay men), Leviticus 20:15 (Death for bestiality), Leviticus 20:18 (No sex with a woman on her period), Leviticus 21:17-23 (Ugly people, lame, dwarfs, not welcome on altar), Leviticus 25:45 (Strangers can be bought as slaves), Luke 12:33 (Sell your possessions, and give to the poor), Luke 14:26 (You must hate your family and yourself to follow Jesus), Mark 10:11-12 (Leaving your spouse for another is adultery), Mark 10:21-22 (Sell your possessions and give to the poor), Mark 10:24-25 (Next to impossible for rich to get into heaven), Mark 16:15-16 (Those who hear the gospel and don’t believe go to hell), Matthew 5:17-19 (Jesus says he has come to enforce the laws of the Old Testament), Matthew 6:5-6 (Pray in secret), Matthew 6:18 (Fast for Lent in secret), Matthew 9:12 (The healthy don’t need a doctor, the sick do), Matthew 10:34-37 (Jesus comes with sword, turns families against each other, those that love family more than him are not worthy), Matthew 12:30 (If you’re not with Jesus, you’re against him), Matthew 15:4 (Death for not honouring your father and mother), Numbers 14:18 (Following generations blamed for the sins of previous ones), Psalms 137:9 (Violence against children), Revelation 21:8 (Unbelievers, among others, go to hell), 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (Women subordinate and must remain silent), 1 Timothy 5:8 (If you don’t provide for your family, you are an infidel), Zechariah 14:2 (Women ravished when city is taken in battle)
The bible is such a great moral compass!
Obviously, people are free to care or not. But equally obviously, a lot of people do care, which is why I think it’s so important to get it right.
Oh, Come on. Maybe if you obfuscate the issue a little more, up will be down and down will be up.
What I expected when I read the title of the article was a thoughtful article on how the Torah, and by extension Judaism, doesn’t condemn the sinner, per se, but rather the sin. What I got was an absurd reconstruction of a technical distinction of a Torah verse in order to use it to justify your position (and an excuse to label people bigots, who think that the act of homosexuality is immoral).
Yes, you are technically correct. Homosexuality is not labeled a “sin,” that is, if you meant the translation usually reserved for “Hatath” in the Torah. Of course, then again, off the top of my head, I don’t think murder is labeled a sin in that sense either. Hatath, or sin, caries the meaning of a mistake. It is a archery term meaning “to miss the mark.” In that sense, most of the really immoral acts in he Torah are not labeled, “sins.” I don’t know what the Christian meant when he called homosexuality a “sin.” I would assume that in the modern sense, that it is something immoral.
Let’s be perfectly clear. The Torah forbids male homosexual activity (female homosexual activity is forbidden by an enactment of the sages). By inference it is compared with bestiality (the next verse). It calls them both a To’avah, which is one of the strongest negative labels in the entire Tanakh, reserved for the most despicable of practices (like passing one’s son through the fire of MoloH, etc.).
If you don’t accept the Torah as the source of your morality, that’s one thing (however, it does seem a bit hypocritical then to place them in a place of honor in your temples), but be honest about it. To shout that the Torah doesn’t label homosexuality a “sin,” lends the impression that you think the Torah permits such activity.
Dov,
Thank you for your comments.
I understand why you think that “by inference [male homosexuality] is compared with bestiality” in the next verse. Your assumption that two adjacent verses are connected thematically is, of course, not new.
Equally, though, it’s only one way of reading the text, and when you write that I am “technically correct” and that your result only comes “by inference” I think you are agreeing with me. Leviticus can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, but it doesn’t call homosexuality a sin.
And that is my point. The leap to connecting homosexuality to sin a matter of selective interpretation, not a matter of what “the Bible says.” This is true even if you are right that the “Torah forbids male homosexual activity,” because, obviously, “homosexuality” is much broader than “male homosexual activity.”
I also feel compelled to respond to what I perceive as an attack in your last paragraph: “If you don’t accept the Torah as the source of your morality, that’s one thing (however, it does seem a bit hypocritical then to place them in a place of honor in your temples).” I think people can accept the Torah as the source of morality without agreeing with your interpretation of it.
