Christians and Homosexuality: Dangers of Ex-Gay Testimonies

Author’s note: I have already written another article on this subject, but due to ambiguities in the language, it appeared as though I were suggesting that homosexuality was a choice. This was not my intent. For this reason, I have removed the previous article in favor of this one, which is far more clear in its intent and focused in its relevancy to the blog. Deepest condolences to anyone offended by the previous statements.

Ex-gay and ex-lesbian claims should give cause for skepticism. As I already highlighted in my previous discussion of Focus on the Family, there are a lot of myths/lies circulating about homosexuals because of conservative family values organizations. It seems to be the common evangelical tactic to cherry-pick studies to support a dubious claim about sexuality; let the real scientists do the work, and then pretend to have come to a conclusion by misusing their research.

With a critical eye, then, I turn to the story of Dr. Rosaria Butterfield, a self-proclaimed ex-lesbian. The reason it should even register on the radar of this blog is because many will jump behind her in support without thinking about what’s really happening. If we are going to be discerning, as this blog’s title might suggest we should, then we should step back and try to examine the whole issue.

If you read Dr. Butterfield’s article in Christianity Today, there are a number of things which should jump out at you. First, notice all of the stereotypes which she uses to characterize herself and validate her story to other Christians. She highlights everything which is only stereotypically lesbian, all the way down to her “butch” haircut. She’s an atheist who hated Christians, a feminist professor of English and women’s studies, and so on. None of these things, save perhaps her atheism (but even then perhaps not), sets her apart from Christ. Their only purpose seems to be to play to common preconceptions, but they do nothing to add any actual value to her story.

These are the sorts of things which we should watch for in evangelistic testimonies. We should remember the story of famous Christian evangelist and former Muslim Ergun Caner. He claimed to have witnessed severe oppression of Christians in the Middle East, using horrible — but common — stereotypes to lend credence to his story. Well, he never even grew up there at all. I actually saw Ergun speak at least once while growing up, and if I’m honest, I think I might have actually bought into his story. His tactic was similar: play to the stereotypes people have of Muslims to paint a convincing picture. People bought into it for a long time until he started sharing conflicting details.

In the same way, much of Dr. Butterfield’s story does nothing but cater to irrational fears and stereotypes. They try to convince the reader of her authenticity. Honestly, why would she need to mention her “butch” haircut? There are plenty of straight women who have haircuts that don’t cater to societal standards of long, flowing hair which they should brush daily and wash with expensive shampoo. My fiancee has short hair, and I find her beautiful. The comment about the hair, the appeal to fears of feminism and English professors, and so forth are strange signs, and they indicate that Dr. Butterfield is trying to sell you, not tell you, her story. It’s a sales pitch, and sadly it’s one that works well if you’re already looking to buy.

She might even be trying to sell her story to herself as much as to everyone else. First, she admits her conversion to Christianity has not erased her homosexual tendencies, “still shiny and like a knife,” encroaching on her heart. Her “identity” is in Christ, but part of her identity still prefers women, though it is true that female sexuality is more fluid than a male’s. Secondly, the claims she makes in her article, such as that there is no “both/and” in Christianity, leads me to believe that she is only submitting out of fear of what she calls “the other side of the equals sign” — what should happen if she remained homosexual.

There are lots of theological considerations, especially about the Reformed tradition in which she participates (I might cover this later), but I am a philosopher, and I want to stick to my discipline. Regardless of what the ancient people may have thought about homosexuals, the fact is that the Biblical writers could not have written outside the bounds of their culture’s knowledge. Only in the 20th century have we even come to consider that sexual orientation could be part of one’s identity rather than a choice, and therefore it is literally impossible that the Bible could have captured that reality. The language did not have the power to talk about biological/inherent homosexuality. In the minds of the Biblical writers, it could only have existed as a cultural aberration.

My caution to any Christians reading this is that they not rush to judgment and proclaim — as a result of Dr. Butterfield’s “conversion” — that homosexuals are sinners in need of a cure in Jesus. I have never met a single homosexual who felt that they had a choice in the matter, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the claim, either. When dealing with any written language, especially that of an ancient text like the Bible, we should not presume that our modern sensibilities, like scientific knowledge, carried all the way back indefinitely into the past. New discoveries will empower us to use the same words in new ways and to be more careful about what we mean.

