Will Religion Kill Science

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

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

My Greek is pretty good. It's not my main subject but I have taught Koine Greek in seminary when the Greek professor was absent.

However, I'm really not sure that I want to get into a "My Greek is bigger than your Greek" argument.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

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:

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

Again, I find that hard to argue with. On the other hand, you have chosen the silliest bit of the argument.

As far as I can see, what has a tendency to mutate here are the exact meanings of the term 'homosexual', and indeed "indecent". Throughout much of the Eastern Mediterranean to this day, it is "homosexual" to be the passive partner in sodomy. This seems to have been the case in the UK as well, up to relatively recent times. The "active" partner is not considered homosexual - nor is there anything particularly indecent about the activity from his point of view. The passive partner on the other hand - the 'nancy' - is regarded as homosexual and shameful.

Personally, I think it quite likely that Paul is referring to this kind of effeminate, passive, homosexuality, rather than anything else. There were terms in Greek for the socially acceptable forms of homosexuality, and they do not appear to have been used - and even his language ("received in themselves") seems to me to lend itself to such an interpretation.

As to "indecent" - well, what is indecent? Is there a definition in the Bible somewhere? Far too many things have gone in and out of being indecent for anyone sensible to take a stand on such a slippery word.

In respect of the larger point that scientific observation of homosexuality has no bearing on Christian prohibitions - I would regard your case as proven. Science is non-normative, so scientific observation can never 'disprove' a moral position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

PDN wrote:

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

Oh indeed, I did perhaps phrase it badly. It should have been hating homosexuality.

bonkey

PDN wrote:

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.

Surely you mean it can logically follow that homosexuality is not necessarily immoral.

I'm being pedantic, sure, but I would see the distinction being a recognition that rejection of the bible as a guide to morality doesn't mean that one's moral guide shares no common aspects.

Indeed, one could have a moral structure 100% compatible with any of the various interpretations of moral codes taken from the bible, formed entirely seperately from said work and maintained without acknowledging the bible's authority as a moral guide.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Surely you mean it can logically follow that homosexuality is not necessarily immoral.

I'm being pedantic, sure, but I would see the distinction being a recognition that rejection of the bible as a guide to morality doesn't mean that one's moral guide shares no common aspects.

Indeed, one could have a moral structure 100% compatible with any of the various interpretations of moral codes taken from the bible, formed entirely seperately from said work and maintained without acknowledging the bible's authority as a moral guide.

Indeed, one can accept a lot of the moral ideas presented in the Bible, without accepting that the Bible as such has any particular authority - after all, there are excellent moral lessons to be found in Shakespeare, or indeed in novels, without anyone needing to claim that these are the word of God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

bonkey wrote:

Surely you mean it can logically follow that homosexuality is not necessarily immoral.

I'm being pedantic, sure, but I would see the distinction being a recognition that rejection of the bible as a guide to morality doesn't mean that one's moral guide shares no common aspects.

Indeed, one could have a moral structure 100% compatible with any of the various interpretations of moral codes taken from the bible, formed entirely seperately from said work and maintained without acknowledging the bible's authority as a moral guide.

Apologies. I stand corrected.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

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?

No, that is a total misrepresentation of my position.

What I am saying is that I don't immediately jump to conclusions when I hear of a phenomenon, but rather ask are there any other possible conclusions. I am not arguing that such behaviour is as a result of human intervention, but simply allowing that it is a possibility. If I thought the subject was important enough to investigate more then I guess that other possibilities may present themselves as well. What I am saying is that I have an enquiring mind and so wait to see if further research sheds any more light on this phenomenon. I can understand, however, that someone who is less interested in discovering the facts and more interested in finding an axe to grind will seize on one possible conclusion and not explore other options. However, while homosexuality among animals and its causes are mildly interesting I hardly see it as personally worth my investing a lot of time or study. No doubt I'll come across something more about it one day in my reading or when watching the Discovery Channel.

