Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships?
You may have heard the claim that the Bible, when read correctly, is not against believers entering monogamous, faithful same-sex relationships. The arguments sound quite compelling.” Jesus never talked about same-sex relationships.” “Paul was only condemning exploitative relationships, not consensual ones.” “We don’t keep the Old Testament food laws, so why would we keep the ones on same-sex sex?” “If God is love, he can’t be against relationships of love.” And more. Have Christians through the ages just been getting this one wrong?
In this concise book, Rebecca McLaughlin looks at ten of the most common arguments used to claim that the Bible affirms same-sex sexual relationships. She analyses the arguments and associated Bible passages one by one to uncover what the Bible really says. For Rebecca, as someone with a lifelong history of same-sex attraction, this is not just an academic question. But rather than concluding that the Bible does affirm same-sex marriage, she points readers to the gospel purpose of male-female marriage, a different kind of gospel-centred love between believers of the same sex, and God’s life-and-love-filled vision for singleness.
Carl Trueman on Evacuating the Definition of Marriage
Gay marriage does not simply involve a minor expansion of the traditional concept. There was a time when gay writers such as Andrew Sullivan argued that allowing same-sex marriages would simply permit gay people to be part of a conservative institution. It is now clear that gay marriage did not merely expand the set of those considered to be married, but fundamentally evacuated marriage of meaning — or, more accurately, exposed the fact that it had already been fundamentally evacuated of meaning by the ready acceptance of no-fault divorce. It is no longer a unique relationship whose stability is important for its normative ends, but little more than a sentimental bond that only has to last for as long as it meets the emotional needs of the parties involved.
Patrick T. Brown on Climate Science as Cassandra
To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Dangerous Affirmation
Since 1968, the LGBT movement has made significant inroads into the Christian church. The affirming church movement has become mainstream through the erosion of mainline denominations. Queer theology has taken hold in many academic settings. The emergence of “gay celibate theology” is causing confusion in evangelical churches through its appeal to modern psychology and LGBT-lived experience. How did we get here? What does the Bible say about all of this?
Anika Collier Navaroli on Selective Free Speech
Rep. Stansbury asked what Twitter has done and is doing to combat hate speech on its platform. Navaroli correctly declined to address current policies since she has not been at the company for some time. However, she then said that they balanced free speech against safety and explained that they sought a different approach: “Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.”
Martin Lloyd Jones on Faith as Thinking
Sam Harris and Garry Kasparov on AI and Respect for the Deep Blue team
The Paper Chase
Buster Scruggs on the Hereafter and the Used to Be
John Daniel Davidson on Content Moderation as Censorship
The Twitter Files have revealed or confirmed three important truths about social media and the deep state. First, the entire concept of “content moderation” is a euphemism for censorship by social media companies that falsely claim to be neutral and unbiased. To the extent they exercise a virtual monopoly on public discourse in the digital era, we should stop thinking of them as private companies that can “do whatever they want,” as libertarians are fond of saying. The companies’ content moderation policies are at best a flimsy justification for banning or blocking whatever their executives do not like. At worst, they provide cover for a policy of pervasive government censorship.