God, Gays, and Christianity

Great Debates
41

So that you know were I am coming from: Respectful atheist who embraces Christian morals, in some regards rather old fashioned OT style.

Taking off from the principle that Christian morality must for practical reasons be a somewhat floating concept over the centuries, let me try to parse what His4Ever posted in her latest post.

Fine, so there is an opening to select according to some kind of guideline. His4Ever provides it thus:

But then goes ahead and contradicts the caveat that this creates by saying;

I know that His4Ever alludes to morals specifically and has tried to eliminate customs and practices such as dress code. However this creates a problem. If it is so that only God decides it is not possible to make this interpretation:

If God decides God decides, right? In such a rigid format there is no other option than to live according to the very letter of the Bible. This becomes problematic on several levels in modern society. Some of the dictates of the bible are downright illegal as well as immoral by modern standards:

Which is vigilante murder for a trifle and enslavement, mighty nice of the lawmakers to give her a full month to get used to it though. Obviously the alleged word of God in these cases needs to be ignored on grounds of modern morality and the covenants of Universal Human Rights.

Interestingly enough some of the dictates against trans-gender behavior and same sex relationships are also laid down in the fifth book of the bible:

How can one ignore the dictates of chapter 21 but uphold the dictates in chapter 22 and 23? His4Ever tries to draw the line at what we embrace between what is and isn’t moral issues. All of the above applies to morals or the execution of justice towards infringements of these moral codes. By default this must open the possibility to read the bible selectively from modern context, otherwise the book becomes obsolete in so many ways that we cannot embrace the wisdom that it contains at it’s heart and intent.

I would very much like to hear how JerseyDiamond and His4Ever proposes that we resolve the conflict of embracing Deuteronomy 22:5 and 23:17 while discarding (as we must) 21:21 and 21:10-13

42

BTW I meant no disrespect by the lower case B on Bible. I’m just frightfully dependent on my spell check since I am dyslexic, which also makes the letter B extra difficult - MS spell check doesn’t correct a lower case B on Bible and even with several rereads in preview I still didn’t spot it until rereading again after posting… sorry.

Sparc

43

(a) Does this mean Christians should support sodomy laws? (Laws which make private homosexual acts by consenting adults a crime.)

(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, should Christians also seek to outlaw idolatry? (That is, to repeal the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause, and similar state constitutional provisions, as they apply to non-Christians or to non-Judeo-Christians or wherever Christians feel “idolatry” begins.)

© If the answer to (a) is yes, and the answer to (b) is no, why should Christians seek to impose a Biblically-based view of what is right and wrong in the one case, but not in the other?

44

Yes.

No. God does not have ‘opinions’ on moral behavior.

An opinion holds some degree of uncertainty. What is moral is whatever God says it is. If there were no God, there would be no such thing as moral (or immoral) behavior. God is the standard of morality, not simply a person with thoughts to share. Nor even any need to justify a position.

Should I be able to accelerate objects with mass beyond the speed of light? The question is meaningless. Should we disagree with God on what is right? Same problem.

Yes.

Sort of, but not exactly. The Bible says what God wants it to say. It contains a number of different literary forms, aimed at a number of different audiences and concerning itself with a number of different points of view.

The purpose - the only purpose - of the Bible is to present the life, works, and teachings of Jesus. This includes the Old Testament as well as the New. The Old Testament is important because it presents a context out of which Jesus speaks. We need to understand the Old Testament in order to understand Jesus.

The Bible mentions homosexuality only to condemn it, both in the OT and the NT. No references to it can be construed as either laudatory or neutral.

I think there can be little doubt but that it was universally understood by Jewish and early Christian writers that homosexual behavior was not simply a violation of ceremonial law, but a moral wrong in and of itself.

I also don’t believe that the idea of homosexuality as a primary sexual orientation existed at the times when Scripture was written. Heterosexuality was taken as a given by all parties - probably including those who were gay.

No.

The Law of the Bible is Matthew 22:35-40. It is applicable to all people, at all times, under all circumstances.

See the answer to 7 above.

To the same extent that the others are allowed to impose their moral standards on Christians. Fortunately or otherwise.

It is when these come into conflict that the arguments break out, because there is no consensus on one moral standard.

It’s like a teacher who wants to lead a Bible study in school after hours. Is she imposing her religion on others, because of the implied authority she holds as a teacher which makes this improper, or is she having her rights under the First Amendment violated by having her Bible club treated differently than drama or photography? There is no consensus.