Joel,
Thank you for your response. First, I did not intend the comment as a personal attack. Nor do I believe that people must accept “my” interpretation of the Torah to accept it as the source for morality. Nor do I feel that even if people “sin” (who doesn’t sin?) or violate some of the precepts because they feel that they are unable (for whatever reason) to fulfill them that that disqualifies them from recognizing that the Torah is the source of morality. What I have difficulty with is using the Torah to try and justify one’s already preconceived position – drawing the target after the arrows were already fired, and “suggesting” that the Torah doesn’t forbid something through fancy hermeneutics. A brilliant scholar can purify the sherets (impure animal) 156 ways, but in the end of the day, it’s still a sherets. The simple truth is the Torah forbids male homosexuality. It calls it an abomination. If the Torah is the source of morality, then a homosexual union (along with the many other mentioned unions in that section) is immoral. To suggest otherwise seems to me to be intellectually dishonest, not to mention unfair to people struggling with the issues.
.
It sounds like we agree on this, too.
I think Leviticus is very clear on its stance regarding male homosexual behavior. (By contrast, I know that there is a school of thought that explains “as with a woman” in Leviticus as meaning that the passages only addressed male homosexuality that was exactly the same as heterosexual sex. I don’t agree.)
Nonetheless, I also think that it’s a matter of interpretation to leap from the two passages in Leviticus (and the passages in the NT) to claiming that “the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.”
As I’ve explained before (“The Bible Says So” and Other Stupid Arguments), everyone filters the Bible as they read and understand it, so I think that religious leaders do have the right to reject homosexuality completely. My point is that when they do, they are advocating their own agenda, not reporting what the Bible says.
Similar is your claim that according to the Torah “a homosexual union […] is immoral” (by which I suppose you mean only male homosexual unions. The Torah doesn’t address what two women do.) It’s a matter of your choosing to highlight an interpretation of Leviticus over Genesis 2:18 — a topic that deserves its own full discussion.
Joel,
You’re right. It’s not “good” that man should be alone. Alas, though, there are particular unions that are forbidden. That one shouldn’t be alone doesn’t override that (that’s not interpretation, but the simple reading and basic logic, otherwise there wouldn’t be any forbidden unions, only “preferred” and discouraged). The question that you keep avoiding, and it may be my fault for not phrasing it simply is: In your view, does the Torah find the sexual union of two men to be immoral (and for clarity’s sake I will define immoral as being against its mores/rules/etc., i.e., forbidden?
In your view, does the Torah find the sexual union of two men to be immoral (and for clarity’s sake I will define immoral as being against its mores/rules/etc., i.e., forbidden?
This isn’t really relevant, because I wrote the letter to Mr. Morgan to urge him to confront the complexity of the issue, not to press for any particular final solution.
Still, since you ask, my answer is no, I do not think that “The Torah find[s] the sexual union of two men to be immoral,” even though Leviticus seems to point in that direction.
Mostly, I think that Genesis 2:18 trumps Leviticus. I think that we have information now that forces us to reevaluate Leviticus, namely, the fact that some men can only be with other men (and some women only with other women). This creates a conflict between Genesis and Leviticus that wasn’t always evident. Whereas people may once have thought that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 served as a way to prevent people from being alone, it now turns out that those passages do just the opposite: they force people to be alone. So at the very least, the Torah is ambiguous.
And I’m not even sure that Leviticus speaks to the (im)morality of male homosexual behavior, because I’m not convinced that to’evah reflects morality. The word is also used in Genesis 43:32 to describe how the Egyptians feel about eating with the Hebrews, where it doesn’t seem to be a matter of morality but rather norms of behavior, perhaps similar to a “taboo,” perhaps something as mild as social dress codes.
I’ve received feedback along the lines of “what’s the big deal whether Leviticus says ‘sin’ or ‘abomination’?” or “Isn’t an abomination by definition a sin?”
My answer is twofold.
First, words matter. I believe that when people quote something — whether the Bible or anything else — they have a responsibility to quote what it actually says, not what they wish it said. In this case, all Mr. Morgan had to do was ask Pastor Osteen “where does it say that?” Then his viewers could decide if they thought it was about sin or not.
Secondly, passages like Genesis 43:32 (“the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is a to’evah to the Egyptians” [NRSV]) lead me think that to’evah doesn’t mean “abomination.”
So I don’t think that Leviticus is about an “abomination,” and even if I did, anyone who says that it talks about “sin” is, I believe, misquoting the text.
Dr. Hoffman and his interpretation of scripture is spot on. The Bible doesn’t utter one word about marriage equality, nor does it condemn homosexuality or heterosexuality as a sin. If you interpret Leviticus as it was written, considering the time and place, and vernacular, you will find that the “homosexual act” is condemned under a very specific set of circumstances. Of course critical thinking requires a certain amount of intelligence that is not available to everyone who reads the Bible.
