This article really opens your eyes about all those people who claim that they're 'protecting marriage' by hiding behind the Bible.
Kind of like all those people who hate homosexuals but eat shellfish.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
This article really opens your eyes about all those people who claim that they're 'protecting marriage' by hiding behind the Bible.
Kind of like all those people who hate homosexuals but eat shellfish.
Considering many of the main figures of the Bible were polygamous (especially the kings) and all of the major characters were asexual (Jesus, the Holy Spirit) or had children out of wedlock (God), to pretend the Bible defends 1 man and 1 woman marriage was always silly.
I'm not sure why this is even debatable at this point. Most people have switched over from arguing that its what the Bible says to arguing for "moral Tradition" in the general sense. They still make "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" signs because they're catchy, and do a *wink wink nudge nudge* with their Bible buddies when they say "Tradition." However, they've more or less given up on the Bible argument in serious discussions.
Of course, the "Tradition" argument is also crap.
The issue is that most religious people really on intuition to determine what they think God is trying to tell them. If it feels wrong to them, they assume it is wrong. As the logic is peeled away from their other arguments it's finally coming down to "But, gay dudes are gross," which really was the bases of the objection all along.
This article really opens your eyes about all those people who claim that they're 'protecting marriage' by hiding behind the Bible.
Kind of like all those people who hate homosexuals but eat shellfish.
Ahh, yes, I can see this is definately going to generate an earnest meaningful debate about the issue, and not an uninformed circle jerk of "grrr we hate Christians"
(Edit: apologies if you're serious, but anyone citing in any way to godhatesshrimp and/or that general argument is displaying a woeful, and almost always, intentional ignorance of the arguments that are being raised against them. The article I linked last time we had a "god hates shrimp" issue http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-eating-shrimps-is-not-like-homosexuality/. It may not be the best one, but its solid and I found it in 30 seconds on google)
My intent isn't to start any kind of a circle jerk -- it's simply to make a point of the fact that
1) The Bible doesn't support a significant majority of what modern Christian fundamentalists try to get out of it.
and
2) The Bible supports a vast number of things that are abhorrent to modern Christian fundamentalists -- or would be, if they were educated enough about the Bible to actually know what's in it.
Personally, the persecution of homosexuality due to it's mention in Leviticus has always rang hollow to me simply because Jesus' self-sacrifice was a fulfillment of the Hebrew laws [Matthew 5:17] -- as in, the laws have been fulfilled; the route to salvation that they once represented has been wholly supplanted with the route that is acceptance of and obedience to Jesus Christ.
Who, by the way, never said anything about homosexuality. 'Sexual immortality', he said he was against [Matthew 15:19], but he never really went out of his way to say what that meant. He did go specifically out of his way to say "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" [Mark 7:15], which would seem to specifically prevent homosexuality from defiling at least one of the two participants.
And before anyone brings up [Matthew 19:4-6], let's just add the context of [Matthew 19:7] to that quote to remind ourselves that what Jesus is doing here is forbidding divorce, not putting strictures on what marriage is. He references an older, Judaic law to set the context for his argument -- but his actual argument here is that once you've fallen in love with and married someone, you should stick with it for the rest of your life.
Which is also something that a surprising number of Christian fundamentalists -- at least around here -- aren't particularly interested in doing, it seems.
[edit]Should add for clarity that I am a white male Mormon with a 4 year old child and a wife of 13 years who has never so much as seen any woman who is not my wife naked in my entire life. I don't even have any gay friends -- so none of this is about me in any way shape or form. It's simply a man of faith who is completely flabbergasted and deeply offended at the things some other people try to get away with in the name of Jesus Christ, whom I love and would defend to the ends of the earth.[/edit]
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Well, I guess it does make a bit of sense. My quick reading of this wiki page tells me there is nothing in the Book of Mormon about it, and that religion did start off with a more... nonstandard view of marriage.
Which is also something that a surprising number of Christian fundamentalists -- at least around here -- aren't particularly interested in doing, it seems.
Are you talking about members of your own religious community?
My understanding is that the official LDS stance on the subject is a pretty firm "against," so it would not surprise me that other members of your church aren't taking your arguments too seriously. My understanding is that questioning official stances is looked down upon within the Mormon church.
Solid scripture foundation or no, general Mormon doctrine seems very opposed to LGBT rights. Again, we come back to the providence of tradition.
If you don't mind me asking, which sect are you, Essence?
I'm a member of the LDS church. The big one. And I'm well aware that I'm not a clone of my friends and neighbors in the church; there are a few areas in which my beliefs are nonstandard. One of those areas is the one that says that everyone's beliefs should be standard.
But my personal religion is (and should be) beside the point. The point is that Biblical fundamentalism is silly on it's face, and only gets sillier the more you actually look at the Bible. [John 8:13; John 5:31]. Moreover, Bible fundamentalists all too often make arguments based on things that aren't even in the Bible (such as the assertion that marriage is defined in the Bible as one man to one woman.)
It's hypocritical of anyone who has ever:
Eaten a ham sandwich
Gotten an ear (or anything else) pierced
Shaved the corners off of their beard or hairdo
Paid attention to their horoscope
Told anyone else about a headline they saw on a gossip magazine in line at a grocery store
Gotten divorced (or doubly so if you've gotten remarried afterwards!)
Eaten popcorn shrimp
to condemn homosexuality using the Bible, because every single one of those items are against the law according to the Old Testament -- mostly in Leviticus, the same chapter that calls homosexuality 'detestable'. (And if you want to get really literal, it only condemns 'a man lying with another man'. It doesn't say anything at all about lesbians. [edit]And if you want to get really ridiculously literal, it only condemns 'a man lying with another man has he does with a woman', which as far as I can tell means that if you never have anal sex with a woman, you're safe being as gay as you care to be, because you're not lying with those men the way you did with that woman.[/edit])
And you can link to as many blog posts as you want to that rant about the godhatesshrimp people being wrong, but seriously, the Bible itself says that all of the laws therein are equal in weight:
For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)
“Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10; emphasis mine)
In short, if you believe as I do that Jesus Christ absolved us of the need to follow the old Judaic laws ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us." [Galatians 3:13]), you can't abhor people for homosexuality and use the Bible as your excuse. Feel free to abhor them, but stop using the Bible and just admit that dude's willies give you the willies.
If you insist on using the Bible to condemn homosexuals, I hope you have a big old corner-y beard and/or no earrings, stick to fowl and red meat, and stay away from tabloids.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
I'm a member of the LDS church. The big one. And I'm well aware that I'm not a clone of my friends and neighbors in the church; there are a few areas in which my beliefs are nonstandard. One of those areas is the one that says that everyone's beliefs should be standard.
Well, that's going to be your largest obstacle when discussing this with your peers. Mormonism isn't known for encouraging members come to an different conclusion about the meaning of scripture than the "official" one. I would guess most of your peers would accept the LDS official interpretation as the only "right" one. Thus, your thoughts on the matter--if they don't conform--can only be "wrong" in their minds.
I like your explanation and perspective on homosexuality in scripture quite a bit better than what I read on the Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wiki page. I think it shows a better understanding of the context of the words and an opened mind.
However, your perspective isn't the side most other members of your church will take simply because it's not the official LDS perspective. If you debate them, they'll likely just recite rhetoric until giving up and telling you to pray harder. They'll likely only change their mind when the official stance is changed. I don't know much about how things become official in the Mormon church. Do you know how the current official stance came into being? And, thus, how it might be changed?
(This was not meant to be derogatory towards your friends; I'm just speaking from my own experience with 'generic' people of this inclination. If you say they're not like that at all, I will believe you.)
I'm a member of the LDS church. The big one. And I'm well aware that I'm not a clone of my friends and neighbors in the church; there are a few areas in which my beliefs are nonstandard. One of those areas is the one that says that everyone's beliefs should be standard.
But my personal religion is (and should be) beside the point. The point is that Biblical fundamentalism is silly on it's face, and only gets sillier the more you actually look at the Bible. [John 8:13; John 5:31]. Moreover, Bible fundamentalists all too often make arguments based on things that aren't even in the Bible (such as the assertion that marriage is defined in the Bible as one man to one woman.)
