homosexuality and Christianity

[stePH]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. 

So far it's claiming that the Big Bang itself, and the ability of Planet Earth to support life against all probability, are incontrovertible evidence of the Hand of God.  I can't wait to see how it attempts to justify the validity of The Holy Bible over any other "sacred" text.

[Listener]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. 

That was just mentioned on last week's Geologic Podcast. Coincidence?

[stePH]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. 

That was just mentioned on last week's Geologic Podcast. Coincidence?

Almost a certainty, since I don't listen to the Geologic Podcast.  But now I'm interested in checking it out.

[Darwinist]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. 

So far it's claiming that the Big Bang itself, and the ability of Planet Earth to support life against all probability, are incontrovertible evidence of the Hand of God. 

Must be one of funniest books ever written.

[stePH]

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. 

So far it's claiming that the Big Bang itself, and the ability of Planet Earth to support life against all probability, are incontrovertible evidence of the Hand of God. 

Must be one of funniest books ever written.

I'm not laughing ... just kind of shaking my head in incredulity.  I'll need more than the Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle to convince me.  Evidence of the Big Bang proves that the cosmos had a beginning, but that's all it proves.  It doesn't prove that God did it.  And the fact that the universe coalesced into a stable state against all probability and that this planet formed to be capable of sustaining life, again against all probabilty, proves ... that it happened.  "Why" does not even come into it; it's a huge leap to say it was directed by God.

I'm beginning to doubt my ability to finish this book, but I do want to at least get through why they think we should believe in the Bible over any other Holy Writ.

[stePH]

Finished "The Reckoning" -- the supernatural element didn't quite do it for me, though it was sufficiently creepy.  Also, there was a rather unnecessary girl-on-tree almost-sex-scene that I could've lived without.

Now reading "The Magician" by Michael Scott. 

THE Michael Scott?

[stePH]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Last Days by Richard H. Perry ...

... The author states up-front his belief in Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation of Scripture, ...

... For all his self-stated belief in the Bible's "literal correctness," it doesn't seem to bother Perry to launch off into some highly allegorical interpretation of various passages when it suits him to do so.  And having looked up and read the surrounding text for many of his references, it seems to me that he plays really fast and loose with the original context much of the time.

One wonders if the author follows everything laid out in the Bible, such as not eating shellfish, not wearing clothes that combine more than one type of fiber, keeping slaves, and stoning unruly children?  They're commanded in the Bible, so obviously those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible have to follow those rules.   

From what you say, the author seems to take the "salad bar" approach to Biblical literalism that I find in everybody I've met who claims to believe the bible is literally true.

[Listener]

Finished "The Reckoning" -- the supernatural element didn't quite do it for me, though it was sufficiently creepy.  Also, there was a rather unnecessary girl-on-tree almost-sex-scene that I could've lived without.

Now reading "The Magician" by Michael Scott. 

THE Michael Scott?

Probably not. I don't watch The Office.

[Darwinist]

Finished "The Reckoning" -- the supernatural element didn't quite do it for me, though it was sufficiently creepy.  Also, there was a rather unnecessary girl-on-tree almost-sex-scene that I could've lived without.

Now reading "The Magician" by Michael Scott. 

THE Michael Scott?

His jokes always make me laugh and leave me satisfied.  (That's what she said.)

[Windup]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Last Days by Richard H. Perry ...

... The author states up-front his belief in Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation of Scripture, ...

... For all his self-stated belief in the Bible's "literal correctness," it doesn't seem to bother Perry to launch off into some highly allegorical interpretation of various passages when it suits him to do so.  And having looked up and read the surrounding text for many of his references, it seems to me that he plays really fast and loose with the original context much of the time.

One wonders if the author follows everything laid out in the Bible, such as not eating shellfish, not wearing clothes that combine more than one type of fiber, keeping slaves, and stoning unruly children?  They're commanded in the Bible, so obviously those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible have to follow those rules.   

