So my little-brother-who-is-in-college decided to stop going to the church he had been going to, in large part because they are Not Okay With Homosexuality and he is Not Okay With That. (In other news, I am really quite proud of my little-brother-who-is-in-college.) Anyway so my dad (whom, let's be clear, both my brother and I love and even occasionally admire) emailed my brother saying, hey, you're not going to that church anymore, is it because of their position on homosexuality, and my brother was like, yeah that's definitely a big part of it, and my dad then proceeded to lecture my brother and my brother proceeded to forward that lecture to me. It was...an exceptionally predictable lecture, to me at any rate, and that may not say a whole lot since I grew up with the guy and know how he thinks. I'll spare you the details, but the short version is that my dad is upset because my brother is making his own moral judgments rather than relying on the Bible.
So here's why, from an evangelical Christian perspective, my dad's position and, more importantly, the position of a very large number of evangelical Christians (on homosexuality specifically and moral judgment generally) is both morally reprehensible and logically indefensible. (And I should say that I am not, myself, Christian, but I have endeavored as far as possible to argue from Christian premises, as well as premises derived from general experience. This is not an atheistic argument. It is a Christian one. Also, I've restrained myself from using my typical profane and offensive style, as a courtesy to the intended Christian audience of this post.)
First off, let's talk about what my dad is actually doing when he claims to be relying on the Bible for moral guidance. In a nutshell, he's relying on his own interpretation of the Bible (specifically, the English Standard Version translation, or in the case of the Old Testament, mistranslation, of the Bible.) Now, this isn't some total relativist argument where I wave my hands like a jellyfish and go "it's all interpretation! nothing is true! it means whatever you want it to mean!" No. That's not the level we're operating on here. Rather, what I am saying is that there is no language, and certainly no literature (this, by the way, includes the Bible), without interpretation. Some interpretations definitely seem better than others - they're better supported by the text, better reasoned, and so forth - that's fine. But it's still an interpretation.
And the thing is, I'm not certain my dad would disagree. He (and evangelical Christians generally) behave as though the Bible needs to be interpreted - at least when it suits them. For instance: evangelical Christians do not adhere to the strictures of the Mosaic law. That's all well and good, but it means you need to deal with verses like Ecclesiastes 12:11-12a ("The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these."), or Matthew 5:17-19 ("Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.") Now, it's not stupid to say that, when Jesus says "until all is accomplished", he means "until I fulfill the Law and the Prophets by my life, death and resurrection". It's less easy to deal with "whoever relaxes one of these commandments...will be called least in the kingdom of heaven", but there are workarounds I'm sure (most arguments I've heard follow the lines of, the Law totally still exists and is valid and true but we get to ignore it because Grace - which, there's a term for that sort of thing in programming: cruft. But okay, fine, not the most elegant solution, but a solution nonetheless.)
And of course you can look at other places in the Bible to support the claim that we need no longer keep the Mosaic Law - Peter chowing down on a hallucinated tref picnic from heaven in Acts, where God's all, hey yeah no forget the kosher thing, I get to declare things clean by fiat and you don't get to cling to your outdated codes of ethics (wait, this sounds familiar - did I mention that the point of the story was that Christians should stop treating a hitherto stigmatized and looked-down-upon group of people like garbage? Yeah, wow, that definitely sounds familiar but I just can't place it right now. Oh well.) or else Paul's screeds in multiple letters, most notably Galatians, where he says (Galatians 5:2), "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law." (Ironically, there are many in the evangelical community who circumcise their children, for who knows what reason. One possible interpretation of this verse is that they have thereby condemned their children either to hell, or to keeping the Mosaic Law - which reduces, in the evangelical mind, to being condemned to hell. Even if you don't interpret it this way, why, given this verse, would you even consider circumcision for your children? Anyway.) But the point is, you're using these verses to interpret the verses which would suggest that you should keep the Mosaic Law (instead of, for instance, the other way round).