It's hypocritical of anyone who has ever:
Eaten a ham sandwich
Gotten an ear (or anything else) pierced
Shaved the corners off of their beard or hairdo
Paid attention to their horoscope
Told anyone else about a headline they saw on a gossip magazine in line at a grocery store
Gotten divorced (or doubly so if you've gotten remarried afterwards!)
Eaten popcorn shrimp
to condemn homosexuality using the Bible, because every single one of those items are against the law according to the Old Testament -- mostly in Leviticus, the same chapter that calls homosexuality 'detestable'. (And if you want to get really literal, it only condemns 'a man lying with another man'. It doesn't say anything at all about lesbians. [edit]And if you want to get really ridiculously literal, it only condemns 'a man lying with another man has he does with a woman', which as far as I can tell means that if you never have anal sex with a woman, you're safe being as gay as you care to be, because you're not lying with those men the way you did with that woman.[/edit])
And you can link to as many blog posts as you want to that rant about the godhatesshrimp people being wrong, but seriously, the Bible itself says that all of the laws therein are equal in weight:
For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)
“Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10; emphasis mine)
In short, if you believe as I do that Jesus Christ absolved us of the need to follow the old Judaic laws ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us." [Galatians 3:13]), you can't abhor people for homosexuality and use the Bible as your excuse. Feel free to abhor them, but stop using the Bible and just admit that dude's willies give you the willies.
If you insist on using the Bible to condemn homosexuals, I hope you have a big old corner-y beard and/or no earrings, stick to fowl and red meat, and stay away from tabloids.
If you want to be seen as anything other than intentional ignorant at elast read the link I posted.
Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of "evolution is only a *theory*".
Asked and answered, dude. I read your link. It goes off into huge rhetorical convolutions to try to explain why one law has more importance than the other. The Bible itself undercuts that entire line of reasoning, and I've already shown you the quotes. You can talk all you want about the various 'categories' of law that the Bible creates, and the 'semantic reach' between 'abomination' and 'detestibility' -- the fact is that the Bible tells you outright in multiple places that if you break one law, it's as good as breaking all of them, so all of that argumentation is rendered useless by actually reading the very book you're arguing about.
If you want to obey the laws, go for it -- Jesus says it isn't necessary anymore, but hey, no one is stopping you. But you can't claim that the Bible is the literal word of Heavenly Father and that every bit of it is true, and then ignore James 2:10 because you don't like it's rhetorical ramifications.
Please come back with a new argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Mormonism isn't known for encouraging members come to an different conclusion about the meaning of scripture than the "official" one. I would guess most of your peers would accept the LDS official interpretation as the only "right" one. Thus, your thoughts on the matter--if they don't conform--can only be "wrong" in their minds.
Come on over to the Olympia 2nd Ward sometime. You'll find a lot of very interesting people here who probably don't conform to the "right" interpretation in a lot of ways. For one thing, there's a huge contingent of people here who don't particularly think that the Word of Wisdom (which insists that wheat should be a primary food source) should be considered part of the gospel because gluten intolerance, and another semi-overlapping group who believe that Joseph Smith was not only aware of Islam but actually took quite a bit of inspiration from Islamic texts when he penned some of his later works.
There are also quite a few people here who think that Emma Smith was a heroine and is sitting in Heaven right now despite the fact that she turned her back on Joseph and was subsequently banished from the early church.
If you debate them, they'll likely just recite rhetoric until giving up and telling you to pray harder.
Actually, I always liked that about the church. It comes down to 'pray', and if you happen to pray and get an answer that's different from everyone else's, people tend to just say "well, if that's what God wants you to believe...it's not what He wants me to believe, so I guess we'll just have to both follow our own inspiration."
At least on the local level. I think if someone made a big enough stink, they'd probably get some attention from the higher-ups and get officially rebuked for it.
I joined this church (side story) when I asked the missionaries "If God made man in His own image and likeness, and he wants human life to mimic divine life, does that mean that God had a wife?"
They said "Absolutely. We don't pray to Her because Her job isn't to watch over the world, but we absolutely believe that She is there, doing for Heavenly Father everything that an earthly wife does for her husband."
Then when I asked them "Does that mean that God cheated on His wife with Mary?", they said "We believe that He had Her permission to do so." (There was a bunch of interesting details that followed, but it essentially boiled down to 'Jesus needed to have a childhood and Earthly parents, so God got Her permission to impregnate Mary without using sexual means to do so.')
I don't know if that comes from the higher-ups or if that was just those two missionaries, but I figured any religion that had that pragmatic of a view of the goings-on in the hereafter was probably not as stupid as most of the others I'd tried out and walked away from. It's been six years now, and I'm still perfectly happy with my decision.
Do you know how the current official stance came into being? And, thus, how it might be changed?
Almost everything in the church came into being because one of the higher-ups (read: the Prophet or someone in one of the Quorums of the Seventy) said it. And literally anything in the church could change overnight if the Prophet announced that it has been revealed to him by God that it needed to change. That's how the LDS church eliminated polygamy overnight, and it's how they changed their attitude toward black people overnight as well. If the Prophet up and says "Love is more important than sexual orientation, and we don't abhor gay people anymore," well, that would be that.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Come on over to the Olympia 2nd Ward sometime. You'll find a lot of very interesting people here who probably don't conform to the "right" interpretation in a lot of ways.
Almost everything in the church came into being because one of the higher-ups (read: the Prophet or someone in the Quorum of the Seventy) said it. And literally anything in the church could change overnight if the Prophet announced that it has been revealed to him by God that it needed to change. That's how the LDS church eliminated polygamy overnight, and it's how they changed their attitude toward black people overnight as well. If the Prophet up and says "Love is more important than sexual orientation, and we don't abhor gay people anymore," well, that would be that.
:/ Hmmmm....
Sounds like something pretty hard to bring about. I was hoping there might be a form you could fill out or something....
Well, if it happened over interracial marriages, I guess it could happen here as well.[1]
I dunno, I don't really buy into this sort of argument. It legitimizes the debate paradigm that it matters what the Bible says. Even if the Bible said "This is super important guys: never let gay people get married. For real." that wouldn't have any impact on whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.
Ahh, yes, I can see this is definately going to generate an earnest meaningful debate about the issue, and not an uninformed circle jerk of "grrr we hate Christians"
To be fair, it can only be an earnest meaningful debate if both sides are both earnest and meaningful. This can no more be accomplished by an "I'm going to be snarky in an attempt to cover up my ignorance" Christian than it can with an "I'm going to be snarky in an attempt to cover up my ignorance" non-Christian. Rethink your approach.
My intent isn't to start any kind of a circle jerk -- it's simply to make a point of the fact that
1) The Bible doesn't support a significant majority of what modern Christian fundamentalists try to get out of it.
and
2) The Bible supports a vast number of things that are abhorrent to modern Christian fundamentalists -- or would be, if they were educated enough about the Bible to actually know what's in it.
Fundamentalists are dumb, yes, but the problem is you did so in a way that demonstrates no actual understanding of the subject matter beyond, "Hey, there are polygamists in the Bible."
Which is true, mind you, but it's hardly earth-shattering news.
Personally, the persecution of homosexuality due to it's mention in Leviticus has always rang hollow to me simply because Jesus' self-sacrifice was a fulfillment of the Hebrew laws [Matthew 5:17] -- as in, the laws have been fulfilled; the route to salvation that they once represented has been wholly supplanted with the route that is acceptance of and obedience to Jesus Christ.
And were it simply a matter of Levitical Law, yes, you would be correct.
The thing is, it's not simply a matter of Levitical Law. There's also Paul. And Paul specifically condemns homosexuality as a turning away from God, and tells his followers to avoid sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is unambiguously a part of.
So the whole, "You're anti-gay but you don't keep the Kosher dietary laws" only reveals your ignorance of what you're actually talking about. And as a general note, if you're going to go into a forum of informed discussion and claim a side is full of crap, even if they are, it's best to actually do the research first as opposed to presuming you know what you're talking about, because otherwise you might end up doing what you just did.
