I was pretty sure that that wasn’t what you meant to say, but I was worried that someone might interpret you as saying something like that.
I’m an atheist. I think god and the bible is a bunch of bunk. The only reason we know of the God of Abraham is through the Bible though. So it’s pretty hard to separate the God of Abraham from that book, who clearly, at least at one point, wanted gays killed (Jesus appears pretty chill on many of the Old Testament laws, so maybe it’s cool now, but he should have explicitly said that I would think, given that it’s a matter of life and death). If you assume that humans just made that bit up, it’s not a far stretch to say they made the rest up too (which I find highly likely).
If you define God as that dude described in the Bible then, whatever part you look at, I don’t think there’s any honest way to argue that the book does anything but condemn homosexual relationships. With other things, there’s some parts that say one thing and other parts that say another, but in the case of homosexuality the book is pretty consistent beyond generic statements like “let he who has never sinned throw the first stone”. But even Christian forgiveness and tolerance still don’t mean that it’s not a sin, by the standard of the god being described.
But so really the question is: If there is a God, is he as described in the book or is he a benevolent entity? As described in the Bible, God is not. He supports slavery, rape, gender roles, genocide, etc. And there’s really nowhere that Jesus is said to have denounced or rejected the portrayal of God as given in the OT, but nor is there any indication that Jesus is directly or correctly quoted, that the things Paul or others said directly matched what Jesus would have believed, nor that Jesus knew something more than anyone else of his time.
What if the universe was created by a benevolent, loving god, and Jesus was just some crazy dude or scammer? That doesn’t make the benevolent god case to exist, it just makes the Bible wrong.
It’s fairly straightforward math: Does the Bible describe good and moral things, or does it just describe some good things and some bad things, haphazardly? If it’s the latter and you’re certain that God would be good and moral, than the Bible doesn’t correctly describe him and can’t be relied on for anything. Maybe parts of it are divinely inspired, but certainly not all of it.
If you can do a better job of decided whether or not loans are better for the economy than the God described in the Bible, you can raise a better arguing for Democratic systems of government, for gender equality, against slavery, against genocide, etc. then it’s reasonable to decide that the Bible is just one not among many that describes some ancient belief system that was invented by some people, without any good nor consistent input from the actual deity.
Is God good, or is God the guy in the Bible? If you think he’s good, then ignore the Bible and believe in him.
Where does the Bible say anything about homosexual relationships per se?
The thing that bothers me about the “the bible clearly says that you should murder gay people” is that the bible also very clearly says you should murder all kinds of other people. Anybody who oppresses gay people based on the bible and isn’t already in prison for murder is obviously a raging hypocrite.
Since top ministers in some Christian denominations accept gay marriage (and I think some are in gay marriages) the answer is clearly yes.
Perhaps the confusion arises from some people saying they are opposed because they are Christian as opposed to a member of a subset of Christianity with homophobi8c tenets. Fundamentalist types - as opposed to more moderate types - seem to want to speak for all Christianity.
Of course you can. You seem to be confusing belief in god with a certain strain of evangelical christianity.
There certainly are a subset of Christians who ascribe to the idea that Jesus hung out with the freaks and outcasts and ministered to them and attempted to bring them into his flock.
In as much as homosexuals have historically been outcasts in certain societies I think Christians who take the lesson of Jesus ministering to the downtrodden seriously would believe the example has been set that they should not just tolerate homosexuals but also welcome them with open arms into the church.
This same sort of religious viewpoint would tend to go hand in hand with many politically liberal causes. Welcome those who have been oppressed and discriminated against in a spirit of brotherhood and loving fellowship. Attend to the needs of the homeless stranger. Care for the poor and the widows as a moral and religious imperative. Don’t just talk about it. Do it. Live it. Show it through your actions. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Leviticus (OT):
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Chapter 18 verse 22
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Chapter 20 verse 13
Epistle to the Romans (NT):
“For this reason [viz. idolatry], God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.” Chapter 1, verses 26-27
Timothy (NT):
“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” Chapter 1, verses 9-10
Now yes, these are prohibitions against gay sex, not gay relationships, but there are lots of flights of logic you can plunge into, to convince yourself that it’s not saying what it’s saying, but I that’s sophistry not Biblical interpretation.
And while Jesus may not say anything about homosexuality, it would be nigh impossible to make an argument that Jesus didn’t strongly believe in the sanctity of the marriage between a man and a woman. John the Baptist died in objection to a divorce and the belief in Sophia (sort of a Christian yin-yang deal where everyone is incomplete without their gender opposite) is universal across all of the early Christian heresies (as far as we can tell, given the limited resources that remain).
And while I’ll grant that this is just my reading of the OT, I agree that the Bible isn’t even fond of things like masturbation or blowjobs. Jewish seed exists to make as many Jews as humanly possible, to swamp out other groups and expand Israel. Making lots of babies is a political / military strategy, and it’s a sin to waste sperm on anything outside of helping God see that strategy through.