Or we could get away from the whole Mosaic Law thing entirely: look at Paul's instructions about women in the church in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ("Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.") or in his astonishingly incoherent rant in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in which really the only clear point is that women need to cover their heads in church. (No, go read it, it's total gibberish. Women need to cover their heads "because of the angels". Also, 1 Timothy 2:15 reads "Yet she [the woman] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control," which might just be the most misogynistic thing I've seen all week, and I read manboobz [TW for misogyny, obviously]. "Saved through childbearing." Seriously.) Anyway, the point is that, though some - indeed, many - evangelical churches do in fact make women remain quiet, many, including most charismatic churches I've been in and the one my parents currently attend, do not. And no church I've ever been in actually made women cover their hair. There's a variety of justifications for this, including, "it's just a cultural thing! it doesn't apply to us anymore!" (which is oddly relativist) or "it's okay, we just don't give women positions of authority, that's what Paul really meant!" (which, I guess I could see that?) or "long hair counts as a covering!" (which I'm pretty sure is just being bad at reading comprehension, but fine).
Here's my point: when you choose (subconsciously, no doubt) to interpret the Bible so that you have enough wiggle room to eat pork and to not have to wear head coverings, then why, for the love of Jesus, do you not afford the same treatment to human beings? You have lost any claim you ever had to be acting out of Christ-like agape love when your ability to eat bacon supersedes the rights and happiness of your fellow human beings. You might still love specific people of whatever sexual orientation, but when you act to reinforce the legal or social oppression of specific groups of people, you are not and cannot be acting out of love. You are acting out of hatred.
But okay, you think you have pretty ironclad support in the Bible for "Homosexuality is wrong and bad." You know what? I agree. There are very specific verses, in both the Old and New Testaments, that say, essentially, "Dudes macking on dudes? EW EW NO STOP." (I'm pretty sure there's actually no prohibition in the Bible against female homosexuality, incidentally, but I'm going to give your blatantly inconsistent applications of "literalism" a pass because that's not my argument.) There are verses that you could use to argue that we should love and accept homosexual people and homosexuality, but only in the very general "What God has called clean let no man call unclean" sort of way. Honestly, the argument from the Bible that homosexuality is immoral is more airtight than any other argument from the Bible...
...since the pro-slavery arguments of the American South. See, the Bible has actually quite a lot of things to say about slavery, and they are all along the lines of "Slaves, obey your masters." Paul does say that slaves should gain their freedom, if they can, but it is very, very obvious that he means "gain their freedom legally," which was possible, both in the Roman world, and in the antebellum South. If he had instead meant "by any means, legal or illegal," he would emphatically not have sent the runaway slave Onesimus back to his owner, Philemon (see Paul's letter to Philemon). In fact, there is no hint of the idea, anywhere in the Bible, that slavery should or even could ever be abolished. Galatians 3:28 reads "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," but it would be as absurd to try to use this verse as evidence for the Bible's support for the abolition of slavery as it would be to try to use this verse as evidence for the Bible's support of the abolition of gender. It's true, you can use the Bible to support the idea that masters should treat slaves better while still keeping them enslaved, just as you can use the Bible to support the idea that Christians should treat homosexual people better while still keeping them socially oppressed - and you can cite general themes in the Bible of compassion, mercy, and justice to say, "hey, maybe we should not have slaves, that seems wrong," just as you can cite precisely those themes to say, "hey, maybe we should not socially and legally oppress homosexual people, that seems wrong." But the Bible itself isn't against slavery: it's very clearly for it.
And here is precisely my point: the abolitionist position is, Biblically speaking, much less well-supported than the pro-slavery position. It is, however, nearly universally acknowledged to be morally superior. Which means that the Biblical position is sometimes morally inferior. Which means that we need something other than the Bible to guide our moral judgments. For instance, we could try using our reason and moral intuitions, like my brother is doing. My father, and many evangelicals, would say that this is "leaning on our own understanding", which is bad. But I have shown that this is already precisely what they themselves are doing when they interpret the Bible - in fact, they are "leaning on their own understanding" in many ways far more than we are, since they have unconsciously (and, I might add, semi-idolatrously) set up their own personal interpretations of the Bible as the literal Word of God. This prevents them from recognizing that their beliefs might actually be wrong, and thus from ever achieving significant moral growth.
And I just want to emphasize again that what my father and evangelical Christians in general are doing is harming millions and millions of people in this country alone, and that they are just as culpable in this as were the slave-owners of the South, who, like them, took the Bible seriously, and believed they were acting out of Christ-like love towards the people they were actively oppressing (and, by the way, consider the oppressor who literally demands that those he is oppressing recognize that he is acting out of nothing but love for them - there are few things more viscerally repugnant).
So let's consider: you, as an evangelical Christian, have to my knowledge, five main ways of responding to this argument.
First, you could disagree with my premise that interpretation is a necessary part of reading any text. If you actually want to argue this point, I can more than adequately defend it, but it's so fundamental and obvious to me that I will question whether you can properly be called "literate" in any meaningful sense at all.