But my personal religion is (and should be) beside the point. The point is that Biblical fundamentalism is silly on it's face, and only gets sillier the more you actually look at the Bible. [John 8:13; John 5:31]. Moreover, Bible fundamentalists all too often make arguments based on things that aren't even in the Bible (such as the assertion that marriage is defined in the Bible as one man to one woman.)
Yes, it is silly. However, the fact that you are arguing against someone who is wrong does not make you immune from being wrong yourself. And as it stands, you clearly haven't even gone to the Wikipedia stage in terms of research on the subject.
So when bLatch says that you're really not interested in an informed debate, are you going to do anything to prove him wrong? Because you haven't so far.
Asked and answered, dude. I read your link. It goes off into huge rhetorical convolutions to try to explain why one law has more importance than the other. The Bible itself undercuts that entire line of reasoning, and I've already shown you the quotes. You can talk all you want about the various 'categories' of law that the Bible creates, and the 'semantic reach' between 'abomination' and 'detestibility' -- the fact is that the Bible tells you outright in multiple places that if you break one law, it's as good as breaking all of them, so all of that argumentation is rendered useless by actually reading the very book you're arguing about.
I can't help but think you didn't *actually* read the link I posted. While you are (obviously) free to disagree with it, it's not exactly convoluted or stretching for the conclusions it comes up with.
Although, I'm willing to hear you out on this -- what exactly were the stretches and unreasonable leaps made in the article?
If you want to obey the laws, go for it -- Jesus says it isn't necessary anymore, but hey, no one is stopping you. But you can't claim that the Bible is the literal word of Heavenly Father and that every bit of it is true, and then ignore James 2:10 because you don't like it's rhetorical ramifications.
The thing is, it's not simply a matter of Levitical Law. There's also Paul. And Paul specifically condemns homosexuality as a turning away from God, and tells his followers to avoid sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is unambiguously a part of.
The thing is, Paul has exactly the same problem that Leviticus does. If you're going to listen to Paul on the issue of homosexuality, you also have to listen to Paul on the points of condemnation of women and the acceptance of the practice of slavery. If you allow your wife to speak in church and/or you support emancipation, than you can't use Paul's argument to condemn homosexuals.
And that's not even the best argument against Paul's supposed condemnation homosexuality. The real point Paul was trying to make wasn't that homosexuality is bad -- the problem is that people read [Romans 1] and then stop, when the entire last 'hellfire and brimstone' passage in [Romans 1] that condemns all manner of sexual misconduct is nothing more than a lead-in to [Romans 2], which goes way out of it's way to say that it's God's job to condemn people for sinning -- not humans'.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
You can't use Paul as an excuse to condemn homosexuality because Paul specifically tells you not to condemn people, period, because you've sinned, too.
So, Paul only reinforces both of my earlier arguments. One: if you only uphold part of the Bible while claiming that the whole thing is true, you're a hypocrite -- Paul feeds directly into that. Two: if you only read part of the text and use it to support your arguments, you're intentionally twisting the text. James 2:10 and Romans 2:1, gentleman.
what exactly were the stretches and unreasonable leaps made in the article?
It's really quite simple. The article and James 2:10 are at odds. If you're going to ignore James 2:10 in favor of the words of someone who isn't, you know, in the Bible, than you're not really relevant to this conversation, because at that point you're basically just saying "I don't like homos and it doesn't really matter what the Bible says." You either believe in the whole text, or you're cherry picking because what you really want is an excuse to do what you were already doing.
If you really believe in the Word of God, you have to make a decision: either the old laws are intact and you shouldn't eat shrimp, or the new laws obviate the old one and as part of those new laws you are forbidden from judging others, because that's God's job.
There really aren't any other options that are supported by the text, folks.
Feel free to keep trying. You'll find that while I may have been a bit flippant in my first couple of posts, I'm very intensely familiar with this entire line of debate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
what exactly were the stretches and unreasonable leaps made in the article?
It's really quite simple. The article and James 2:10 are at odds. If you're going to ignore James 2:10 in favor of the words of someone who isn't, you know, in the Bible, than you're not really relevant to this conversation, because at that point you're basically just saying "I don't like homos and it doesn't really matter what the Bible says." You either believe in the whole text, or you're cherry picking because what you really want is an excuse to do what you were already doing.
Am I correct in understanding then, that the entirety of your argument rests on the single verse of James 2:10, and that you think this is sufficient to discard the entirety of the arguments presented in the article I linked?
You are correct in understanding that, yes. My argument is unassailable. It's simple logic.
P0: The Bible is always right.
P1: The Bible has a law against gay sex.
P2: The Bible has a law against eating shrimp.
P3: The Bible says that breaking any one law is equal to breaking all laws.
There is no situation you can create, no matter how hard you try to justify it, where eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex. The only way that you can get away with eating shrimp is to accept that either P0 is wrong, in which case why are you using the Bible to condemn gay people because it might be wrong, OR:
P4: Jesus' atoning sacrifice nullified the previous laws in the Bible.
At which point, the Bible's primary source for anti-homosexual behavior becomes Paul, which we have already discussed. Paul tells you literally half a dozen verses later that the point of God judging people for being homosexuals is His business, not humankind's, and a human who condemns others' moral values will in fact be condemned for acting as judge in issues of morality when that's God's job. "for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." [Romans 2:1]
You simply cannot look at the whole entire Bible and make an argument for discriminating against gay people, no matter how much effort you put into doing so, because the whole entire Bible either requires you to forgive and accept everyone including the LBGT people, or it requires you to follow an entire massive set of other laws that include not shaving and/or oppressing women and slaves.
The article you linked to is long, and respectable, and someone put a heck of a lot of work into it, but unfortunately it is completely and utterly undone by James 2:10, because James 2:10 is in the Bible, and thus if you accept that the Bible is true, you have to discard the article you linked to in it's entirety because the article is ignoring part of the Bible. If you're going to ignore part of the Bible, guess what? You should just ignore the part that says being gay is bad and move on with your life.
[edit]In fact, just for context, let's include a bit more of James 2 in here:
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
That pretty much says it all. Not only "If you break one law, you're breaking all of them", but then it goes on to make the point that "if you judge other people, you're going to get punished for it". That entire thing pretty much puts the whole 'let's discriminate against gay people' firmly on the side of "NOT A CHRISTIAN THING TO DO."
I'm open to hearing anyone who has a valid critique of my perspective, but so far, no one -- and I'm not just talking about this board, I'm talking about dozens of people I've had this conversation with before -- has been able to show me a way around the simple statement that breaking one law is exactly equivalent to breaking all of them.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
You are correct in understanding that, yes. My argument is unassailable. It's simple logic.
I dispute your definition of unassailable. For I have been assailing it. I may be wrong, but it is certainly not so rock solid that no rationale arguments can be raised against it. Indeed, the article I linked provides rational (albeit ones you find unconvincing) arguments against it.
Perhaps this is the attitude I found so objectionable at the start. You have a position, you (presumably) came here to debate, but instead of debate you sound as though you just want to point out how right you are. May be I'm wrong about that, but if that is the case than your tone isn't do you any favors in the debate camp.
P0: The Bible is always right.
P1: The Bible has a law against gay sex.
P2: The Bible has a law against eating shrimp.
P3: The Bible says that breaking any one law is equal to breaking all laws.
There is no situation you can create, no matter how hard you try to justify it, where eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex. The only way that you can get away with eating shrimp is to accept that either P0 is wrong, in which case why are you using the Bible to condemn gay people because it might be wrong, OR: P4: Jesus' atoning sacrifice nullified the previous laws in the Bible.
OR, P5: The bible, in the New Testament has an explicit revocation of the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament. or P6: The New Testament makes it clear that the Kosher restrictions (see circumcision) are no longer required.
Now, I trust you will agree with me (at the very least on the circumcision stance) that the New testament clearly establishes that at least portions of the Old Testament law need not be followed by Christians.