If I could see even the faintest logical link between animal behaviour and human morality I might be a bit more bothered, but you have failed to demonstrate in the slightest why such a link should exist.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

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?

Advisory? Since the whole point of Christianity is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven I would say that is pretty much a prohibition. The other things mentioned there in 1 Corinthians 6 - slander, swindling, drunkenness, greed, theft, adultery (but not, amazingly, eating shellfish) - would also be considered prohibited rather than advisory.

Interestingly enough, it is unbelievers who appear obsessed with Christian's attitudes to homosexuality rather than Christians making an issue of it themselves. For example, I would rarely hear a sermon where homosexuality is mentioned, certainly much less than I hear preachers warn their hearers against gossip or fiddling their VAT.

PDN

In response to PDN's comment that evangelical Christianity is largely counter-cultural.

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you mean in non-Christian countries?

I think we would have wildly different definitions of a Christian country. Evangelicalism is certainly counter-cultural in societies where Catholicism is the dominant religion. For example, a Baptist would hardly be seen as part of the establishment in Vatican City!

Evangelicals are also counter-cultural in most parts of Asia, the Islamic world, and most of Europe. They are becoming a majority in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

The situation is more confusing in the US where a prominent section of evangelicalism - the Christian Right (Moral Majority etc) - support the current government. They think they are part of the power structure, but in fact they simply offer blind support to the Republicans and gain nothing in return except a few vague words on abortion that never actually produce action. I believe that these people have sold their souls to neo-conservatism and are supporting policies (immigration control, the war in Iraq, environmental irresponsibility) that are fundamentally at odds with Biblical Christianity. Nevertheless evangelicals still are counter-cultural in the US. Just look at Hollywood as an expression of the prevailing culture. When was the last time you saw a born-again Christian portrayed in a positive light in a movie, or in any cop programme or drama? Evangelicals, and particularly their ministers, are unrelentingly portrayed as thieves, hypocrites and murderers (which, while true of a few, is most certainly not true of the many.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Advisory? Since the whole point of Christianity is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven I would say that is pretty much a prohibition. The other things mentioned there in 1 Corinthians 6 - slander, swindling, drunkenness, greed, theft, adultery (but not, amazingly, eating shellfish) - would also be considered prohibited rather than advisory.

Prohibitory in the sense of Christians resisting, say, gay marriage, or decriminalisation. While it is the duty of a Christian to advise me that such and such behaviour will prevent me getting into heaven (which I would consider advisory), I don't see that it is any part of a Christian to prevent or forbid the behaviour - down that road lies the Inquisition (which seems dramatic, but I mean the ordering of men's bodies for the good of their souls).

After all, while you argue this:

PDN wrote:

Interestingly enough, it is unbelievers who appear obsessed with Christian's attitudes to homosexuality rather than Christians making an issue of it themselves. For example, I would rarely hear a sermon where homosexuality is mentioned, certainly much less than I hear preachers warn their hearers against gossip or fiddling their VAT.

That may well be true of sermons, but I do not think sermons are a good guide at all, since they reflect the preacher's perception of the congregation's sensibilities and likely sins.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who are very vocally against homosexuality, and very few who are particularly accepting. Most of the noise, of course, is made by the media.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

In response to PDN's comment that evangelical Christianity is largely counter-cultural.

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you mean in non-Christian countries?

I think we would have wildly different definitions of a Christian country. Evangelicalism is certainly counter-cultural in societies where Catholicism is the dominant religion. For example, a Baptist would hardly be seen as part of the establishment in Vatican City!

By those lights, of course, an English, Scottish or Welsh Catholic is quite counter-cultural.

PDN wrote:

Evangelicals are also counter-cultural in most parts of Asia, the Islamic world, and most of Europe. They are becoming a majority in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

They were certainly very visible in Ghana when I was there.

