Run away if you want to, Pandas, but know I respect what you're trying to do, and I think you can accomplish something here if you're willing to confront legitimate problems people might have with what the Bible says.
Okay, fine. I've heard what you've said and we'll see if there is some consensus to be had after all.
According to Paul, God does not love gay people. They are abominable in God's sight.
I think we ought to be very careful with our language here. Paul (and the rest of the Bible) does not acknowledge the existence of gay people as we understand them. Everyone is assumed to be heterosexual in their nature; but some give in to unnatural desires to engage in homosexual acts (and/or acts of incest, bestiality, etc.)
So the letter of Biblical law counts against gays. But the spirit of the law says that God's anger is aroused when people defile such natures as He has given them. If, then, our modern understanding of homosexuality is correct -- that some people are that way simply by nature -- then being gay is nothing to condemn and "progressive" Christians have a leg to stand on.
First of all, association fallacy. Please don't pull the same stunts HerewardWake did.
Second, not analogous. The Nazis were genocidal mass murders who had an agenda of militaristic takeover. As far as I know, the Westboro Baptist Church has staged entirely peaceful protests. If they've engaged in any violence, I don't know about it. My understanding is that they've been expressing themselves peacefully.
Which brings me to my question: What is it specifically that you object about them? You accuse them of hatred. Is it because you don't agree with what they're saying, or their methods, and what is it specifically about their methods? That they stage public protests? Why are they different from anyone else who stages public protests?
It has everything, everything, to do with their methods.
Check out this video from John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UousPa1ks0w
He expresses very strong (and some would say very offensive), Biblically grounded views against gay marriage. But he does so without name calling, without deliberate provocation, in a soft-spoken way and expressing genuine sorrow rather than rancor.
Fred Phelps, by contrast, became the "most hated man in America" because he gleefully positioned himself as the most hateful. Just saying such things as "God hates ****" or "Thank God for dead soldiers" is bad enough. But who even thinks to protest at funerals? Who seeks notoriety by harassing grieving people in their most vulnerable hour? That sort of wicked inspiration, calculated for maximum vulgarity, comes straight from Satan. The WBC is thoroughly demonic.
And I could not call their protests non-violent. True, they did not involve physical assault; but every manner of psychological and spiritual assault they could get away with under the exceedingly broad provisions of the First Amendment, they did.
No, it does prove something. It proves you wrong. That is to say, it proves your assertion that the Bible consistently goes against what people like Fred Phelps believed is wrong.
Which is not something I think you're prepared to accept.
I never said it consistently goes against what Phelps believed. I said that the Bible (or at the very least the New Testament, which ought to have primacy for a professing Christian) consistently goes against how Phelps acted.
And you have not refuted this. You have not provided so much as one verse from any gospel or epistle that even suggests it is acceptable for true followers of Christ to harass, mock and degrade non-believers under any circumstance. So if I am wrong, prove me wrong.
I'm going to respond one last time to you on this matter and then be done. You can have the final word if you'd like, but it's clear that neither of us is going to very well persuade the other.
If there were a bunch of people running around committing murders, shouldn't there be moral outrage?
So if the argument is that homosexual acts are morally abominable, why is this not something you regard as something that should be met with widespread protest?
You can feel moral outrage in your heart; but you don't serve as the "salt of the earth" by continually and publicly raging. If there is something regarded by society at large as a "victimless crime," or not immoral at all -- gay sex, looking at porn, getting drunk (as long as you're not driving) etc. -- then you have to engage the matter with tact and grace. Yes, you'll express your outrage when "preaching to the choir;" but in that case you still must walk a delicate line and be sensitive to the fact that immature Christians who hear you will be eager to prove their devotion by hating the sinner concurrently with the sin.
Of course it isn't obvious. I've never met the man, nor met anyone who has.
So afraid to extrapolate even a little?
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Gay people would count as simply one category of those "not under the law." And Paul would try to save them by all possible means.
What I do know is that he wrote a lot about loving one another and working for the benefit of others, and about how certain people are wicked and deserve to be abandoned to suffer eternally in hellfire. You speak of consistency, but I don't see it.
You don't seem to appreciate that Paul insisted Christians hold each other to a much higher standard so as to preserve their identity and integrity in a largely godless world. It can't get any more explicit than this:
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
Whenever, therefore, Paul told Christians to abandon anyone to hellfire, he was always speaking about severing ties with false or fallen Christians.
Which is why he told people to cast out from the community of faith those who were sinful? How is that consistent?
God disciplines those whom he loves. Also, kicking them out was not the initial impetus but the measure of last resort.
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)
The impartiality of God's love? How do you reconcile the impartiality of God's love with the notion that God will throw the vast majority of God's people into hell?
The doctrine of hell itself is a separate issue for a separate discussion.
Maybe Phelps was, but I don't believe a person who preaches that our nation is a den of sin, that our allowing of homosexuality brings upon us destruction from God, and that homosexuals deserve to die and burn in eternal hellfire is something we cannot find justification for in the Pauline Epistles. I don't see what specifically about the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church you claim has no justification in Paul's words. I do believe they genuinely think they are behaving in the best way they can to prevent people from being damned to hell.
So what? The Nazis sincerely believed they were doing the best thing for Germany; does that excuse them? The WBC people are twisted through and through, claiming allegiance to God with their lips while mocking him continually by their hateful actions. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20)
And if they *can find* justification for their hate in the Pauline epistles, that also proves nothing. I once read on the internet a sincere argument that Jesus wanted people to drink their own urine for health reasons; the justification provided was John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." Because that passage was *found* to be a veiled reference to urination. What nonsense.