The question remains, though, does that mean that the values and morals taught by those laws are revoked? No, at least not according to my understanding. Civil laws, such as specified penalties for crimes and ceremonial laws, such as particular priestly vestments, do not necessarily carry with them moral implications. Other laws, such as the 10 commandments, have a moral implication.
Thus, while the law has been fulfilled and Christian Jews no longer need to live under it (Gentiles never were required to live under it) the moral implications of the laws can still stand.
What we are faced with at this juncture is determining which laws carry such a moral implication and which laws don't. This decisions should not be (and generally isn't by the more reasoned churches) made arbitrarily, but rather in light of other scriptural teachings and traditions*.
Turning attention to the shrimp / homosexual acts specifically - we have the clear teaching that food is not unclean, and will not defile a person essentially revoking the old dietary restriction. In it's place, however we have the guidance that if eating a particular food (such as meat sacrificed in a temple to a false god) would cause another of your brothers to stumble in their faith it should be abstained from, not because the food itself is bad, but because of the affect that eating the food can have on your fellow Christians.
With the homosexuality issue we don't have such guidance -- in fact the only guidance we do have leads directly in the opposite direction. With Paul indicating that homosexual acts are still wrong, and are sinful.
It seems to me, then, that the rational conclusion in light of the above is that the dietary restrictions for Jews have been lifted and the prohibition against homosexual acts has not.
*obviously in a solo scriptura background tradition will have minimal if any impact beyond the decision o which books to include in the bible in the first place.
At which point, the Bible's primary source for anti-homosexual behavior becomes Paul, which we have already discussed. Paul tells you literally half a dozen verses later that the point of God judging people for being homosexuals is His business, not humankind's, and a human who condemns others' moral values will in fact be condemned for acting as judge in issues of morality when that's God's job. "for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." [Romans 2:1]
You simply cannot look at the whole entire Bible and make an argument for discriminating against gay people, no matter how much effort you put into doing so, because the whole entire Bible either requires you to forgive and accept everyone including the LBGT people, or it requires you to follow an entire massive set of other laws that include not shaving and/or oppressing women and slaves.
It's interesting, becasue I agree that you can't look at the Bible and come to the conclusion that you should 1) hate gay people or 2) actively discriminate against them. What does not follow from this conclusion is that you cannot take the stance that homosexual acts are wrong and sinful.
Nor does it follow that we cannot inform people of God's teaching because they may feel that such information is judging them. It is not wrong, or against the Bible, to correct someone when they are not aware that their actions are in violation of god's command. Indeed, the new Testament gives a general procedure to follow in such a situation.
The article you linked to is long, and respectable, and someone put a heck of a lot of work into it, but unfortunately it is completely and utterly undone by James 2:10, because James 2:10 is in the Bible, and thus if you accept that the Bible is true, you have to discard the article you linked to in it's entirety because the article is ignoring part of the Bible. If you're going to ignore part of the Bible, guess what? You should just ignore the part that says being gay is bad and move on with your life.
This whole paragraph is only true from a fundamentalist perspective. Guess what, not all Christians are fundamentalists. Biblical interpretations and reasoning necessarily will involve outside analysis of the Bible. The fundamentalist* point of view that their particular English translation of the Bible is the sole source by which we can interpret the Bible is... wacky, and doesn't make logical sense.
I'm open to hearing anyone who has a valid critique of my perspective, but so far, no one -- and I'm not just talking about this board, I'm talking about dozens of people I've had this conversation with before -- has been able to show me a way around the simple statement that breaking one law is exactly equivalent to breaking all of them.
Please know that the terms "valid" and "persuasive" are not interchangeable, nor do they mean the same thing. The article I linked, as well as the above comments are valid critique's of your position, even if they are not persuasive.
The thing is, Paul has exactly the same problem that Leviticus does. If you're going to listen to Paul on the issue of homosexuality, you also have to listen to Paul on the points of condemnation of women and the acceptance of the practice of slavery. If you allow your wife to speak in church and/or you support emancipation, than you can't use Paul's argument to condemn homosexuals.
Except none of this changes the fact that the existence of Paul completely and entirely undermines every post you've made in this thread.
Again, yes, fundamentalist Christians are hypocritical and wrong. This does not make you automatically correct. Someone else's argument being wrong does not make your argument right, and as demonstrated, your argument betrays a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Now, had you simply said, "I view this as incorrect, could someone please make the case if I am wrong?" that would have been fine. But you chose to arrogantly come in and declare a bunch of people as bull**** without even understanding the arguments that said people are making, without even bothering to research the topic at the Wikipedia level, and you are still demonstrating this level of disregard even now.
Thus, your argument not only betrays a lack of understanding but also a lack of character. Why are you here? It's clearly not to have an informed discussion. If it's because you're that desperate to prove something to yourself while belittling others, go play an online FPS.
And that's not even the best argument against Paul's supposed condemnation homosexuality. The real point Paul was trying to make wasn't that homosexuality is bad -- the problem is that people read [Romans 1] and then stop, when the entire last 'hellfire and brimstone' passage in [Romans 1] that condemns all manner of sexual misconduct is nothing more than a lead-in to [Romans 2], which goes way out of it's way to say that it's God's job to condemn people for sinning -- not humans'.
And yet you miss the part where we are meant to shun those who engage in sexual immorality.
Also, you missed the note about arrogance in tone, so let me give it to you again: If you don't know what you are talking about, do not talk down to people. You demonstrated no knowledge of Paul before this post, despite the fact that he is central to the argument you are trying to respond to.
You may be used to internet forums where a snide, rude demeanor is useful for masking holes in your argument. We are smarter than that. Stop trying to belittle others when you yourself have no idea what the argument you're even addressing is based on, we are not that easily fooled.
You can't use Paul as an excuse to condemn homosexuality because Paul specifically tells you not to condemn people, period, because you've sinned, too.
I don't agree with condemnation of homosexuality. However, to argue that Paul somehow is not against homosexuality, nor specifically states that we should all be also is an outright falsehood.
So, Paul only reinforces both of my earlier arguments.
No, he does nothing of the kind. For starters, Paul shatters the whole argument that "against gay people, pro-shellfish consumption" is a contradiction. As demonstrated, it isn't.
You are correct in understanding that, yes. My argument is unassailable. It's simple logic.
P0: The Bible is always right.
P1: The Bible has a law against gay sex.
P2: The Bible has a law against eating shrimp.
P3: The Bible says that breaking any one law is equal to breaking all laws.
We've been over this.
Not to mention you seem to have glossed over the part where Jesus declares all foods clean. Which makes me wonder if you've actually read Matthew.
There is no situation you can create, no matter how hard you try to justify it, where eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex.
Again, PAUL.
Have you even read the New Testament?
Once again, the fact that the argument condemning gay marriage is wrong does not make you correct. To create a Scriptural argument, you have to actually know stuff about the Bible. The fact that you somehow didn't demonstrate any awareness of Paul's existence until just recently should be a red flag for you that you're not in a position to talk down to people. Nor is parroting whatever website you're getting your arguments from a replacement for actual research and understanding of a subject.
You are correct in understanding that, yes. My argument is unassailable. It's simple logic.
I dispute your definition of unassailable. For I have been assailing it. I may be wrong, but it is certainly not so rock solid that no rational arguments can be raised against it. Indeed, the article I linked provides rational (albeit ones you find unconvincing) arguments against it.
Let me rephrase it, then: the logic I presented is valid -- as in, as written, it's true under all of the possible truth values of each of the statements. You may dispute the postulates, but you cannot accept the postulates without accepting the conclusion. That's what I mean by 'unassailable.'
Perhaps this is the attitude I found so objectionable at the start. You have a position, you (presumably) came here to debate, but instead of debate you sound as though you just want to point out how right you are. May be I'm wrong about that, but if that is the case than your tone isn't do you any favors in the debate camp.
Certainty is a part of my make-up. I'm not going to apologize for that.
OR, P5: The bible, in the New Testament has an explicit revocation of the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament. or P6: The New Testament makes it clear that the Kosher restrictions (see circumcision) are no longer required.
Now, I trust you will agree with me (at the very least on the circumcision stance) that the New testament clearly establishes that at least portions of the Old Testament law need not be followed by Christians.