Second, you could disagree with my analogy of anti-homosexuality to slave-owning, in a variety of ways. You could claim that the Biblical argument of slave-owners wasn't as strong as I've made it out to be, perhaps pointing to the significant differences between the system of slavery as practiced in the Bible, and chattel slavery as it existed in the United States. The most you could claim with this position with any legitimacy, however, is that slavery in the US, though it should have continued to exist, should not have been quite as bad for the slaves as it in fact was. But the problem with slavery is not that slaves are treated poorly, the problem with slavery is that slaves are slaves.
Or you could question certain historical claims - did slave-owners really make these Biblical arguments? (Yes, they did, and this is easily ascertainable, so if this is a legitimate objection, I expect you to research it and reach a conclusion based on the evidence you find, not to use it as a stalling tactic so that there's always enough doubt that you don't have to make up your mind.)
Or, most likely, you could attempt to argue for your own exceptionalism - that while, yes, slave-owners made these arguments, and yes, they were wrong, you by contrast are making very very similar arguments but magically happen to be right. This I find unconvincing for a variety of reasons, which I really shouldn't have to spell out, but will if it is necessary. Suffice it to say that any argument you could make for the exceptionalism of your position, slave-owners could equally well have made. (This includes appeals to tradition, as well as arguments from pseudoscience.)
Third, I suppose you could accept that the stance against homosexuality you have adopted is the product of your own prejudice and the societal and cultural milieu in which you exist, and continue to hold that stance. This is at least honest - you display your fear and hatred of that which you consider Other, which is pretty repulsive, but again, at least it's honest.
Fourth, you could accept that, like the slave-owners in the antebellum South, you are wrong. You could get over your personal prejudices. You could learn to love and accept who people are. You could join the fight for equal treatment for everyone, and attempt to guarantee all people the "certain inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as, in the end, being a far better witness for Christ and Christ-like love than you could ever have been otherwise.
Or, fifth, you could ignore all of this, pretend I never said anything so that you won't have to confront certain ugly truths about yourself and your beliefs. Which, let's be clear, is cowardice.
Remember that I'm not even requiring you to give up your doctrine of Biblical infallibility. I'm merely requiring you to give up your doctrine of your own infallibility. That seems like a pretty Christian thing to do, all told. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
"Levi, Levi why do you persecute me?"
Was that the prelude to some actual discussion, or was I supposed to just go all Damascus-road here?
And since when does "persecute" mean "argue for equal rights"? If you're at all serious, I don't think I could have gotten a better example of the bizarre American Evangelical entitlement/martyrdom complex if I had straw-manned one out of thin air.
Also, who are you?
Actually....yea I was appealing hopefully to the Paul in you. As far as discussion idk. You even list and address potential responses, not really sure that invites discussion.
However, Christians should handle homosexuality like anything else they do, lovingly. We cannot condone the behavior but must never mistreat the individual.
As far as persecute, I'm refering to the way you refer to God's word.
You know me, Tyler D father of Rachel
Listing and addressing potential responses is a way of moving conversation forward past the obvious (and boring) parts. If you would identify your response as one of the ones I listed, but think my handling of that potential response is inadequate, I'd love to hear why. If you think I didn't address your response at all, then I'd enjoy hearing your response.
The "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach to homosexuality really, really does not impress me. I believe it's James who talks about wishing someone to be warm and well-fed but not actually helping them, and how that is the sign of a dead faith? Well, "love the gays, hate the gayness" looks, in practice, like wishing someone to be warm and well-fed while taking their food and clothing away. That is actually what you're doing when you fight to not have to treat homosexual people equally.
I'm actually unclear what you are talking about when you claim that I "persecute" the Bible. I do take the Bible seriously - as seriously as any other great work of literature, which is to say, very seriously indeed. Is it a tone thing? Is it the fact that I think Paul is a raving misogynist jerk? What, exactly, is the issue?
And yeah, I do know you. You're alright. How are things?
I'll start with the end and work back. Doing good thx, just passed 20 years with the same company and still sane, family is well, God is good. How bout you, gettin cold in the windy city I'll bet.
Yes, tone and gibberish reference. Those of us who still believe treasure the book even though, yes some things are very difficult, if not impossible to understand. Some things are confusing and appear to be contradictions. I do not believe it is unintelligent or somehow ignorant to chalk that up to, "I just don't understand." Most scripture is very clear and provides everything we need for living properly and more importantly salvation. Persecute seemed appropriate.
