Will Religion Kill Science

Sapien

PDN wrote:

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?

Because, when pushed to it, a large proportion of those who oppose LGBT equality will cite the Bible as their reason. Those who don't generally fall back on some personal understanding of what "Nature intends" - which is, of course, precisely the same argument under an alias.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

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and dietary laws (including the shellfish that some posters obsess about) are specifically mentioned in the NT as no longer applicable.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.

Negative view, perhaps, although it is not mentioned in the Gospels, to my knowledge, but only by Paul - however, the striking out of the prohibition stands.

While you refer to the Sabbath, unclean foods, and so forth as 'ceremonial', I am uncertain where you get this interpretation. Levitical law states that such-and-such is forbidden, or is an abomination:

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:"

"Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. "

As against:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

One's an abomination, and the other is...an abomination...where does your distinction arise? Do the Jews consider part of the Levitical prohibitions to be 'only ceremonial', or is that a Christian viewpoint? Where's the justification, exactly, other than that Christians don't consider themselves bound by one, but by the other?

PDN wrote:

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?

Well, in my case, it's because people's blind spots fascinate me, as does the art of spin, and all forms of deception, particularly self-deception. Homosexuality, being a subject that evokes very deep feelings, is more likely to produce interesting self-deception than drink (although drug prohibition is equally riddled with self-deception). I am probably motivated in this by the Devil, but there we go.

You see, saying "it's ceremonial" sounds like such a good answer to the shellfish problem, until one asks - what does that mean? Where does it say that some prohibitions are ceremonial, and others aren't? Where does it say that only the ceremonial prohibitions no longer apply?

Personally, I think a whole religion is guiding itself by the prejudices of the man called Saul or Paul.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Negative view, perhaps, although it is not mentioned in the Gospels, to my knowledge, but only by Paul - however, the striking out of the prohibition stands.

As a Christian I believe that the writings of Paul are as equally inspired as the four Gospels, so the fact that the subject is not mentioned in the Gospels themselves is of little consequence. The most probable reason for this would be that Paul's epistles were written to believers living in Greek and Roman cultures (where homosexuality was common - in fact it was sometimes the societal norm) while the Gospels are set in Palestine (where homosexuality was, if not absent, certainly not practiced openly).

The OT prohibited homosexuality among the Jews as God's covenant people. I don't see that they were ordered to enforce this prohibition on those outside their covenant community. For example, we don't read of the Jews waging wars against the Egyptians in order to root out homosexuality. The NT warns Christians that those who indulge in homosexual practices have no inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. So, in each case the practice is prohibited to those who are part of the covenant community.

You see, saying "it's ceremonial" sounds like such a good answer to the shellfish problem, until one asks - what does that mean? Where does it say that some prohibitions are ceremonial, and others aren't? Where does it say that only the ceremonial prohibitions no longer apply?

The books of Galatians and Hebrews deal with this issue in depth. Rather than just ripping one or two proof texts out of context it is good to read an entire book of the Bible through from beginning to end. Generally speaking, it appears that the ceremonial stuff was designed to prepare the way for Christ's coming (Paul uses the illustration of the law as being a tutor, preparing a child for adulthood, at which point the tutor is no longer required). Moral commands, however, obviously have a shelf life that continues for as long as people still remain human (the prohibition against murder being an obvious example).

Teaching this stuff is what I do for a living, so if you really are interested then I would be happy to continue this discussion in the Christianity forum where it more properly belongs.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, in my case, it's because people's blind spots fascinate me, as does the art of spin, and all forms of deception, particularly self-deception. Homosexuality, being a subject that evokes very deep feelings, is more likely to produce interesting self-deception than drink (although drug prohibition is equally riddled with self-deception). I am probably motivated in this by the Devil, but there we go.

