No homos in my church (pt 1)

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matt 15:11

Please note::All scriptural references are from the KJV unless otherwise noted.  (Anderson is of the 1611KJV Only camp although I will be using the 1789 edition.)   All commentary references are taken from e-Sword, version 10.4.0.  I will provide URLs when possible.

Although I am well aware that many, much learned, individuals have presented the same information as I will, they are still within the fold of the church.  They are arguing for inclusion of LGBTI persons as well as ending the hatred being preached from the pulpit.  While I applaud their efforts,  I do not agree with their ultimate, end-game.  While we reach the same conclusions, my purpose is to show that Anderson, et al are preaching a political agenda and very bad religion to the detriment of many.

Turn to Leviticus 20:13, because I actually discovered the cure for AIDS. 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.

And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS. It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.

I have in a previous post, I addressed the Levitical passages.  I am going to use that previous post and expand upon it bringing in "new" information to show how wrong this man is,,,

One of the difficulties in relying on the OT as Anderson does (he has also referenced Rom 1 in a subsequent interview) is the perceived difference between the OT God,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 31, 2006)

when compared to the God of the NT.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For many it leaves a very sour taste, lots of confusion and baseless condemnation where there should be none.   Ripping six passages, or in Anderson' s case one verse, out of context - [i]t was right there in the Bible all along,,,right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends -  is piss poor hermeneutics.  Anderson admits that he has no college education but he does have "over 140 chapters of the Bible memorized word-for-word."  His time would have been better spent learning and understanding what I call the "hows and whys" of the Bible. Whether it is due to lack of education, willful ignorance or deceit to push an agenda, Anderson's understanding of basic hermeneutical principles is non-existent.

Back in 1983 or 1984 (maybe even 1985 things are kind of a blur going back that far), I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation.  The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors.  The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation.  In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view.  A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees.   Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6).

A second piece of instruction that I hold fast to, even as an atheist, is a 5-step process espoused by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981).  In Virkler's view this is the best method for attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s).

1. Lexical-syntactical analysis :: The how and why of the words used focusing on sentence ordering, punctuation, tense of the verse, and other non-grammatical, lexical and syntactical issues. 
2. Historical/cultural analysis is self-explanatory.  Know your history, understand the culture the text was influenced by.
3. Context, context, context.
4. Theological analysis ::  A single verse usually doesn't make a theology. To take a verse from one book without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
5. Literary Analysis :: There are several literary aspects that must be taken into account with each genre having a different set of rules.  In the Bible, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language.

None of this is present in any of the sermons I have listened to by Anderson and I find that very disturbing; the self-loathing is very evident.  The fact that this man is not only teaching his congregation this vile crap, he is also shepherding his hatred to other churches.