Will Religion Kill Science

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Again, I think that you are on dodgy ground historically. Most people were Christians in the sense that they believed in Christ and attended church at least occasionally. However, it is clear that the rise of evangelical movements such as Methodism and the Quakers (who were evangelical in the 18th century) was a major impetus in the abolitionist movement. Most abolitionists were evangelicals and, as such, were clearly part of a minority group with Christendom. For example, Church of England bishops in the British House of Lords voted against abolition and routinely attacked Wilberforce and his evangelical colleagues in the Clapham sect.

I think that is his point ...

Everyone believes that their religion matches their own morality. So you can have one Christian who is dead against slavery and another who thinks it is perfectly fine. They share the same religious book (there is only one Bible), they share the same God. What's different? Them of course.

Religion is a reflection of morality, not the other way around. The morality comes first, and then the religion.

This also explains why every Christian I meet on Boards.ie thinks that what they believe in is the "true" meaning of Christianity, including yourself.

You meet a Catholic they will tell you that this is the true Christianity. Meet an evangelical they will say the same. Meet a Anglican they will say the same.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

There's a wee bit of a leap of logic there. Just because animals have been observed to behave in a particular way, it does not necessarily follow that God designed them to behave that way.

Er, if not him, then who?
He obviously must have designed them with that capability.
Does it not demonstrate that homosexuality is on some level a natural response to some genetic, social or environmental force or a combination of these?

PDN wrote:

I have already stated that the observance of a behaviour among animals does not necessarily carry any implication as to the morality of similar behaviour among humans. For example, rape is common in the animal kingdom and also occurs among humans with depressing regularity. However, I know of no sane person who would argue that rape is therefore morally acceptable.

This argument has exactly the same flaws as your cannibalism-amongst-spiders analogy. You keep coming up with violent, non-consensual examples to make your point. You haven't yet come up with a single sensible reason why any non-violent, consensual behaviour common to both animals and ourselves should be ok for them but either sinful or immoral for us.

PDN wrote:

As humans we routinely avoid behaviour that is commonly observed among almost all other mammals, which is why you and I (forgive me if I'm making a false assumption here, but I assume this would apply to both us) refrain from licking our genitals in public.

Indeed, but would you regard it as sinful if I did? Or just a bit socially awkward? There is a world of difference between the two.

PDN wrote:

That is an unproveable statement and extremely dubious historically. Christianity has demonstrated an amazing ability to survive as a meaningful force when it is non-violent and subjected to persecution.

It's conjecture either way, but even where christianity is non-violent and persecuted it still has the benefit of the well-established international infrastructure and vast membership that are the result of it's violent history. I can't prove my statement, you're right, but can you show me another faith that has thrived for any length of time by flying in the face of wider social values?

PDN wrote:

Again, I think that you are on dodgy ground historically. Most people were Christians in the sense that they believed in Christ and attended church at least occasionally. However, it is clear that the rise of evangelical movements such as Methodism and the Quakers (who were evangelical in the 18th century) was a major impetus in the abolitionist movement. Most abolitionists were evangelicals and, as such, were clearly part of a minority group with Christendom. For example, Church of England bishops in the British House of Lords voted against abolition and routinely attacked Wilberforce and his evangelical colleagues in the Clapham sect.

As Wicknight points out, christianity was wielded in defence of both positions. It was wielded most widely, as you admit yourself, in defence of the pro-slavery position... so what can you conclude from that? That it can be and has been adapted to support pretty much any perspective. Just like I said before.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oh please, you all know if you could lick your genitals you'd do it anywhere and any time.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Er, if not him, then who?
He obviously must have designed them with that capability.
Does it not demonstrate that homosexuality is on some level a natural response to some genetic, social or environmental force or a combination of these?

Now you're arguing something very different. There is a world of difference between saying that God designed animals to behave in a certain way (your original statement) and saying that He designed them with the capability to manifest a behaviour due to an outside environmental force - especially if that outside environmental force was not intended to be art of God's original creation.

