Homosexuality and Christianity, Part 20075

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, this is the question. If someone asks me this, my response is: " Yes it does " My question to them now is: " So what ?"

That is a perfectly reasonable question. Frankly, to me, the answer is "so nothing." I am aware that it is condemned. If I am asked if the Bible considers it a sin, I say "yes." That's all. Does not keep me awake at night, I'm not out marching with signs or trying to get laws changed.

 

[fangjian]

Theist: Homosexuality is a sin because God says so.
Atheist: Interesting. What evidence can you show me that this supernatural agent exists?
Theist: :idunno:
Atheist: So why should I take this law from this supposed supernatural agent seriously?
Theist: Because it's in the bible!
Atheist: Dude, you have to demonstrate that this supernatural agent exists first.

 

[Empty Hands]

On the other side of the coin, name some spiritual laws from the Torah that Christians don't keep or think are wrong? Again, not the housekeeping laws due to poor hygiene or poor food management.

Well, I think many Jews would strongly disagree about your characterization of "housekeeping" laws vs. "spiritual" laws. They are one and the same in big parts of the Jewish community.

There is also a definition problem. How do we know that the ban on (male) homosexuality wasn't "housekeeping" at the time? Who decides what is what? IIRC Jesus never condemns homosexuality, that is left to Paul - who also had views on the roles of women that Jesus did not seem to exemplify and that most Christians nowadays disagree with. So if Paul was wrong on women, might he not be wrong on homosexuality?

As for your question, Christians ignore many of the "spiritual" laws of the Torah. The creation of graven images of God is rampant among Christians (not the iconoclasts, however). The misuse of God's name in curses and similar is rampant. Nearly all Christians don't keep the Sabbath in the prescribed manner, and in fact Christians have been observing the wrong Sabbath day for centuries (it's actually Saturday). That's three of the 10 commandments right there. Christians also ignore essentially all of the Mosaic law on the proper conduct of worship (albeit some for practical reasons which the Jews also share). You can't claim that the conduct of worship isn't "spiritual". There are probably others, but that's a few.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Actually, there's a lot of questions around my OP. So there's room to wander a bit.

Since we are wandering, consider this. I am a professing Christian, but that may or may not be the reason I hold certain opinions regarding the behavior of others.

In other words, I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. That may inform my own opinion, or it may not. And if it does, it may be the entire reason I hold a particular opinion, or it may only be part of the reason.

The argument from hypocrisy leveled at Christians with regard to their opinions on homosexuality assumes that all Christians have only one basis for their opinions and beliefs.

Do *you* have only one source for your beliefs and opinions? Well, neither do I. I'd be willing to bet that most Christians (and non-Christians) are not that one-dimensional either.

Frankly, I think that's where we get a lot of our prejudices about 'them'. We all know how 'they' are. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, insert any word you like to mean 'them'. Take their book, or their rules, or something you've read that you think they believe, and insist that if they are indeed (Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc), then they MUST believe (insert some behavior or attribute that you dislike). People are often a bit more complex than that, and seem to be rather not interchangeable.

 

[fangjian]

That is a perfectly reasonable question. Frankly, to me, the answer is "so nothing." I am aware that it is condemned. If I am asked if the Bible considers it a sin, I say "yes." That's all. Does not keep me awake at night, I'm not out marching with signs or trying to get laws changed.

I would imagine that most Theists have this stance as well.

Here's an interesting question:
The Bible says: " Thou shalt not kill " and " Thou shalt not steal " Why should I take those seriously either?

Seriously

 

[bushidomartialarts]

The Torah has remained consistant from it's earliest versions that have been found. Are there some that were made with that purpose, yes. But, those are not the norm and the original intent is still known and can be translated.

Thanks for that. I'm not as familiar with the history of the Torah and its translations. But the OT -- and thus the most commonly available version of the Penteteuch (sp?) has suffered the same degradation as the rest of the Christian Bible.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm not a biblical scholar, Sean, but I recently read that wasn't the case at all. Our idea of family didn't really evolve until well into the 16th century. Most of the bans against homosexuality,contraception and abortion happened as a response to the Anabaptist movement.

