A Brief Smackdown Of Dan Savage's Amateur Hour Theology May 1, 2012

Dan Savage continues to think he's a theologian.

By now all of the conservative blogosphere knows about Dan Savage's ignorant anti-Bible rant to teens a few days ago, causing organizers of that conference to issue an apology.

Savage himself apologized for calling the teens who walked out "pansy-assed", but said that he stands by his remarks about the Bible.

Which brings us to the subject at hand.

For starters, Mr. Savage's sentiments are nothing new in the gay community. Several gay rights advocates have cited certain Bible passages to either justify their perversion or discredit the Holy Scriptures.

Mr. Savage attempts to do the latter, and fails miserably.

Let's start with the old fave: Leviticus 20:13. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Mr. Savage will cite this passage and then make an uninformed statement like: "...we have a right to confront [Christians] about everything in the Old Testament that they choose to ignore, from the 'abomination' of eating of shellfish to God giving dads the okay to sell their daughters into slavery."

We say "uninformed" because apparently Mr. Savage can't make a distinction between moral and ceremonial law.

Moral law: Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't bear false witness. Don't commit adultery.

Ceremonial law: How you cut your beard. What you eat. Sacrificial rules.

And the ceremonial law is no longer valid. It's gone. It's over. Kaput. Check out the 15th chapter of Acts for more info, specifically verse 20. And you might want to dig into what that word "fornication" means in the original.

Mr. Savage also fails on this point: In the Old Testament dispensation, God's people were a nation. In this dispensation, God's people are people who trust Christ by faith. And we span many nations.

So particular theocratic laws, like Deuteronomy 22:20,21, which Savage apparently really likes to cite, are in fact germaine to a theocratic society. In other words, it is not a sin if a Christian father refuses to stone his daughter for losing her virginity.

So let's address some of the ridiculous arguments from the doorknob licker in turn. First: "Yeah, Leviticus condemns homosexuality but it also condemns eating shrimp."

Yes, but Leviticus also condemns bestiality. It's in Leviticus 20:15, just two verses after the anti-gay verse. Is Mr. Savage going to make an argument that it's okay to screw a Thompson's gazelle because Leviticus also condemns eating shrimp? In retrospect, bad question.

We think that anyone with common sense can discern the difference between moral and ceremonial codes as outlined in Holy Writ.

Oh, and for the record: It is a moral offense to sleep with a gazelle, in case Dan Savage (or anyone else) is wondering about that.

So, in a nutshell: Yeah, it's okay to cite Old Testament laws concerning sexual morality as relevant to how we ought to behave today, while happily ignoring laws about how we should cut our beards.

The doorknob licker also condemns the New Testament because it (gasp!) accepts the fact slavery existed when it was written.

He is, of course, referring to Colossians 3:22: "Slaves, obey your masters in all things. Do not obey just when they are watching you, to gain their favor, but serve them honestly, because you respect the Lord."

Apparently, the guy who once said that he wishes that all Congressional Republicans were "f--king dead" believes that this verse somehow calls into question the moral authority of the New Testament.

What should the Apostle Paul have told slaves? To disobey their masters?

And was it Paul's fault that slavery existed? We think the whole idea of slavery predated Paul by quite a bit.

The fact of the matter is that these are tired, worn-out arguments against the Bible that have been rehashed by homosexuals and atheists alike for years.

And they have never been right.

---