This argument has exactly the same flaws as your cannibalism-amongst-spiders analogy. You keep coming up with violent, non-consensual examples to make your point. You haven't yet come up with a single sensible reason why any non-violent, consensual behaviour common to both animals and ourselves should be ok for them but either sinful or immoral for us.

What flaws? You are the one who is begging the question here. You first of all argued that if a behaviour is commonly observed among animals then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral. Obviously if I can demonstrate a case where such commonly observed behaviour is seen by all of us to be immoral then your argument is revealed to be fallacious. Therefore I cited the example of female spiders eating their mates after intercourse. At that point you changed your argument to one stating that if a behaviour is commonly observed among both animals and humans then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral. Once again I have shown that argument to be fallacious by citing the common observance of rape and inter-species intercourse amongst both animals and humans. Now you want to redefine your argument once again to one that says that if a behaviour is commonly observed both among animals and humans, and is not violent or non-consensual, then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral.

It would appear that no matter what response I give you (for example, necrophilia) you will just to continue to narrow down your definitions and once again change your argument to suit the conclusion that you want to prove. Indeed, it may be that you have already made an assumption that nothing is immoral unless it involves violence or violation of consent. In that case your argument becomes a perfect circle in that you are asking me to show an example of non-violent consensual behaviour that is immoral.

It's conjecture either way, but even where christianity is non-violent and persecuted it still has the benefit of the well-established international infrastructure and vast membership that are the result of it's violent history. I can't prove my statement, you're right, but can you show me another faith that has thrived for any length of time by flying in the face of wider social values?

It is incorrect to say that Christianity in China has benefited from any well-established international infrastructure or vast membership. Indeed, the tactics of missionaries in China pre-1949 were so woeful that Christians' numbers were very small indeed and it's international aspect was a major tool that the Communists were able to use to malign Christians and to reduce those numbers still further. The phenomenal growth of Christianity in China occurred with minimal contact with the outside world and from a tiny numerical base. It is a perfect example of how a non-violent version of Christianity can thrive in direct defiance of wider social values.

can you show me another faith that has thrived for any length of time by flying in the face of wider social values?

Let's get this straight. I am an evangelical Christian who believes that Christianity is God's revealed truth and therefore unique among all world religions. Now you are challenging me to prove my point by citing how other religions behave?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Now you're arguing something very different. There is a world of difference between saying that God designed animals to behave in a certain way (your original statement) and saying that He designed them with the capability to manifest a behaviour due to an outside environmental force - especially if that outside environmental force was not intended to be art of God's original creation.

In the case of an omniscient God, the distinction between "designing something with the capacity to do something knowing that it will be exercised", and "designing something to do something" seems rather arbitrary.

PDN wrote:

What flaws? You are the one who is begging the question here. You first of all argued that if a behaviour is commonly observed among animals then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral. Obviously if I can demonstrate a case where such commonly observed behaviour is seen by all of us to be immoral then your argument is revealed to be fallacious. Therefore I cited the example of female spiders eating their mates after intercourse. At that point you changed your argument to one stating that if a behaviour is commonly observed among both animals and humans then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral. Once again I have shown that argument to be fallacious by citing the common observance of rape and inter-species intercourse amongst both animals and humans. Now you want to redefine your argument once again to one that says that if a behaviour is commonly observed both among animals and humans, and is not violent or non-consensual, then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral.

I have to agree with PDN. Observation is non-normative. However, the only direct prohibition of homosexuality is the Levitical one - observation of homosexuality in nature does mean that claiming it as "unnatural" means nothing useful.

Since many of the other Levitical prohibitions are not observed by Christians, why this one?

PDN wrote:

Let's get this straight. I am an evangelical Christian who believes that Christianity is God's revealed truth and therefore unique among all world religions. Now you are challenging me to prove my point by citing how other religions behave?

Hmm. Is evangelical Christianity in the main counter-cultural?

cordially,
Scofflaw

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Now you're arguing something very different. There is a world of difference between saying that God designed animals to behave in a certain way (your original statement) and saying that He designed them with the capability to manifest a behaviour due to an outside environmental force - especially if that outside environmental force was not intended to be art of God's original creation.