PDN wrote:

The situation is more confusing in the US where a prominent section of evangelicalism - the Christian Right (Moral Majority etc) - support the current government. They think they are part of the power structure, but in fact they simply offer blind support to the Republicans and gain nothing in return except a few vague words on abortion that never actually produce action. I believe that these people have sold their souls to neo-conservatism and are supporting policies (immigration control, the war in Iraq, environmental irresponsibility) that are fundamentally at odds with Biblical Christianity.

Yes - varies from place to place, of course, but quite dominant in American life, I think.

PDN wrote:

Nevertheless evangelicals still are counter-cultural in the US. Just look at Hollywood as an expression of the prevailing culture. When was the last time you saw a born-again Christian portrayed in a positive light in a movie, or in any cop programme or drama? Evangelicals, and particularly their ministers, are unrelentingly portrayed as thieves, hypocrites and murderers (which, while true of a few, is most certainly not true of the many.

Well, I wouldn't know, really - I gave up TV in '79, and haven't watched more than a dozen hours since. However, I think you are confusing media with culture there - and I think those are rather polarised in the US. One could argue that the media is representative of coastal US culture, while the evangelicals are rather more representative of the mid-US. Overall, I would say that the countries political classes pay more lip-service to the evangelicals than to Hollywood.

Overall, I think that in the Christian countries, being an evangelical is certainly non-mainstream, but I'm not sure what elements of the evangelical message are counter-cultural, as opposed to counter-media. Are they opposed, for example, to wealth and greed? What parts of society do they refuse to engage with?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Prohibitory in the sense of Christians resisting, say, gay marriage, or decriminalisation. While it is the duty of a Christian to advise me that such and such behaviour will prevent me getting into heaven (which I would consider advisory), I don't see that it is any part of a Christian to prevent or forbid the behaviour - down that road lies the Inquisition (which seems dramatic, but I mean the ordering of men's bodies for the good of their souls).

After all, while you argue this:

That may well be true of sermons, but I do not think sermons are a good guide at all, since they reflect the preacher's perception of the congregation's sensibilities and likely sins.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians who are very vocally against homosexuality, and very few who are particularly accepting. Most of the noise, of course, is made by the media.

Ah, my apologies, I thought you meant prohibitive for Christians. I'm sorry, I can't speak for those who want to use the Bible to legislate for other's morality. Who knows what goes on in their heads, if anything at all? Most Christians I know (who may admittedly be more thoughtful than the average Christian) wouldn't dream of promoting such legislation.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Are they opposed, for example, to wealth and greed?

Opposed to greed, but not to wealth per se.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ah, my apologies, I thought you meant prohibitive for Christians. I'm sorry, I can't speak for those who want to use the Bible to legislate for other's morality. Who knows what goes on in their heads, if anything at all? Most Christians I know (who may admittedly be more thoughtful than the average Christian) wouldn't dream of promoting such legislation.

Fair enough - but I hope that you know you're rather unusual?

On the flip side, I don't really understand someone who is homosexual, and who on becoming,say, born-again, refuses to accept the evangelical position.Surely one either accepts that the evangelical message is right (which is presumablywhy one has become born again), or not - in which case why become born-again?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Opposed to greed, but not to wealth per se.

Hardly a counter-cultural position, though?

In what way do you think of evangelicals as being "counter-cultural" as opposed to simply not being mainstream?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Hardly a counter-cultural position, though?

In what way do you think of evangelicals as being "counter-cultural" as opposed to simply not being mainstream?

cordially,
Scofflaw

This would probably be better on the Christianity forum? If I were to list here 5 or 6 counter-cultural aspects as I see them then I'm pretty sure each one is going to be attacked by other posters. Going by past experience, some of those would be genuine disagreements, some would be malicious, and some would be silly. While I'm happy to argue my corner on a single issue at a time, I have no wish to conduct 5 or 6 debates at once. I once tried playing chess against 7 guys at once when I was at school & it gave me a headache, so I try to avoid such situations.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This would probably be better on the Christianity forum? If I were to list here 5 or 6 counter-cultural aspects as I see them then I'm pretty sure each one is going to be attacked by other posters.

