Critiquing: Are Homosexuals Harder to Reach with the Gospel?

April 13, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Homosexuals and the Gospel — Old vs. New Testament God — Levitical Laws — Covenant Changes — Sexual Sin

---

Introduction

The content discusses the question of whether homosexuals are harder to reach with the gospel, addressing various theological points, including differences between the Old and New Testament representations of God, the severity of divine judgment, and interpretations of biblical passages.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

Old vs. New Testament God

The content begins by addressing a common perception that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament. The speakers argue that it is the same God who operates under different covenants:

“It’s interesting the way the question is put…if you say it the second way, you’re acknowledging that it’s the same God in both testaments, God is still God.”

This point attempts to reconcile the perceived difference by emphasizing continuity in divine nature. However, the explanation lacks logical coherence as it does not fully address why the same God would change the mode of interaction so drastically. The assertion that the severe judgments in the Old Testament were necessary to communicate God’s character lacks substantiation:

“Yes, God did act severely in the Hebrew Scriptures because he’s communicating something about his character and about the importance of obedience.”

This statement does not provide sufficient evidence or logical reasoning to support why severe actions were the chosen method for such communication, leaving a gap in the argument.

Divine Judgment and Grace

The content tries to reconcile the severity of Old Testament judgments with the notion of a merciful God by suggesting that the ultimate judgment in the New Testament is harsher:

“In a certain sense, the judgment of the God of the New Testament is much more severe than the judgment of the so-called God of the Old Testament.”

This comparison lacks coherence as it conflates immediate physical punishment with eternal spiritual consequences without addressing the ethical implications of such severe punishment in both contexts.

Homosexuality and Reprobate Mind

A significant portion of the content focuses on Romans 1:26–28, interpreting it to suggest that homosexuality is a sign of a reprobate mind but not exclusively so:

“Homosexuality is just one sin that’s mentioned in Romans 1…using them as an example of a rebellion against God’s provision.”

The content acknowledges that homosexuality is not unique in leading to a reprobate mind but uses it as an archetype. This interpretation can be seen as biased, emphasizing sexual sins disproportionately compared to others listed in the same passage, such as greed or deceit.

Unsubstantiated Claims and Obligations

Several claims made in the content are unsubstantiated and dubious. For instance, the idea that severe Old Testament judgments were necessary to reveal God’s character is asserted without evidence. Similarly, the assertion that homosexuality is an archetype of rebellion is presented without adequate support:

“Notice the wording here in verse 27…men were made to function with women sexually.”

The interpretation of the word “function” is subjective and lacks scholarly consensus. The obligation to substantiate such claims is crucial, especially when discussing topics with significant social and ethical implications.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

Confirmation Bias

The content exhibits confirmation bias by interpreting biblical passages to support preconceived notions about divine judgment and sexuality. The selective emphasis on certain sins over others reveals an underlying bias:

“And then right after that, he says they did not do the things that were proper. Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander…”

This selective emphasis on sexual sins while downplaying others listed in the same passage reflects a biased interpretation.

Straw Man Fallacy

A straw man fallacy is present when discussing the perception of the Old and New Testament gods as different. The content simplifies the argument to suggest that people think they are two entirely different gods, rather than addressing the nuanced criticism that the nature of God appears inconsistent across the testaments:

“Are you suggesting that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God as the God of the New Testament?”

This oversimplification diverts from addressing the actual concern about the consistency of divine nature.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

The degree of belief should correlate with the degree of available evidence. The content often asserts strong beliefs without corresponding evidence. For instance, the claim that severe judgments were necessary lacks empirical support:

“So, God says, ‘I’m gonna bring this Assyrians against you.’ And then the Syrians come and defeat them.”

Assertions like this require more robust evidence to justify the degree of belief expressed.

Testing Alleged Promises

The content could benefit from discussing methods to test the promises of God, which would provide a more empirical approach to faith claims. For example, claims about divine judgment and mercy could be examined through historical and textual analysis to assess consistency and reliability.

Conclusion

The content attempts to address theological questions but often lacks logical coherence and substantiation for its claims. It exhibits cognitive biases and logical fallacies, which undermine the arguments presented. A more rigorous approach, emphasizing evidence and avoiding biased interpretations, would enhance the logical coherence of the discussion.

---

I welcome further discussion on these arguments in the comments section.