Well look, you're the one who believes in god, but it seems you pretty much want to make up the rules as you go along as to how much influence he exerts over the behaviour of his creatures. Since I don't believe in him, as far as I'm concerned all behaviour is a product of genetic, environmental and social factors. But in your terms god designed everything, therefore he presumably either meant animals and humans to have the capability to exhibit homosexual behaviour or he made a p*ss poor job of the blueprints. Which way would you have it?

Anyway, I don't think htere's any inconsistency in my argument. You're indulging in semantics, or to be kinder about it, you're asking me to be more specific about my terms, which is fine and I'm happy to do.

So OK, let's agree that god designed creatures "with the capability to exhibit homosexual behaviour" rather than "to exhibit homosexual behaviour". And that changes the substance of my argument how, exactly? You're doing an excellent job of trying to avoid the question as usual.

PDN wrote:

What flaws?

The flaws I've pointed out, primarily that to pick on some random behaviour common to a specific animal and use it as evidence that animals are not like us is nonsensical.

PDN wrote:

You are the one who is begging the question here. You first of all argued that if a behaviour is commonly observed among animals then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral.

I stand by that completely. Are you now saying it's immoral for spiders to eat each other?

PDN wrote:

Obviously if I can demonstrate a case where such commonly observed behaviour is seen by all of us to be immoral then your argument is revealed to be fallacious. Therefore I cited the example of female spiders eating their mates after intercourse. At that point you changed your argument to one stating that if a behaviour is commonly observed among both animals and humans then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral.

I did not 'change my argument' at all. I've made a number of arguments all of which stand up, and you setting up straw men to try to disprove them is just yet another tired attempt on your part to avoid the issues. You selectively counter the arguments you want me to make, rather than engaging with what I actually say.

PDN wrote:

Once again I have shown that argument to be fallacious by citing the common observance of rape and inter-species intercourse amongst both animals and humans. Now you want to redefine your argument once again to one that says that if a behaviour is commonly observed both among animals and humans, and is not violent or non-consensual, then it is illogical to treat that behaviour as immoral.

You introduced morality to the discussion. I was discussing 'normal' (i.e. widespread and common) behaviour. Rape is so widespread that it is clearly within the realms of 'normal' human behaviour, as are many other forms of violence. We can discuss reasons why these are immoral, and will probably agree. But can you give any good reason why homosexuality is immoral (other than because you think it says so in the bible, which is not a good reason as far as atheists are conerned)?

I'm not saying that all behaviour exhibited by animals is OK for humans, of course not, and you do me a disservice by trying to make it appear that way. But for you to simply deny that any relationship exists between behaviours commonly observed in the animal kingdom and our own flies in the face of the scientific evidence. Which is pretty much all I wanted to establish, and you've helped me do that, so many thanks for your contribution.

PDN wrote:

Let's get this straight. I am an evangelical Christian who believes that Christianity is God's revealed truth and therefore unique among all world religions. Now you are challenging me to prove my point by citing how other religions behave?

:rolleyes:

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

Since many of the other Levitical prohibitions are not observed by Christians, why this one?

While I've never heard it mentioned, it would seem that, if one sticks literally to the bible, hating homosexuals while eating shell-fish is perfectly cricket because, despite the ridiculous ambiguity over the jewish laws in the NT, the Leviticus passage doesn't just state that gayness is against the law; but it goes so far as to say that god hates it. So regardless of whether the law still stands, homosexuality is still hated.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

While I've never heard it mentioned, it would seem that, if one sticks literally to the bible, hating homosexuals while eating shell-fish is perfectly cricket because, despite the ridiculous ambiguity over the jewish laws in the NT, the Leviticus passage doesn't just state that gayness is against the law; but it goes so far as to say that god hates it. So regardless of whether the law still stands, homosexuality is still hated.

Well, that has the advantage of actually making some kind of sense. Does it have any general applicability?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

Does it have any general applicability?

general applicabillity? I don't follow?

Zombrex

I think the point is that rape and eating of ones children are not immoral simply because they are not normal. They are normal for some, there are other reasons why they are immoral

So why is homosexuality immoral?