Let me rephrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." Deal with sin, as indicated by scripture, in the proper way, always showing love towards the individual. As a church elder I could not support a gay member to function as a elder or deacon but would very much welcome them to worship. Is this the kind of equal rights you are referring to.... that I would be depriving them of? How can I welcome their behavior without reservation if scripture makes me aware God is not pleased with this behavior. If I had a friend suffering with alcoholism or pornography it would be the same.
Levi you make a great case in your argument. In a secular court you win hands down. However, this is not a secular court. Its Gods court(at least to me). You appear strikingly like the Pharisees, technically accurate, but totally missing the bigger picture.
Yes Christians over the years have mucked up just about everything in scripture and have handled things like this inappropriately to say the least. But that is no excuse to not identify sin as sinful, strive to stay away from it yourself, and to reach out and help others. Christians are simply not the reason that this subject is a problem.
BTW, I travel to Chicago every now and then, maybe I could take you to dinner? Best food in America!
Windy city actually hasn't been that cold this year - yet. I'm sure that'll change.
The equal rights you're denying to LGBTQ people do kind of include denying them positions of leadership in the church - more on that later - but more immediately, the equal rights you're denying to LGBTQ people include but are not limited to 1) the right to marry whom they please; 2)the ability to adopt; 3) the right to not be subject to workplace discrimination or housing. In most of the country, LGBTQ people simply do not have these rights.
Therefore, if my argument wins hands down in a secular court, as you put it, I would expect you to fully support policies to grant LGBTQ people these rights, including not voting for politicians who will actively work to oppose those rights. I would be very, very surprised (pleasantly so!) to learn that this was in fact the case.
Equal treatment under law is only one facet, as important as it is, of the much larger and pervasive problem of bigotry and discrimination in society as a whole. Cf. JS Mill's On Liberty, it is just as possible to oppress groups of people socially as legally - with society-wide beliefs and behaviors rather than with laws and prisons. (Side note: there is absolutely no good reason Mill shouldn't be required reading in absolutely every high school in the country.) The widespread belief in our society that homosexuality is wrong - or, even more widespread, abnormal - does in fact oppress homosexual people. It is a belief that is totally incompatible with a free and just society. It is therefore a belief that will have to disappear before a free and just society is impossible. Now, we cannot and should not legislate against beliefs, so your refusal to allow LGBTQ people to hold leadership positions in your church can and should be legally protected, but should be attacked on the level of societal pressure: argument, persuasion, rhetoric, ridicule, and shaming are all legitimate tactics here. That's what this blog post is doing.
Also, you have yet to present any substantive counter-argument. You have asserted that my argument loses "in God's court", but I don't know what your argument is in God's court. You need to address this in order for the conversation to progress.
There are some side points you've made that I don't want to spend a great deal of time on but should at the least note: my tone is the result of me calling it as I sees it. Not apologizing for that.
You compare homosexuality to pornography and alcoholism. Alcoholism is a problem because it causes measurable, objective harm to those suffering from it and to those around them. Pornography and homosexuality do no such thing (granted, I have reservations about the porn industry in the US, but porn itself is not harmful.) The comparison to alcoholism simply is not valid. (Also sexual orientation is not a condition like alcoholism. That's dumb.)
Oh, and I find your comparison of me to the Pharisees ironic: the Pharisees were guilty of adhering to the letter of the law while neglecting the spirit - justice, mercy, compassion, and so forth. This is what you are doing. You are following the words in your book to the harm of huge numbers of people.
(Having said all of the above, if you're in town and you want to get dinner, I'd be okay with that.)
Well alrighty then, here we go. First of all let me state:
1)I believe in God as the creator and sustainer of everything.
2)I believe scripture is His revelation to us, therefore I believe it is infallible.
3)I know that there is the appearance of contradictions with certain passages.
4)I don’t deal with these by agreeing they are contradictions and just say my faith in Him covers it.
5)I simply don’t believe they are contradictions.
6)I am however very fallible.