I'd forgive him if it were a matter of failing to carry Old Testament proscriptions and prescriptions into the current age.  St. Paul was rather definite on the idea that belief in Christ means freedom from the Law, and highly critical of those who asserted that adherence to the Mosaic Law was a necessary part of Christianity.  In a fit of exasperation in Galatians 5, Paul says of those who assert that circumcision is necessary for salvation, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

So, it's quite possible to square a belief in literal interpretation with discarding Mosaic law.

Rather, I object to the fact that he hangs his whole interpretive structure on a passage from Psalm 90 that equates a "day" in "God Time" with a thousand years of our time.  But what the Psalm 90:4 actually says is: "For a thousand years in your [God's] sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."  If we aren't going to accept the idea that the poet of the Psalms is just being poetic (from my position of armchair theologian, that looks like the obvious explanation), then we've got two potential units of time to equate to: a 24-hour day, or a "watch," which is about 3-4 hours.  (Added complication: "watch" apparently applies only at night.)  There doesn't seem to be any "literal" means to paper over the contradiction, and the author just ignores it, asserting "God Day" and "thousand year" equivalency, and apparently assuming that most people won't actually look up the reference.

Also, I'm thinking that if this time scale were truly The Key To Biblical Prophecy, it wouldn't appear in only two somewhat-obscure verses (the assertion appears again in II Peter, apparently an abbreviated quotation of the Psalm), but would instead be mentioned with the kind of frequency used for, oh, I dunno.  Maybe the duty to serve the poor??

In that respect, certainly, Perry seems to "cherry pick" the text rather extensively.  As a relatively liberal Christian, I find I'm spending a lot of time reading this rather conservative line while thinking, "Is that all you've got???"

[stePH]

I'd forgive him if it were a matter of failing to carry Old Testament proscriptions and prescriptions into the current age.  St. Paul was rather definite on the idea that belief in Christ means freedom from the Law, and highly critical of those who asserted that adherence to the Mosaic Law was a necessary part of Christianity.  In a fit of exasperation in Galatians 5, Paul says of those who assert that circumcision is necessary for salvation, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

So, it's quite possible to square a belief in literal interpretation with discarding Mosaic law.

At risk of derailing the thread (perhaps a mod should split this off) -- the proscription of homosexuality is part of the Mosaic law, ne?  So if eating shellfish is no longer an "abomination" then maybe being gay isn't either!    I don't think there's anything in the New Improved Testament that addresses the subject.

[Windup]

I'd forgive him if it were a matter of failing to carry Old Testament proscriptions and prescriptions into the current age.  St. Paul was rather definite on the idea that belief in Christ means freedom from the Law, and highly critical of those who asserted that adherence to the Mosaic Law was a necessary part of Christianity.  In a fit of exasperation in Galatians 5, Paul says of those who assert that circumcision is necessary for salvation, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

So, it's quite possible to square a belief in literal interpretation with discarding Mosaic law.

At risk of derailing the thread (perhaps a mod should split this off) -- the proscription of homosexuality is part of the Mosaic law, ne?  So if eating shellfish is no longer an "abomination" then maybe being gay isn't either!    I don't think there's anything in the New Improved Testament that addresses the subject.

The short answer is: There is some New Testament stuff to deal with, not to mention a general proscription against "sexual immorality" that Paul found particularly serious (but not serious enough to define with any particular precision).

The long answer is: Yeah, we should split this off.  How do you flag down a Moderator for something like this?

[Ben Phillips]

Note from moderator:  I split this off from p. 29 of the "What are you reading?" thread, but not very thoroughly I think -- so you may have to look there for relevant previous messages.

[Heradel]

Note from moderator:  I split this off from p. 29 of the "What are you reading?" thread, but not very thoroughly I think -- so you may have to look there for relevant previous messages.

Note from another Moderator — Continuing off of Ben's work, I went in and grabbed all the posts I thought fit and glued them on here, so throw any complaints at me if I grabbed the wrong one.

[Windup]

Note from moderator:  I split this off from p. 29 of the "What are you reading?" thread, but not very thoroughly I think -- so you may have to look there for relevant previous messages.

Thanks!! And thanks to Heradel, too!!