I believe very strongly that Dr. Butterfield could be (or perhaps I should say is) both a Christian and a homosexual. It is truly sad that she threw away her old friends, family, and way of life simply because she felt judged by a text and a culture that could not possibly speak to her situation. I wouldn’t want her to leave her new family, but I believe strongly that we should disregard her testimony as dangerous and misleading — both about the Bible and the nature of homosexuality.


About Chris Attaway

Raised in the digital wilderness of the pre-Internet 2.0 era, Chris Attaway is a true gamer and Internet citizen. After a stint studying computer science, his life got flipped turned upside down, and he ended up studying philosophy to help him sort out his life. Now the black sheep in a family of engineers, he has set out to get his footing in the world of freelance journalism. With interests ranging from gaming and technology to LGBT rights, race and politics, Chris is a diverse and skilled writer who always tries to give a fair shake to his subjects.
This entry was posted in Christian Culture Issues, Ethics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Christians and Homosexuality: Dangers of Ex-Gay Testimonies

  1. shon says:

    Hello, I am inclined to disagree with you on many points in your article. The main thing is how you try to reconcile homosexuality and the Bible. In order to believe in the Bible you typically need to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefore has to be accurate. When you start suggesting that it is wrong about some things you are saying the opposite of that and your only method of deciding what is true is what you like better. There is very little reason at all to believe any of it because it can all be wrong. It sounds more as if you are trying to remain a Christian despite not liking some things in the Bible so you are just trying to find an excuse to rule out those things.

    You need to be asking what you believe the purpose of marriage is and if desiring to have sex with the other person vital to it. Is sex another method of showing affection or affection is and of itself.

    • This is the usual slippery slope argument: if some of it can be wrong, then what about the rest of it? If this uncertainty really invalidates reading the Bible, then you can’t read anything else, either. It could all be wrong, too.

      I believed as you did for a very long time, but the Bible is not as simple as many would like to have it. You end up having to make endless qualifications in order to salvage the position. On the other hand, realizing that the Bible is the result of various cultures all grappling with God, you realize that the limits of culture and language apply to the Bible just as much as they do to anything else.

      • shon says:

        Why do you believe some sections of the Bible and not others? And the Bible in general?

      • It is evident, even with some of the questionable if not outright objectionable material in certain portions of the Bible, that the authors were grappling with something real. The Christian perspective, especially the teachings of Christ, make sense of the world. Furthermore, God has carried me through some really difficult things and proven Himself faithful in many ways.

        I don’t have everything figured out, but it’s not my objective to give everyone all the right answers, anyway. Instead, I’m trying to encourage Christians to be more cautious and to exercise better judgment than Christian culture naturally engenders.

      • shon says:

        Can you explain what you believe the purpose of marriage is and what you believe the purpose of sex is and is it vital for marriage and why? I apologize if I am asking too many questions.

      • Questions and disagreements are fine and even encouraged. Marriage is for the cultural regulation of sex and procreation, and sex increases intimacy between a couple while also creating children. I would say more, but I’m a little rushed.

      • shon says:

        Is sex vital though and can marriage survive without having it?

      • David says:

        “Marriage is for the cultural regulation of sex”? That’s not what Genesis and Song of Solomon would imply.

      • shon says:

        You have chosen to change the Bible rather than let it change you to be what you want it to be. You have even chose to rule out things recorded as being said by God, the Bible has zero credibility as a result if not even records of God’s word can be trusted.

      • This is the slippery slope argument against treating the Bible as something other than God’s word. I may cover this in a later post, but I would argue that you don’t have problems reading other books, so why this one? Anyhow, you should read my post on Sola Scriptura vs. historical criticism.

    • Sex is pretty vital, I would argue, and I don’t think a sexless marriage is a healthy marriage. I’m not sure where you’re going with this, though. Would you care to elaborate?

      • shon says:

        Mostly trying to get a better understanding of your views on things. I am inclined to disagree with you on the necessity of sex. That is not to say it is not a good thing but not a vital thing, if it were older couples would not be married much longer. I regard it as a means of showing affection, but if it were the only means many couples would not work older or handicap people for example.