The argument that it is not natural behavior, which is the classic argument against homosexual behavior, doesn't hold up because homosexuality occurs naturally in some animals.

So if we reject "is it natural?" as a criteria for defining the morality of something we need something else to make homosexuality immoral. Is there something else? I can't think of anything

Therefore its not immoral...

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

general applicabillity? I don't follow?

Apologies - it is pretty unclear!

Are the Levitical prohibitions observed by Christians those that God actually hates, as per homosexuality?

By the way, do you mean by "God hates it" the declaration "it is an abomination" - because I don't think they're the same thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

the only direct prohibition of homosexuality is the Levitical one

Not quite true -- Paul has a go at gays here and here.

BTW, the greek word used in both quotes, αρσενοκοιται (arsenokoitai (ha, ha), 'men-sleepers') is itself disputed -- some translations render it as 'homosexuals' or 'homosexual offenders', while others render it as 'perverts' or 'male prostitutes' and others have pointed out that it may refer only to the greek practice of older high-status men having sex with younger, low-status boys, or maybe, something else entirely.

So in addition to not knowing whether homosexuality is a condemnable offense, it's not really known exactly what Paul is referring to in the first place. It reminds me of the Vatican's guidelines on sex which extend to sixty pages or so, but don't actually ever say what catholics are and are not allowed to do, lest directness offend the reader.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

In the case of an omniscient God, the distinction between "designing something with the capacity to do something knowing that it will be exercised", and "designing something to do something" seems rather arbitrary.

It will probably be arbitrary to an atheist, but to a Christian the distinction is important. Man's sinfulness has irreparably marred the environment in many ways, with harmful consequences for all life forms. There is a world of difference between God creating animals specifically to behave in a certain way and their behaving in that way because of the all-pervasive influence of human sin. I don't expect much sympathy for this viewpoint from an atheist, but remember that this whole issue started, not out of my desire to convince anyone, but with Rockbeer's attempt to argue that certain animal behaviours should cause Christians to question, or even abandon, aspects of their moral code. In that context, then, it is entirely consistent with orthodox Christian theology to allow for the possibility that certain 'natural' phenomena are, in fact, attributable to man's intervention.

Since many of the other Levitical prohibitions are not observed by Christians, why this one?

Many of the levitical prohibitions are clearly stated, in the New Testament, to no longer be binding on Christians. This would apply, for example, to the dietary restrictions (including shellfish). The New Testament, however, clearly reinforces the levitical prohibition against homosexual acts.

It always makes me life when I hear the straw man about both shellfish and homosexuality being labeled as abominations in Leviticus, so therefore Christians, to be consistent, should abstain from eating prawns. I have never met a Christian who was stupid enough to think that homosexuality is wrong simply because of a verse in Leviticus (although I'm sure somewhere, probably in Alabama or Mississippi, you might find such a dunce).

Hmm. Is evangelical Christianity in the main counter-cultural?

In most parts of the world, yes.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Not quite true -- Paul has a go at gays here and here.

BTW, the greek word used in both quotes, αρσενοκοιται (arsenokoitai (ha, ha), 'men-sleepers') is itself disputed -- some translations render it as 'homosexuals' or 'homosexual offenders', while others render it as 'perverts' or 'male prostitutes' and others have pointed out that it may refer only to the greek practice of older high-status men having sex with younger, low-status boys, or maybe, something else entirely.

So in addition to not knowing whether homosexuality is a condemnable offense, it's not really known exactly what Paul is referring to in the first place. It reminds me of the Vatican's guidelines on sex which extend to sixty pages or so, but don't actually ever say what catholics are and are not allowed to do, lest directness offend the reader.

ROFL

Who says Christians have hung ups over sex ...

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Not quite true -- Paul has a go at gays here and here.

BTW, the greek word used in both quotes, αρσενοκοιται (arsenokoitai (ha, ha), 'men-sleepers') is itself disputed -- some translations render it as 'homosexuals' or 'homosexual offenders', while others render it as 'perverts' or 'male prostitutes' and others have pointed out that it may refer only to the greek practice of older high-status men having sex with younger, low-status boys, or maybe, something else entirely.