[CammoBlammo]

I'd forgive him if it were a matter of failing to carry Old Testament proscriptions and prescriptions into the current age.  St. Paul was rather definite on the idea that belief in Christ means freedom from the Law, and highly critical of those who asserted that adherence to the Mosaic Law was a necessary part of Christianity.  In a fit of exasperation in Galatians 5, Paul says of those who assert that circumcision is necessary for salvation, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

So, it's quite possible to square a belief in literal interpretation with discarding Mosaic law.

... the proscription of homosexuality is part of the Mosaic law, ne?  So if eating shellfish is no longer an "abomination" then maybe being gay isn't either!    I don't think there's anything in the New Improved Testament that addresses the subject.

The short answer is: There is some New Testament stuff to deal with, not to mention a general proscription against "sexual immorality" that Paul found particularly serious (but not serious enough to define with any particular precision).

stePH is quite right---most of the biblical stuff about homosexuality is in the Old Testament, and when somebody uses those verses to condemn your choice of bed partner you can quite rightly point out that they belong to the Mosaic Law as much as the dietary prohibitions do. Now this gets complicated, because there are some pretty reasonable laws in there too. For example, Leviticus 18 contains prohibitions of sex between males, but Leviticus 19 (which is part of the same set of rules) contains prohibitions against stealing and the sexual assault of slaves.

Of course, those sorts of things are covered equally well in the New Testament. Jesus reinterpreted and simplified the Law to quite a radical degree. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, we learn that adultery is just a symptom of deeper problems and hatred is equal to murder. In every case the problem lies in the spiritual state of the person breaking the Law---intention and motivation are far more important to Jesus than the actual sin itself.

Stealing isn't wrong so much as the desire to possess what isn't yours. Sexual assault isn't so wrong as the need and desire to dominate.

Paul's take on this is that we are free from the Law, although we have to be careful not to act in a way that could harm the consciences of others. Sometimes you have to respect the hang-ups other people might have.

So when he gives lists of behaviours that are against the spirit of Christianity we've got to listen, but we also have to be careful we're not reading things he didn't intend to say. It's very easy to simply read, 'Oh! He's railing against the behaviour I most like to hate!' Generally speaking, that's exactly the message we shouldn't be getting.

For example, in Romans 1 he lists a whole lot of things that are generally considered to be quite off morally. It's very easy to be smug and self-righteous when reading this. It includes things like idol worship, homosexuality and general nastiness. The kicker comes in Romans 2:1 when he says

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

He then goes on to point out that even the most moral of people do not achieve the perfection required by God. This is the basis of the 'Judge not lest ye be judged' saying, not to mention 'He who is without sin can cast the first stone.'

Does this mean the behaviours described are okay? Probably not, but it's hard to tell. This passage (and others like it) aren't there to rail against homosexuality but self-righteousness. Furthermore, what Paul is talking about seems to be different to what we would understand as 'homosexuality'. For example, Paul often seems to assume that men choose to be that way, and there are all sorts of questions about the nature of homosexual practice in that place and time.

The upshot of all this is that the Bible seems to take a dim view of homosexuality, but a close reading suggests that God mightn't have a problem with monogamous relationships. What the boys wanted to achieve in Brokeback Mountain was a far cry from Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Anyway, like I say to my congregation most Sundays, leave me out of it now. What you do is between you and God!

[Windup]

stePH is quite right---most of the biblical stuff about homosexuality is in the Old Testament, and when somebody uses those verses to condemn your choice of bed partner you can quite rightly point out that they belong to the Mosaic Law as much as the dietary prohibitions do...Of course, those sorts of things are covered equally well in the New Testament. Jesus reinterpreted and simplified the Law to quite a radical degree. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, we learn that adultery is just a symptom of deeper problems and hatred is equal to murder. In every case the problem lies in the spiritual state of the person breaking the Law---intention and motivation are far more important to Jesus than the actual sin itself.

Stealing isn't wrong so much as the desire to possess what isn't yours. Sexual assault isn't so wrong as the need and desire to dominate.

Paul's take on this is that we are free from the Law, although we have to be careful not to act in a way that could harm the consciences of others. Sometimes you have to respect the hang-ups other people might have.