Sure. Would you prefer to start it, or will I pop the question?

PDN wrote:

Going by past experience, some of those would be genuine disagreements, some would be malicious, and some would be silly.

Alas, yes.

PDN wrote:

While I'm happy to argue my corner on a single issue at a time, I have no wish to conduct 5 or 6 debates at once. I once tried playing chess against 7 guys at once when I was at school & it gave me a headache, so I try to avoid such situations.

Hmm. Reminds me of a friend of mine at school who used to do that every Open Day. For the 125th anniversary of the school, he did it blindfold against 8 people - and won 7 out of the 8. Unfortunately, he took up rock-climbing at college, and fell a hundred foot onto a rock head first.

I'm appalling at chess - Diplomacy was my game.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

The "counter-cultural" argument is quite interesting and I've never quite understood how one can genuinely consider oneself to be "counter-cultural" when one's a member of a group which makes up around 30% of the US population.

In form, it's not altogether different from the similar claims, for example, of creationists when -- in one shape or another -- they make up around 85% of the population in the US.

I await a reply with interest!

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

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.

Oh come on PDN, you'll have to do better than that. You know very well that I I was using sin in the specific sense of a transgression against religious law. In the quote above you attempt to equate sinfulness with immorality, even though that was very specifically not what I intended, and that's actually the whole crux of the discussion. So by confusing the two you are deliberately and wilfully misrepresenting me.

But I should really know by now not to expect you to just answer the question directly.

PDN wrote:

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.

And now you're back to using 'sin' again. In which sense do you mean it this time?

What I'm asking is simple enough. Why does christianity choose to regard a perfectly normal behaviour that is widespread throughout nature, and which implies no violence or coercion, as sinful (as in a transgression of christian law, since it's clear I need to define my terms very precisely)?

As far as I can see, there are no obvious reasons to do so apart from that it says so in your book. So isn't it more probable that you have misinterpreted the book?

You don't do yourself any favours at all by repeatedly countering the example of homosexuality with examples of murder, cannibalism and rape rather than just answering the question.

PDN wrote:

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.

So is your morality not absolute? By extrapolation I conclude that you would argue it's OK for me to kill someone as long as my personal belief system says it's OK?

PDN wrote:

I hope that you are genuinely confused and not just cynically employing a bait and switch tactic.

I don't actually think I'm either, although confusion is always a real possibility

I'm certainly not deliberately using bait and switch, I don't do that, but since you insist on moving the goalposts and deliberately misunderstanding the question, I can see how it might appear that way.

I accept that I might have been confused enough initially to not frame my question with absolute precision, but all my questions are genuine and I genuinely want to understand how your belief system arrives at the conclusions it does despite the conflicting scientific evidence. On the other hand, it's clear that you've made little or no effort to understand what I'm really trying to say, and have taken great pleasure instead in deliberately misrepresenting me. Isn't that a sin according to your book?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Oh come on PDN, you'll have to do better than that. You know very well that I I was using sin in the specific sense of a transgression against religious law. In the quote above you attempt to equate sinfulness with immorality, even though that was very specifically not what I intended, and that's actually the whole crux of the discussion. So by confusing the two you are deliberately and wilfully misrepresenting me.

But I should really know by now not to expect you to just answer the question directly.

I am happy to answer any direct question, providing you can make your mind up which question you're asking.

I certainly have no interest in misrepresenting you. Sin is inextricably linked with morality. How could I have guessed that you were somehow trying to separate the concepts of sin and morality?

What I'm asking is simple enough. Why does christianity choose to regard a perfectly normal behaviour that is widespread throughout nature, and which implies no violence or coercion, as sinful (as in a transgression of christian law, since it's clear I need to define my terms very precisely)?

As far as I can see, there are no obvious reasons to do so apart from that it says so in your book. So isn't it more probable that you have misinterpreted the book?

At last! A clear question.