I just find it difficult to understand why atheists get so exercised by my belief that homosexuality is sinful, that it should therefore be avoided by Christians, but that I have no wish to enforce that viewpoint on non-Christians. In fact I haven't the slightest wish to persuade non-Christians to change their views on homosexuality at all. The only reason we are discussing it now is because atheists can't help asking me questions about this subject. Since the sole net effect of this belief is simply to stop those who wish to engage in homosexual acts from joining the church, then shouldn't that make atheists happy? Or are you secretly wanting lots more people to actually join the church?

Personally, I think a whole religion is guiding itself by the prejudices of the man called Saul or Paul.

Unlikely, but possible. However, that would still, IMHO, be preferable to being guided by the prejudices of Scofflaw or PDN.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

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.

Not really, those who refused to follow this adaptation (Judaism) appear to have survived quite well for another 2000 years.

The NT's view of the law as being fulfilled in Christ can hardly be considered as "an updating of the faith to shed unacceptable teachings and bring it more into line with contemporary values". In fact, by making this decisive break with Judaism, Christianity set itself squarely in opposition to the contemporary values of the Roman Empire, thereby exposing Christians to persecution, torture and execution.

Most theologians and historians (liberal, conservative, Christian, and non-Christian) would rather argue that this adaptation was the church's attempt to adequately explain the death & reported resurrection of Christ. Such a fundamental catalytic event necessitated a fresh understanding of the role of Judaism and the OT law.

Incidentally, since you are so interested in eating shellfish, the Messianic Jews provide an interesting insight. These are Jews who wish to maintain their Jewish identity, yet acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Saviour (there is a very real debate within Judaism as to whether they really are Jews or not, but that is another subject). Messianic Jews choose to adhere to the dietary laws concerning pork, shellfish etc. because they don't want to alienate conventional Jews. In other words, their contemporary cultural values would not include eating shellfish - a strong incentive, according to your thesis, for them to interpret the Bible as still maintaining dietary prohibitions. However, they freely admit that their abstaining from shellfish is purely for cultural reasons as they can see that any objective reading of the New Testament declares that no food is unclean in God's sight.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I just find it difficult to understand why atheists get so exercised by my belief that homosexuality is sinful, that it should therefore be avoided by Christians, but that I have no wish to enforce that viewpoint on non-Christians.

I think it is because homosexuality is one of the most glaring example of how a lot of people see this stuff as nonsense.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a homosexual, yet it causes a negative reaction in a lot of people around the homosexual (place two men kissing in the street and you will see this, even in people who probably think they have no problem with gays).

This is reflected in the way homosexuality is dealt with in the Bible. Why is homosexuality "bad" after all and does that reason justify how it is dealt with in the Bible? The reason it is considered bad are ridiculous compared to how it is supposed to be dealt with.

In fact it is so blatantly a reflection of this wider social feeling (the hatred for homosexuality expressed in both the OT and NT far out ways the actual act compared to other similar "sins") rather than actual rationality it becomes almost frustrating for non-believers to see that believers such as yourself cannot see this. Even commandments about food and mould that seemed extreme back then served an actual purpose in that they were linked to things that actually might have caused problems.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

In fact it is so blatantly a reflection of this wider social feeling (the hatred for homosexuality expressed in both the OT and NT far out ways the actual act compared to other similar "sins") rather than actual rationality it becomes almost frustrating for non-believers to see that believers such as yourself cannot see this. Even commandments about food and mould that seemed extreme back then served an actual purpose in that they were linked to things that actually might have caused problems.

Actually that is untrue. Idolatry, for example, is condemned thousands of more times, and in much stronger terms, than homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. Idolatry is also, IMHO, much more prevalent.

I believe that idolatry is wrong. I have no wish to enforce that morality on others, and I have no logical or scientific basis for believing idolatry to be wrong except for the fact that my book tells me so. However, I doubt that the atheists on this board will feel the burning desire to keep twisting the subject, whatever the OP of a thread may be, around to idolatry in oder to challenge my narrow minded prejudice against idolatry. Is idolatry not considered a trendy enough cause for the thought police to swing into action?

