AiG: Because it isn’t lying if you’re doing it to promote Christianity – by Godless Teen

February 2, 2013 in General, Other Blogs

The other day, Answers in Genesis posted yet again about the tragic “sinfulness” of homosexuality. Their article, however, really bugged me- not simply because it was idiotic, but because it was completely hypocritical of what AiG has previously stood for:

..The laws of the Old Testament, sometimes called the Old Covenant or the Law, were made up of over 600 rules and restrictions. If one rule was broken, the person was as guilty as if all were broken (James 2:10). The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:25 that “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (i.e., the Law). The author of Hebrews sums up the issue of the Law, writing, “In speaking of a new covenant, he [Christ] makes the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

The sacrifice of animals and the priesthood were all types and shadows that pointed to Christ. We no longer need animal sacrifices because through His death and Resurrection, He secured an eternal redemption,” something that the blood of animals could never do (Hebrews 9:12). We live in a world where not even one person is without sin (Romans 3:19), so we could never keep the 600+ laws of the Old Covenant perfectly! But Christ came to earth, kept the Law to perfection, died in our place, and was resurrected not only to give us salvation, but also to free us from the Old Covenant and establish a new one—a covenant based on His atoning blood (Luke 22:20).

 

Now, that’s all well and good, but looking at Steve Golden’s article…

There are two verses in Leviticus that clearly condemn homosexual behavior as sinful:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

as well as

…Uncleanness related to pagan idolatry is one of the definitions of tow’ebah; however, it is also used in Scripture to denote something that is morally (ethically) repugnant in God’s sight, such as homosexuality (see, for example, Proverbs 6:16).9

Among other things.

Apparently, AiG believes that they ought to use the law of the Old Testament to justify certain things, but will arbitrarily ignore the rest.

So, having seen this, I went to AiG’s Facebook page and wrote the following:

Um… Excuse me, Mr. Golden? Are you using quotes from the Old Testament? Last I checked, AiG did not support the interpretation of the Old Testament as the dictator of moral law. Here, I’ll even borrow some quotes from Ham’s blog (here’s the link:http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/02/25/what-about-all-those-laws-in-the-old-testament/):

“…The laws of the Old Testament, sometimes called the Old Covenant or the Law, were made up of over 600 rules and restrictions. If one rule was broken, the person was as guilty as if all were broken (James 2:10). The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:25 that “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (i.e., the Law). The author of Hebrews sums up the issue of the Law, writing, “In speaking of a new covenant, he [Christ] makes the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13).

The sacrifice of animals and the priesthood were all types and shadows that pointed to Christ. We no longer need animal sacrifices because through His death and Resurrection, He secured an eternal redemption,” something that the blood of animals could never do (Hebrews 9:12). We live in a world where not even one person is without sin (Romans 3:19), so we could never keep the 600+ laws of the Old Covenant perfectly! But Christ came to earth, kept the Law to perfection, died in our place, and was resurrected not only to give us salvation, but also to free us from the Old Covenant and establish a new one—a covenant based on His atoning blood (Luke 22:20).”

So I must say that I am deeply troubled by this hypocrisy. Citing things from the Old Testament arbitrarily, while dismissing the rest… I find this quite troubling indeed.

Steve Golden (the author of the article) replied.

[Godless Teen], 
The sections on Old Testament laws in my article interpreted the passages as they were intended to be understood, versus the way the Queen James Bible edited them. I did not appeal to the Law as the final authority on the issue of homosexual behavior, and so I stand by Ken’s statement on the applicability of the Law today. The New Testament, however, clearly reaffirms the teaching of the Law on homosexual behavior. Whether or not you choose to appeal to the Law when it comes to morality, you cannot get around the fact that the New Testament considers homosexual behavior to be sinful. 
–Steve Golden

And what- were the parts about having a woman marry her rapist not intended to be understood the way they were written?

I replied once again:

Mr. Golden,
Certainly, I agree that if one like you uses the Bible as a source of moral authority, that the New Testament ought to be valued, as opposed to OT Law. However, I really must ask why, then, it was necessary to bring up any mention of the Law in the first place if it is indeed invalid. Certainly, from an AiG-evangelical standpoint, we cannot use the Law at all, as it is invalid because of the NT. I must admit that, in these regards, I am deeply confused by the use of the Law as moral justification at all in your article.

(Note: I didn’t address certain parts of Golden’s reply. I wasn’t going to let him switch topics; I wanted my original concern addressed.)

Steve Golden never replied.

This just goes to show how dishonest Answers in Genesis will be to their readers. What kind of logic are they trying to use, arbitrarily nitpicking some things from the Old Testament and then dumping the rest?

The last thing that I found interesting was the fact that a homosexual Christian ended up replying to AiG’s post as well. Of course, he was more of a progressive Christian than anything else, so his reply was to tell AiG about how hurtful they were being to people like him. It was quite a nice comment, actually; in spite of what AiG had just written, the person in question kept his cool and brought out his side of the story.

Checking again today, his comment had disappeared off the face of the AiG website.

Coincidence? I think not.

2 responses to AiG: Because it isn’t lying if you’re doing it to promote Christianity – by Godless Teen

  1. Never mind anything else, Lev 20:13 clearly instructs us to kill homosexuals. Why don’t members of AiG carry out this instruction? They are in violation. Of their god’s holy word unless they are actively murdering gays.

    • They might as well cut out individual words from the Bible and paste them into one sentence.

      “Thou… Shalt… Not… Be… Enlightened.”

      The Bible has spoken!

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: