The Christian Politics Board

[Jeff]

tina 52

11-12-2004 11:56 PM ET (US)
Amanda, I agree with most of what Jeff said. There were some OT books written pre-Jesus, e.g., Psalms, Job, etc., which surely would have been known as Scriptures. Though what we know as the OT may not have been finalized till later, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t read and study what they considered Scripture. By the time Jesus came around the Jewish folk were to follow 613 commandments (or, rather, laws) including the big 10, which are given in the Talmud. Jesus obviously knew of these laws as this was his main contention with the Jewish religious leaders.
No, I do not think that Paul thought his letters would be God’s Law. I Cor. 2:1-16 speaks of this. He writes to the Corinthians humbly, “I came to you in weakness & fear, & with much trembling. My message & my preaching were not with wise & persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirt’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.” Maybe he thought someone may keep his letters since he’s 1 of the founding fathers, but he seems humble enough not to care if his letters were kept.
I agree with Jeff’s version of II Peter 1:20&21. Again, I’ve not said that the men who wrote this book were not divinely inspired, but divinely inspired is not the same as Divine. God may have worked through men, but heavens, apparently God is working through George W. Bush … well, according to him.
As to II Tim. 3:16, I have never claimed it wasn’t divinely inspired. Again, divine inspiration does not equal Divine. God is supposedly perfect and Divine. The Bible does not claim itself as Divine. E.g., Paul was divinely inspired to preach about Jesus. Jesus was Divine. Being inspired did not, nor will ever, make Paul Divine. I Cor. 1:13 Paul says, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” Obviously Paul didn’t think he was Divine. About Timothy, read this scripture closely: “All Scripture is God-breathed & is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting & training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Scripture is to be useful, but not Biblical law as an absolute that cannot be questioned. If it wasn’t to be questioned, then Jesus wouldn’t have bitched about the words the Jewish leaders said, because if came from the Scripture, end of story. I do disagree with Jeff in 1 bit on this Timothy verse. Jeff’s ‘Commentary’ book may say that the Scriptures may have included Paul’s letters, but as Paul is the author of Timothy, it’s a bit off-point on this particular verse.
Back to II Peter 1:20&21- again, divinely inspired does not equal Divine. There has to be a consensus – did Jesus abolish the laws of the OT, as Paul stated, or not? If the Scriptures are Divine, then the 613 laws from the OT must still be followed today. If this book is a help-mate, and a useful tool, then the laws from the OT do not have to be followed. But it cannot go both ways.
II Peter 3:15&16 Peter is speaking highly of Paul’s letters, since he knows he’s about to die. But I see nothing of divineness. I see where it says that “brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.” Solomon was given wisdom from God, but did not become Divine.

To Lowercast Jeff, I think the only moral imperative given from the Bible is to love. If you love you will not kill, steal, hurt, react angrily, be greedy, etc. I think the Bible is no different than Plato’s teachings of Socrates. Ideas to be applied to your life, but not mandates. Jane Austin dealt with the issues of her time. I can still glean information from her books. In II Peter 2:8&9, Peter called Lot “a righteous man”, a man who got drunk & slept with his 2 daughters. Also, Lot was willing to give his daughters to the crowd that demanded the 2 men (angels incognito) so that they could rape them. Lot said, no, take my daughters instead. In our world, these actions are not so righteous. In their time hospitality was considered a highly moral action. So I do not think Lot was such a righteous man, but I can learn from his story. He was saved as he was grieved by the actions of the folks in Sodom & Gomorrah. So, I think the only moral imperative is Mt. 22:37-40, Mark 12:30&31, & Lk. 10:27. Love. I don’t have to distinguish the ‘important’ ones from the ‘unimportant’ ones as there is only 1. I can give you the story of the Arc of the Covenant, if you are interested which illustrates my point, unless you are satisfied with what I have written here.
Adios! tina

[Jeff]

tina 53

11-13-2004 12:21 AM ET (US)
Athletic Jeff,
I’m glad you put in the ole alcoholic, choose not to drink thing. I have been thinking a lot about this, so let me throw something at you & see what you think. God created human with freewill. What does this mean? It means humans have ‘choice’. Heterosexuals have the ability to have sex. Now, folks may abstain due to their religion, like priests- they have chosen celibacy. Most folks choose to marry & participate in sex. (I’m playing it safe here & speaking of marital sex so those who get squeamish about pre-marital sex don’t have to jump on that.) So, heterosexuals have a choice in choosing or not choosing to participate in sex. Now homosexuals. They are attracted to their same sex. But, according to Christians, they can choose not to have sex. Here’s my problem. If homosexuals, according to some mandate by god, are to never have sex, then they have no choice. There is no choice, just ‘no’. Why would this god, unless it’s some crazy wicked joke, design them to be attracted only to their same sex? Homosexuals aren’t given the choice to be attracted to their same sex or the opposite, they just are, simply, attracted to their kind. Now, whether this attraction is due to environment or genetics is another convo, but every gay person I know thinks your crazy when one asks, ‘so when did you become attracted to men/women?’ There was no becoming, it just is. So god created a creature who has no choice, though s/he has the ability to have sex. It seems against the reason god created us in the first place. I may need to flush this out more, but that’s the skeletal version. tina

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 54

11-13-2004 12:52 AM ET (US)
I agree with you, Tina, that the choice is unfair, but I do think there is a choice: To engage in an action or not. It's not the same choice heteros have, but it is a choice. Even so, I think you are right to insist on the lack of love displayed by those who hold the view that there are no sinless homosexual acts.

About Timothy (doesn't that sound like an After School Special--ever notice that the acronym there is ASS? I've been up way too long): Doubt about Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is pretty old. It goes back to the 19th century. Certainly the church maintains that Paul is the author. Additionally, the historical figures that claim Paul wrote the Pastorals include Theophilus of Antioch (the guy I got Rick's nickname from) and Irenaeus. But most scholars today reject Pauline authorship. Their reasons are interesting, and if we want to really study this passage in 2 Timothy we may want to go through them.

The important point for us is that if the writer is someone other than Paul, then 2 Tim 3:16 needn't be compared to I Cor 2:1-16.

Plain-Vanilla-Jeff

[Jeff]

tina 55

11-13-2004 09:38 AM ET (US)
Vanilla, I still don't think there is a choice speaking in god terms. Ok, some humans do not have the ability to have sex. E.g., Mt. 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made by men; & others have renounced the marriage because of the kingdom of heaven." Ok, some are born without the ability. Heteros are born with the choice to get married(sex) or to abstain from marriage (sex). Either 1 of these choices, in the eye’s of god, are not sins. He has given us a choice with our natural urges, neither of which are sinful. However, with homosexuals, they are born with natural urges, but their choice is between 1 of sin or sainthood. Is that truly a choice? God designed these folks with their urges, but are punished if acted on. A homosexual is not given the choice of marriage or celibacy. It is demanded that he or she be celibate. If it’s a demand, it was never a choice.
Let’s go back to the Garden of Eden. God told Adam & Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good & evil. Ok, so Adam & Eve were able to eat all sorts of other things, just not from this tree. Eating is not considered a sin. Just eating from that tree was a sin. Now imagine god created Adam & Eve with the natural desire to eat, but told them not to eat, as eating was a sin. Now, their natural desires are considered a sin. According to you, they still have choice. They could not eat & be holy. Or they could eat & sin. If god designed them with this natural urge for eating, then told them ‘no’, he did not give them a choice. Homosexuals have the ability to have sex, but are not given a non-sinful choice as heteros do.
Now, I imagine one will now argue, but I have the ability to steal, but it’s still a sin to do so. And I would argue that ability does not make it a natural urge or impulse. I have the ability to do math; I still suck at it. Abilities & natural impulses are 2 different things. God designed us with natural sexual impulses, but according to most Christians, homosexuals have the choice of eternal life or hell according to how they react to their natural impulse. Why did god design heteros with the choice, neither sinful, then design homosexuals without a sinful choice. Basically it’s saying that god designed them to sin. So, we have 1 of 2 choices here. Either god designed incorrectly, making herim fallible & not perfect, or we have misinterpreted ‘god’s command’.
Tu comprend? Hey, you never mentioned my moral imperative dealy. Still thinking or ignoring?

[Jeff]

Jeff
Halford 56

11-13-2004 10:57 AM ET (US)
“I agree with you that the existence of gay animals, besides human beings, means that homosexuality is natural. But how would naturalness decide the case? For example, an alcoholic has a natural disposition to drink to excess, but as a rational animal also has the capacity to resist it. It seems to me that this line of argument comes down to an argument concerning the fairness of asking some folks to suppress their natural sexual tendencies while not asking the same of others. In other words this looks like a social justice argument. (For those who were watching, please take this to be the errant SJ argument that escaped inclusion in my paper sketch on the subject. Oops!)” from Jeff, a few posts back


Jeff is quite correct to point out that ‘naturalness deosn’t decide the case’, but it does undermine much of what I hear from the anti- position: “that ain’t natural. If it were, we’d see all sorts of animals doing it.” Tina has since added what I think are crucial elements to the argument I was aiming to develop. Where does god (and its plans) intersect with nature and what is natural? Can animals, other than humans, inform us of any of this? One of the primary rationales for using animals in medical testing is that they don’t possess the reasoning to “lie” about what the chemicals are doing to them. Presumably, animals just behave as their instincts suggest they do. Or, instead, does this god only concern itself with humans (if so, it seems to have sullied up this rock with a lot of other species, many of which share quite similar genetic makeups—I insist there’s an important connection!), at which point “nature” is expected to be outdone by “reason”, at least when what is “natural” is sanctioned by social pressures or religion? What the hell good is a natural instinct/desire if its only purpose is to be squelched (at least if the prize of salvation is to gained)? As Tina articulated, this doesn’t sound like choice in any meaningful sense of the word…and if this is what “choice” looks like, I’m certainly glad that I’m “lucky” that men don’t turn me on…or that heaven isn’t my goal (what would be my options?).

And I agree that this does raise the issue of fairness in suppression, and if the literalists are correct, then god has asked some to be born with desires that they can NEVER express (a wonderful film, “The Priest”, gets at this issue somewhat). So this is an issue of social judgment, imposed by god itself? Who gets to follow their desires and who must repress them? And what in the world was god planning with this? Are homosexuals just the victims of some celestial episode of Candid Camera, god always waiting to see who’ll take the bait? If I’m gay and ‘act’ accordingly, I am damned, simple as that. And it isn’t social judgment that condemns me—it’s god.

The alcoholic analogy doesn’t quite compare though…presumably, one with alcoholic predispositions can reasonably avoid alcohol…no one has ever claimed that the instinct to drink includes the instinct to drink alcohol. Further, what about the pre-alcoholic that never takes a drink? Is s/he resisting the urge, or simply not taking/being exposed to the first step toward their potential downfall? I was born to an alcoholic and can’t remember ever being drawn toward alcohol…that is, until I started drinking. If alcholism is a predisposition, would it be a temptation if I lived in a society where I didn’t have access? I think not. (And yes, as you can gather, I have a problem with the alcohol-disease model—seems to me the cause and the symptom are identical—tipping the bottle. This runs counter to most disease models, which posit different causes and symptoms). Back to homosexuality, can the gay man then avoid men? How so, by joining a monestary? Oops, I suppose he’d need to join a nunnery, which isn’t allowed as far as I can tell. Now, we’re back to square one: the homosexual must either be true to his/her desires (which we’ll concede exists in nature) or change his/her desires to align with what is “right”. And again, I ask: can heterosexuals reason themselves gay? Try your hardest NOT to find the other sex attractive and concede, that if you’re to have sex again, it will be with a member of your own sex. Hard as I try, I can’t quite get there—Johnny Depp is certainly attractive to look at, but wanting to play doctor with him sorta turns me off. But, this is PRECISELY what the anti- position is asking of homosexuals: You can either opt out of sex or do it the right way, dammit! Sounds like a mental/emotional/spiritual trainwreck in the making…and if this sort of conundrum is what god had planned when it created/allowed homosexuality, then I’m not so certain about the nature of this god we’re discussing. And certainly not convinced that this god is worthy of our adulation…

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 57

11-13-2004 12:36 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 11-13-2004 03:17 PM
What are the necessary conditions of a rational choice? Lists vary, but I don’t think one needs much more than 1) an agent, i.e., a being who is capable of deliberation, 2) a real possibility of doing some action other than the action that is chosen, 3) a period of deliberation and 4) an act or a resistance, i.e., the activity in the world that constitutes performing the chosen action. What exactly am I missing here?

Tina wants to suggest that there must be a sinless (or morally acceptable) expression of every natural impulse. This is tantamount to saying that all human impulses are redeemable or capable of being expressed in a good way. While Aristotle might agree with her, there is no reason anyone else has to.

A Non-Christian argument against Tina’s view: Epicurus says that all desires are natural or unnatural. The desire for food is natural but the desire for fame, political power, extraordinary wealth, and other ambitions which have the trappings of prestige are unnatural. Of the natural desires some are necessary and others unnecessary. Again, the desire for food is natural and necessary, but the desire for caviar while natural is unnecessary. Also among the unnecessary (though natural) desires we find the desire for sexual activity. It is unnecessary because one’s individual existence does not require it and because its fulfillment might actually lead to greater pain than its nonfulfillment. Among the necessary (and natural) desires we find those that are necessary for life (food, water, and shelter), ease (a bed), and happiness (virtue, friends, and philosophy). If we argue in this way, then all sexual activity is potentially harmful, and a prudent heterosexual person would do best to limit or eliminate, if possible, her sexual contacts for the sake of her own happiness. In the case of homosexuality, it is much more likely that the fulfillment of the desire will bring pain, social conditions being what they are, so they should be even more strongly resisted.

A Christian argument to the same conclusion: Human beings have many natural impulses that have no sinless expression. What is the morally acceptable expression of cowardice, i.e., of being overcome by fear? It doesn’t exist. What is the morally acceptable expression of cruelty? Or of any vice really: intemperance, illiberality, pettiness, vanity, prodigality, self-indulgence, excessive pride, irascibility, false modesty, boorishness, buffoonery, shamelessness, envy, and so on? Certainly impulses to do evil are natural to our fallen state, and all of them should be resisted. This is why being good is so hard. There are so many ways to be evil, but only a few ways to be good. Humans always fail in their attempts to be good, and that is why Jesus’ sacrifice is necessary for human salvation. But this doesn’t mean we should stop trying to be good. Quite the opposite. We must constantly strive to be good. Each individual has her own proclivities to act evilly, i.e., her peculiar temptations are specific to herself. For some people, the temptation to engage in homosexual activity is strong. Even so, to actually engage in it is still evil. These people enjoy all the same freedoms as heterosexual people do and suffer all the same limitations when these are conceived as external rights and regulations. But internally, they must master their own proclivities to behave evilly. This is the same for all of us; it’s just that individual proclivities vary.

I don’t agree with either of these arguments. I agree with Aristotle and you, but I do think that they show that there are alternative conceptions of rational choice available to us. And your own interpretation of choice is bringing in some of the argument from social justice along with it.

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 58

11-13-2004 01:07 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 11-13-2004 01:07 PM
As for Jeff H.’s argument: His thinking is exactly like mine. If YHWH is giving these crazy directives, then She is unjust. And an unjust God cannot be worthy of adoration, and certainly shouldn't guide our social policies.

All we need to get the argument going is what Jeff H. said and a commitment to the omnibenevolvence of God. Now, Justin thinks God may not have this characteristic. So maybe we should argue that next?

Jeff

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 59

11-13-2004 04:15 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 11-13-2004 04:24 PM
I am sympathetic to Tina’s view that love is the whole of the law. These are perhaps my favorite verses from the NT:

“But hearing that He had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees were gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked, tempting Him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the Law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40 MKJV)

I used to quote them all the time—Justin probably remembers. I think that Tina’s basic interpretation of the NT and mine are almost identical, too. We both see Jesus’ fundamental idea as opposition of Phariseism in all forms, ancient and modern. I’ve argued this with Justin before. And the crux of his response to my suggestion is that this, too, is an interpretation of the NT. He’s right; and it is a very grand reduction of the more than 180,000 words in the NT. As a reduction it expresses the view that there is some non-culture bound interpretation of the NT that is essentially correct. I agree with this view; however, it puts Tina and I in the same boat as the literalists inasmuch as we are committed to arguing from evidence internal to the Bible that our interpretation is correct. Second, both Tina and I must be prepared to defend some version of moral realism. This could be done through either 1) some version of Divine Command Theory, which I am pretty sure that she and I both reject, 2) some external moral theory (virtue ethics, deontology, or consequentialism) that we think is correct and which accords with our interpretation of the NT, or 3) some novel moral theory based upon our reading of the NT. (I actually think option 3 is closest to being correct, but that is a story for later.)

What neither she nor I can say is that the Bible is meant solely for Christians while the Koran is meant solely for Muslims. Indeed our stance on the central importance of love as a guiding moral principle means that we are committed to it across cultures and times. In other words, selecting even one absolute moral principle from the Bible rules out moral relativism. (And good riddance I say, as that view embodies the sloppiest thinking of any commonly held view today.)

Jeff

PS Let's have that Arc of the Covenant story, Tina.

[Jeff]

Sharon 60

11-13-2004 04:49 PM ET (US)
I'll have to look it up in the NT but it says that they (homosexuals) were given up to themselves.
Whatever you feed it will grow...Everyone has a choice even those born with tendancies out of the norm of societies acceptance. It's their decision at the temptations that ultimately make who they are, don't blame God for their wrong choices. How many homosexuals out there have you seen that desie to be straight? I've never met any. I met some that longed for normalcy in their lives which meant they wanted acceptance from society and families for who they are. This is a very difficult subject, why does God allow it? He doesn't. He's givin them over to their thinking beacuse of their unbelief. Choice is powerful.

[Jeff]

Justin McBride 61

11-13-2004 06:54 PM ET (US)
There are people born to fail, and it's unfair. There are people born everyday without the ability to do this or that. There are people born with brain traumas, people born addicted to drugs. There are several ways to think about this. There are many more, but here are just a few. One is to say God is responsible for the way we are at birth and that by some complex process this is just. Another is to say God had nothing to do with it and Its justice is intact. I would say that God is only responsible for what happens at birth in as much as God allows each moment to pass into another. If we want to maintain the idea that God is just and that God is responsible for how we are at birth, I'd like to hear an argument for this. I personally am not committed to God's justice.

[Jeff]

Adam Hull 62

11-13-2004 07:13 PM ET (US)
Priscilla had pointed out my obsession with this discussion and how it was taking all of my free time, I have chosen to limit my self to just the weekens to comment on these topics. So I will try to comment to peoples comments as soon as I can, Jeff McBride you game me alot anlong with Tina and so many others, Thanks for the questions. 1st I'll try to comment on some of the most recent topics I've read thus far from Tina and Jeff H.

So here goes:

Yes, God did design us with natural sexual impulses. So in this case there is a natural desire towards sex, but as I pointed out in Romans God turned mankind over to unnatural desires, obviously he was protecting us from this pull of the flesh. As in Genisus he gave man and woman everything they could possible need, but for it to be a choice to follow him he had to create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree it’s self was not evil nor was the fruit it bore, but the command was not to eat of it. So the sin was making a choice to follow God’s commandment or not to follow God’s commandment.

Now I know that according to most Christians, your works (something you have to do or keep on doing is what gets you to Heaven) and not just faith in Jesus is what gets you to heaven. I question these Christians on this and have yet to give a clear answer when I point out the many verses that say believe and you will be saved. These same Christians will say that there going to heaven because of how they are living or they hope (but aren’t sure) they will go to heaven when the time comes. I know the fear they live in for that’s exactly what I lived with for the last 30 years. Until I was shown verses in the bible that proved that line of thinking was wrong and made Christ’s sacrifice not good enough. I wish those who claim to be Christians could just see this one simple truth and stop adding to it. By adding to it they turn so many people away. No where in the bible does it say that a Homosexual can’t be a believer and no where does it say they can’t go to heaven just cause they choose to live that style of life. It’s does say that not dealing with sin in your life (this means any kind of sin) will damage your testimony for God and keep you from having complete victory in your walk with God and there will be some type of punishment for not dealing with it. You may enjoy the fruits of you sin’s for a time, can’t remember the book or verse, but this comment was written to believers who where not dealing with their sin.

So I challenge all to do your own study on this and I would be very curious to see what you believe the bible is saying on this subject of Salvation?
If you have read the Bible please tell me what the NT says over and over again about Spiritual Salvation and how you can attain it and once you have it can you loose it??? Anyone care to comment??

I would start you with John 3:16, as I have studied for just the last 7 years (when I got married and started attending a bible teaching church). I learned that some where in the NT Salvation through faith is mentioned about or over 100 times. Now in James it does mentioned that even the demons (fallen angels) have believed and aren’t saved. The most common argument I have run into, except that Jesus came to pay the price for mankind’s sin and not for fallen angels.


Your argument about nature and animals. Note: God didn’t create us in the image of animals or animals in the image of man. So like it is for me to take the bible by faith it to is a leap of faith for others to try and bridge that gap between man and animal no matter how small science has gotten it down to. There is still a gap that you have to “believe” in some bridge that has to be proven.

Again believe and you’re saved, then and only then can you have a walk with God. As you study, apply (live out in your life) and then teach others, God will give you the desires of your heart. If Homosexuality is a sin as I believe the bible points out, then God will correct the desires of your heart, but only so long as you choose to walk with him. This works with any sin in a person’s life. No one said it would be easy, after all Jesus said pick up you cross and follow me, we each have a cross to bear and not all crosses are the same.

Jeff McBride I promise to answer your questions though it may take awhile and all may even forget what they where by the time I give some answers.

Nice talken to everyone, glad to here your doing better Tina,I've missed your comments. Nice to finally meet you Jeff H. even if it's not in person. Thanks for your thoughts and I'm glad I've done a good job of expressing myself with out being to closed minded.
Talk soon
Adam

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 63

11-13-2004 08:05 PM ET (US)
Justin,

I believe that your concerns are a key reason that this argument about natural endowments will have to devolve into an argument concerning the social justice of differential treatment. If God is not responsible for how we are born, then we must move to questioning the rules She sanctions for our society. Thus, a social justice argument arises which seems to proceed without making any claim about genetic endowments or the naturalness of the homosexual impulse. Rather, it simply questions whether we are ever justified in treating folks differentially based on differences in sexual orientations. But I do think Jeff H. is right: The naturalness of the homosexual impulse cannot be seriously questioned.

There is an alternative: We could proceed to make the case for the omnibenevolence of God. Do we want to go there?

Jeff

[Jeff]

Amanda McBride 64

11-13-2004 11:06 PM ET (US)

For the moment, I'll entertain the idea that homosexuality is a sin. I have been told that all sins are equal. Other sinners can and do get married. Why is the ability to get married denied to homosexuals?

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 65

11-14-2004 12:35 AM ET (US)
I don't get this question, Amanda. A homosexual has the same right to get married as anyone else...provided she marries a person of the opposite sex. What exactly is the problem here for a Christian literalist?

(At this point it looks like I am officially the Devil's Advocate. If I make any missteps, please tell me. It is rather difficult for me to play a fundamentalist.)

Jeff

[Jeff]

Adam Hull 66

11-14-2004 01:29 AM ET (US)
Aside from homosexuality being sin (base off what the bible says), I believe that the majority of people fear that we as a nation or maybe even as a world have slowly allowed more and more things to become exceptable/tolerable. Examples the ease at which the TV net works choose to allow adult scenes or very graphic violent scenes to be shown on TV now adays. They figure in the penaltys for showing this stuff as just part of the cost of doing bissness. People feel their loosing this battle for family values and a moral life style. Yes, I know that gays can be as good or even better parents than some straight couples, but yet we (I'm speaking for us radicals) don't believe that children should be raised to see that as an acceptable lifestyle, just like I don't believe a child should be raised in an abusive family.

I think in the end it's because people don't wish to see same sex couples adopting children and thus the child is raised seeing/accepting this non-traditional union as OK.

This is just my though as to why with out using the bible. Don't worry it won't happen again if I can keep from it.

good nigh all 12:28am Saturday morning
Adam

[Jeff]

Halford 67

11-14-2004 10:31 AM ET (US)
Adam,
Since you removed the Bible from your answer, I'll respond in an equally secular manner. As I see it, you've mentioned some of the very reasons I hear folks condemn homosexuality (and I also hear it talked about in the same sentence as television standards and the like). And I would agree with you entirely, if only I had evidence that homosexual unions were in any way less "good" for the people in them or for the children who grow up watching them as "normal". Here's the rub: we have loads of evidence (I study families/marriage/divorce) to suggest the opposite. Not only do children with gay parents tend to exhibit no differences in most outcomes (as compared to their straight-parented counterparts), but many of these children in fact are better adjusted as adults! How often do they "turn gay" as a result? No more commonly than do those with hetero- parents. A good many of the real-world concerns of the anti-position are contradicted by what we know from having studied families over the years...

And you mention the idea of allowing children to be exposed to certain things. Another interesting thing to consider when looking at conservative vs. liberal areas of the country (which in some ways mirrors the religious landscape of the US): take a look at divorce rates, teenage pregnancy rates, HS dropout rates and their frequencies. The most "tolerant" of these states appear at the bottom of these lists (MA has lowest divorce rate, for example); the more restrictive states round out the top. Just an interesting correlation between "what we want to allow our children to see" and "what our children seem to do with it"...

And, to Jeff and Justin, I think this god being benevolent thing is up for grabs, as far as this discussion has gone. As I read it, Justin couldn't care less if god were benevolent and Jeff's worship of god is (partially) contingent upon it! Justin, if it doesn't matter, then what purpose does god serve, if any? If god is simply the all-knowing and everpresent, which I agree sound like the same thing, why is god worthy of anything other than comment? And without benevolence, why would god care to listen to prayer, assuming it does? On what grounds does it decide what to grant/deny if it has no goodness/badness? No disrespect intended; I just don't understand how your god differs from my science...

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 68

11-14-2004 11:14 AM ET (US)
Edited by author 11-14-2004 11:33 AM
Amanda,

That last post of mine was obscure at best. Let me see if I can be plain: I don’t see a logical problem with the Christian prohibition against homosexual marriage PROVIDED that we give up one of the Omnis (benevolence, potency, or science). About a week ago I tried to make this argument. You may, of course, disagree with it. My key point is that there is a difference between talking about evil in the world, which the Omni-God might allow on the basis of some sufficient reason, and evil in intention, which even the Omni-God cannot countenance. At the VERY LEAST the Omni-God is intending suffering (perhaps evil) in creating homosexuals who have no sinless expression of what is arguably their most important natural impulse. Can the Omni-God use suffering (or evil) as a means to an end? I think this bodes ill for Her Omnibenevolence.

Now, Justin would chuck Omnibenevolence. If one does this, then the logical problem goes away entirely. If fact, one could think of my argument as providing evidence that one of the Omnis needs to be dismissed. However, I think the Bible is committed to all three. Its weakest case is for benevolence, but again I think this argument can be made. Justin disagrees.

Jeff and Tina’s arguments both presuppose some a priori conception of a God worthy of adulation, or so I have been arguing. However, I see no reason to think that Adam is forced to even engage in a reasonable discussion about God, PROVIDED that rational theology is viewed as an unwarranted questioning of one’s faith. Of course if he does this, I can also see no external way to distinguish his faith from that of Andrea Yeats. In effect, religion would serve to separate everyone form everyone else instead of bringing people together. Any kind of discussion about God would be wholly accidental as would any agreement on the spiritual worth of a text. I can see why orthodoxy would be sought given such a view, but I don’t see how it could ever be found. In other words, I think Faith-Wins exclusivism is self-defeating in many ways, which is good because that is the only way anyone would ever be able to defeat it.

Jeff

PS Jeff H., thanks for drawing out the secular evidence against the anti-gay view. I haven't seen anything that supports the Literalist's view in scientific studies--though I have heard of some inconclusive ones. (I'll try to muster some links.) I have been discussing the case entrirely in terms of theology. But if our opponents are really just looking for a theological excuse to believe their anecdotal scientific views, then I can see why this whole discussion might be seen as wheel-spinning. Still, I have been giving (and will likely continue to give) Literalists the benefit of the doubt. But maybe that is because Adam is more the exception than the rule...

PPS Amanda, the other way to solve the problem is to relax the anti-gay view. That is, side with Jeff and Tina and say that there is a sinless expression of the homosexual impulse. This is my own preferred solution.

[Jeff]

Jeffrey McBride 69

11-14-2004 01:52 PM ET (US)
Edited by author 11-14-2004 02:18 PM
ODDS AND ENDS

1. IQ and voting patterns. It may not be totally accurate, but it has links to some of the things Jeff H. was talking about:

chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

2. Don’t forget: This is what WE’RE talking about:

www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/elec...rica_2004_small.gif


3. Below is what my second favorite living fantasy writer had to say about last week’s election.

“…I am pretty good with words, usually, but no words can express how miserable, angry, and depressed I am feeling this morning over the results of yesterday's election. The exit polling makes it clear: this was a victory for bigotry and fear, a mandate bought with lies. I know from past experience that it is going to take me some time to shake off this depression.

Losing myself in the world of Westeros would probably be the best medicine for what ails me just now, I know full well. There is solace in work, and books -- my own books, and those of others -- have always been a refuge for me during dark times in my life. Today, however, the {fictional} travails of my {fictional} Seven Kingdoms seem pretty unimportant compared to the very real woes that the United States is facing, a future of war and isolation abroad, and division and repression at home.

Winter is coming to Westeros, but it has already come to America. "


—George R.R. Martin, November 3, 2004

(He took it down on his own website, but you can still find it here: www.gregkeyes.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=378429)

4. I have made up my own mind about what I think the Bible actually says concerning homosexuality. The conclusion is negative. I agree with my original thought that the Bible is decidedly against it. Tina gave me some reason to hope otherwise, but in the end this was just a hope. No amount of massaging the text can take away its clearly negative appraisal of this natural tendency. Here are sketches of the arguments that finally convinced me:

The Oxford Companion to the Bible p288-289

“Homosexuality. Leviticus 20.13 prohibits sexual relations between men, defines them as an "abomination," and places them under the death penalty (see also Lev. 18.22). Ethical considerations such as consent, coercion, or the power imbalance inherent in adult-child relations are not legally relevant in these passages (nor in the surrounding levitical laws on adultery, incest, and bestiality). Thus, regardless of the sexual relationship of the participants (a man and his consenting male partner, an adult male whom he had raped, or a child victim), all are equally culpable, since all are equally defiled (see Philo, De spec. leg. 3.7.37-42).

Like Leviticus, Paul does not employ the ethical categories of consent or age for distinguishing between sanctioned and condemned sexual relations. His letters contain linguistic and conceptual parallels to the levilical laws about same-sex sexual relations. Thus, 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 states that "the ones who lie with men" (NRSV: "sodomites"; cf. Lev. 20.13) will not "inherit the kingdom of God" (see also the Deutero-Pauline 1 Tim. 1.10; and see Ethical Lists). Paul describes male-male sexual relations as "impurity" and asserts that such men "deserve to die" (Rom. 1.24-32). Paul extends the prohibition to include sexual relations between women (Rom. 1.26) as do other postbiblical Jewish writings. Like other writers in the Roman world such as Philo, Ptolemy, and Martial, Paul sees same-sex sexual relations as transgressions of hierarchical gender boundaries. For example, "unnatural" (Rom. 1.26) most likely refers to the women's attempt to transcend the passive, subordinate role accorded to them by nature. Similarly, the men have relinquished the superordinate, active role (see 1 Cor. 11.13) and have descended to the level of women.

Some postbiblical Jewish and early Christian writers specifically define the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19.28; cf. Judg. 19) as same-sex relations rather than as rape or inhospitality; see, for example, Jude 7 and Philo, De Abrahamo 26.134-36 (cf. 2 Pet. 2.6; Testament of Naphtali 3.4-5: 4.1)

Biblical prohibitions of same-sex love directly influenced later Roman law and, indeed, Western legal statutes until the present (e.g., sodomy statutes in U.S. criminal law).

Bernadette J. Brooten”


Alas. I think the original thought was correct. Something has to give in all this mess. Again, I think the best way to go is simply to say that the Bible gets some stuff wrong, like this same-sex relations stuff. Again, I think our job is to show literalists that their views cannot be right.