Or anyone who supports divorce.
Yes, Sage Rat, and if you read the Bible as if it were dictated by God then you would have a problem reconciling those passages with support for same-sex marriage. Thankfully, many Christians including the mainline denominations don’t read the Bible that way. Leviticus was written by an iron age society thousands of years ago, doing their best to understand what God wanted of them. Paul and the author of Timothy were also influenced by Jewish culture and prohibitions of homosexuality. When thoughtful Christians read the Bible we read it through the lens of when and where and by whom it was written and keeping in mind the overall thrust of Jesus’ teachings throughout the scriptures, where Jesus constantly taught love and forgiveness for all. Stories of God commanding genocide and Paul prohibiting women to speak in church and Timothy condemning those who defile themselves with men all have to be understood in light of the Gospel message. They understood God as best they could but were a product of their time and place as much as we are. Cherry-picking verses and treating them like the dictated word of God is common but can’t be said to be a serious reading of the bible.
So, then, on what basis to pick and choose? If you’re just picking the parts that agree with humanism and tossing the rest, the you’re not obeying God, you’re obeying humanism and/or modern day culture.
If you can find the part in the Bible where it says, “Don’t take any of this shit seriously, yo.” Then sure, it’s a reasonable reading to not take any of it seriously. But it doesn’t ever say that.
And saying, “Well this part is obviously ludicrous”, and so ignoring that part, but then still putting weight on the other part that maybe isn’t as clear to you - why are you giving weight to the word of the Bible on topic D when you determined that it was ludicrous on topics A, B, and C?
To be sure, there are parts of the Bible that are in direct conflict. I would argue that there is less conflict than most people profess, because they have accepted interpretations of single lines of text that have been presented to them minus the correct context, but it’s still a pretty heavily self-contradicting work overall. And in those cases, you’re going to have to choose or search for some interpretation that does allow for both rules to be true. But if the Bible is completely consistent on a topic, from start to finish, and the whole basis of the religion is that Jesus knew something that you didn’t, and he’s vouching for the Old Testament, as it’s written, and Jesus never said, “Don’t take any of this shit seriously, yo.” Well then, on what basis do you ignore stuff? Why decide that it’s ludicrous to follow gender norms, but completely reasonable to believe that Jesus wants you to pay taxes?
If your basis for what is correct in the Bible is whether it concurs with modern, Humanist philosophy, then you’re not really a Christian. You’re a Humanist who believes in deities, and doesn’t have the personal strength to admit that you think most of the Bible is rubbish, but you’re sticking with in terms of the lingo you use, rather than cause a hassle with your family.
Using your unwillingness to denounce the Bible in entirety, even though you’ve already flagrantly jettisoned 90% of it, as some sort of evidence that reading the thing as though it was written by serious people who meant exactly what they said is the wrong way to read it is not a particularly great argument. When they wrote it, they were almost certainly serious about what they were saying. When Jesus told people that they should follow the Law, and he said that meaning all that stuff in Deuteronomy, I see no reason to doubt that he meant it. You viewing the writers of the Old Testament as know-nothing barbarians has no relevance to whether Jesus did or not. There’s no evidence that he did view them in that way, and a fair amount of evidence that he was dead serious about believing what they said, as-is.
If the basis for the religion is that Jesus knew what God knew and was trying to tell us that, then the question isn’t what a modern reader, with information from archaeology and science and rationality would believe, it’s what Jesus would believe. Jesus, from everything one can tell giving an honest reading of the Bible, as he would have seen it, would probably have viewed homosexuality as a sin, but forgiven the sinners, and argued that you are incomplete and wrong to not find your female pair and make children, and only by doing so will you find God.
How about “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”?
Again, I’m not a Christian, but I think you’re wrong about that. There are many examples in the NT where people say to Jesus, ‘The Biblical law says such-and-such and you are violating it’, and he says basically, ‘Crap. It’s doing good that matters, not the the written letter of the law.’
Paul wrote, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. … The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
So I’m a hypocrite. I can live with myself for interpreting in the way I feel best gives me guidance for being a good person in the modern world.
OK, I’ll bite. On what do you base that? Christ seems to largely advocate celibacy in favor of doing work for God - which is why Catholics don’t let their priests marry. He seemed to like kids, but he never advocated for having them. He really doesn’t talk much about sexuality at all - he was against looking at women lustfully and he was against divorce and adultery. He never seems to mention homosexuality in any of the accepted Gospels. The only mention of homosexuality in the New Testament comes from Paul who never actually met Jesus in the flesh.
One could say, “Well, the culture of the time was against homosexuality, so Jesus must have been to.” but that is of course ludicrous. The culture of the time was in favor of killing your enemies, not loving them, but Jesus came out pretty clearly against that. Pretty much his entire ministry was based on upending the culture of the time, not marching in lockstep with it.
Like heck, the first Pope He chose was a married man.