The question remains, though, does that mean that the values and morals taught by those laws are revoked? No, at least not according to my understanding. Civil laws, such as specified penalties for crimes and ceremonial laws, such as particular priestly vestments, do not necessarily carry with them moral implications. Other laws, such as the 10 commandments, have a moral implication.
One more time! Paul specifically denies humankind the right to judge other humans for their moral failings. Even if the values and morals remain, you're not allowed to judge other people for not keeping up with those values or morals, because the act of doing so is against the values and morals of the New Testament.
Therefore, regardless of whether homosexuality is actually against any remaining Biblical laws or not, you are forbidden by the very law that you're trying to rhetorically manipulate from discriminating against them for their moral failings.
The rest of your post is irrelevant in the face of that simple fact.
With the homosexuality issue we don't have such guidance -- in fact the only guidance we do have leads directly in the opposite direction. With Paul indicating that homosexual acts are still wrong, and are sinful.
Interestingly, that in and of itself is still debatable. Paul never called them sinful or wrong. He called them unnatural and shameful, but then he also said that God put them in that state, and that they received "the due penalty" for their acts.
Let me ask you, how can someone be doing what God quite clearly intended to do, and be sinning at the same time? Isn't sin defined as "doing that which God does not want you to do?" How can those homosexuals Paul mentioned be sinning and be doing what God quite deliberately "gave them over" to do at the same time?
But all that is neither here nor there, because again, Paul tells you literally seven verses later that you're not allowed to judge them for what they do.
It seems to me, then, that the rational conclusion in light of the above is that the dietary restrictions for Jews have been lifted and the prohibition against homosexual acts has not.
I can't argue generalities. Give me chapter and verse, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
It's interesting, becasue I agree that you can't look at the Bible and come to the conclusion that you should 1) hate gay people or 2) actively discriminate against them. What does not follow from this conclusion is that you cannot take the stance that homosexual acts are wrong and sinful.
Then we don't disagree, and we can move on to letting gay people get married even though you think it's wrong and sinful. Because keeping them from getting married is a form of active discrimination, you realize.
Please know that the terms "valid" and "persuasive" are not interchangeable, nor do they mean the same thing. The article I linked, as well as the above comments are valid critique's of your position, even if they are not persuasive.
I'm using valid in the symbolic-logic sense, as in "true for all possible truth-values of the postulates. The critiques in that article are, in fact, persuasive -- but persuasive isn't enough when you can put together a valid logical argument that proves your point.
Quote from Highroller »
Except none of this changes the fact that the existence of Paul completely and entirely undermines every post you've made in this thread.
Except Paul makes the points I've made in this thread. [Romans 2:1], homie. Read it. Over and over again.
Quote from Highroller »
Why are you here? It's clearly not to have an informed discussion. If it's because you're that desperate to prove something to yourself while belittling others, go play an online FPS.
I'm here to tell anyone who has hate in their heart and also claims to be Christian than they're bull****. Unequivocally and whole-heartedly and with every ounce of attitude in my body. In this case, I decided to focus on Christians who hate gay people, but really, the argument stands in almost every case. If you're hating on anyone and claiming to follow the Bible, you'd better be either following every single law in the Bible like A.J. Jacobs, or you'd better be prepared to admit that you're a hypocrite condemned by God for doing His job when you're clearly not Him.
Quote from Highroller »
And yet you miss the part where we are meant to shun those who engage in sexual immorality.
And yet YOU miss the part where Paul just as clearly says:
Quote from Paul »
… women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. [1 Corinthians 14:34-35]
and
Quote from Paul »
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
If you give Paul the authority to tell you that gays are sinners, why do you then deny the same Apostle the authority to tell you that women who speak at Church (or apparently in that second verse, speak at all!) are shameful?
The answer is simple: you're cherry-picking, using the Bible to support what you believe instead of believing everything in the Bible. You can make all of the rhetorical arguments you want to explain why you might give more credence to one statement over the other, but the fact is that both statements came from the same human being. Either you believe in him enough to believe that he speaks for the Heavenly Father, or you don't -- and as soon as you don't believe him, the only reason you have to choose one of his statements over the other is that it fits your pre-existing prejudice.
You do realize that this link in no way creates a situation in which eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex, right? They're both perfectly equivalent under the New Covenant, which is to say that
34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
applies perfectly well to buggery as it does to shellfishery. QED. New argument plz.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
I appreciate the difficulty that can arise with responding to multiple people however, you have quotes from me intermixed with quotes from other people, all attributed to me in the above. I konw you know how to attribute additoinal quote blocks, since you did it for Taylor's post at the end.
Is there a chance you could fix your post? It attributes a lot of things I didn't say to me, and it makes it generally difficult to follow who you are talking to at any given point.
Thanks,
bLatch
Edit: P.S. I apologize for not including chapter and verse in my previous points. I took you at your word that you were well versed on htis topic. I won't make that mistake again.
You do realize that this link in no way creates a situation in which eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex, right? They're both perfectly equivalent under the New Covenant, which is to say that
34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Not that I want to argue this point:
But, eating shellfish isn't mentioned as a sin in the New Testament by anyone (and Jesus says putting stuff in you can't make you unclean). Thus, under a New Covenant interpretation, its ok.
As has been said, in the New Testament Paul says in Romans that homosexuality is not ok. Thus--under a New Covenant interpretation--it could be argued that the old laws hold.
I appreciate the difficulty that can arise with responding to multiple people however, you have quotes from me intermixed with quotes from other people, all attributed to me in the above. I konw you know how to attribute additoinal quote blocks, since you did it for Taylor's post at the end.
Actually, i tried to attribute quotes in the manner that I'm used to (
Quote from XYZ »
), but it didn't work. Taylor's post is attributed because I added it later using the Quote button and copy-pasting it in.
[quote]I apologize for not including chapter and verse in my previous points. I took you at your word that you were well versed on this topic. I won't make that mistake again.
It's not that I don't know what's in the Book. It's that I can't read your mind and determine which passages you've decided make your point and which don't. I've had some people make some pretty creative arguments at me in the past, using verses I never would have read in their interpretation, so I'm not willing to make assumptions.
As has been said, in the New Testament Paul says in Romans that homosexuality is not ok. Thus--under a New Covenant interpretation--it could be argued that the old laws hold.
Jesus said he fulfilled the old law. The entire New Covenant is based on the idea that Jesus fulfilling the old law means that the old law is not in effect anymore. Paul says that homosexuality is not OK, but he never claims that his statement holds the authority of law. It's just a statement he made, exactly like the ones he made about women being silent.
If you're going to give a statement made by a random Apostle the weight of a law, why choose that one statement and not any of the others made by any of the other Apostles? Because if Jesus fulfilled the old law, the only reason you have to arbitrarily choose this one statement and call it 'law' is, again, because you want it to be law, not because the text (in this case under the New Covenant interpretation, which if it's not clear I pretty much am a fan of) actually allows you to do so.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Kind of like all those people who hate homosexuals but eat shellfish.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Considering many of the main figures of the Bible were polygamous (especially the kings) and all of the major characters were asexual (Jesus, the Holy Spirit) or had children out of wedlock (God), to pretend the Bible defends 1 man and 1 woman marriage was always silly.
Of course, the "Tradition" argument is also crap.
The issue is that most religious people really on intuition to determine what they think God is trying to tell them. If it feels wrong to them, they assume it is wrong. As the logic is peeled away from their other arguments it's finally coming down to "But, gay dudes are gross," which really was the bases of the objection all along.
Ahh, yes, I can see this is definately going to generate an earnest meaningful debate about the issue, and not an uninformed circle jerk of "grrr we hate Christians"
(Edit: apologies if you're serious, but anyone citing in any way to godhatesshrimp and/or that general argument is displaying a woeful, and almost always, intentional ignorance of the arguments that are being raised against them. The article I linked last time we had a "god hates shrimp" issue http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/why-eating-shrimps-is-not-like-homosexuality/. It may not be the best one, but its solid and I found it in 30 seconds on google)
Intentional? Definitely not.