So moving to our discussion, you say the pro-slavery position is better supported than the abolitionist position. Ok, I will agree it has that appearance. But better supported does not mean the same to me as condoned. But I’m also going to call into question the lack of connection we really have with that particular time and culture (I know you mentioned this in the potential response section but hang with me) The multi-wife and concubine thing would be one parallel I would make. That was something that Christians today do not have access to but more importantly for this discussion can’t really relate to ever having that option! So since I don’t see the bible directly coming out and condoning the practice (or denouncing it as you have said) and since we cannot relate to how the process of slavery worked at the time I am rejecting the premise we cannot use the bible to guide our moral judgments.
As far as my exceptionalism vs the modern day slave owner’s position, I wouldn’t put it that way. If I stick with my previous reasoning, I don’t believe they had a biblical argument condoning the practice. Help me out, I don’t see my position as exceptional or magically right?
Anyway moving to the main point, I have no fear or hatred for the homosexual. Since as you say scripture is very clear on it being wrong, I could not support them in a church leadership position since they are actively pursuing a lifestyle that God condemns. All of us sin and fall short of the glory of God but not all are pursuing a sinful lifestyle as defined by God. Further, we all are born with certain sinful tendencies. Each has one or more sins that challenge us more than other sins. We struggle with these sins as humans, directing us to God for help and deliverance. As far as social issues, like the defining of marriage between a man and a woman, why should I support changing that if I believe God condemns it? Still no hate here, it’s just my Christian position on the issue. If voting day comes and the law changes and a woman can legally marry a woman, so be it. I will acknowledge the legal precedence and move on.
A final note, I don’t believe any of these issues interfere with or diminish the main purpose of scripture. You are very familiar with his word and know that the main theme is salvation through Christ.
Go easy on me, hope I have somehow made sense….
Let me please add one more comment using: 1 Corinthians 2:14: 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
Since I believe in scripture the way I have stated, I obviously have to believe this also. I don't believe this means anyone who is not a believer can't pick up the bible and understand,but if one approaches the word in an antagonistic manner it will never make sense. Not that one is not intelligent enough (obvious in your case) but because there is a spiritual discernment that comes only from God.
I'm gonna have to take that second comment first: you know what that argument reminds me of? Self-proclaimed "psychics" and the like who, when confronted with laboratory conditions and scientists saying, "You're psychic? Okay, prove it," are unable to demonstrate anything paranormal at all, and blame their failure on the skepticism of the scientists. It's an intellectually bankrupt argument when they use it, and it's no more defensible when you or the Bible use it. (It's also very reminiscent of the gnostic heresy, for what that's worth.)
What I'm saying is, if you have good arguments, use them. If you don't, don't fall back on, "You can't understand this argument because you don't believe." That's intellectually dishonest, and cowardly besides, since it allows you to not have to seriously consider the possibility that you might be wrong. If you don't want to actually examine your beliefs and "test everything; hold onto the good", then I can't make you, but I won't help you pretend you're doing anything other than burying your head in the sand.
So yeah, don't try that again.
On to your first comment! So let me get this straight: the Bible on polygamy and slavery is a product of its culture and time period, and therefore, despite the fact that it was apparently perfectly okay for, say, David to have many wives and slaves, it's not okay for us. Fair enough, if you want to take the cultural relativist approach, that's fine. But I see absolutely no reason not to apply the exact same argument to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.
Here is, I think, the most productive question I could ask you: you say you recognize that there are apparent contradictions in the Bible, but don't believe that they are in fact contradictions. My question: how do you resolve those contradictions, real or apparent? Put another way, what is the thought process you use to come to the conclusion that polygamy and slavery are no longer permitted, but that homosexuality is still forbidden?
Not coming back? Pity, I thought that was quite close to becoming a productive discussion.
Sorry dude, holidays/illness/work and not necessarily in that order got in the way. Your last set of comments were very thought provoking, I will respond..
I think you are saying if I’m going to claim spiritual discernment, then by all means make that discernment known! Good point. Discernment to me doesn’t mean I have a ready answer for an analysis such as yours concerning slavery, homosexuality, etc.. It simply means I fully trust God’s word including the issues that you pointed out as being contradictory. I am definitely no intellectual match for you but don’t see my acceptance of these issues as intellectual bankruptcy. I have always in the past and still do take time to examine scripture, reflect, pray, and examine again and some issues are still very much perplexograms for me at the age of 50. I know there are some believers that don’t take the time to reflect on God’s word, many times take it out of context, and use it improperly, but I don’t think this is the case with most Christians. Levi, you have done a great job of outlining some biblical perplexograms of which I don’t believe one can produce hard-line refuting arguments against. I know there are many that could do a better job than I but I don’t think their answers would suffice either. Why did God leave the door open here? IDK. Don’t you think though that this is the essence of faith? It’s not about ignorance or being close-minded but just accepting that there are things appearing to have gaps and even though we can make a good case for the contradiction, can you really say without a doubt your case is airtight?