Christianity regards the behaviour in question to be sinful based on what the Bible says. You are correct that there are no other obvious reasons for doing so. However, your argument that I should therefore question my interpretation of the Bible is puzzling since it appears to have little logical validity. Biblical interpretation is based on our knowledge of ancient literary forms, on study of Greek and Hebrew, and by carefully examining scriptures in context. The idea that the Bible should only be interpreted in a sense that conforms with what is considered 'normal' by society or widespread in nature is not one I have encountered in any discussion of hermeneutics or exegesis, probably because it has little to commend it. That would be to rewrite the Bible, not to interpret it.

So is your morality not absolute? By extrapolation I conclude that you would argue it's OK for me to kill someone as long as my personal belief system says it's OK?

This is just silly. Murder is illegal, not because a Christian is forcing their morality upon you but because we enter into a social contract with our civic rulers that includes a mutual agreement to obey certain laws. Some of these laws are derived from judeo-Christian morality and some are not. People commit acts every day that I would consider to be immoral, but which are perfectly legal. Why should I try to enforce my morality upon you? Providing nobody else is getting hurt then I couldn't really care less what legal immoralities you choose to indulge in. The point of Christianity is not to persuade unbelievers to live more moral lives.

I accept that I might have been confused enough initially to not frame my question with absolute precision, but all my questions are genuine and I genuinely want to understand how your belief system arrives at the conclusions it does despite the conflicting scientific evidence. On the other hand, it's clear that you've made little or no effort to understand what I'm really trying to say, and have taken great pleasure instead in deliberately misrepresenting me. Isn't that a sin according to your book?

Yes, it would be a sin, but I have not deliberately misrepresented you at all. I have genuinely tried to answer your questions, but it is sometimes hard to figure out precisely what you're asking.

robindch

PDN wrote:

The idea that the Bible should only be interpreted in a sense that conforms with what is considered 'normal' by society or widespread in nature is not one I have encountered in any discussion of hermeneutics or exegesis, probably because it has little to commend it.

Albert Schweitzer -- a first-rate organist, in case anybody's interested -- did suggest, in his major work, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, that succeeding generations of scholars of Jesus of the 18th and 19th centuries tended to portray Jesus so as to justify their own views. The same can be said of many, if not most, prominent religious figures today.

The idea that Jesus, or any part of the bible, is always interpreted consistently and independently of one's environment is presumably central to christian belief, but it seems to happen less often than believers imagine.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

How could I have guessed that you were somehow trying to separate the concepts of sin and morality?

By reading what I actually wrote rather than what you expected me to write.

PDN wrote:

However, your argument that I should therefore question my interpretation of the Bible is puzzling since it appears to have little logical validity.

To bring us back to where we started... the logical validity of my suggestion is derived from the fact that from a scientific perspective homosexuality seems to be a widespread natural phenomenon which, it would logically follow, forms some part of your creator's plan.

Since, however, you are happy, in spite of the evidence, to believe the unsupportable notion that all homosexuality in nature is derived from human-induced stresses, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between our behaviour and that of any other creature, you will no doubt disagree.

PDN wrote:

The idea that the Bible should only be interpreted in a sense that conforms with what is considered 'normal' by society or widespread in nature is not one I have encountered in any discussion of hermeneutics or exegesis, probably because it has little to commend it. That would be to rewrite the Bible, not to interpret it.

I have not argued that it should be so interpreted, but that it frequently is so interpreted. All literature is interpreted within a prevailing cultural and intellectual environment, and interpretations change over time along with that environment, as it is informed by new knowledge and values. Why do you imagine the bible is exempt from this universal phenomenon?

PDN wrote:

I have genuinely tried to answer your questions.

Thank you.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

By reading what I actually wrote rather than what you expected me to write.

Look up 'sin' in a dictionary. Unfortunately what you wrote did not make clear that you were ignoring the definitions that see sin as 'an immoral act'.

Since, however, you are happy, in spite of the evidence, to believe the unsupportable notion that all homosexuality in nature is derived from human-induced stresses, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between our behaviour and that of any other creature, you will no doubt disagree.