...Does this mean the behaviours described are okay? Probably not, but it's hard to tell. This passage (and others like it) aren't there to rail against homosexuality but self-righteousness. Furthermore, what Paul is talking about seems to be different to what we would understand as 'homosexuality'. For example, Paul often seems to assume that men choose to be that way, and there are all sorts of questions about the nature of homosexual practice in that place and time.

The upshot of all this is that the Bible seems to take a dim view of homosexuality, but a close reading suggests that God mightn't have a problem with monogamous relationships. What the boys wanted to achieve in Brokeback Mountain was a far cry from Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Anyway, like I say to my congregation most Sundays, leave me out of it now. What you do is between you and God!

Cammo -- thanks!!!  That's a much clearer, more concise and all-around better-said version of what I was working up to than I probably could have produced!!!

What surprises me more than anything about the 20th-century church and homosexuality is the amount of effort expended on it.  It's clearly no more than a passing concern for Old Testament Judaism, and the First Century Christian church clearly didn't give it much thought, either.  Yet, it's a major issue in virtually all American Protestant denominations. (Maybe other countries, too.  I just don't know about them.) I can't quite figure out how that happened...

[wintermute]

I can't quite figure out how that happened...

The difficult thing about preaching against the sins that the Bible takes seriously (greed, ursury, intolerance, pride) is that a majority of your congregation are going to be guilty of some of these, to some extent. Which makes people uncomfortable and - while it might be argued that this is exactly what church is supposed to do - many people won't go to a church that doesn't make them feel good about themselves. Far better to focus on a sin that most people have never even been tempted by*.

And, once that attitude gets a toe hold, you start seeing what we might call "Ted Haggard syndrome", where people who've been taught that their feelings are evil and must be suppressed assume that everyone as the same feelings (what else does "homosexuality is a choice" mean?) and that this is a serious problem for everyone. Once you get a few high-profile preachers who are treating homosexuality as the greatest and most tempting sin, then a feedback loop develops.

Of course, this makes much more sense in a Protestant scheme than within Catholic churches but, while Catholics treat all forms of sexual immorality as being utterly vile, they don't seem to attach significantly more significance to having hot and steamy buttsex than to wearing a condom.

Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but that's my best guess.

*By contrast, CS Lewis never preached against gambling or homosexuality on the grounds that it made no sense for him to speak of sins he'd never been tempted by.

[CammoBlammo]

Cammo -- thanks!!!  That's a much clearer, more concise and all-around better-said version of what I was working up to than I probably could have produced!!!

What surprises me more than anything about the 20th-century church and homosexuality is the amount of effort expended on it.  It's clearly no more than a passing concern for Old Testament Judaism, and the First Century Christian church clearly didn't give it much thought, either.  Yet, it's a major issue in virtually all American Protestant denominations. (Maybe other countries, too.  I just don't know about them.) I can't quite figure out how that happened...

You're welcome!

It's an issue because it's an issue for wider society. In the last fifty years homosexuality has gone from illegal and/or sick to acceptable, to the point where more and more jurisdictions are allowing gay couples to marry. Most sections of the church have always taught against it in one way or another, but it's never been an issue until now. Given that, it's an easy target for conservative folk who are concerned about moral ills in modern society. It's also very easy to polarise opinion on. After all, anyone who stands up for the rights of gays probably is one (and most likely a child molester too---remember, this is about perceptions, not rationality) and certainly soft on sin. What influential person in any church would dare speak up? Bigotry becomes systematised, and a proper debate can never really take place.

As far as I understand things aren't as bad in continental Europe. They're not great here in Australia, although most Christians I know (and I live in a conservative country town) do their darndest to keep their opinions to themselves when they meet real live gay people. When it comes to church membership, though, it's a lot harder. The largest Protestant denomination here is having a lot of problems because it will allow gays to be ordained, although churches do not have to accept such clergy if they don't want them. I know the Episcopalians in the US---and by extension, everywhere---are experiencing similar issues over the ordination of a gay bishop.

I suspect we've just got to wait a generation. I'm old enough to remember when there was a real stigma attached to 'the condition'. Yet my kids cannot see anything strange about a gay couple we know. To them it's normal. I see a similar thing happening amongst younger folk in churches everywhere---they've got more important things to worry about.