Ok, how do I resolve the apparent contradictions? As far as slavery, I really cannot tell you scripturally why it doesn’t work today. As far as polygamy, the only scriptural thing I got is as an elder must be the husband of one wife. You have already pointed out the scriptural precedence we have for God’s position on homosexuality. If it is an abomination, I don’t know how to support it other than show the person love and respect but try to help. If I mistreat them, I’m an idiot.
Oh yeah holidays/illness/work is a pretty legit reason. Sorry if I got impatient there!
"It simply means I fully trust God’s word including the issues that you pointed out as being contradictory."
Uh yeah "fully trusting God's word" doesn't mean "fully trusting God's word on the subject of homosexuality but completely ignoring it on the subject of slavery". Good try, though!
The point is that you haven't actually solved anything by invoking faith. The problem remains: why do you have faith that the Bible means exactly what it says when it talks about homosexuality but not slavery? (I have a theory, which is that you're really believing only what you've been taught to believe, which I think you'd agree would explain the situation. But presumably you don't want to go with that explanation, which is fine! So come up with a better one.)
Actually, by invoking faith, I think you've actually caused more problems for yourself than you've solved. Let's be clear: what you are calling faith is, from an outside perspective, nothing but the nonrational if not irrational decision to believe a certain thing, perhaps backed by feelings, emotions, or intuitions, but certainly not backed by sound legal (or any other kind of) reasoning. And there's a place for that sort of thing! But your faith has absolutely no standing to influence social and legal policy in any way whatsoever. Therefore, you cannot in good conscience vote or act against giving homosexual people equal treatment before the law and in society.
I still don't see the bible outright condoning slavery. I have faith that the apparent "gap" of forbidding slavery is there for a reason. Sending Onesimus back to his owner didn't condone the practice so much as it taught him the proper way to deal with his circumstances. But you still make a good argument. You are asking me to somehow disagree with God's condemnation of homosexuality based on a somewhat apparent but not proven discrepancy in the bible. I don't see how I can do that.
Again, I must show nothing but love to all people but to vote for special privileges, redefinition of marriage, church positions/leadership just would not make sense.
"I still don't see the bible outright condoning slavery. I have faith that the apparent "gap" of forbidding slavery is there for a reason."
Sure, buddy. Leviticus contains rules for the correct way to rape slaves captured in war, but as long as it doesn't explicitly say "hey guys slavery is awesome" in as many words you can pretend that the Bible doesn't support an obviously inhumane and terrible institution.
"Sending Onesimus back to his owner didn't condone the practice so much as it taught him the proper way to deal with his circumstances."
Which is, apparently, to not run away and obey your master and wait for the people in power (including, naturally, slaveowners, but no slaves) to figure out that, oh hey slavery is really quite unjust and inhumane and perhaps we shouldn't do it. Logically, therefore, you must condemn the Underground Railroad. But I don't think you do.
Which brings us back to my point: you have this cobbled-together, ridiculously flimsy argument with more holes than a colander for why the Bible's text on slavery does not entail your supporting the institution, and I'm fine with that. Better that than supporting slavery, for sure.
But what I do have a problem with is that you refuse to even try to come up with some justification (and you're clearly okay with flimsy justifications, so I'm sure you wouldn't have to work too terribly hard) for why you don't actually have to be a bigot towards other people because of their sexuality.
"You are asking me to somehow disagree with God's condemnation of homosexuality based on a somewhat apparent but not proven discrepancy in the bible. I don't see how I can do that."
Listen, it is not more clear that the Bible is against homosexuality than that the Bible is for slavery - if anything, it's the reverse: the Bible, even if we're just counting the New Testament, contains far more text on slavery (all pro-) than it does on homosexuality. You have no problem disagreeing with God's support of slavery, so don't act like this is some inevitable, logical conclusion on your part. What I keep telling you is, you have chosen to believe what you believe, not based on reason or the Word of God (obviously), but based on other factors (such as, for instance, having grown up in a non-slave-owning, homophobic/heterosexist society.)
And what I'm telling you is, it's time to make a better choice, because your choice hurts people.
"Again, I must show nothing but love to all people but to vote for special privileges, redefinition of marriage, church positions/leadership just would not make sense."