Dades

PDN wrote:

Is idolatry not considered a trendy enough cause for the thought police to swing into action?

I'd imagine it's tougher to oppress inanimate objects such as golden calves.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Actually that is untrue. Idolatry, for example, is condemned thousands of more times, and in much stronger terms, than homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. Idolatry is also, IMHO, much more prevalent.

That wasn't what I mean, I wouldn't consider idolatry to be in any way similar to homosexuality. The fact that the Bible would is kinda the point.

PDN wrote:

I have no wish to enforce that morality on others, and I have no logical or scientific basis for believing idolatry to be wrong except for the fact that my book tells me so.

I would imagine that isn't actually true. Idolatry general involves the betrayal and emotional hurt of a 3rd party, which I would imagine you would feel is wrong even if you never read the Bible.

PDN wrote:

However, I doubt that the atheists on this board will feel the burning desire to keep twisting the subject, whatever the OP of a thread may be, around to idolatry in oder to challenge my narrow minded prejudice against idolatry.

You are kinda missing the point.

It isn't really a question of if theses things are wrong or not (since most atheists I know don't believe in absolute morality), it is a question of why it is written in the Bible that they are wrong, and how you (or any theist) takes these writings as face value. You yourself say that you considered idolatry wrong simply because it is written in your book.

The reason certain foods were considered "unclean" in the Bible is that certain foods were more likely to make one sick but the people of the time didn't understand anything about disease, they simply knew these things happened, so the easiest way for them to regulate this was simply incorporate it into the religion. This is pretty obvious, Judaism were not the only religion to do this.

The reason idolatry is considered a very bad sin is that the production of children was very important to economics and status of a man or household, if another man is producing children by his wife this is very serious (one could go back further and say that the reason that economics and status is attached to the man based on children is evolutionary, but that is probably too much detail) The modern reason why idolatry is considered bad, that of the betrayal and hurt of your partner, is largely secondary to this (though still comes from the root evolutionary instincts), but there are certain a few passages that a modern Christian or Jew could use as a justification of why adultery is bad.

The reason homosexuality is considered a very bad sin is because the Bible was mostly written by men with what we would consider in modern times to be "conservative" view towards sex and homosexuality freaks a lot of people out. It freaked them out then, it freaks them out now. That is basically it.

All these things are considered blatantly obvious to an atheist. To a theist though there is the whole "but God commanded this" issue that clouds this from being blatantly obvious.

We could just as easily discuss idolatry or shell fish, but the reason homosexuality hits a nerve is that it is so ridiculous that this is still considered to be a "very bad thing" by people who follow these holy books, since in modern times we know so much about homosexuality that all the other reasons people used to justify not liking it have fallen away.

2000 years ago, after a long time of following it, they figured out that the whole unclean food thing was ridiculous and they changed how this was handled. This was incorporated into the religion and given a religious justification (a pretty weak one at that, largely created by Paul)

Homosexuals were just unfortunate that people didn't figure out that dislike of homosexuality was ridiculous a few thousand years earlier so it could be put in the New Testament and followed by yourself. People are now figuring out that it is ridiculous but because Christians such as yourself will only go back to the later books of the Bible, such as Paul's letters, that isn't reflected in your beliefs.

You yourself may have no issue with homosexuality, it might not make you uncomfortable at all, but you believe that you must follow what is written in your books.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I just find it difficult to understand why atheists get so exercised by my belief that homosexuality is sinful, that it should therefore be avoided by Christians, but that I have no wish to enforce that viewpoint on non-Christians.

I think statistical analysis shows that homosexuality is a natural phenomena.
This book, Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23, Matt Ridley,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapters/dp/185702835X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/202-2785858-8991848?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181036017&sr=8-1

argues that any statistical analysis shows that about 4% of any of any reasonable sized sample set are homosexuals.
That said, no gene has been found for it yet.

As a wannabe liberal I would see nothing wrong with homosexuality, or consenting adults doing anything they wish, whether they choose to do it or whether they are born that way.
Strict Christianity has a different view as you point out PDN, but it's a valid question to ask why do atheists get freaked out by Christians view on this.

My reasons would be
1. It's a form of bullying: a big nobel respected instituition telling a minority they are wrong and insinuating they are a lower form of life.
2. A perception of hypocrisy: christians claim to be compassionate but on this issue they appear biggoted.
3. Avoiding evidence: Again the statistical evidence would suggest that homosexuality is naturalistic, but Christians won't accept this instead choosing their ancient man made scripture over statistical analysis.

My question to you PDN is, if science did find a gene for homosexuality would your views change?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

My question to you PDN is, if science did find a gene for homosexuality would your views change?

In fairness to PDN he has already answered that question. He has stated that his view that homosexuality is wrong is not based on whether or not homosexuality is a natural phenomena.

There is not much point in continuing to ask him what he thinks of the biological aspect of homosexuality since the biological aspect of it is not what he bases his judgment on in the first place.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

In fairness to PDN he has already answered that question. He has stated that his view that homosexuality is wrong is not based on whether or not homosexuality is a natural phenomena.

There is not much point in continuing to ask him what he thinks of the biological aspect of homosexuality since the biological aspect of it is not what he bases his judgment on in the first place.

That's fair enough. I assume PDN is agreement. Apologies.
Maybe my reasons why atheists get annoyed with Christians view on this might be a more constructive input to the thread.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

As a Christian I believe that the writings of Paul are as equally inspired as the four Gospels, so the fact that the subject is not mentioned in the Gospels themselves is of little consequence. The most probable reason for this would be that Paul's epistles were written to believers living in Greek and Roman cultures (where homosexuality was common - in fact it was sometimes the societal norm) while the Gospels are set in Palestine (where homosexuality was, if not absent, certainly not practiced openly).

The OT prohibited homosexuality among the Jews as God's covenant people. I don't see that they were ordered to enforce this prohibition on those outside their covenant community. For example, we don't read of the Jews waging wars against the Egyptians in order to root out homosexuality. The NT warns Christians that those who indulge in homosexual practices have no inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven. So, in each case the practice is prohibited to those who are part of the covenant community.

The books of Galatians and Hebrews deal with this issue in depth. Rather than just ripping one or two proof texts out of context it is good to read an entire book of the Bible through from beginning to end. Generally speaking, it appears that the ceremonial stuff was designed to prepare the way for Christ's coming (Paul uses the illustration of the law as being a tutor, preparing a child for adulthood, at which point the tutor is no longer required). Moral commands, however, obviously have a shelf life that continues for as long as people still remain human (the prohibition against murder being an obvious example).

Teaching this stuff is what I do for a living, so if you really are interested then I would be happy to continue this discussion in the Christianity forum where it more properly belongs.

That's fine, thanks - I'm familiar with Paul's teaching on the shadow and the real, and I can see from there the case you might make. I was interested to see if there was what might be called a 'cut and dried' case apart from Paul's prejudices. In the absence of Paul's expressed view, there's no reason to consider the prohibition on homosexuality moral rather than ceremonial.

PDN wrote:

I just find it difficult to understand why atheists get so exercised by my belief that homosexuality is sinful, that it should therefore be avoided by Christians, but that I have no wish to enforce that viewpoint on non-Christians. In fact I haven't the slightest wish to persuade non-Christians to change their views on homosexuality at all. The only reason we are discussing it now is because atheists can't help asking me questions about this subject. Since the sole net effect of this belief is simply to stop those who wish to engage in homosexual acts from joining the church, then shouldn't that make atheists happy? Or are you secretly wanting lots more people to actually join the church?

I'd imagine that motivations vary a lot. While your personal faith appears to be strong enough to simply say that the prohibition is Biblical, and applies only to Christians, many Christians' faith is not - they are unable to consider the subject without dragging in additional charges against homosexuality, such as it 'being unnatural', or its 'negative health effects', and they are willing to fight for the State to come 'onside' to discriminate against it. There are plenty of people for whom "Christian country" is a meaningful term.

Similarly, there would be plenty of Christians who would consider that someone homosexual can't really be a Christian because of their homosexuality - forgetting, of course, that all are sinners.

Unfortunately, because you are willing to engage, you are being asked to defend their position, rather than your own. Unfair, perhaps, but one could argue that your position lends 'moral support' to the more extreme positions.

PDN wrote:

Unlikely, but possible. However, that would still, IMHO, be preferable to being guided by the prejudices of Scofflaw or PDN.

There we are diametrically opposed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

Maybe my reasons why atheists get annoyed with Christians view on this might be a more constructive input to the thread.

I can't think why.
In fact I'm not convinced there's much more that can be of use to this thread.

robindch

PDN -

Out of interest: You said recently that you're a lecturer in morality, presumably to religious people, so am I right in thinking that this includes you telling people that homosexuality is a bad thing? But if you say this, do you always follow it up by explaining in very forthright terms that it is wrong to indulge in prejudice of any kind, even private, against homosexuals? And if so, do you believe that your audience accepts that and will be unable to develop the deep dislike of homosexuals that is common in my experience?

And of the following two, which is the worse -- the possibility that you will encourage one group to detest another no matter how much you tell them not to act upon your assertions concerning homosexuality, or that homosexuals will be unaware of your interpretation of the bible?

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

I can't think why.
In fact I'm not convinced there's much more that can be of use to this thread.

I apologised in my last post after Wicknight pointed out a redundant point I made. That's just a cheap shot. How's your ego?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Idolatry general involves the betrayal and emotional hurt of a 3rd party, which I would imagine you would feel is wrong even if you never read the Bible.

The reason idolatry is considered a very bad sin is that the production of children was very important to economics and status of a man or household, if another man is producing children by his wife this is very serious (one could go back further and say that the reason that economics and status is attached to the man based on children is evolutionary, but that is probably too much detail) The modern reason why idolatry is considered bad, that of the betrayal and hurt of your partner, is largely secondary to this (though still comes from the root evolutionary instincts), but there are certain a few passages that a modern Christian or Jew could use as a justification of why adultery is bad..

Er, might you be getting a bit confused between idolatry and adultery?

karen3212

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think statistical analysis shows that homosexuality is a natural phenomena.
This book, Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23, Matt Ridley,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapters/dp/185702835X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/202-2785858-8991848?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181036017&sr=8-1

argues that any statistical analysis shows that about 4% of any of any reasonable sized sample set are homosexuals.
That said, no gene has been found for it yet.

As a wannabe liberal I would see nothing wrong with homosexuality, or consenting adults doing anything they wish, whether they choose to do it or whether they are born that way.
Strict Christianity has a different view as you point out PDN, but it's a valid question to ask why do atheists get freaked out by Christians view on this.

My reasons would be
1. It's a form of bullying: a big nobel respected instituition telling a minority they are wrong and insinuating they are a lower form of life.
2. A perception of hypocrisy: christians claim to be compassionate but on this issue they appear biggoted.
3. Avoiding evidence: Again the statistical evidence would suggest that homosexuality is naturalistic, but Christians won't accept this instead choosing their ancient man made scripture over statistical analysis.

My question to you PDN is, if science did find a gene for homosexuality would your views change?

Yes, and it smacks of repression of the individual, when the majority wanted ihomosexual acts illegal, then it was. Which is why people are scared that law based on majority wants rather than individual rights may again become popular in the ''western world''. That is the argument I have with abortion. It is ridiculous that so many people think the majority has a right to choose for an individual.

