The poor young Vines has taken verbatim contextual doctrines, stripped what he didn’t like from them, ignored what disproved his concepts, and then taken what was left and extrapolated that to a desired result.
Point 1. “Hurtful and harmful”? You’re kidding, right?
The citations from Jesus of Nazareth have him telling the religious/political leaders of the day that they were ‘vipers’ (poisonous snakes which kill when they bite, or in the case of the r/p leaders, their words kill spiritually and create misery for those listening to them), ‘walking graves’, ‘thieves’, ‘liars’, ‘hypocrites’.
Do ANY of these words/phrases remotely sound ‘nice’, ‘loving’, or helpful?
NO! He was being honest with them (contextually speaking) from a doctrinal point of view, but contextually, Jesus didn’t even remotely consider the FEELINGS (hurt or otherwise) of the people to whom the comments were made.
Strike one against Vines.
Point 2. New or not, the issue is doctrinally irrelevant: same sex sexuality was WELL known, had been for millennia, so attempting to drive this line of inane argument is utterly useless and does a disservice to the wider argument involved.
Point 3. Chuck the celibacy line, it’s lost leader from the word go; the issue is homosexual behaviour in light of biblical doctrine, not marriage.
Point 4. This one has been hacked to death, reheated, relabeled, rehashed, and tormented beyond any sense of recognition using the tools of logic, honest reasoning, and contextual face value hermeneutics, by Vine and those who continue to push this clearly uncontextual view.
Reading the texts involved, CONTEXTUALLY, specifically the interaction between the mob of men demanding Lot throw out the two visitors so that the men of the mob could ‘know them’, provides a clear meaning to both the term and the immediate intent of the mob: same sex rape of the two visitors.
How can I make this assertion, rejecting completely the ‘lack of hospitality’ argument?
Easily and honestly: CONTEXTUALLY, Lot’s response to the demands of the mob gives us the clear meaning; Lot offered to hand over both of his VIRGIN daughters to the men of the mob, so that they may ‘do with them as you see fit’.
What this tells us is:
1. Hospitality was not the issues, because Lot’s daughters are citizens of Sodom.
2. The nature of the demand by the mob was SEXUAL, because Lot clarifies in no uncertain terms, that his daughters have ‘never known a man’, specifying their SEXUAL state of purity.
3. The men of the mob REJECT Lot’s offer of the girls, because they want the MALE visitors in Lot’s house: they are QUITE clear in the language they use in their repeated demands.
Point 5. Vines’ attempt to use a sleight of word, choosing to mix ‘entire Leviticus’ codification is a non-starter as a valid contextual argument: portions of the Levitical codes can be used (voluntary status vs mandatory) by biblical Christians; this is part of the aspect which Vines attempts to use in his ‘freedom’ argument in conjunction with his misnomered ‘entire’ usage.
Point 6. The argument he makes here is utterly laughable, contextually and doctrinally speaking. Pertaining to same sex sexual acts, ‘love’ never comes into the picture contextually, it is never mentioned. Further, Paul describes same sex acts as being ‘abominable’ and ‘unnatural’ (to his credit, Vines admits this openly) to God and God rejects both the acts and those who commit them, whereas in comparison, long hair on a man is indeed seen as a cultural convention, frowned upon by MEN, NOT God.
Big difference and the comparison Vines is attempting to make simply does not work, is not convincing, and is contextually invalid.
Points 7,8,9. These 3 points of argument are, contextually and doctrinally IRRELEVANT, because the subject matter is the sexual interaction of SAME SEX COUPLE within a SEXUAL INTERCOURSE CONTEXT! Commitment, marriage, etc. are irrelevant to the issue under argument.
Point 10. The number of people who refer to themselves as Christians, who are embracing Vine’s points and his view on these matters is also irrelevant: biblical doctrines do not hang (nor do any secular doctrines for that matter)upon how many people believe or disbelieve in them; they are to be understood in a contextual manner and either accepted or rejected on the face of the matter. Doing otherwise simply makes people dishonest.
The bottom line is that everyone is free to agree, disagree, accept, or reject, discount, or simply believe all of what is written are a set of fables from an ancient people writing from a limited scope of view.
People are also fully free to believe that what is found in the bible is from God, reliable, and to be considered honestly.
It’s up to the individual to choose, but taking the road Vines does, is simply a disservice to us all.