Okay two things: 1) could you kindly stop talking about love until you have stopped violating people's rights because it is making me nauseous, like a man telling his wife he beats her because he loves her. I'm not sure who you think buys your talk of love while you conspire to perpetuate injustice, but I don't, queer people don't, and the next generation of Christians, in my experience, don't. I think some of the Old Testament prophets as well as Jesus had some things to say about people who talk a good, pious talk but do not act justly towards the powerless.
2) You actually just made the "equal treatment equals special privileges" argument. You did that. That was intellectually bankrupt.
Tell you what, why don't you reread my original post, maybe read Jesus on the subject of the Pharisees too, and think for a good, long time about my points before you respond, because I am quickly losing patience with your lack of original thought and your inability to engage with my argument.
I will certainly try.....
Don't give up on me,just insanely busy.
No worries. I'm also rethinking my approach here (as part of a larger worldview overhaul aimed at eliminating the over-Rationalist elements of my thinking) so I might take the discussion in a different direction pretty soon.
Also, a correction to my previous comment: Leviticus does not contain rules for the correct way to rape slaves captured in war. Deuteronomy 21 contains rules for the correct way to rape captives taken in war (you have to marry her first, but she is a war captive and you just killed her father, husband, and brothers, so it's extraordinarily unlikely either that she'd be willing or that she'd have any choice in the matter, so that's rape. If you actually want to argue that point, you may, but I reserve the right to get extremely angry. Fair warning.) It also notes that if you get tired of her, you should not in fact treat her as a slave but rather set her free, which is humane, I'll grant, for a rapist. ("But, as rapists go, I'm nice!" wins you precisely zero points.)
So that doesn't actually support my specific allegation, but it does support my more important general point, which is: the Bible is totally okay with really, really awful things. You have to have some sort of algorithm for determining which parts of the Bible you choose to explain away and which parts you choose to follow literally. That is really, really clear to me, and so far you just seem not to have understood it. Which is, I think, our main problem in this conversation right now.
Hello Priestwarrior, Well I did what you ask and reread everything you wrote (several times). I reread our discussions also in an honest attempt to understand your points. I researched as much as I could and found several discussions that followed the same path you and I have been down(although you made your case far better than others). And through all this realized that nothing this intellectually dishonest bigot (as you have referred to me)could say would possibly affect the way you have interpreted my Christian worldview. I believe one makes the choice to be intellectually dishonest and I assure you I have not knowingly chosen this path. Hey why don't we go with the fact that maybe I'm just cranially challenged. I've accepted what I consider God's word , scratched my head a few times with some of the harder to understand verses as you have discussed, but at the end of the day trust in my heart of faith and God. IDK Priestwarrior, I have no desire to deny anyone their God given or society given rights, hurt anyone's feelings, etc etc.. I try and treat everyone with loving respect but must to the best of my ability live out the life as scripture indicates. Hope you are doing well, I haven't had any Chicago trips but if one arises maybe I could buy you a steak. Chicago cuisine is the best. Take care of yourself
So, Levi, yeah, there are things that God gets to call clean by fiat. That's about forgiveness of sins and including the Gentiles, among other things.
Do you know the difference between the words unclean and abomination?
TBone, your first argument was 'maybe correct.' Do not let anyone coddle you into the belief that God now condones all things. There are behaviors and there are lifestyles that He vehemently detests. You cannot love God and do what He hates.
I've been a bit harsh, unusual for me, and I do not apologize. If either of you want to continue this discussion though, I will gladly type a more genial key.
TBone: well, it sounds like you did your homework at least, so I'm inclined to let you go peaceably. Sorry we couldn't come to more of an understanding.
I would just like to give you one last thing to think about: you have the freedom to just walk away from this conversation. You probably won't lose any sleep over it. I, and other people who identify as queer, do not have that freedom, because we live in a society that is constantly forcing us into some version of this dialogue, where we have to justify our existence, again and again. That's pretty unjust, if you ask me.
David! So glad you could join us. You appear to be having some difficulty understanding the difference between a first-order argument (in this case, your textual argument from your particular theological/cultural background) and a second-order argument (which would be mine, about the validity or lack thereof of the way your particular theological/cultural background generates textual arguments).
In short, you are presenting me with a textual argument, when I have already presented an argument that needs to be dealt with before you're even allowed to begin making a textual argument.
This is a dumb move on your part.