ROTFL And you have the cheek to accuse me of misrepresenting you?
I refer you to post#158 where I very clearly stated I was open to the possibility of such a notion, but that other explanations may exist & that I
would rather wait until I see more evidence. In fact I introduced the notion in post #12 as a hypothetical example to show the danger of rushing into premature judgment without having all the evidence.

Also, I have consistently argued that the observance of behaviour among animals does not logically carry any implication as to the morality (or sinfulness, for those who fail to see the connection between sin & morality) of a similar behaviour among humans. To change this, as you do, to saying that "there is no relationship whatsoever between our behaviour and that of any other creature" goes beyond misrepresentation into something more serious.

I have not argued that it should be so interpreted, but that it frequently is so interpreted. All literature is interpreted within a prevailing cultural and intellectual environment, and interpretations change over time along with that environment, as it is informed by new knowledge and values. Why do you imagine the bible is exempt from this universal phenomenon?

The whole point of exegesis is to try to understand what the original author of a document intended the original hearers to understand. Then, we interpret the document by 'translating' it into our environment and culture. However, any interpretation that flatly contradicts the exegesis must be rejected as simply using the document as a means to legitimise our own notions.

If the Bible clearly teaches that a practice is wrong, even if that practice is widely accepted in society, then you have two honest options. You can reject the teaching of the Bible and embrace the societal norm, or you can choose to go against the flow of society. But to try to turn the Bible upside down to make it mean the opposite of what was originally intended, thereby removing any offence to society, would be dishonest. This is why so many of the early Christians were executed under the Roman Empire. They chose to refuse to participate in idolatry (offering a pinch of incense to Caesar) because the Bible clearly taught that idolatry was sinful. They didn't reinterpret the Bible to say that idolatry must be OK after all because it was the societal norm!

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

ROTFL And you have the cheek to accuse me of misrepresenting you?

Sorry, forgive me, I just couldn't resist seeing how you would react

PDN wrote:

I refer you to post#158 where I very clearly stated I was open to the possibility of such a notion, but that other explanations may exist & that I
would rather wait until I see more evidence. In fact I introduced the notion in post #12 as a hypothetical example to show the danger of rushing into premature judgment without having all the evidence.

Indeed. But in the mean time, in the absence of what you consider 'proper' evidence (there is plenty of evidence but you elect to disregard it, presumably because it doesn't fit your hypothesis), you choose not to hold an agnostic position. Instead you purport to be open-minded whilst actively choosing to believe that homosexuality is sinful. And if you wheel out all sorts of speculative nonsense as a defence for your position, you can hardly be surprised when it gets quoted back at you. I don't have a problem with any of that, but for you to simultaneously argue that your position is compatible with a scientific one is just laughable self-delusion.

PDN wrote:

Also, I have consistently argued that the observance of behaviour among animals does not logically carry any implication as to the morality (or sinfulness, for those who fail to see the connection between sin & morality) of a similar behaviour among humans. To change this, as you do, to saying that "there is no relationship whatsoever between our behaviour and that of any other creature" goes beyond misrepresentation into something more serious.

No, but you have failed to provide a logical reason why the specific behaviour under discussion should be sinful, and instead have produced only violent and coercive examples to support your position. We can all see why those examples are immoral (and indeed sinful), but I fail to see how they advance your argument in any way.

PDN wrote:

If the Bible clearly teaches that a practice is wrong, even if that practice is widely accepted in society, then you have two honest options. You can reject the teaching of the Bible and embrace the societal norm, or you can choose to go against the flow of society.

Indeed. And just about every modern christian is highly selective in which teachings they choose to reject. But every sane christian recognises that the bible contains teachings which simply would not stand up to modern examination. I don't need to give you examples, you must be sick of hearing them. However, each of these selections must be justified, therefore all manner of justifications are fabricated which in no way alter or disguise the fact that the interpretation has changed over time with mutating cultural values.