      • This will conjure weird images, but I’m pretty sure all the old people and handicapped people (and old, handicapped people) are figuring out ways to have sex.

      • shon says:

        I am inclined to disagree with you. Although it is still possible for some of them many it is not. By saying that a marriage is unhealthy without sex makes those who cannot or no longer can have sex, marriages bad ones.

      • Fair enough, but I would still argue that it’s not ideal… which is sort of a tautology, because anything which physically prohibits sex is not ideal of its own right.

      • shon says:

        Is it beyond you to think there is something deeper to marriage than sex? You are arguing that becoming and no longer being able to have sex means their marriage is longer ideal. Sex is a nice thing to have but is nothing more than a surface value of a person like appearance.
        “Beauty and the Beast” was a nice film in that it helped show that appearance is not important for two people to be together (the Beast of course being an analogy for an ugly person). Yet they found much in each other, yet Belle likely felt not sexual attraction to the beast either. Society has gone from thinking that judging by appearances is not important into thinking that if you are not attracted to someone sexually that there is nothing in that relationship regardless of all the other things between them. This likely partly accounts for why gays have such high divorce rates, they have made a surface value a vital thing and if the sex gets boring, they think the relationship itself has as well. This idea has also very much infected regular marriage; a means of showing affection has become affection in and of itself, as a result is partly the basis of whom you will marry is whom you would rather have it with. Something much deeper in such a relationship is lost that is not yet another surface value.

      • I think you have a very strange concept of sex, as though it is “just” a physical thing, a surface occurrence. Do you have a spouse? I think most married people that it is less than ideal when they are not able to have sex — either for physical reasons or otherwise.

      • davidpmathew says:

        Chris, what you said about sex being much more is true. But that actually lines up more with a traditional view of marriage. You could say that the Bible has a very high view of sex, rather than a low one. It is so high, the God places strict restrictions on it so it is not misused. A hammer is a powerful thing. But when it is misused it can cause a lot of damage. We see from Joseph’s story that sexual sin is against God first. There’s no use debating the pros and cons of homosexual sex to us. The point is, what is it to God? We can always find ways to justify our behavior. God has clearly set certain parameters for which to use the gift he gave us to fully express what it means to be male and female in an intimate, unending relationship and fulfill his command to procreate.

      • I certainly appreciate the “high view” of sex, so to speak, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that the marriage tradition has been static over the course of history. Marriage exists in part to regulate sex and child-rearing, but the marriage tradition itself is not spiritual, and thus it bends to the needs and norms of the society. Unless you want to marry off our 14 y/o daughters to people they barely know, I don’t think you want to abide by the marriage traditions that existed in the Bible.

      • davidpmathew says:

        That’s kind of a specious argument. Your view represented a very Western bias against arranged marriage and young marriage. My grandparents were married through an arranged marriage and most Westerners do not understand the cultural context. If you really value “non-traditional” marriage, I would expect you to be more open to different cultural perceptions of it. Apparently, even you put a limit on the definition of marriage. So what standard can we use when one person say, “I say marriage is this” and another says, “I say marriage is that”? That’s the question you need to be asking.

        Also, you should know that what I meant by “traditional” is one man and one woman. You conveniently use the term to mean something other than what I was saying so you can knock it down. A straw man.

      • The “one man, one woman” argument seems strange when there were provisions for taking concubines in the Law. Polyamory is certainly traditional and well supported by the Old Testament. I realize that is still in the realm of heterosexuality, but if you want better theological answers, ask a theologian. Reddit’s OpenChristian subreddit might be of use.

      • David says:

        Polygamy is not promoted or condoned by the OT. There was nothing in the law about taking more than one wife or concubines. If fact, every case of polygamy in the OT led to negative consequences. Genesis 1 and 2 sets God’s standard for marriage. The rest of the Bible must be viewed in context of that. Polygamy in Genesis is always portrayed negatively, from Lamech (a representative of the evil of Cain’s descendents) onward.

        Also, you need to understand the genre of literature the Bible was written in. The examples of polygamy are in the historical books. The historical books are presented as history. They’re recorded not because they’re promoting any characters as heroes we should emulate, but because that’s what happened. The only hero of the OT is God. Everyone else is presented as a messed up person, whom God used anyway. It’s history, not Aesop’s Fables. They’re not books of morality that provide us examples to follow. They’re the story of God’s covenant with Israel.