So in addition to not knowing whether homosexuality is a condemnable offense, it's not really known exactly what Paul is referring to in the first place. It reminds me of the Vatican's guidelines on sex which extend to sixty pages or so, but don't actually ever say what catholics are and are not allowed to do, lest directness offend the reader.

I know Paul has a go at them, but Leviticus remains the only direct prohibition. I'm familiar with the "arsenokoites" problem - I'd be interested by PDN's take on it. My Greek concentrated on classical texts, not the Bible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

There is a world of difference between God creating animals specifically to behave in a certain way and their behaving in that way because of the all-pervasive influence of human sin. I don't expect much sympathy for this viewpoint from an atheist, but remember that this whole issue started, not out of my desire to convince anyone, but with Rockbeer's attempt to argue that certain animal behaviours should cause Christians to question, or even abandon, aspects of their moral code.

Well that was rather naive of Rockbeer, since Christians long ago invented ideas to "cover all bases" as it were, such as the idea that the sin of man can effect all creatures not just him (something that isn't mentioned in Genesis), which is also used as a justification for why in the modern era we find the same disease in animals as in humans.

PDN wrote:

The New Testament, however, clearly reinforces the levitical prohibition against homosexual acts.

Apparently not ... unless your Greek is better than Robins

PDN wrote:

I have never met a Christian who was stupid enough to think that homosexuality is wrong simply because of a verse in Leviticus

So why are Christians stupid enough to think homosexuality is wrong?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

It will probably be arbitrary to an atheist, but to a Christian the distinction is important. Man's sinfulness has irreparably marred the environment in many ways, with harmful consequences for all life forms. There is a world of difference between God creating animals specifically to behave in a certain way and their behaving in that way because of the all-pervasive influence of human sin. I don't expect much sympathy for this viewpoint from an atheist, but remember that this whole issue started, not out of my desire to convince anyone, but with Rockbeer's attempt to argue that certain animal behaviours should cause Christians to question, or even abandon, aspects of their moral code. In that context, then, it is entirely consistent with orthodox Christian theology to allow for the possibility that certain 'natural' phenomena are, in fact, attributable to man's intervention.

Well, I can see how that refutes the contention that observation of something in nature does not make it moral.

However, I am interested, myself, in following the implication that either (a) the consequences of the Fall were outside God's control, or that (b) God designed humanity with a range of behaviours that would only kick in when humanity Fell - and which God condemns.

What is God's motive in either condemning behaviour that He made possible, or making possible behaviour He condemns?

PDN wrote:

Many of the levitical prohibitions are clearly stated, in the New Testament, to no longer be binding on Christians. This would apply, for example, to the dietary restrictions (including shellfish). The New Testament, however, clearly reinforces the levitical prohibition against homosexual acts.

Hmm. When you say "clearly", what value of "clearly" are we using?

PDN wrote:

It always makes me life when I hear the straw man about both shellfish and homosexuality being labeled as abominations in Leviticus, so therefore Christians, to be consistent, should abstain from eating prawns. I have never met a Christian who was stupid enough to think that homosexuality is wrong simply because of a verse in Leviticus (although I'm sure somewhere, probably in Alabama or Mississippi, you might find such a dunce).

So, er, why then? Presumably not because it's "unnatural"? After all, Paul may say that arsenokoites won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but that is not prohibitory, but advisory. Where do we step from advice to prohibition except in Leviticus?

PDN wrote:

In most parts of the world, yes.

Do you mean in non-Christian countries?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

Apologies - it is pretty unclear!

Are the Levitical prohibitions observed by Christians those that God actually hates, as per homosexuality?

By the way, do you mean by "God hates it" the declaration "it is an abomination" - because I don't think they're the same thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh the wording is specifically that God hates it. And I don't think that there's anything else really comparable to it in leviticus. Save, perhaps, for the giving of your children to the worship of Molech. Which is a vice that I suspect most Christians are free of.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Man's sinfulness has irreparably marred the environment in many ways, with harmful consequences for all life forms. There is a world of difference between God creating animals specifically to behave in a certain way and their behaving in that way because of the all-pervasive influence of human sin.