My intent isn't to start any kind of a circle jerk -- it's simply to make a point of the fact that
1) The Bible doesn't support a significant majority of what modern Christian fundamentalists try to get out of it.
and
2) The Bible supports a vast number of things that are abhorrent to modern Christian fundamentalists -- or would be, if they were educated enough about the Bible to actually know what's in it.
Personally, the persecution of homosexuality due to it's mention in Leviticus has always rang hollow to me simply because Jesus' self-sacrifice was a fulfillment of the Hebrew laws [Matthew 5:17] -- as in, the laws have been fulfilled; the route to salvation that they once represented has been wholly supplanted with the route that is acceptance of and obedience to Jesus Christ.
Who, by the way, never said anything about homosexuality. 'Sexual immortality', he said he was against [Matthew 15:19], but he never really went out of his way to say what that meant. He did go specifically out of his way to say "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" [Mark 7:15], which would seem to specifically prevent homosexuality from defiling at least one of the two participants.
And before anyone brings up [Matthew 19:4-6], let's just add the context of [Matthew 19:7] to that quote to remind ourselves that what Jesus is doing here is forbidding divorce, not putting strictures on what marriage is. He references an older, Judaic law to set the context for his argument -- but his actual argument here is that once you've fallen in love with and married someone, you should stick with it for the rest of your life.
Which is also something that a surprising number of Christian fundamentalists -- at least around here -- aren't particularly interested in doing, it seems.
[edit]Should add for clarity that I am a white male Mormon with a 4 year old child and a wife of 13 years who has never so much as seen any woman who is not my wife naked in my entire life. I don't even have any gay friends -- so none of this is about me in any way shape or form. It's simply a man of faith who is completely flabbergasted and deeply offended at the things some other people try to get away with in the name of Jesus Christ, whom I love and would defend to the ends of the earth.[/edit]
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Well, I guess it does make a bit of sense. My quick reading of this wiki page tells me there is nothing in the Book of Mormon about it, and that religion did start off with a more... nonstandard view of marriage.
When you say:
Are you talking about members of your own religious community?
My understanding is that the official LDS stance on the subject is a pretty firm "against," so it would not surprise me that other members of your church aren't taking your arguments too seriously. My understanding is that questioning official stances is looked down upon within the Mormon church.
Solid scripture foundation or no, general Mormon doctrine seems very opposed to LGBT rights. Again, we come back to the providence of tradition.
If you don't mind me asking, which sect are you, Essence?
But my personal religion is (and should be) beside the point. The point is that Biblical fundamentalism is silly on it's face, and only gets sillier the more you actually look at the Bible. [John 8:13; John 5:31]. Moreover, Bible fundamentalists all too often make arguments based on things that aren't even in the Bible (such as the assertion that marriage is defined in the Bible as one man to one woman.)
It's hypocritical of anyone who has ever:
to condemn homosexuality using the Bible, because every single one of those items are against the law according to the Old Testament -- mostly in Leviticus, the same chapter that calls homosexuality 'detestable'. (And if you want to get really literal, it only condemns 'a man lying with another man'. It doesn't say anything at all about lesbians. [edit]And if you want to get really ridiculously literal, it only condemns 'a man lying with another man has he does with a woman', which as far as I can tell means that if you never have anal sex with a woman, you're safe being as gay as you care to be, because you're not lying with those men the way you did with that woman.[/edit])
And you can link to as many blog posts as you want to that rant about the godhatesshrimp people being wrong, but seriously, the Bible itself says that all of the laws therein are equal in weight:
In short, if you believe as I do that Jesus Christ absolved us of the need to follow the old Judaic laws ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us." [Galatians 3:13]), you can't abhor people for homosexuality and use the Bible as your excuse. Feel free to abhor them, but stop using the Bible and just admit that dude's willies give you the willies.
If you insist on using the Bible to condemn homosexuals, I hope you have a big old corner-y beard and/or no earrings, stick to fowl and red meat, and stay away from tabloids.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Well, that's going to be your largest obstacle when discussing this with your peers. Mormonism isn't known for encouraging members come to an different conclusion about the meaning of scripture than the "official" one. I would guess most of your peers would accept the LDS official interpretation as the only "right" one. Thus, your thoughts on the matter--if they don't conform--can only be "wrong" in their minds.
I like your explanation and perspective on homosexuality in scripture quite a bit better than what I read on the Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wiki page. I think it shows a better understanding of the context of the words and an opened mind.
However, your perspective isn't the side most other members of your church will take simply because it's not the official LDS perspective. If you debate them, they'll likely just recite rhetoric until giving up and telling you to pray harder. They'll likely only change their mind when the official stance is changed. I don't know much about how things become official in the Mormon church. Do you know how the current official stance came into being? And, thus, how it might be changed?
(This was not meant to be derogatory towards your friends; I'm just speaking from my own experience with 'generic' people of this inclination. If you say they're not like that at all, I will believe you.)
If you want to be seen as anything other than intentional ignorant at elast read the link I posted.
Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of "evolution is only a *theory*".
If you want to obey the laws, go for it -- Jesus says it isn't necessary anymore, but hey, no one is stopping you. But you can't claim that the Bible is the literal word of Heavenly Father and that every bit of it is true, and then ignore James 2:10 because you don't like it's rhetorical ramifications.
Please come back with a new argument.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Come on over to the Olympia 2nd Ward sometime. You'll find a lot of very interesting people here who probably don't conform to the "right" interpretation in a lot of ways. For one thing, there's a huge contingent of people here who don't particularly think that the Word of Wisdom (which insists that wheat should be a primary food source) should be considered part of the gospel because gluten intolerance, and another semi-overlapping group who believe that Joseph Smith was not only aware of Islam but actually took quite a bit of inspiration from Islamic texts when he penned some of his later works.
There are also quite a few people here who think that Emma Smith was a heroine and is sitting in Heaven right now despite the fact that she turned her back on Joseph and was subsequently banished from the early church.
Actually, I always liked that about the church. It comes down to 'pray', and if you happen to pray and get an answer that's different from everyone else's, people tend to just say "well, if that's what God wants you to believe...it's not what He wants me to believe, so I guess we'll just have to both follow our own inspiration."
At least on the local level. I think if someone made a big enough stink, they'd probably get some attention from the higher-ups and get officially rebuked for it.
I joined this church (side story) when I asked the missionaries "If God made man in His own image and likeness, and he wants human life to mimic divine life, does that mean that God had a wife?"
They said "Absolutely. We don't pray to Her because Her job isn't to watch over the world, but we absolutely believe that She is there, doing for Heavenly Father everything that an earthly wife does for her husband."
Then when I asked them "Does that mean that God cheated on His wife with Mary?", they said "We believe that He had Her permission to do so." (There was a bunch of interesting details that followed, but it essentially boiled down to 'Jesus needed to have a childhood and Earthly parents, so God got Her permission to impregnate Mary without using sexual means to do so.')
I don't know if that comes from the higher-ups or if that was just those two missionaries, but I figured any religion that had that pragmatic of a view of the goings-on in the hereafter was probably not as stupid as most of the others I'd tried out and walked away from. It's been six years now, and I'm still perfectly happy with my decision.
Almost everything in the church came into being because one of the higher-ups (read: the Prophet or someone in one of the Quorums of the Seventy) said it. And literally anything in the church could change overnight if the Prophet announced that it has been revealed to him by God that it needed to change. That's how the LDS church eliminated polygamy overnight, and it's how they changed their attitude toward black people overnight as well. If the Prophet up and says "Love is more important than sexual orientation, and we don't abhor gay people anymore," well, that would be that.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
:/ Hmmmm....
Sounds like something pretty hard to bring about. I was hoping there might be a form you could fill out or something....
Well, if it happened over interracial marriages, I guess it could happen here as well.[1]
Look, I'm all for gay marriage, but this is a theological facepalm right here.
To be fair, it can only be an earnest meaningful debate if both sides are both earnest and meaningful. This can no more be accomplished by an "I'm going to be snarky in an attempt to cover up my ignorance" Christian than it can with an "I'm going to be snarky in an attempt to cover up my ignorance" non-Christian. Rethink your approach.