        If the OT really promoted polygamy, why then did it disappear after the exile? Remember that after the exile, Israel stopped commonly practicing the sins for which God exiled them in the first place. Among those sins, apparently was polygamy. If the OT really promoted polygamy, why is it that Orthodox Jews today don’t practice it? If fact, they look down on it. To go further, it is actually in part, Israel’s influence on Western culture that causes us to look down on polygamy today.

        It is actually “science” now that is promoting polygamy.
        Now, that “science” says polygamy can be good, would you condone it as well?

  2. David says:

    One of the problems we have with homosexuality is that, yes we should affirm the Bible and call sin, sin. But sin is an action. Homosexuality today has been defined more broadly to include how you feel. And today, how you feel often justifies how you act. They’re one and the same. So Christians take two extreme reactions to this. 1. We condemn how someone feels, and they rightly get angry at Christians because they can’t help how they feel. 2. We condone how they behave, which is also the wrong response.

    The writer of this article, like many Westerners (including Christians who struggle with homosexuality), is trying to reconciles conflicting cultural values between modern society and Scripture. The theological solution is not to look for legalistic verses that conclude that homosexuality as it’s defined today as sin or not. The solution is to look at Genesis and God’s role for sexuality, understanding that all of us are born into sin, whether it’s manifests itself heterosexually or homosexually.

    There’s a lot more in play here, like the underlying Western value that we must all act on our feelings because we can’t help it. Marriage even in heterosexual relationships has been redefined to be used for only personal fulfillment. The culture is also moving towards gender-neutrality, denying God’s intent for men and women to be uniquely different. The culture is also watering down the definition of love. Love has been reduced to a feeling and a means of personal fulfillment rather than selflessness.

    • While I appreciate some of the sentiments you express, you present a false dichotomy. It’s not just about condemning feelings vs. condoning actions. There is still both moral and immoral homosexuality, and we should encourage people with homosexual feelings to express those (through action) in a healthy way.

      There are many people better qualified to make commentary on the hermeneutical and theological implications of homosexuality. What I know is this: there should be a virtuous, moderated way of expressing any natural, ordered desire. The Catholics and Anglicans would say that this is through celibacy, but I’m not willing to make that statement. It is as harsh as telling a heterosexual never to marry for no other reason other than for divine command.

      • David says:

        But not all natural desires are ordered desires. We are all born with a sinful nature. So it is natural for us to want to sin. That doesn’t make it okay. I do agree that God has made a way for all of our God-given desires to be fulfilled. But sex is clearly not one of the ordered ways God has ordained for members of the same sex to express love. I love all my male friends. That does not make it okay for me to marry them, any more than it makes it okay for a parent to express his love for his child sexually. A pedophile might tell you it’s pretty harsh to tell him he can’t have sex with children. But whether or not it’s harsh has nothing to with whether or not it’s right. The right choice is often the hardest choice.

      • The difference between an ordered and disordered desire is going to be something relating to decisions made to reinforce vicious behavior — that, or health issues in the brain. Pedophilia is definitely a disorder, but it is a result of either a long series of poor choices, or it is sometimes a result of pressure on certain parts of the brain from tumors.

        Biological homosexuality shares neither of these features. Homosexuals are healthy, and they did nothing to induce their behaviors. It might sound cliché, but all evidence indicates they are “born that way.” That is not to say that there are no people who explore homosexuality for sexual curiosity, but that is a separate issue.

      • David says:

        “Pedophilia is definitely a disorder, but it is a result of either a long series of poor choices, or it is sometimes a result of pressure on certain parts of the brain from tumors.”
        Do you have sources to back that up? What if it weren’t? Would you then justify it? Not too long ago, most psychologist would have said the same thing you just said about homosexuality.

      • David says:

        And I agree that, as far as I can tell, homosexuals are “born that way”. I’m not gonna argue with that. I can’t tell someone else how he’s supposed to feel. But again, we are all born sinners. That does not make it okay to sin. Otherwise it wouldn’t be sin. Being born that way is not an excuse for any sort of behavior.