It is, however, a common problem among right-wing evangelical Christians. They are quite often incapable of stepping outside their own theological/cultural backgrounds. This limitation prevents them from realizing just how many layers of interpretation removed from the actual text of the Bible they are. (Just, for instance, the idea that you have to read the Old Testament through a "New Testament lens" - i.e., things in the Old Testament that contradict one's particular brand of Christian theology can be safely ignored.)
So many layers of interpretation - and you don't even realize they're there, and so you think (and claim!) that your particular reading of selected portions of the text, informed by your very specific social/cultural/theological background, is the literal Word of God.
Well, guess what, it ain't. I might hypothetically be persuaded that God can declare things clean or unclean by fiat (but see Plato's Euthyphro for a particularly good counterargument - what do they teach kids in homeschool these days), but I sure as hell don't think you, David Joseph, get to do that.
Hey, if you are willing to be patient with me I'm all for continuing our conversation. From some of your comments I felt I was only angering you and that's the last thing I want to do.
Levi! You responded! Good! Let me explain.
Actually, it's pretty simple. God calls something an abomination, never do it. He does this with male homosexuality, but not with slavery.
It's interesting that you're trying to call God the God of injustices and oppression at His Word. The same Word, though, says both of these of are likewise abominable to Him.
Do you know how vigorously He rebuked the ones who practiced hypocrisy?
Levi, you want me to justify slavery. Well, I tell you what, I will defend slavery if you will justify killing someone.
TBone, I smiled when I read your comment. Read the book of Acts and you'll see that that's exactly what the disciples and Paul would do. They'd talk for awhile, telling people the good news, and then people would get angry. A lot of them. Suddenly. And that's usually the last thing they would do. :) I laughed, and I imagine the disciples did too, 'cause then they went out and did the exact same thing again someplace else.
...David, I just said that you needed to address my metatextual argument before making any textual arguments. And your response was...a textual argument. So let me try to restate the problem here.
My argument is that "The Bible says so" is not a sufficient argument for determining social or legal policy. Your argument is variations on "but the Bible says so". You can't do that. You have to address the metatextual argument first.
Most of the rest of what you said is just...incoherent and angry and bears little relation that I can see to anything I've said.
I would just like to address "Well, I tell you what, I will defend slavery if you will justify killing someone." At first I was like, but I'm as pacifist as I know how to be, but then I was like, oh. He's trying to bring abortion into a discussion despite the fact that it is a) totally irrelevant, and b) utterly idiotic to think that I would be pro-choice and think that fetuses are people at the same time. (And we are Not. Discussing. Abortion. in this thread.)
So that makes me pretty sure that you are way less interested in having discourse and way more interested in having a fight, scoring points for your side, and generally being incoherent and angry. Which is boring to me, and I won't participate in it.
So here's the deal: if you're going to keep posting here, you need to a) cool down and put in some effort to be coherent, and b) actually address my argument. If you post again without doing those two (basic, decent) things, I will respond only by writing you several paragraphs of extremely homoerotic Avengers fanfiction, which will be a much better use of my time. Sound fair?
Tbone, if you want to stick around, that would be fine, and I'm going to try not to get frustrated or angry. I think you're having the same problem with metatextual v. textual arguments David is, so if you could address that, I think this could yet be productive.
I typed about a thousand words here, then I deleted them. So I'll say briefly, that no, this was not about abortion, and it never will be. This is about homosexuality and the Bible.
If you want to still respond to my offer, fine, but you're not allowed any responses that resemble a train wreck, a switch, and a person in ropes; that's a second-order issue that would needlessly hamper discussion.
Now, as far as addressing your metatextual argument, yes, I have not. What I have done instead is point out that the comparison - between homosexuals and slavery - is unfair at best, but more importantly you're trying to get us to paint God as we like Him.
You know, honestly, I think God has a thing for slaves. He likes setting them free. Read the book of Exodus for reference.
So there Levi; without resorting to esoteric, freewheeling interpretation of the Bible to make my claim, I have shown that the Bible is indeed reliable for making a morally superior argument for setting slaves free. If you'll accept that argument, then you'll have to admit your argument homosexuality falls to pieces.
Now, I hope I've cleared things up for you. If I sound angry, I assure you, my first post was angry. These last posts are earnest. Also, I want to agree on something with you. Since neither of us will (probably) budge on our stance, we should decide beforehand at what point to end our discussion. One awkward scene with Phil Coulson was enough.
Post a Comment