So can you just clarify: you are happy to present the wildly speculative and completely unproveable theory that animals didn't exhibit homosexual behaviour before humans started it all off as evidence for your position, and you reject all the sound biological observational evidence that contradicts you. And you still maintain that your beliefs are compatible with a scientific approach.

Is that about right?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

So OK, let's agree that god designed creatures "with the capability to exhibit homosexual behaviour" rather than "to exhibit homosexual behaviour". And that changes the substance of my argument how, exactly? You're doing an excellent job of trying to avoid the question as usual.

As already outlined in my response to Scofflaw, it is entirely possible that certain behaviours are a stress response to environmental degradation caused by humans. I would certainly not wish to argue that as definitely true, and since I fail to see that any connection necessarily exists between animal behaviour and human morality it's not something I wish to argue about. I am simply making the point that everything observed in the animal kingdom is not necessarily designed by God. By the way, there are animal behaviours that cause much more serious challenges to Christian beliefs than the one you mention (read Evil and the God of Love by John Hick if you want to find a better stick to bat me with)

The flaws I've pointed out, primarily that to pick on some random behaviour common to a specific animal and use it as evidence that animals are not like us is nonsensical.

I quite agree, and if I see anyone making such a silly argument then I will gladly condemn them. However, as you well know, I was making a very different point - that just because animals behave in a certain way it does not follow that is morally desirable for humans to behave in a similar way.

I stand by that completely. Are you now saying it's immoral for spiders to eat each other?

More silliness. You know perfectly well that I was referring to immoral when committed by humans. I do not consider any behaviour by animals to be moral or immoral.

You introduced morality to the discussion. I was discussing 'normal' (i.e. widespread and common) behaviour. Rape is so widespread that it is clearly within the realms of 'normal' human behaviour, as are many other forms of violence. We can discuss reasons why these are immoral, and will probably agree.

I introduced morality to this discussion? :eek: Totally untrue. Let me remind you of your exact words when you introduced this whole homosexuality debate into this thread. Post #7: "For example, the biological truth is that homosexual behaviour is widespread throughout the animal world, while scripture declares this to be a sin. Is it a sin because the book says so? Did god deliberately create animals (including us) to whom sinful behaviour was instinctive and natural? If so, why? Or is the book just plain wrong?" You were the one who introduced the concept of 'sinfulness', rather than 'normality'. This is a perfect example of how you change your arguments.

If you really had just been discussing whether behaviours are normal, rather than introducing the concept of sin, then there would have been no argument from me. Sin is 'normal', that is a fundamental Christian belief.

But can you give any good reason why homosexuality is immoral (other than because you think it says so in the bible, which is not a good reason as far as atheists are conerned)?

It may not be a good reason as far as atheists are concerned, but then throughout this thread I have not once advanced the argument that atheists should view homosexuality as immoral. I have simply defended the position that it is consistent for a Christian to abstain from homosexuality on the personal conviction that the Bible teaches such practices to be immoral and that such a belief is not invalidated by any observation of homosexual behaviour among animals. I hope that you are genuinely confused and not just cynically employing a bait and switch tactic.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The argument that it is not natural behavior, which is the classic argument against homosexual behavior, doesn't hold up because homosexuality occurs naturally in some animals.

So if we reject "is it natural?" as a criteria for defining the morality of something we need something else to make homosexuality immoral. Is there something else? I can't think of anything

Therefore its not immoral...

I quite agree with you. To argue that homosexuality is wrong because it is 'unnatural' is a fatuous argument.

To anyone who rejects the Bible as a guide to morality it does logically follow that homosexuality is not immoral. I, for one, have never argued otherwise.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

ROFL

Who says Christians have hung ups over sex ...

Well, as one of the only Christians posting here, I believe that certain sexual behaviours are wrong and so I personally abstain from them. I don't attempt to enforce my standards on others and, as far as I can see in this thread, I have simply responded to challenges from others who seem obsessed with the subject. So who really has the hang-ups?

Many people have a hang-up about Christians holding any biblical opinion about sex (even, apparently, when you hold that opinion as a purely private matter).