    • I only had mild reservations until I got to this part:

      “The fact remains that all people whose consciences have not been seared know in their heart and their gut that it is morally wrong for two men or two women to have sexual relations”

      This is horribly arrogant and offensive. Apparently anyone who disagrees with him is just suppressing their true feelings about homosexual relations. Earlier, I mentioned that you have to make endless qualifications to continue supporting traditional views. This is just such a qualification. It is a groundless accusation attempting to salvage his view in favor of having to change.

      On a less offensive note, he is correct suggesting that we can hate the sin and love the sinner; however, the distinctions he makes between identity as a man and identity as a homosexual are not really so clear as he would like. Many of the things which lead to homosexuality or transgender identity issues occur during pregnancy, and they really and truly define a person’s biological identity. It’s like having a different sort of gender.

  3. Drew G says:

    I once again appeal to you to watch Rosaria Butterfield’s one-hour interview (free on YouTube) and/or read the book (free on AmazonPrime). It is unjust for you to make assertions about her experience, character, and life based on a magazine article, just as it would be improper for me to make public assertions about your character based on this one blog post. Her book gives lots of evidence to the contrary of many of your points. Incidentally, there were members of a local gay group present at the interview who posted online following, and they did not level the sorts of accusations that you have.

    • I do enjoy videos of lectures and interviews and so forth, so I’ll check it out. It doesn’t seem like an interviewer from Patrick Henry College will be very critical, but we’ll see what happens. But I feel like I’ve been fair in this article. The way she wrote leads me to all the things I wrote here.

  4. Morgan Guyton says:

    What really bothered me about Dr. Butterfield’s testimony was the way that she used so many canned evangelical testimony stock phrases. It was just really fishy. My fundamentalist uncle kept on sending me gleeful links to Dr. Butterfield’s stuff. God kind of used that to force my hand, because my train-wreck conversion story is that I discovered the true gospel reading Henri Nouwen’s Life of the Beloved in a small group with a bunch of lesbians. This is my testimony about that. Oh and I kill a lot of reformed theology sacred cows not gratuitously but because there’s a ton of corrupt exegesis that has happened over the years.

  5. Butterfield’s article is truly one of the most distressing things I’ve ever read. As a lapsed Baptist who fought his way out of Evangelical conservatism to find an intellectually rigorous and morally honest approach to Christian theology, I am just baffled and sickened to hear of someone falling back into it. What happened here? How does someone get persuaded by Evangelical theology when they’ve actually studied it at all from an academic perspective? Worse yet, how does someone who comes from this sort of background wind up equating Evangelicalism with Christianity? How does someone who understands how texts work come to believe in inerrancy?

    It just makes me want to weep.

    • Well to be fair to her, she hasn’t studied the Bible academically. Very sad for her old friends, though, but it is possible at the very least that she made a legitimate conversion. Perhaps as years go by, she will come to different conclusions.

  6. Jim says:

    I read this article very differently from you. As I understood it, ‘the other side of the equals sign’ was the great cost of giving up her friends, her identity, and all she was familiar with, not the cost of carrying on in a lesbian relationship. She left because she believed that she would find greater wealth on the other side, even though she didn’t understand why God would disapprove of homosexuality.

    Doesn’t mean you will agree with her choice, but it makes for very different reading of the story.

  7. Jim says:

    Here’s the extract:

    “The image that came in like waves, of me and everyone I loved suffering in hell, vomited into my consciousness and gripped me in its teeth.
    I fought with everything I had.
    I did not want this.
    I did not ask for this.
    I counted the costs. And I did not like the math on the other side of the equal sign.
    But God’s promises rolled in like sets of waves into my world.”

    Yip, it’s a bit ambiguous, but I’m pretty sure my reading is the correct one. She doesn’t talk about ‘the math on the other side of the equal’ sign after the suffering in Hell part, but after the fighting and not wanting this part. She’s referring to a verse where Jesus warns his disciples to count the cost of following him, not the cost of Hell (which would be the cost of NOT following him).

    The passage is in Luke 14:

    26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. *Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?* 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

    31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

  8. Jim says:

    It’s certainly a good thing to seek to be authentic about faith and to question things. But if you’re writing a blog post about critical reading, you’ve got to be sure that you’ve grasped the main points of the article you’re critiquing.