Jeff

PS This is a good essay from Brooten: www.clgs.org/5/pdf/brooten_lecture.pdf

[Jeff]

tina 70

11-14-2004 02:16 PM ET (US)
Adam, you speak of homosexuals as being given over to their desires. (Sharon, you want Rom. 1:18-32.) Yet you ignore everything else we have spoken of. Adam, you said that “Again believe and you’re saved, then and only then can you have a walk with God.” Over & over again you have stressed this point. Which is a fine one since you are a Christian, but it doesn’t answer the questions we are discussing. If you want to start a separate discussion on salvation & ‘being saved’, then please start one, but it feels like you are not actually attending to the points everyone is throwing out there since this seems to be your pat answer. And I promise I am not meaning this in a cruel way. I think you are so very nice, but as this began with you & me, I thought I’d try to put you back on point.

Adam, my friend, you also said, “Aside from homosexuality being sin (base off what the bible says”, but you haven’t proven to me that Bible says it’s a sin, in the sense that we know it. Let’s all make a promise from this point forward, no more generic ‘the Bible says’ until we’ve actually made a case for it. E.g., Sharon said, “I'll have to look it up in the NT but it says that they (homosexuals) were given up to themselves.” I told her what verses she needed & Adam helped with “but as I pointed out in Romans God turned mankind over to unnatural desires.” But let’s find where these things come from before writing it, as I can attribute all kinds of things to the Bible, but it doesn’t make it so. Also, if you are using the Bible as fact, then I need to see these facts. Otherwise, it’s opinion, which is dandy, but it’s not fact. I wrote a ton on verses dealing with homosexuality, but those who believe the Bible says it’s a sin have yet to comment on it. Have you looked at these verses?

Amanda, once again, asked a great question about letting sinners marry. (And Jeff, you’re just being contentious.) If the argument is about being hardened & that God gave homosexuals to their desires, then why not let them get married? God never said that marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman. Our society/culture has defined it as such. So why do you care about the definition of marriage? If these folks are condemned anyway, why do you care what social acts they perform?

Adam, you wrote, “I believe that the majority of people fear that we as a nation or maybe even as a world have slowly allowed more and more things to become exceptable/tolerable. Examples the ease at which the TV net works choose to allow adult scenes or very graphic violent scenes to be shown on TV now adays. They figure in the penaltys for showing this stuff as just part of the cost of doing bissness. People feel their loosing this battle for family values and a moral life style.” You’ve just hit 1 of my pet peeves. I know you were just giving an explanation for this behavior, but it does drive me crazy. What are ‘family values?’ It always rankles me when I read or hear that. It assumes that liberals or non-Christians do not have family values. Define this term for me, because I don’t get it. You used TV as a reason. I have known plenty of devout folk (and even more liberals) who do not own a TV. TV is a choice. You said, & I think it’s an important point, that “people feel their loosing this battle for...a moral life style.” Ah, so it’s a cultural issue, & not a Biblical 1 then. This bothers me. Not once did Jesus demand folks around him to force his teachings on the government. E.g., Lk. 20:20-26, briefly “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, & to God what is God’s.” (Also in Mt. 22:15-22 & Mk. 12:13-17.) In Lk. 22:24-27 it says, “Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that . Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.’”

Now to Jeff & Justin… Justin, I think Christians believe in god’s benevolence as it states as such in the Bible. I. Chr. 16:34 “Give thanks to the Lord, for his is good, his love endures forever.” Mt. 19:17 “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good.” Mk. 10:18 “Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone.” (Also Lk. 18:19) Rom. 12:2 “God will is- his good, pleasing & perfect will.” Now, as to the omni of god’s goodness,

I personally have questioned god’s goodness since god designed a hell in the first place. Even I, just mere mortal, would not condemn ANYONE, no matter how vile, to be tortured for all eternity. In Rom. 9:10-29, I think Paul shows how god isn’t so nice. Specifically, “Therefore God has mercy on who he wants to have mercy, & he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us: For who resists his will?’ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes & some for common use?”

Ok, this god sounds like a grade-a jerk. And I have no idea how anyone can worship such a god. Just because one has power over me does not mean I will worship. Our parents also get to have the title of ‘maker of us.’ If my father beat me, kept me locked up, & ruled everyone of my actions, I may obey because it was demanded, but I would not worship this man. I’m not sure why you do Justin.

Where, Jeff, do you get god’s omnibenevolence since you believe in it?
Sorry if this is a bit out-of-focus, my head is fuzzy today.

Cheers! tina

[Jeff]

tina 71

11-14-2004 02:29 PM ET (US)
Jeff, then does the Bible condemn women in today's Western society since we are demanding equality in work, pay, & respect since you wrote, "For example, "unnatural" (Rom. 1.26) most likely refers to the women's attempt to transcend the passive, subordinate role accorded to them by nature. Similarly, the men have relinquished the superordinate, active role (see 1 Cor. 11.13) and have descended to the level of women"? Curious. tina