Fundamentalists are dumb, yes, but the problem is you did so in a way that demonstrates no actual understanding of the subject matter beyond, "Hey, there are polygamists in the Bible."
Which is true, mind you, but it's hardly earth-shattering news.
And were it simply a matter of Levitical Law, yes, you would be correct.
The thing is, it's not simply a matter of Levitical Law. There's also Paul. And Paul specifically condemns homosexuality as a turning away from God, and tells his followers to avoid sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is unambiguously a part of.
So the whole, "You're anti-gay but you don't keep the Kosher dietary laws" only reveals your ignorance of what you're actually talking about. And as a general note, if you're going to go into a forum of informed discussion and claim a side is full of crap, even if they are, it's best to actually do the research first as opposed to presuming you know what you're talking about, because otherwise you might end up doing what you just did.
Yes, it is silly. However, the fact that you are arguing against someone who is wrong does not make you immune from being wrong yourself. And as it stands, you clearly haven't even gone to the Wikipedia stage in terms of research on the subject.
So when bLatch says that you're really not interested in an informed debate, are you going to do anything to prove him wrong? Because you haven't so far.
I can't help but think you didn't *actually* read the link I posted. While you are (obviously) free to disagree with it, it's not exactly convoluted or stretching for the conclusions it comes up with.
Although, I'm willing to hear you out on this -- what exactly were the stretches and unreasonable leaps made in the article?
I haven't?
Why should I, you didn't address this one.
The thing is, Paul has exactly the same problem that Leviticus does. If you're going to listen to Paul on the issue of homosexuality, you also have to listen to Paul on the points of condemnation of women and the acceptance of the practice of slavery. If you allow your wife to speak in church and/or you support emancipation, than you can't use Paul's argument to condemn homosexuals.
And that's not even the best argument against Paul's supposed condemnation homosexuality. The real point Paul was trying to make wasn't that homosexuality is bad -- the problem is that people read [Romans 1] and then stop, when the entire last 'hellfire and brimstone' passage in [Romans 1] that condemns all manner of sexual misconduct is nothing more than a lead-in to [Romans 2], which goes way out of it's way to say that it's God's job to condemn people for sinning -- not humans'.
You can't use Paul as an excuse to condemn homosexuality because Paul specifically tells you not to condemn people, period, because you've sinned, too.
So, Paul only reinforces both of my earlier arguments. One: if you only uphold part of the Bible while claiming that the whole thing is true, you're a hypocrite -- Paul feeds directly into that. Two: if you only read part of the text and use it to support your arguments, you're intentionally twisting the text. James 2:10 and Romans 2:1, gentleman.
It's really quite simple. The article and James 2:10 are at odds. If you're going to ignore James 2:10 in favor of the words of someone who isn't, you know, in the Bible, than you're not really relevant to this conversation, because at that point you're basically just saying "I don't like homos and it doesn't really matter what the Bible says." You either believe in the whole text, or you're cherry picking because what you really want is an excuse to do what you were already doing.
If you really believe in the Word of God, you have to make a decision: either the old laws are intact and you shouldn't eat shrimp, or the new laws obviate the old one and as part of those new laws you are forbidden from judging others, because that's God's job.
There really aren't any other options that are supported by the text, folks.
Feel free to keep trying. You'll find that while I may have been a bit flippant in my first couple of posts, I'm very intensely familiar with this entire line of debate.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Am I correct in understanding then, that the entirety of your argument rests on the single verse of James 2:10, and that you think this is sufficient to discard the entirety of the arguments presented in the article I linked?
P0: The Bible is always right.
P1: The Bible has a law against gay sex.
P2: The Bible has a law against eating shrimp.
P3: The Bible says that breaking any one law is equal to breaking all laws.
There is no situation you can create, no matter how hard you try to justify it, where eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex. The only way that you can get away with eating shrimp is to accept that either P0 is wrong, in which case why are you using the Bible to condemn gay people because it might be wrong, OR:
P4: Jesus' atoning sacrifice nullified the previous laws in the Bible.
At which point, the Bible's primary source for anti-homosexual behavior becomes Paul, which we have already discussed. Paul tells you literally half a dozen verses later that the point of God judging people for being homosexuals is His business, not humankind's, and a human who condemns others' moral values will in fact be condemned for acting as judge in issues of morality when that's God's job. "for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." [Romans 2:1]
You simply cannot look at the whole entire Bible and make an argument for discriminating against gay people, no matter how much effort you put into doing so, because the whole entire Bible either requires you to forgive and accept everyone including the LBGT people, or it requires you to follow an entire massive set of other laws that include not shaving and/or oppressing women and slaves.
The article you linked to is long, and respectable, and someone put a heck of a lot of work into it, but unfortunately it is completely and utterly undone by James 2:10, because James 2:10 is in the Bible, and thus if you accept that the Bible is true, you have to discard the article you linked to in it's entirety because the article is ignoring part of the Bible. If you're going to ignore part of the Bible, guess what? You should just ignore the part that says being gay is bad and move on with your life.
[edit]In fact, just for context, let's include a bit more of James 2 in here:
That pretty much says it all. Not only "If you break one law, you're breaking all of them", but then it goes on to make the point that "if you judge other people, you're going to get punished for it". That entire thing pretty much puts the whole 'let's discriminate against gay people' firmly on the side of "NOT A CHRISTIAN THING TO DO."
I'm open to hearing anyone who has a valid critique of my perspective, but so far, no one -- and I'm not just talking about this board, I'm talking about dozens of people I've had this conversation with before -- has been able to show me a way around the simple statement that breaking one law is exactly equivalent to breaking all of them.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
I dispute your definition of unassailable. For I have been assailing it. I may be wrong, but it is certainly not so rock solid that no rationale arguments can be raised against it. Indeed, the article I linked provides rational (albeit ones you find unconvincing) arguments against it.
Perhaps this is the attitude I found so objectionable at the start. You have a position, you (presumably) came here to debate, but instead of debate you sound as though you just want to point out how right you are. May be I'm wrong about that, but if that is the case than your tone isn't do you any favors in the debate camp.
OR, P5: The bible, in the New Testament has an explicit revocation of the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament. or P6: The New Testament makes it clear that the Kosher restrictions (see circumcision) are no longer required.
Now, I trust you will agree with me (at the very least on the circumcision stance) that the New testament clearly establishes that at least portions of the Old Testament law need not be followed by Christians.
The question remains, though, does that mean that the values and morals taught by those laws are revoked? No, at least not according to my understanding. Civil laws, such as specified penalties for crimes and ceremonial laws, such as particular priestly vestments, do not necessarily carry with them moral implications. Other laws, such as the 10 commandments, have a moral implication.
Thus, while the law has been fulfilled and Christian Jews no longer need to live under it (Gentiles never were required to live under it) the moral implications of the laws can still stand.
What we are faced with at this juncture is determining which laws carry such a moral implication and which laws don't. This decisions should not be (and generally isn't by the more reasoned churches) made arbitrarily, but rather in light of other scriptural teachings and traditions*.
Turning attention to the shrimp / homosexual acts specifically - we have the clear teaching that food is not unclean, and will not defile a person essentially revoking the old dietary restriction. In it's place, however we have the guidance that if eating a particular food (such as meat sacrificed in a temple to a false god) would cause another of your brothers to stumble in their faith it should be abstained from, not because the food itself is bad, but because of the affect that eating the food can have on your fellow Christians.
With the homosexuality issue we don't have such guidance -- in fact the only guidance we do have leads directly in the opposite direction. With Paul indicating that homosexual acts are still wrong, and are sinful.
It seems to me, then, that the rational conclusion in light of the above is that the dietary restrictions for Jews have been lifted and the prohibition against homosexual acts has not.
*obviously in a solo scriptura background tradition will have minimal if any impact beyond the decision o which books to include in the bible in the first place.
It's interesting, becasue I agree that you can't look at the Bible and come to the conclusion that you should 1) hate gay people or 2) actively discriminate against them. What does not follow from this conclusion is that you cannot take the stance that homosexual acts are wrong and sinful.