For Constitutional issues, there is the Supreme Court to resolve what the Constitution ‘really’ says. Even then, precedent can be overturned, which is why the side that has what it wants always wants to freeze everything in place and the other wants new justices.

There is no such authority for morality. In other words, we can’t always determine what God wants us to do.

Another complicating factor is that it is an act of charity to warn someone that they are committing some act that will put them in danger. This is true, even if they are offended by hearing it. My drunken friend might be insulted by my insisting that he not drive himself home. The friendship could even be broken over the issue. This does not excuse me from trying to prevent him from driving. Neither does the fact that he does it a lot, and has always gotten away with it before. Neither would it if he drives home drunk every weekend, and never has an accident at all.

It is certainly true that there are more effective ways to dissuade a drunk from driving than by being abusive or insulting. These are counter-productive. But this does not mean that I should shut up about it altogether; this would be a violation of the law of charity.

This is turning into a book. Sorry.

I look forward to reading what everyone has to say.

Regards,
Shodan

45

In the case of drunk driving, the danger they’re facing is demonstrable, real, and able to be proven with empirical evidence. Besides which, they’re demonstrably putting other people in danger. It’s not only charitable, but humanitarian, to convince someone not to drive drunk. I’ve done so on occasion myself.

In the case of homosexuality, the danger is not demonstrable. If you believe that being homosexual puts me in danger of going to hell, and you warn me of it, you have no verifiable evidence to support your position. You’re presuming, with no evidence to support the presumption, that your understanding of how the universe works is superior to my own.

Additionally, there is a good possibility that stating these opinions, advocating that homosexuals are hell-bound sinners, creates a societal climate that puts homosexuals in real, demonstrable danger. The act of presumptuously warning us of an unverifiable and possibly mythical danger is putting us in real, actual physical danger. Not to mention making our lives more difficult by supplying a religious basis for discrimination.

So, why do it?

46

In addition to Mr. Visible’s refutation of Shodan’s equating of homosexuality to drunk driving, let me add that, contrary to the unfounded assertions of fundamentalists, the US is not a Christian nation. Our founders established a policy of strict neutrality to religion, neither to help or hinder. so the government may not forbid Shodan to pray in his church, but it also may not make Shodan’s church the state religion–which is what the fundies are trying to do. They wish to impose their relgious views on the reast of us when they wish to write their fear of homosexuality into the law by opposing gay rights legislation.

47

Still trying to cogently & succinctly formulate my answers. Busy as I am, it may take a while. Meantime, I’ll address one or two things that just happened.

Actually, the charitable/Christian thing to do would be to keep your friend from getting drunk in the first place…

Of course he is. This is the nature of faith.

Additionally, regarding the societal impact of proselytizing, he is also beholden to see that no evil is committed in the name of God, as this disobeys the Third Commandment. So witnessing to/admonishing people who would use the word of God to commit evil is an even greater responsibility than warning a “drunk driver”, because, as is demonstrated here on these Boards, being a believer and doing evil turns non-believers against the cause of God. See Romans 2:23-24, referencing Isaiah 52:5.

48

{sigh}

Even just reading this thread gets my bile up, so I’ll just stick to the OP.

1. Is there a God? I don’t know.

2. Does such a God have opinions on human moral behavior? If he/she/it were to exist, I am inclined to believe that he/she/it wouldn’t give a damn; and if it did, what a petty, cruel god it would be.

3. Is such a God identical to the historical God of Judaism and Christianity? I hope not, as half the time he seems all-loving, and half the time he seems like a spoiled brat (Divine Weasel, indeed).

4. Is the Bible as it stands an accurate record of such a God’s views? I say no.

5. What does the Bible have to say about homosexuality? As it is currently interpreted, it seems fairly clear that it is against the practice of homosexual sex. What it might have originally said on the topic I don’t know - I was neither there, nor can I read the language it was originally written in.

6. Is a “literal” reading of the passages answering question 5 an accurate representation of what God has to say? I sure hope not.

7. To what extent is the Law of the Bible applicable to people today, Christian or not? Perhaps if people stuck to the spirit of those stories, or perhaps stuck with the message of love, it might be a pretty good thing. Sadly, very few Christians seem to read it that way.