I'm so proud of my kids!

[DKT]

That was a pretty amazing write-up, Cammo, and some of it was pretty enlightening.  I'd never read that section of Paul's Romans in that context, and it was a growing frustration.  My read on it before had been more muddled.  So thanks!

Also, Wintermute: hadn't heard that about Lewis and I find it fascinating.  I remembered him making a passing comment about homosexuality in (I think) Mere Christianity, but I suppose that's it.

It is amazing how much things have changed in the last 50 years.   

[shwankie]

Warning: Slightly O/T threadjack ahead.

I am still catching up on this, but I wanted to take a minute and say something about the thread itself.

This is the most insightful, balanced, interesting, well-written, and tolerant thread about religion I've read here in...well, ever. Thank you, Cammo, for your fantastic explanation and insight, and thank you everyone else for keeping this readable and thought-provoking. Frankly, I've bowed out of a lot of other threads here regarding religion because, while I was very interested in an academic discussion about the topic, the rhetoric and intolerance were more than I was interested in wading through. 

This is the kind of discussion that propagates ideas, informs people, and generally makes society a better place to be by encouraging open dialogue and tolerance through understanding. Thank you to those who've taken the time to write such thoughtful, intelligent posts.

Yeah, I know that's sappy. I must be having an off day...

Threadjack over.

[Thaurismunths]

The upshot of all this is that the Bible seems to take a dim view of homosexuality, but a close reading suggests that God mightn't have a problem with monogamous relationships. What the boys wanted to achieve in Brokeback Mountain was a far cry from Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Anyway, like I say to my congregation most Sundays, leave me out of it now. What you do is between you and God!

Wow.

I haven't finished reading this thread but wanted to thank Cammo for this terrific post. You do a credit to Christianity and I really appreciate how concise and informative you were, with out being insulting or judgmental.

[stePH]

Note from moderator:  I split this off from p. 29 of the "What are you reading?" thread, but not very thoroughly I think -- so you may have to look there for relevant previous messages.

Note from another Moderator — Continuing off of Ben's work, I went in and grabbed all the posts I thought fit and glued them on here, so throw any complaints at me if I grabbed the wrong one.

The three or four posts about the Michael Scott book, posted by myself, Listener, and Darwinist, probably belong back in the main thread since they don't relate to the Bible or homosexuality.

[Russell Nash]

Note from moderator:  I split this off from p. 29 of the "What are you reading?" thread, but not very thoroughly I think -- so you may have to look there for relevant previous messages.

Note from another Moderator — Continuing off of Ben's work, I went in and grabbed all the posts I thought fit and glued them on here, so throw any complaints at me if I grabbed the wrong one.

The three or four posts about the Michael Scott book, posted by myself, Listener, and Darwinist, probably belong back in the main thread since they don't relate to the Bible or homosexuality.

Splits are never perfect.  That's part of the reason we prefer to avoid them or do them early if we see it's inevitable.  It would probably be easier and better if you just copied whatever you want back in the other thread and post it yourself.  The posts add a context here for anyone who hasn't been keeping up with the Mega-thread.

[birdless]

I've been away from the boards for a while, but these types of discussions are what keep me coming back. I opened this thread with some degree of dread, not knowing quite what to expect from either side of the issue, but worried that there would be some... cross-the-line-snarkiness in more than a few posts. But instead I read intelligent (that's almost given, here, though), thoughtful, deferential, respectful postings. With the looming US presidential elections, this gives me a twinge of hope that our country can maybe all work things out together no matter who wins. It's a nice change of pace from my normal political cynicism. It's time for me to watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington again. Even McCain's newly appointed VP candidate, while opposed to gay marriage, exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners.

But regardless of a Christian's view on homosexuality, there should be no argument that we are to love everyone, sexual preference notwithstanding... sadly, all too many err on the side making sure their actions aren't seen as condoning a homosexual lifestyle. Jesus himself said, in one of his rare direct answers to a question, that the second greatest commandment was to love your neighbor... NOT to make sure your neighbor doesn't misconceive your loving attitude towards him as condoning his lifestyle.