Historically speaking, much of the hate in the bible is the result of political manipulations relatively late in life.

Which is my main issue with your point, Bill. If your faith tells you homosexuality is unacceptable, that's your right. But don't point at a millenia-old, five times translated, severely politically compromised document and say it tells you to hate somebody.

So the Sib Kinship system was created in the 16th century? They taught me different in college, but it was community college; so, you could be right........ Not. Our views on homosexuality may be modern, but survival of the tribe was a priority... honest.
sean

 

[Empty Hands]

In other words, I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. That may inform my own opinion, or it may not. And if it does, it may be the entire reason I hold a particular opinion, or it may only be part of the reason.

Fully agreed. People are complex. In the case of homosexuality, my gut feeling is that most people against homosexuality are that way for emotional reasons, and then use the Bible as justification for their feelings. After all, homophobia is also rampant in countries and societies with no history of Abrahamic religion or indigenous religions which condemn homosexuality.

I think that's the reason why someone can use the Law against homosexuality without being too concerned about keeping the Sabbath properly or maintaining ritual purity.

That does open such a person up to this argument though. If you are going to use the Bible as justification for your views, it's a fair question why much of the rest of the Bible doesn't seem to apply. In many cases, it's going to come down to personal prejudice and the "ick" factor, which is certainly proof against Biblical counter-arguments, but does reveal the individual as irrationally prejudiced. Children of the Enlightenment that we are, we think that views must have a defensible reason.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Theist: Homosexuality is a sin because God says so.
Atheist: Interesting. What evidence can you show me that this supernatural agent exists?
Theist: :idunno:
Atheist: So why should I take this law from this supposed supernatural agent seriously?
Theist: Because it's in the bible!
Atheist: Dude, you have to demonstrate that this supernatural agent exists first.

Oh, good, a straw man! Can I play too?

Theist: Demonstrate to me that I am not legally allowed to hold an opinion based on a belief in an entity I cannot prove exists and the rules I think that entity promulgated.
Atheist: You are free to believe anything you like, of course. You're just wrong.
Theist: Then this is what I choose to believe, whether you think it is wrong or not. Demonstrate to me that I cannot vote my conscience based on my (wrong to you) beliefs.
Atheist: You are free to vote as you wish, of course. It's just illogical that you would do so.
Theist: Then we have nothing to discuss, really. I'll believe as I wish and vote as I wish.
Atheist: But your opinions are based on illogic!
Theist: So what? Freedom means I don't have to adhere to your logic, nor you to mine. But we all have to obey the law, and we vote for the society we want to live in, regardless of our reasons for wanting it that way.

We can play this game all day. At the end of it, though, is this. We live (in the USA) in a society that is secular, but within a framework of laws enacted by men and women who vote as they believe society should be ordered. Their religious beliefs or lack of same can and do influence their vision of the society they want to live in. If a certain percentage of religious believers of one sort gain secular authority, expect the rules of that society to reflect those beliefs to the extent not prohibited by the Constitution. That is the way our secular society runs. It is not run by the rules of logic, or by the rules of science, or by what one can and cannot prove to be true. It is run by people who hold beliefs, some logical and some not.

Your recourse is to work to change those laws by education of others and by voting. Arguing that their beliefs are based on a non-existent being is a non-starter. You won't convince them, and nothing forces the law to disregard the opinions of the religious voter.

Point out that religion is illogical, and based on the existence of a being that cannot be proven to exist? Great fun, I suppose. The point? I don't see one. People will not suddenly clap their hands to their heads and say "Oh my goodness! I've been hoodwinked!" Judges will not strike down laws because the people who voted for them were religious and not atheists.

But look at the bright side. When atheists are the majority, then society will tend to be ordered more to your liking.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would imagine that most Theists have this stance as well.

Here's an interesting question:
The Bible says: " Thou shalt not kill " and " Thou shalt not steal " Why should I take those seriously either?

Seriously

Seriously, this is a continuation of the logical fallacy I already pointed out. The law says I cannot speed and I must stop at all stop signs. And it says I should not rob banks. If I don't take stop signs seriously, why should I take laws against robbing banks seriously?