A classic example of this was when Jerry Falwell made his famous silly comment about one of the Teletubbies being a gay icon. What was ignored was that Falwell was, foolishly in my opinion, simply echoing what had already been stated in Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice). Nobody said anything when these media sources labeled Tinky Winky a gay icon, but as soon as a Christian echoed their nonsense then the knives came out.

Christians live by a different moral code. You don't have to agree with it, but I have been amazed at the amount of spleen I have encountered on this board simply because I hold certain beliefs (and don't attempt to enforce them on others). My brother is a vegetarian. He thinks I am morally at fault for eating meat. I don't feel the need to attack him for his belief since he doesn't forcibly try to prevent me eating bacon. Am I simply too tolerant?

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh the wording is specifically that God hates it. And I don't think that there's anything else really comparable to it in leviticus. Save, perhaps, for the giving of your children to the worship of Molech. Which is a vice that I suspect most Christians are free of.

Er, which version are we talking? For the New KJV, I can find these references to abominations, which is rather broader - the list is too long to post.

For "God hates", we have the following:

1. Deuteronomy 12:31
You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

2. Deuteronomy 16:22
You shall not set up a sacred pillar, which the LORD your God hates.

3. Malachi 2:16
“ For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts. “ Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.”

So divorce, burning your children to Moloch, and sacred pillars - but homosexuality? I think that's only described as an abomination, which evidently a lot of things are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN (and any other christians), this was written a long time ago by someone I know on another forum,
I wonder what your opinion is -

ananel's thesis:

We should cover a few things first:
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don't feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.
3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.

Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul's writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God's will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the 'bottom' partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the "top" partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was 'on bottom.' Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.

robindch

PDN wrote:

Am I simply too tolerant?

No, I think the issue is that you are defending what many here consider to be the indefensible position that something can be considered "morally wrong" simply because an old book says that it is.

I suppose it's similar to why people get worked up about the many people who choose to defend the inaccuracies of Geneisis -- in both cases, the argument ultimately resolves to "because it says so here" -- a weak argument at the best of times.

yub-chagi

No Im pretty sure religion will ever kill science. People will not simply reject something that benefits them except in extreme minority cases. People pray to God before an operation because it offers more security than a doctor telling them they have a 50% chance of survival, and the same people will keep TVs, cars and all other conveniences because it is a lot easier than a priest telling them God's will demanded their walk from Cork to Dublin take that long. People will believe things that benefit them, but otherwise they have a good chance of questioning it, and often reject it by any means possible if they don't want to believe it. Some people don't like the idea of global warming so they find a quack scientist who has a half-assed reason why it doesn't exist, and others don't want to believe that their brain dies and rots away when they die and they don't go to heaven, so they get annoyed with science for suggesting such a thing and reject most non-essential scientific theories like evolution and stay closer to their religion which promises eternal paradise after they die.

Fallen Seraph

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, which version are we talking? For the New KJV, I can find these references to abominations, which is rather broader - the list is too long to post.

For "God hates", we have the following:

Oh, apologies! I was referring solely to Leviticus!

Fallen Seraph

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Oh, apologies! I was referring solely to Leviticus!

If you think Leviticus applies, I hope you're not eating pudding for breakfast

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

PDN (and any other christians), this was written a long time ago by someone I know on another forum,
I wonder what your opinion is -

I consider it to be defective in both theology and biblical interpretation.

One particularly hilarious point is where he/she tries to argue that Romans 1:26-27 doesn't specifically mention sex and so might be referring to something else that men were doing with men ! In case you're not familiar with the passage it reads:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

What do you think Paul was talking about if not sex? Were they playing tiddlywinks or scrabble?

PDN

Fallen Seraph wrote:

While I've never heard it mentioned, it would seem that, if one sticks literally to the bible, hating homosexuals while eating shell-fish is perfectly cricket because, despite the ridiculous ambiguity over the jewish laws in the NT, the Leviticus passage doesn't just state that gayness is against the law; but it goes so far as to say that god hates it. So regardless of whether the law still stands, homosexuality is still hated.

Hating homosexuals is, in my opinion, totally contrary to the teaching of the New Testament.