The post-modern academy is the pre-modern academy but more perverse, arguing about how many gay angels can fit on the head of a pin

Seen here, where righteous Lot (2 Peter 2:7) might as well be the inhospitable bad guy and welcoming gay people might as well be the same thing as Abraham welcoming the Trinity at Mamre:

The men of Sodom were not “gay” in even the remotest sense of contemporary LGBT identity if for no other reason than the ancients did not share modern conceptions of sexual orientation. ... as Longman rightly insists, “We should not consider the city of Sodom to be filled with men who have same-sex attraction. Rather, these men want[ed] to humiliate their foreign visitors” through a heinous act of sexual violence. ... The ancient audience of this text would thus have seen the “abominable”/tôʿēbāh sexual acts of the men of Sodom as the culmination of gross inhospitality, not as sexual desire per se, and certainly not as a signifier of any kind of underlying LGBT sexual orientation. ... the sin of Sodom does not pertain to sexual orientation as conceptualized today. The men of Sodom were not sinful for “being gay,” but for attempting to commit an appalling crime—the humiliation of vulnerable foreign guests through an act of sexual violence. Despite the ugly caricature in Jack Chick’s Doom Town, the men of Sodom are emphatically not representative of loving, consensual same-sex couples today.

We're supposed to believe a town full of heterosexual men bent on sodomizing not Lot's daughters but his male guests is a more plausible tale?

Has a greater calumny been invented by the gay mafia against the heterosexual majority than this? Not even the Red Army invading Berlin in 1945 was said to have stooped to such lows, raping every German woman in sight.

The account in Genesis is obviously an etiological tale, invented to explain theologically the historical fact of the destruction of the cities of the plain in approximately 1700 B.C., as a place where predatory "men inflamed with lust for one another" (Romans 1:27) were fried to a crisp by "a Tunguskalike, cosmic airburst event". 

No, no, no, say our experts, defying the ancient theological explanations.

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.  

-- Jude 1:7

We live in an age of delusion where facts exist merely as fodder to be blown to smithereens to please our perverted whims, including the fact of predatory homosexual promiscuity, which has existed proverbially since time immemorial for a reason, because it's real:

A 1978 study reported that 75 percent of male homosexuals had been with 100 or more partners; 28 percent, the largest subcategory, reported more than 1,000 partners; 79 percent said more than half their partners were strangers; and 79 percent said more than half their partners were men with whom they had sex only once. Another survey 16 years later found that while 67.6 percent of men and 75.5 percent of women had only one sex partner in the previous year, only 2.6 percent of men and 1.2 percent of women engaging in same-sex relationships had thus limited themselves. Supporters of homosexuality, and advocates of gay marriage, rarely acknowledge the many partners gays have -- including those living together as couples.

And now a word from a lying Jesuit dog, who obviously isn't one of Jesus' little lambs

"Don't waste what is holy on people who are dogs. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you." -- Matthew 7:6

Then Jesus said to the [Canaanite] woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep—the people of Israel." But she came and worshiped him, pleading again, "Lord, help me!" Jesus responded, "It isn't right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs." -- Matthew 15:24ff.

Jesus told her, "First I should feed the children—my own family, the Jews. It isn't right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs." -- Mark 7:27

Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved. -- Philippians 3:2

It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. They prove the truth of this proverb: "A dog returns to its vomit." And another says, "A washed pig returns to the mud." -- 2 Peter 2:21f.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" -- John 1:29

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: -- John 10:26f.

Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie. -- Revelation 22:15

The one time being a dumb ass was a good thing

 

[Balaam] was rebuked for his own transgression; a dumb ass spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

-- 2 Peter 2:16

Pick Your Poison

Sunday's sermon was based on 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff., but what caught my attention was the Gospel appointed for the day, from Mark 6:1 ff., where Jesus sends out the disciples "by two and two," commanding them to take "nothing for their journey, save a staff only" and to "be shod with sandals."

The parallel in Matthew 10 contradicts these details, where Jesus says "provide . . . neither shoes, nor yet staves . . ." (vss.9-10), whereas Luke fails to mention the staves altogether, but agrees with Matthew about the footwear (10:4).

Neither Mark nor Luke represent the episode in the explicit eschatological terms which thoroughly infuse Matthew's parallel account. Indeed, Matthew transfers much of the eschatological imagery and language which Mark reserves for the yet somewhat distant time of his "little apocalypse" in Mark 13 into a much earlier period of the ministry of Jesus. In Matthew 10:23 Jesus says, "For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." This latter is the startling saying which so preoccupied the imagination of Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus. As such these differences are a reminder of how the author of Matthew is at pains to correct the record of Mark. Luke also does this in his own way and at a later date, and openly states it as his aim in providing his own orderly and accurate account, the existence of other similar declarations of the gospel (presumably Mark and Matthew) notwithstanding (Luke 1:1 ff.). The Synoptics thus represent a stream of tradition worked and reworked because of perceived but unstated deficiencies, the fact of which underscores the importance of the work of redaction criticism and of the need to let the individual compositions speak for themselves and be understood on their own terms as much as is possible.

Every critic will have his favorite problem texts from the Bible. One of mine is from 2 Peter 2:6-8 where the reader is reminded about righteous Lot, who "vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds" in Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus is made to recount this story of Lot's escape from God's judgment on those cities in Luke 17:28 ff. But neither author seems to be in the least bothered by the seamy conclusion of the story in Genesis 19 whereby "both the daughters of Lot" were "with child by their father" (vs. 36). Having lost their husbands (!) to the fire from heaven and being unable to find new ones in their mountain hideaway, they got their father senseless drunk (on successive evenings, at least) to get children by him without his knowledge. The apples don't fall far from the pillar of salt, so to speak. What a family.

And never mind the internal problems with the story in Genesis 19. Are the daughters virgins (vs. 8) even though they have husbands (vs. 14)? Or has some considerable but unstated period of time intervened? Lot at length finds himself in difficult straights, barricaded in his house, but does a righteous man offer to throw his own flesh and blood to a mob of rapists in the street to protect the messengers of God within? It's as if none of this is known, or matters, to the authors of 2 Peter and Luke.

Another wonder is the famous example from Titus 1:12 f., which approvingly quotes the ancient maxim "The Cretans are alway liars." If you need a proof text for stereotyping an ethnic group, there you have it. Some say such reputations were justly deserved, however politically incorrect it may be today to say so openly. But it is hard to imagine the Paul of the Epistle to the Romans saying such a thing: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (12:18).

Some problems are more serious than others, for example, the difficulty with identifying Cyrenius the governor of Syria from Luke 2:1 f. It bears repeating, however, that such problems are not unique to the Bible. Tacitus' understanding of the Jews in his Histories is riddled with mistakes, but we don't give up in despair of learning from him about matters nearer to Rome because of it. It should more often be considered that the weaknesses we discover on the page are more nearly a reflection of our own, and tell us more about the human condition than we care to admit, the theme of the sermon, had I been paying better attention.