Dades

In fact I'm not convinced there's much more that can be of use to this thread.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I apologised in my last post after Wicknight pointed out a redundant point I made. That's just a cheap shot. How's your ego?

Eh? I'm not sure why your knickers are in a twist because I think this meandering thread is going nowhere.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

2000 years ago, after a long time of following it, they figured out that the whole unclean food thing was ridiculous and they changed how this was handled. This was incorporated into the religion and given a religious justification (a pretty weak one at that, largely created by Paul)

Not so, Judaism (& to some extent Islam) still adheres to the unclean food thing. Your rather novel idea of why Christianity dropped the dietary laws is unlikely to find support from any reputable historian - but I'm sure you won't let that stop you believing what you want.

In fact, as the Books of Acts and Galatians make clear, once Gentiles began to join up then the Christians had to decide how the Law of Moses related to the message of salvation through faith in Christ. Should the Gentiles become Jews or not? In fact the unclean food thing was little more than a side issue - the biggie was circumcision. Once the Church decided that faith in Christ was the main thing, and that circumcision was no longer deemed necessary, then it was inevitable that the food laws would go the same way.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

My question to you PDN is, if science did find a gene for homosexuality would your views change?

If science discovered that a gene somewhat increased the likelihood of someone being homosexual then obviously that would not change my views. Some people are more prone to temptation to certain sins than others, but that does not take away our ability to choose.

If science discovered a gene that made someone totally incapable of refraining from homosexual activity (an extremely unlikely hypothesis, I think you will agree) then that would obviously be a different kettle of fish. How could you blame someone for something over which they had zero control? To judge someone as sinful in that case would be a denial of much that I value in Christianity - it would be as abhorrent as racism.

As an interesting aside (not an argument by analogy ), Christians would normally view cursing and blasphemy as sinful. But if someone suffers from Tourette's Syndrome (sp?) they may involuntarily yell out obscene and blasphemous comments. I know of no Christian who would view the Tourette's sufferer as being sinful on this account.

Zillah

Kosher and Halal, respectively.

Oh my thats hilarious actually. Apparently the hadith forbid the killing of frogs...

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

In fact I'm not convinced there's much more that can be of use to this thread.
Eh? I'm not sure why your knickers are in a twist because I think this meandering thread is going nowhere.

Sorry, I misread your post:
You said:
In fact I'm not convinced there's much more that can be of use to this thread.

I thought you said:
In fact I'm convinced there's much more that can be of use to this thread.

i.e. my post was a load of tosh w.r.t. to all other posts.

Tá bron orm, a chara.

Well I think this thread has gone way off the OP, anyway.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

As an interesting aside (not an argument by analogy ), Christians would normally view cursing and blasphemy as sinful. But if someone suffers from Tourette's Syndrome (sp?) they may involuntarily yell out obscene and blasphemous comments. I know of no Christian who would view the Tourette's sufferer as being sinful on this account.

That's a good analogy actually. But, I would call it more an example not an analogy as you are giving an example where Christians make exceptions for a rule and you are not completly shifting the domain away from Christianity.
As a matter of interest, before Science discovered Tourettes Syndrome (sp?) did Christianity have a different view of people who would have it?

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

Tá bron orm, a chara.

Ná habair é.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I think this thread has gone way off the OP, anyway.

So what's new?!

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Er, might you be getting a bit confused between idolatry and adultery?

Ah yes the old dyslexia is showing its old head again

The reason idolatry (worship of idols or "false" gods) is a major sin in most religions is kinda obvious. For a religion to survive it demands dedication to the religion itself. Worship of multiple religions at the same time is clearly contrary to that need.

PDN wrote:

Your rather novel idea of why Christianity dropped the dietary laws is unlikely to find support from any reputable historian - but I'm sure you won't let that stop you believing what you want.

My "novel" idea of why the dietary laws were dropped is pretty much what you said, they couldn't sell it.