Nor does it follow that we cannot inform people of God's teaching because they may feel that such information is judging them. It is not wrong, or against the Bible, to correct someone when they are not aware that their actions are in violation of god's command. Indeed, the new Testament gives a general procedure to follow in such a situation.
This whole paragraph is only true from a fundamentalist perspective. Guess what, not all Christians are fundamentalists. Biblical interpretations and reasoning necessarily will involve outside analysis of the Bible. The fundamentalist* point of view that their particular English translation of the Bible is the sole source by which we can interpret the Bible is... wacky, and doesn't make logical sense.
Please know that the terms "valid" and "persuasive" are not interchangeable, nor do they mean the same thing. The article I linked, as well as the above comments are valid critique's of your position, even if they are not persuasive.
Except none of this changes the fact that the existence of Paul completely and entirely undermines every post you've made in this thread.
Again, yes, fundamentalist Christians are hypocritical and wrong. This does not make you automatically correct. Someone else's argument being wrong does not make your argument right, and as demonstrated, your argument betrays a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Now, had you simply said, "I view this as incorrect, could someone please make the case if I am wrong?" that would have been fine. But you chose to arrogantly come in and declare a bunch of people as bull**** without even understanding the arguments that said people are making, without even bothering to research the topic at the Wikipedia level, and you are still demonstrating this level of disregard even now.
Thus, your argument not only betrays a lack of understanding but also a lack of character. Why are you here? It's clearly not to have an informed discussion. If it's because you're that desperate to prove something to yourself while belittling others, go play an online FPS.
And yet you miss the part where we are meant to shun those who engage in sexual immorality.
Also, you missed the note about arrogance in tone, so let me give it to you again: If you don't know what you are talking about, do not talk down to people. You demonstrated no knowledge of Paul before this post, despite the fact that he is central to the argument you are trying to respond to.
You may be used to internet forums where a snide, rude demeanor is useful for masking holes in your argument. We are smarter than that. Stop trying to belittle others when you yourself have no idea what the argument you're even addressing is based on, we are not that easily fooled.
I don't agree with condemnation of homosexuality. However, to argue that Paul somehow is not against homosexuality, nor specifically states that we should all be also is an outright falsehood.
No, he does nothing of the kind. For starters, Paul shatters the whole argument that "against gay people, pro-shellfish consumption" is a contradiction. As demonstrated, it isn't.
We've been over this.
Not to mention you seem to have glossed over the part where Jesus declares all foods clean. Which makes me wonder if you've actually read Matthew.
Again, PAUL.
Have you even read the New Testament?
Once again, the fact that the argument condemning gay marriage is wrong does not make you correct. To create a Scriptural argument, you have to actually know stuff about the Bible. The fact that you somehow didn't demonstrate any awareness of Paul's existence until just recently should be a red flag for you that you're not in a position to talk down to people. Nor is parroting whatever website you're getting your arguments from a replacement for actual research and understanding of a subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant#Christianity
Let me rephrase it, then: the logic I presented is valid -- as in, as written, it's true under all of the possible truth values of each of the statements. You may dispute the postulates, but you cannot accept the postulates without accepting the conclusion. That's what I mean by 'unassailable.'
Certainty is a part of my make-up. I'm not going to apologize for that.
Chapter and verse, please?
One more time! Paul specifically denies humankind the right to judge other humans for their moral failings. Even if the values and morals remain, you're not allowed to judge other people for not keeping up with those values or morals, because the act of doing so is against the values and morals of the New Testament.
Therefore, regardless of whether homosexuality is actually against any remaining Biblical laws or not, you are forbidden by the very law that you're trying to rhetorically manipulate from discriminating against them for their moral failings.
The rest of your post is irrelevant in the face of that simple fact.
Interestingly, that in and of itself is still debatable. Paul never called them sinful or wrong. He called them unnatural and shameful, but then he also said that God put them in that state, and that they received "the due penalty" for their acts.
Let me ask you, how can someone be doing what God quite clearly intended to do, and be sinning at the same time? Isn't sin defined as "doing that which God does not want you to do?" How can those homosexuals Paul mentioned be sinning and be doing what God quite deliberately "gave them over" to do at the same time?
But all that is neither here nor there, because again, Paul tells you literally seven verses later that you're not allowed to judge them for what they do.
I can't argue generalities. Give me chapter and verse, and I'll tell you why you're wrong.
Then we don't disagree, and we can move on to letting gay people get married even though you think it's wrong and sinful. Because keeping them from getting married is a form of active discrimination, you realize.
Have I ever claimed to be arguing against anything other than the fundamentalist perspective?
I'm using valid in the symbolic-logic sense, as in "true for all possible truth-values of the postulates. The critiques in that article are, in fact, persuasive -- but persuasive isn't enough when you can put together a valid logical argument that proves your point.
Except Paul makes the points I've made in this thread. [Romans 2:1], homie. Read it. Over and over again.
I'm here to tell anyone who has hate in their heart and also claims to be Christian than they're bull****. Unequivocally and whole-heartedly and with every ounce of attitude in my body. In this case, I decided to focus on Christians who hate gay people, but really, the argument stands in almost every case. If you're hating on anyone and claiming to follow the Bible, you'd better be either following every single law in the Bible like A.J. Jacobs, or you'd better be prepared to admit that you're a hypocrite condemned by God for doing His job when you're clearly not Him.
And yet YOU miss the part where Paul just as clearly says:
and
If you give Paul the authority to tell you that gays are sinners, why do you then deny the same Apostle the authority to tell you that women who speak at Church (or apparently in that second verse, speak at all!) are shameful?
The answer is simple: you're cherry-picking, using the Bible to support what you believe instead of believing everything in the Bible. You can make all of the rhetorical arguments you want to explain why you might give more credence to one statement over the other, but the fact is that both statements came from the same human being. Either you believe in him enough to believe that he speaks for the Heavenly Father, or you don't -- and as soon as you don't believe him, the only reason you have to choose one of his statements over the other is that it fits your pre-existing prejudice.
You do realize that this link in no way creates a situation in which eating shrimp isn't equivalent to gay sex, right? They're both perfectly equivalent under the New Covenant, which is to say that
applies perfectly well to buggery as it does to shellfishery. QED. New argument plz.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
I appreciate the difficulty that can arise with responding to multiple people however, you have quotes from me intermixed with quotes from other people, all attributed to me in the above. I konw you know how to attribute additoinal quote blocks, since you did it for Taylor's post at the end.
Is there a chance you could fix your post? It attributes a lot of things I didn't say to me, and it makes it generally difficult to follow who you are talking to at any given point.
Thanks,
bLatch
Edit: P.S. I apologize for not including chapter and verse in my previous points. I took you at your word that you were well versed on htis topic. I won't make that mistake again.
But, eating shellfish isn't mentioned as a sin in the New Testament by anyone (and Jesus says putting stuff in you can't make you unclean). Thus, under a New Covenant interpretation, its ok.
As has been said, in the New Testament Paul says in Romans that homosexuality is not ok. Thus--under a New Covenant interpretation--it could be argued that the old laws hold.
Actually, i tried to attribute quotes in the manner that I'm used to (
It's not that I don't know what's in the Book. It's that I can't read your mind and determine which passages you've decided make your point and which don't. I've had some people make some pretty creative arguments at me in the past, using verses I never would have read in their interpretation, so I'm not willing to make assumptions.
Jesus said he fulfilled the old law. The entire New Covenant is based on the idea that Jesus fulfilling the old law means that the old law is not in effect anymore. Paul says that homosexuality is not OK, but he never claims that his statement holds the authority of law. It's just a statement he made, exactly like the ones he made about women being silent.
If you're going to give a statement made by a random Apostle the weight of a law, why choose that one statement and not any of the others made by any of the other Apostles? Because if Jesus fulfilled the old law, the only reason you have to arbitrarily choose this one statement and call it 'law' is, again, because you want it to be law, not because the text (in this case under the New Covenant interpretation, which if it's not clear I pretty much am a fan of) actually allows you to do so.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.