If you stuck to a totally literal interpretation of the bible you would be quite rightly locked up, so it's disingenuous to argue as though you were some how adhering to its full original teachings. I know you deny that you're selective in your interpretation, and I understand that you have to do that to attempt to maintain your credibility, but your selectivity is transparently obvious to everyone here. You've already made a point of rejecting the shellfish example. But that's no more logical than continuing to condemn homosexuality - it's only based on the word of the bible, as you said yourself, and you're happy enough to ignore it when it makes no sense in the modern cultural context.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Indeed. But in the mean time, in the absence of what you consider 'proper' evidence (there is plenty of evidence but you elect to disregard it, presumably because it doesn't fit your hypothesis), you choose not to hold an agnostic position. Instead you purport to be open-minded whilst actively choosing to believe that homosexuality is sinful. And if you wheel out all sorts of speculative nonsense as a defence for your position, you can hardly be surprised when it gets quoted back at you. I don't have a problem with any of that, but for you to simultaneously argue that your position is compatible with a scientific one is just laughable self-delusion.

I do choose to hold an agnostic position on why animals manifest homosexual behaviour.

No, but you have failed to provide a logical reason why the specific behaviour under discussion should be sinful, and instead have produced only violent and coercive examples to support your position. We can all see why those examples are immoral (and indeed sinful), but I fail to see how they advance your argument in any way.

I have freely admitted that the reason why I consider the behaviour under discussion to be sinful is because of what the Bible teaches. The violent and coercive examples were, as you well know, not produced to support my position at all, but rather to show the illogical nature of your argument (at least, that argument as it stood at that moment in time before you refined & changed it). BTW, if a Christian believes the Bible to be a revelation from God as to what is sinful or not then the teaching of the Bible against a practice is, for a Christian, a logical reason.

You've already made a point of rejecting the shellfish example. But that's no more logical than continuing to condemn homosexuality - it's only based on the word of the bible, as you said yourself, and you're happy enough to ignore it when it makes no sense in the modern cultural context.

Nonsense. Christians do not reinterpret the Bible to justify eating shellfish in order to fit into a modern cultural context. The New Testament clearly states that the dietary laws of the Old Testament were ceremonial, were fulfilled at the coming of Christ, and therefore no longer apply. If it said the same thing about homosexuality then I would have no problem with the morality of that behaviour either (although, personally, I would still avoid it for the reason I don't eat shellfish - the inclination and taste is lacking).

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The New Testament clearly states that the dietary laws of the Old Testament were ceremonial, were fulfilled at the coming of Christ, and therefore no longer apply.

Where does it "clearly" state this?

PDN

PDN wrote:

The New Testament clearly states that the dietary laws of the Old Testament were ceremonial, were fulfilled at the coming of Christ, and therefore no longer apply.

Wicknight wrote:

Where does it "clearly" state this?

"After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean." (Mark 7:17-19)

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. (Romans 14:13-21)

Clear enough?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

"Having cancelled the written code"...why does this not apply to homosexuality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us

And what does all this amount to if not an updating of the faith to shed unacceptable teachings and bring it more into line with contemporary values?

I have to say I regard this as powerful evidence for the argument that religions must adapt to survive.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

"Having cancelled the written code"...why does this not apply to homosexuality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Because the moral elements of the Old Testament law still apply to Christians. This is why the New Testament reinforces the OT prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, drunkenness, greed, gossip etc. Ceremonial stuff, such as observing the Sabbath, circumcision, animal sacrifices, and dietary laws (including the shellfish that some posters obsess about) are specifically mentioned in the NT as no longer applicable. An unbiased and objective reading of the New Testament shows that the OT's negative view of homosexuality carries forward into the NT.

Sorry about that, but I didn't write the book. I just try to live by it. Incidentally, why do non-Christians get so obsessed with the homosexuality thing? Since drunkenness is much more common than homosexuality in Ireland today then surely you should be clamouring for me to reinterpret the Bible to conform with social norms so Christians are allowed to get plastered?