It's not an interesting question. It's an attempt to disprove the validity of an opinion by pointing out that the person who holds it is a hypocrite.

Al Gore flies on polluting jets all around the world. Al Gore is against global warming. Obviously Al Gore is a hypocrite. That means global warming isn't real. It also means Al Gore is not allowed to be against it. See the fallacy?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Fully agreed. People are complex. In the case of homosexuality, my gut feeling is that most people against homosexuality are that way for emotional reasons, and then use the Bible as justification for their feelings. After all, homophobia is also rampant in countries and societies with no history of Abrahamic religion or indigenous religions which condemn homosexuality.

I think that's the reason why someone can use the Law against homosexuality without being too concerned about keeping the Sabbath properly or maintaining ritual purity.

That does open such a person up to this argument though. If you are going to use the Bible as justification for your views, it's a fair question why much of the rest of the Bible doesn't seem to apply. In many cases, it's going to come down to personal prejudice and the "ick" factor, which is certainly proof against Biblical counter-arguments, but does reveal the individual as irrationally prejudiced. Children of the Enlightenment that we are, we think that views must have a defensible reason.

No matter what religion you are, Abrahamic or not, parents, for the most part, have that 'White Picket Fence' vision for their children.
Sean

 

[fangjian]

Seriously, this is a continuation of the logical fallacy I already pointed out. The law says I cannot speed and I must stop at all stop signs. And it says I should not rob banks. If I don't take stop signs seriously, why should I take laws against robbing banks seriously?

It's not an interesting question. It's an attempt to disprove the validity of an opinion by pointing out that the person who holds it is a hypocrite.

No. Sorry for not being clear. I was actually interested in 'why to take those seriously' as well. Nothing to do with 'homosexuality. My point was only that:

I understand that most Theists probably do not care if someone is gay or if someone eats pork or whatever. They do take homicide and theft seriously though. Why? Many would probably say, 'God commanded it (or something)"

And I'm saying they get those viewpoints from elsewhere. Not any holy book.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Fully agreed. People are complex. In the case of homosexuality, my gut feeling is that most people against homosexuality are that way for emotional reasons, and then use the Bible as justification for their feelings. After all, homophobia is also rampant in countries and societies with no history of Abrahamic religion or indigenous religions which condemn homosexuality.

Homophobia appears to be a norm in most of human history. It is (and I do not use this in a pejorative manner) deviant behavior, in that it deviates from the norm, and most of human history is replete with examples of deviations from the norm being taboo. Please note that I am not arguing that it ought to be taboo or that it is right that people felt this way in the past, but rather that it historically has been for most of known human history, with some interesting exceptions.

I think that's the reason why someone can use the Law against homosexuality without being too concerned about keeping the Sabbath properly or maintaining ritual purity.

I would not disagree with you; people tend, I think, to rationalize their beliefs if they find that conscious examination of those beliefs reveals logical inconsistencies even to themselves.

That does open such a person up to this argument though. If you are going to use the Bible as justification for your views, it's a fair question why much of the rest of the Bible doesn't seem to apply. In many cases, it's going to come down to personal prejudice and the "ick" factor, which is certainly proof against Biblical counter-arguments, but does reveal the individual as irrationally prejudiced. Children of the Enlightenment that we are, we think that views must have a defensible reason.

Agreed again. But there is an assumption, and I think an incorrect one, that if a person is a Christian and they hold an opinion against homosexuality, then they base that opinion on the Bible. Perhaps they do. Perhaps they do not. Perhaps it is more complex than that. So attacking the Bible or the logic thereof is not really effective. Consider also the incongruity of the Atheist attacking the logic of a set of rules in the Bible, when they admittedly think the entire thing is untrue anyway.

There is also an assumption that if one is a Christian, one holds an anti-homosexual opinion at all. I run into a similar false assumption myself all the time. Because I am in favor of radical immigration reform, it is assumed by many that I am a liberal or a Democrat. The arguments leveled against me are against my presumed political orientation, which I do not have. Again, people are more complex than that; you can't make an assumption that since a person professes Christianity, they are therefore anti-homosexual.