I think the Piers Morgan “complaint” is a little disingenuous and unfair. The entire press corp is guilty of the same thing. I wrote a nice blog post in reply to Dr. Hoffman’s charge. You can find it by clicking the link.
http://www.jiveinthe415.com/2012/05/bible-scholar-accuses-piers-morgan-of.html
I also wrote recently about this very same issue related to the Southern Baptist Convention and their leader. You can read about it here.
http://www.jiveinthe415.com/2012/05/baptist-blasphemy-pastor-bryant-wright.html
If anyone is interested in actually working on this problem, feel free to contact me.
Roy
Roy,
Than you for your comments, and for the links to what you’ve written.
I think the Piers Morgan “complaint” is a little disingenuous and unfair. The entire press corp is guilty of the same thing.
Maybe, but Mr. Morgan is the one who had Pastor Osteen on his show twice, and he’s the one who specifically probed the issue of homosexuality, on national TV, without challenging his guest. Others may be guilty, too, but I don’t think that absolves Mr. Morgan.
Piers Morgan isn’t homophobic, and is actually very supportive of the LGBT community, though I understand your point of view completely. I might not agree on this one, but in general I support your point of view and have been crowing about it for quite some time.
Joel Osteen isn’t the first guest who Piers Morgan hasn’t challenged on statements related to scripture, as Kirk Cameron made some very controversial remarks on his show that went unchallenged – and were much more inflammatory.
We can take almost every individual on Fox news and charge them with the same thing. Start with the political Preacher – Mike Huckabee, and then look at what their “consultant” Keith Ablow, MD has said. I love MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, and he has Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council on all the time, as well as the blow hard from the Catholic League (I dare not say his name as I get too much hate mail when I do).
I put this video together to refute the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, but no one watches it. He claims that LGBT people are like Nazi’s, and that anyone who is LGBT is sinful.
I’m an ally and would love to work with you on this issue, as it’s huge. Check out my blog when you can.
http://www.jiveinthe415.com/
Roy wrote: “Piers Morgan isn’t homophobic…”
I’d like to think he just made a mistake when he (twice) let his show be used to spread inaccurate and hateful claims. But then why won’t he make amends?
If I made that kind of a mistake in front of a national audience, I’d do something to make up for it.
I don’t know the man, and I don’t want to try to guess his motives, but the longer he ignores this, it seems to me, the worse it looks.
I guess you’re not going to hear from Piers. Too bad. Another thing one hears all the time is that Jesus died for my sins. Where is that in his own words? He gave his LIFE as a ransom in Mark 10:45, but that is the very opposite of giving his DEATH.
No. I haven’t heard from Mr. Morgan. I’m not entirely surprised, but it’s a shame.
Regarding the translation “abomination,” I’ve started addressing what the Hebrew really means here: “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (Or: Why Couldn’t the Egyptians Eat with the Hebrews?).”
“The Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin.” So you write in your letter to Mr. Morgan above.
What is true is that the Bible does not use the term homosexual at all. BUT what is said in the Bible?
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The meaning of the word abomination is “disgusting.” http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8441&t=KJV
So God calls men having sex with men a disgusting act which warrants their execution.
You may choose to defy God and His Word, but you should expect consequences for your defiance.
The Bible is not the Word of God, lambkin. The Holy Spirit is. John 1:1.
Lamsev:
You seem to have been misinformed about the Hebrew of Lev 18:22 and 20:13. I have a full explanation here: “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (Or: Why Couldn’t the Egyptians Eat with the Hebrews?).”
More generally, my point is not just that the Bible only addresses certain aspects of homosexuality, but, more importantly, it doesn’t call those aspects a sin. (Take a look at my expanded letter in the Huffington Post for the details.)
Some people may not care about the difference between behavior that is sinful and behavior that’s not — and that’s fine, of course — but Ii think that those who do care will want to know that the “sin” label doesn’t come from the Bible.
My objection is to religious leaders who lie to people who care about sin, wrongly telling them that Scripture puts homosexuality in that category. And I have equally little patience for people like Mr. Morgan who, pretending to be objective, provide a platform for spreading misinformation.
Do you have equally little patience for all the preachers who every Sunday tell their congregations that Jesus is Lord? How can that be when he himself said that his ministry was limited in time (John 9:4-5, Codex Sinaiticus, 17:11) and place (John 6:40, 14:7)?