To a non-Jew who was not raised in that tradition of unclean food the idea that a God would command you not to eat certain food was ridiculous. They just cooked the food properly. This rule was therefore dropped from the religion.

I would point out that this is a major point that Jews use as justification for why Jesus wasn't the messiah, as the Old Testament clearly states that the messiah will not attempt to change any of the laws, and that any messiah that attempts to do so should be considered a false messiah (and executed). Of course there are various ways that Christians justify why this happened, such as saying that a New Covenant was created and therefore it was ok that the old laws were replaced (again Jews reject this as the Old Testament says this won't happen)

As I said it is unfortunate that the Christians were not interested in converting a large group of homosexuals, as the homosexual "rule" would probably have been dropped also, and some explanation of this added to the later books of the New Testament in the same way that Paul cancels out a lot of the older Jewish laws. Since you consider his writing to be divine you would have no doubt accepted his opinion on homosexuality being fine.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

As a matter of interest, before Science discovered Tourettes Syndrome (sp?) did Christianity have a different view of people who would have it?

I guess they probably thought they were demon possessed which, while an appalling mis-diagnosis, would at least have had the slightly redeeming feature of not treating the sufferer as if they were themselves morally at fault.

PDN

robindch wrote:

PDN -

Out of interest: You said recently that you're a lecturer in morality, presumably to religious people, so am I right in thinking that this includes you telling people that homosexuality is a bad thing? But if you say this, do you always follow it up by explaining in very forthright terms that it is wrong to indulge in prejudice of any kind, even private, against homosexuals? And if so, do you believe that your audience accepts that and will be unable to develop the deep dislike of homosexuals that is common in my experience?

And of the following two, which is the worse -- the possibility that you will encourage one group to detest another no matter how much you tell them not to act upon your assertions concerning homosexuality, or that homosexuals will be unaware of your interpretation of the bible?

Sorry for taking so long to answer. I've had a few other irons in the fire and haven't had time to deal with posts like this that require a bit of a longer response (smart aleck one-liners are much less time consuming).

I lecture in ethics at third level, but that involves more asking provocative questions than telling people what to believe. (I did try asking such a question once on this board but won't do it again since I got a heap of abuse from one particular intellectually-challenged individual). When lecturing in such a setting I would be much more likely to deal with issues of discrimination etc. I think these kind of students are perfectly able to see a behaviour as sinful but still love and treat with respect those who commit such behaviour.

As a preacher in a church setting then there is a much greater element of telling people what we believe to be right or wrong. I've been trying to remember the last time I mentioned homosexuality. On average I preach about 6 sermons a week, and I can only remember one time in the last year when I mentioned homosexuality. That was in the lead up to the General Election where a vox-pop item on Newstalk Radio had asked people whether they would vote for a gay politician. Some of the respondents (all non-nationals) made clear that they would not do so on religious grounds. So I challenged the congregation as to why they would vote for an adulterer but not for a homosexual. This led into a teaching on the fact that, if we try to enforce our religious views on others, then we can't complain if others enforce their views upon us.

I don't actually believe that Christianity creates homophobia, but some Christians do indeed reflect homophobic attitudes that are cultural rather than religious. I've never met anyone who was tolerant and accepting of gays before conversion and then became homophobic as a result of converting to Christianity. Homophobia is also rampant in non-Christian societies. Indeed, some of the most aggressive homophobia in the last century was in the officially atheist regimes of the Soviet Union and Communist China. The least religious country in Latin America (Cuba) is also the most homophobic.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I lecture in ethics at third level, but that involves more asking provocative questions than telling people what to believe. (I did try asking such a question once on this board but won't do it again since I got a heap of abuse from one particular intellectually-challenged individual).

A pity. It would be nice to try and pull the level of debate up rather than let the brain-dead drag it down.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Acid_Violet

Hopefully someday a big blow will come to all the creationists and bull****ters. Preferably in the shape of homocide. Then we'll have no problems with people objecting to science because it may shed some light on their lives.