One cannot even draw the conclusion that a person holds a particular opinion with reference to homosexuality itself based on other beliefs they may hold; for example, same-sex marriage. It is often assumed that those opposed to same-sex marriage are a) anti-homosexual and b) Christian. Those assumptions may or may not be true, and crafting arguments tailored to those assumptions would be ineffective in the extreme.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No. Sorry for not being clear. I was actually interested in 'why to take those seriously' as well. Nothing to do with 'homosexuality. My point was only that:

I understand that most Theists probably do not care if someone is gay or if someone eats pork or whatever. They do take homicide and theft seriously though. Why? Many would probably say, 'God commanded it (or something)"

And I'm saying they get those viewpoints from elsewhere. Not any holy book.

I think that is a complicated issue that may be impossible to unravel. Our society, although nominally secular, is based upon historical precedent that stretches back to religiously-based societies and the inter-mixing of 'God's Law' and "Man's Law' can hardly be told apart in many ways. Taboos against homicide violate both. Historically, the taboo predates Christianity, and indeed any religions we know of today, by a bunch. So which is the core reason for our belief that it is 'bad' and not to be done?

I will wimp out here and say I do not know.

Do many claim their basis for the belief that murder is bad is found in the Bible? I'm sure they do. I'm not sure it matters; we hold it as a nearly-universal taboo regardless.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Hey, it's at least a topic that doesn't include Obama, Bush, The TSA or Islam.

Just give it some time.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Just give it some time.

It did give me the idea to start a thread titled, "Obama, Bush, TSA, Islam, and how they relate to Homosexuality"

 

[fangjian]

Oh, good, a straw man! Can I play too?

Theist: Demonstrate to me that I am not legally allowed to hold an opinion based on a belief in an entity I cannot prove exists and the rules I think that entity promulgated.
Atheist: You are free to believe anything you like, of course. You're just wrong.
Theist: Then this is what I choose to believe, whether you think it is wrong or not. Demonstrate to me that I cannot vote my conscience based on my (wrong to you) beliefs.
Atheist: You are free to vote as you wish, of course. It's just illogical that you would do so.
Theist: Then we have nothing to discuss, really. I'll believe as I wish and vote as I wish.
Atheist: But your opinions are based on illogic!
Theist: So what? Freedom means I don't have to adhere to your logic, nor you to mine. But we all have to obey the law, and we vote for the society we want to live in, regardless of our reasons for wanting it that way.

That's right. If someone like Fred Phelps mentions how there is a supernatural deity that created the universe, and this deity condemns a species named Homo sapiens if they partake in homosexuality.

I totally support his freedom of expression. I also support our right to make fun of him

So which is the core reason for our belief that it is 'bad' and not to be done?

I think it has to do with the evolution of the brain, in many species. Not just us.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's right. If someone like Fred Phelps mentions how there is a supernatural deity that created the universe, and this deity condemns a species named Homo sapiens if they partake in homosexuality.

I totally support his freedom of expression. I also support our right to make fun of him

I think it has to do with the evolution of the brain, in many species. Not just us.

I have no disagreement here, but I'm not at all sure that the former was originally your point.

 

[elder999]

I've gotten into this before...it's boring.

The New Testament translations that use "homosexuality" are misrepresentations of the Greek-I've said it here before, look for yourselves-it's boring.

Jesus was the "new light," and the "new covenant." While some say he came to affirm the law, and some to replace it, it doesn't really matter. As Punisher73 so aptly summed it up, a "good Christian" loves God, and loves their neighbor as themselves (implying that they love themselves).

I always tell Chrisitians that they should follow and act on everyhthing Jesus said about homosexuality:which is absolutely NOTHING. :lfao:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I've gotten into this before...it's boring.

The New Testament translations that use "homosexuality" are misrepresentations of the Greek-I've said it here before, look for yourselves-it's boring.

Jesus was the "new light," and the "new covenant." While some say he came to affirm the law, and some to replace it, it doesn't really matter. As Punisher73 so aptly summed it up, a "good Christian" loves God, and loves their neighbor as themselves (implying that they love themselves).

I always tell Chrisitians that they should follow and act on everyhthing Jesus said about homosexuality:which is absolutely NOTHING. :lfao:

I did base some of my arguments on what you posted previously.