8. What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards a gay person? Why is this the proper reaction? “God be with you.” Anything other than that is vindictive, unsubstantiated and bigoted, IMHO.

9. Presuming the political power to do so, to what extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose his moral standards on those who hold different moral standards? Not at all, even if you ignore that whole inconvenient “separation of church and state” thing.

This entire topic depresses me to no end. Sadly, the constant hashing and rehashing only serves to reinforce the fact that I will never be a Christian.

Esprix

49

Esprix…

You’re so right and yet so wrong. I don’t know if you read my previous post or not, but in case not I’ll just say that the so called Christians that pretend that our sexual orientation is condemned by their religion are also pretending that slavery, murder, and genocide are not supported by the same book.

The fact is that the Bible supports believing all of those things, yet it does not from a Christian perspective. The very essence of Christianity demands that a believer take unto him/herself the word of Jesus and that involves in part discarding the Old Testament. Jesus never, not ever, was said to have condemned us in the texts of the New Testament.

I couldn’t care less from a religious perspective since I do not believe in the Semitic God, nevertheless there are parts of the morality of the same religions that our culture does well in upholding. Furthermore; yes it is important to debate it since we are by force faced with a society that revolves, or at least pretends to revolve around these moral principles.

I don’t know if me saying so makes any difference, but he fact is still that real Christians have no choice but to love you and understand that whether or not you are damned is neither none of their business, nor is it as certain as some of them pretend.

Sparc

50

Esprix, be of good cheer. The more this argument goes on, the more the straight supremacists have to state their points, and the more obvious it becomes that they haven’t got a leg to stand on. The reasonable Christians will see that they don’t want to be associated with the kind of hate being perpetrated by the zealous bigots in the group, and will reconsider the possibility that everyone should be treated as human, regarless of their sexual orientation.

You and I both know there are only two real causes for the anti-homosexuals’ hysteria: “It’s icky” and “God says it’s icky.” It’s not enough, by a long, long shot, to persecute people for. We just have to keep being persistent in getting the message out there.

51

Possibly.

This seems incredibly unlikely to me.

Not likely.

No, it is an accurate record of the views of ancient jews.

It’s bad.

No.

It is certainly applicable to Christians. It has nothing to do with me.

Personally, I think they can believe whatever they like. If they insist on preaching their belief in a god of hate rather than love, I will state my opposition to their beliefs as strongly as I am able.

Christians have no legal or moral right to force their beliefs on others.

52

***1. Is there a God? ***
Yes.

***2. Does such a God have opinions on human moral behavior? ***
yes

*3. Is such a God identical to the historical God of Judaism and Christianity? *
yes

***4. Is the Bible as it stands an accurate record of such a God’s views? ***
yes

5. What does the Bible have to say about homosexuality?
The following:

Also:

And

Also

And

Also

And

***6. Is a “literal” reading of the passages answering question 5 an accurate representation of what God has to say? ***
Yes. Where God intends for us to interpret symbolically, He makes it obvious. Many of the OT prophecies have already been literally fulfilled. When something makes absolutely no sense literally, then it should be used symbolically. Now you might say that we can’t be sure of how to interpret it because we aren’t sure if the Bible is accurate, well, there are more than 5000 manuscripts dating from the 1st Century onward with which modern translations can be compared and their accuracy determined. There are lectionaries (1st and 2nd century sermons or written lessons) which quote a lot of the Bible. I am almost certain that all the NT and a part of the OT can be found in these documents. I need to do more research on it. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain almost all the OT and pre-date the time of Christ. http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/kjv-3.htm http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/maps_m.html http://www.creatingfutures.net/f4.html

***7. To what extent is the Law of the Bible applicable to people today, Christian or not? ***
This is applicable to everyone at all times.

I think what people need to remember is that to love God is to put worldly things behind them.
There are lots of laws in the OT. All the dozens of laws about the land, foods, and rituals of Israel don’t pertain to us. Keeping of any of these laws cannot get us into heaven anyway.

8. What is the proper reaction of a Christian towards a gay person?
They should be shown love and compassion just as anyone else. Not because they are gay, but because they are humans. They should be made aware of the Bible and we should pray they they obey God. It doesn’t matter if you are gay or straight, fornication is a sin for both. We were told to stop sinning and follow Jesus. It is necessary that gays also experience forgiveness and transformation in church. I remember a pastor of mine saying that he would never deny anyone from coming to his church, but they may end up walking out if they refuse to give up the sin, and he preaches against homosexuality.