You appear to be confusing JC with Paul. Mnemotecnic trick: JC got crucified (head-up), Paul got his head chopped off.
Whenever a person uses the Bible against gay people, I ask them why they aren’t out killing witches, as stated in Exodus 22:18 KJV - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
If one understand “holy” as poetic shorthand for “emotionally & interpersonally healthy”, it’s a pretty unimpeachable thought. On its twisty way down to Prohibition, there must have been some cognitive dissonance about the fact that if their laws had been implemented in Jesus’ time, they would have arrested him at Cana.
Didn’t the early US Pilgrims wish to establish a society which would be completely ruled by religion, where it would permeate every aspect of life for every member, a sort of embrionic totalitarianism?
Somewhat related, do Muslims believe that Jesus used God-derived miracles to turn water into wine at Cana?
Divorce is another issue where I don’t grok the Catholic and majority Protestant views. If I understand correctly, Roman Catholic doctrine is that if you have a sacramental marriage, that’s it, there’s no divorce. There can only be annulment if it wasn’t really sacramental. Protestant churches have very varied positions.
Yet Jesus is pretty clear:
Matthew 19: 8-9: 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
There is some wiggle room as to what constitutes sexual immorality but that’s the only ambiguity. So the Catholic Church should grant divorces in cases of sexual immorality and Protestant churches shouldn’t grant divorces for any other reason.
Prima scriptura seems like the proper doctrine to interpret ambiguous elements (like what is meant by “murder” in the 10 commandments, whether Genesis is allegory or history). But if a church doesn’t allow divorces for sexual immorality or allows them for other reasons, they seem to be using an exegesis method that will return any result you want.
Sage Rat,
I think that part of your confusion might be that you don’t really have a grasp on what religion is. I think that you might have a cartoon-y version of it or a child’s version where you read a book and a man in a robe tells you to do something and you do it. That’s not really a religion, that’s a cult. A religion is a shared method of attempting to understand the transcendent. Different churches might have particular ways of doing so or a shared vision of what they believe the transcendent to be, but that doesn’t make them universal. What we have in the Bible now is not written in stone. It was just a list of books that a couple of councils in the first few centuries decided had validity. Even back then, they argued as to canonicity and authorship. They’re what we have and that’s good, and a rich tradition of scholarship has grown around them, but they too were just attempts by people at the time to understand God. They provide extremely valuable insights and are sometimes quite profound, but they’re just the attempts of people to put into words what they remember Christ saying or they think that he said. If we look at Origen (one of the early church fathers who wrote around 200 AD) he talked about the Gospel of John and said “John does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually.” (Most of Book X of his Commentary on John echoes this point.) So as early as the 3rd century, Christians recognized that these books were ways of God relating to us and texts that we had to interpret and discover their true meaning. Shoot, Origen spends half of Book X expounding on the exact same complaints that atheists have now about historicity and competing narratives and expounds on these issues. And it’s important to note that he was writing BEFORE there was a canon and he had no reason to accept those works as divine or to defend them. Since their beginning, they were understood to be spiritual narratives and elucidate transcendent rather than physical truths.
So for you to say, “What do you do then? Pick and choose?” I would say, “Yep, that’s exactly what you do. It’s what we have always done.” When I read Revelations, I know it wasn’t written by John the Apostle. Absolutely no way. I know that its authorship and inclusion in the canon has been questioned since the beginning. I also know that a long time ago, people got some valuable insight from it and when I read it today, I get valuable insight from some of it. I also get a lot of drivel about Nero and numerology and I get a pretty interesting look at what apocalyptic literature looked like as well as some elucidation on a lot of modern thought regarding where it all ends up. The point is though that it’s a guidebook and not a science text. I read it and say, “What is the author saying? What is God trying to communicate to us through this?” Sometimes I just throw my hands up and say, “Maybe nothing. Maybe Paul just didn’t like girls or whatever, but that particular passage doesn’t resonate with what I conceive God to be so I’ll set it aside for now and maybe revisit it later or maybe not.” I’m an Arminian and conceive of Christianity largely as a grace-filled religion where it is God’s grace that forgives us and if I’m wrong, I think that if I’m wrong in good faith that it’ll work out. I try not to be wrong. I hope I’m not, but I allow for that possibility.
I’m not trying to be combative, so please take these questions in good faith.
How is that different than just being philosophical?
How does this distinguish between one religion and another? Your passage seems to imply that all religions are fundamentally equal, since you will look at what’s written, apply your own leanings, and come up with what you think is the truth.
How is religion acting in any way as a guide? If you filter out all the stuff you disagree with and follow or believe in all the stuff you already believe in, it seems like it’s just acting to reaffirm positions you’ve already come to.
If all the bible does is provide a filter through which you just apply what you already believe, and other holy books could do exactly the same thing, why be Christian? Why be Muslim? Why be Jewish? Hindu? Aren’t you just “you” with a particular religious skin on top?