  9. Pat O'Leary says:

    Could I comment on the general topic from a different angle? Isn’t it true that the hope of the gospel is that people will experience the love of God, be healed inwardly and turn towards God more and more (and away from sin etc)? We all (sinners all) need to know the love of God and be changed by it/ by Him. Condemnation just won’t hack it. The anger of man cannot achieve the righteousness of God.

  10. Steven says:

    do you know Jesus? you talk a lot about Christianity but it doesn’t seem like you know the man. He has opinions about all of these things. He loves people trapped in homosexuality just like He loves people who are trapped in heterosexual sin (including pornography and adultery). He loves them enough to tell them the truth. that if they don’t respond to the grace He has made available to turn from these things that they will perish forever.
    love without truth isn’t love at all. and truth isn’t a “choose your own adventure” exercise in philosophy. God is real. His Word is eternal and His Spirit bears witness to the truth.
    homosexuality is spiritual darkness that will destroy you if you don’t cry out to God for healing. If you seek Him, you will find Him. He will be found by anyone who earnestly looks for Him. not on their terms, however, on His.
    homosexuals are not “born that way” in the sense that they are destined to same sex attraction or living in a homosexual lifestyle. generational curses and iniquity are real (Exodus 34.6-7). if your grandparents or parents engaged in adultery, pornography, divorce, homosexuality, debauchery or other sexual immorality then you inherited darkness which can manifest as same sex attractions. the good news is that Jesus has the power to set you free.
    other factors include unfulfilled same sex love needs (lack of same sex parent love) causing defensive detachment and seeking to get those love needs met in ungodly ways. early childhood sexual trauma, peer teasing and labeling during formative years, and homosexual experimentation.
    God wants to heal and restore all those places of brokenness. I know many people who have come out of this lifestyle. if you don’t believe the gospel then you have to come up with a social gospel that makes it alright to remain in sin and claim you know God.
    I know the power of God and got radically saved. born again. filled with the Spirit of God. what you are promulgating is rooted in human reasoning rather than the revelation of Christ.
    I know God’s power to set people free from sin.
    beloved I am not accusing your heart motivations but you are in serious error. seek Jesus not your philosophy books for the heart of God. don’t let it be said of you that “he acted religious but rejected the power that could make him godly.” 2 Timothy 3.5

  11. Nicky says:

    God , I am bisexual . I trust in you . My faith is in you . You give peace and happiness . God if wanting to be with another woman is not the path you have for me . God , if it is to be with another man . Help me come to acceptance and I trust you will give me what is necessary to be ok with this . God , if u know that my happiness does not lie in a man but that I could truly be happy with a woman . Then I ask you show me this and help me be ok with this . But god whether I marry my husband or wife . Just help me develop peace and love with you . So that I can be an example of your mercy and grace that is given to us all . Please people , remember we are all entitled to find our special someone . Ur way may not be my way . But we each have our way . I look to god for mine . God may be more diverse that what we give him credit for .my mate be it man or woman . I just hope they seek god just as much as I do

  12. Jessika says:

    Discernment itself is the recognition of good from evil. I disagree with your entire take on converted homosexual.
    The fact of it is homosexuality is sexual immorality. Knowing this means that you know and recognize the need for repentance. If her conversion is driven by fear of God’s law then GOOD. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. also, if she does still suffer with homosexual desires and goes against her flesh she is doing precisely what we are supposed to do as Christians. I would say your luke warm opinion on the matter is far more dangerous than her testimony.

    • Hi Jessika, I think that you and I have a disagreement on what we mean by “fact.” Facts are observations which we compile and attempt to explain. Perhaps you are using “fact” like this, but it is a stretch: I assume you’re using statements from the Bible as facts. They are better thought of as assertions.

      Assertions can be true or false, and we rely on evidence (facts) to help discern between these things. For you, I again assume that the evidence that you’re using to support your claims is that God wrote the Bible. This, however, is yet another assertion, not a fact.

      Trust me that the level of evidence required to convince me that this is a true assertion, i.e. that God really did write the Bible, is far more than really anyone could write out in a comment section on a blog, so let’s just accept that we disagree and see what we can do from here. I would challenge you to think about the kinds of things that would need to be true for the Bible to be God’s Word, not a book about God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s