Why is this the proper reaction?
Because we are to love one another. If you love someone, you want them to know the truth. Love is wanting the best for someone.

***9. Presuming the political power to do so, to what extent is a Christian required or permitted to impose his moral standards on those who hold different moral standards? ***
We should let the Bible and its values be known. After you have shared that with whomever, you have to let God convict the heart of that person. As long as you did your part, you are done. Just let it be known. If you are asked more questions, then you guide the person towards God. If they don’t care what you have to say and they think you are full of it, then let it be. Your job is done.

53

So, Shodan, what laws with respect to homosexuality and homosexual acts by consenting adults do you think Christians should advocate in the United States today?

54

Probably very little.

“That government is best which governs least”.

Although I say this more as a conservative Republican than a Christian.

If you are asking how much effort the state should invest in arresting people for violating the sodomy laws, I would also say very little. Not the state’s concern.

Nor do I advocate a theocracy in any real sense. I don’t believe it is possible for the government to force us to love one another, and we are all better off not having it try. As I said, the entanglements trying to balance competing rights off against each other are complex and difficult to resolve.

If that is what you are asking.

Regards,
Shodan

55

Just one last clarification: Do you think there should be laws against consensual sodomy at all? Do you think they should remain on the books, with little effort to enforce them, or (if it’s not the state’s concern) do you think they should be repealed?

56

ResIpsaLoquitor, I’m fairly familiar with the account of why the Catholic Church thinks it is immoral.

But that is not the same question as simply: why is it immoral?

In the abscence of particular theology, or even the in prescence of one, it still seems to come down to “that’s not what God likes.” Even if I believed in God, I’d have to respond: so what? “God doesn’t like that” or “that’s a neat symbol for the relationship of…” aren’t moral arguements. Calling something a sacrement and another thing a taboo doesn’t really answer the question of why something is good or bad: it bypasses the question entirely.

And to boot, a lot of the rationale, most of which is metaphorical anyway (which doesn’t really work in the context of a moral discussion), is poetic, not necessary. There’s nothing inherently more binding about the actual act of sex than there is a proctologist sticking his finger up my ass. What about cunnilingus? Should I have to marry my surgeon before he can reach inside my body? If these questions seem silly, then perhaps that gives some sense of how much I think the descriptions here really are matters of poetic interpretation, dosed with a good measure of cultural bias, and not in any sense objectively real or necessary understandings.

As far as I can tell, there are many ways for people to be happy, many sorts of fulfilling relationships. Some sexual, some non.

If you want to convince me that having sex with a particular someone is bad, then you are going to have to explain why it is bad in terms of values and harms that aren’t simply presumed by some authority, but are actually recognized by the beings participating.

57

Jersey,

Fornication doesn’t do it as grounds you know. That would only condemn the homosexuals who are promiscuous, together with the heterosexuals who are. Monogamy is not a hetero only game, I might tell you.

What about the dilemma I presented you with Jersey? Care to explain how you deal with that in context of what you just said as quoted above. I’d really like to know what you have to say about Deuteronomy 21, 22 and 23.

Sparc

58

There’s an awful lot going on in Deuteronomy 21, 22, and 23. I’m just curious what you are asking for Jersey’s opinion on.

59

Deuteronomy

see: http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc/mhc/deuteronomy.html

I’m not sure exactly what your question is about Deuteronomy.
It was the second giving of the law. We are not bound by the laws of the OT if that’s what you are asking.

When a man has a wife or a woman has a husband, they should be with only each other. They are married, so they can have sex.

Wife----GunE, (Greek) which literally means “woman” may be used for “wife” (as in idiomatic English: my or the woman.)
Husband---- aner (greek) means “man” (or “husband”)

I never said that gays cannot be monogamous. So if you are saying homosexual sex it is ok with the Bible because you are monogamous, that doesn’t make it ok. I may not be totally clear about what you are asking. I apologize if I am totally off .

60

Jersey, correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that fornication is always wrong.

The key being that:

Heterosexual fornication is defined as any sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage.
Homosexual fornication is defined as any sexual relations period.

Correct?

IMHO, my summation above represents the general attitude of modern fundamentalist Christians towards “fornication”.

And this is where the disconnect comes in. Because more moderate or liberal Christians will say that in certain cases, homosexual relations are OK, such as between “committed partners” and such.