No, here's the problem, and I want you to address it as opposed to dancing around it.
I haven't been dancing around anything.
According to Paul, and this is not ambiguous, homosexual sex is a damnable offense.
Yes, that's exactly right. So too is "envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness" and all other manner of "things that should not be done." All of which is symptomatic of the sin nature inherited by all people from Adam. The fact that Paul chooses to make an extended example of homosexuality most likely has to do with the fact that it is a very unambiguous and commonsense deviation from "God's design." Even so...
Of course there's justification for trumpeting that homosexuality must not be tolerated. Paul says it's a damnable offense! Damnable! That's not a metaphor, Panda, Paul's talking about a very literal eternity of suffering for those who practice sexual immorality. That those who practice it are affronts to God, engaging in wanton acts of evil, and the widespread condoning of it to be a sign of the moral degradation of our time.
Again, in various points in the epistles (and at least once in Revelation) homosexual acts are indeed mentioned as mortal sins. But they are always part of a laundry list of mortal sins, such as what you already quoted. There is no indication that the gay are "double damned." They are in the same hell as "those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
And it would indeed make sense if a Christian were to preach against all such sin, which is what Paul does. Sometimes, yes, he highlights gay sex. At another instance he highlights, as exceedingly immoral, a man who has heterosexual relations with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
But now let me ask you to imagine that St. Paul were to witness two men kissing in ancient Athens. No doubt he would engage them in conversation. But would he engage them in a constructive or combative way? Would he say, "Brothers, don't you know that what you are doing is an offense against God?" Or would he say, "You filthy heathen dogs, you're going to burn in hell for giving in to your unnatural passion!"
Hopefully the answer is obvious. In case not, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 reads, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, if the early Christian churches could include people who had used to engage in homosexual acts, then clearly Paul and his cohorts did not drive them away with hateful and condemning words and deeds.
Two thoughts, then, in closing. Paul consistently preached "hate the sin, love the sinner;" though I think he would err on the side of love if it came to that. The problem with a number of Christians is that they are eager to hate the sin but incapable of fully loving the sinner, because they have not fully accepted the depths of their own sin or the impartiality of God's love. Therefore their compassion is feigned and forced, and their insincerity is obvious and repulsive to everyone. And then you have people like Phelps, who are simply twisted by hate and darkness through and through.
Secondly: no, I do not agree with Paul that gay sex is inherently sinful. I recently began attending a Congregational church specifically because they declared themselves an "open and affirming" congregation. But I can see arguments both ways; and I do believe that a Christian is capable of genuinely hating or "abominating" gay sex (and murder, and thievery, and pedophilia, etc.) while also genuinely loving gays (and murderers, and thieves, and pedophiles, etc.) But it takes deep humility and maturity to attain such faith, and the voices of those who do are only a whisper in the shouting match of the culture wars.
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
Demonstrate your reasoning behind this.
"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." Colossians 4:5-6
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16
Such verses support and are supported by others I've already quoted in this thread. There is no Biblical justification whatsoever for a Christian to act in a way that is deliberately hurtful or mocking towards anyone; and it would be the height of dishonesty to claim that Fred Phelps wasn't acting in a way calculated to be as hurtful and mocking as possible.
Ok, I just want to back up for a second. You're aware then that Paul believed that homosexuality is sexual immorality, and those who are sexually immoral are cut off from God and doomed to damnation, right?
So how can you honestly say that Phelps finds absolutely no justification from the Bible? It's obvious where he finds his justification.
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
@ Tiax:
My apologies, I've been away from Debate for a very long time. To clarify:
The foundation of Christianity is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. The latter of which seems highly implausible. I personally find that the doctrinal explanation of the resurrection (in concert with the historical evidence surrounding the early church, which is another topic entirely) helps make that highly implausible event believable. The grounding in history is something lacking in, for example, the idea of the Fates and other such notions you proposed.
So what? Every religion is unique in some way which runs counter to what we might expect a human to prefer. Some sects demand extreme austerity and asceticism, which is surely opposite of our natural inclinations. Is this evidence that they are also divinely inspired? No, of course not.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying. Extreme asceticism and austerity make sense if you're trying to impress God with your non-worldliness. Christianity says, "Um, hello? You can't impress God. So stop trying and just enter into His love." Like what Paul says in the famous "love" discourse: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3).
Let's also remember, of course, that you've arrived at this uniqueness by picking those passages which support it, and rejecting those which do not. If allowed to do this with other holy texts, I'm sure you could create other similarly unique variations of those religions.
"Grace, not works" has been a rallying cry since the Reformation.
Because your morality is presumably backed by some rational argument which convinces you of it. Just as your adherence to Christian morality is dependent on your being convinced of Christianity.
Rationality is fine and good until a person is under duress, in which case circumstances could suddenly make reasonable what was before unthinkable. Moral convictions should be confirmed by reason in times of peace, but must also be grounded in a faith which sustains them in times of strife. (Not that such faith must be explicitly religious. But atheists who are willing to make great sacrifices in hard times "because it's the right thing to do" would seem to have a self-understanding that transcends naturalist orthodoxy.)
What does it avail us to live at all, in your view?
I think that these lives of ours are basically the "seeds" of a crop that has been planted in Eternity. By our choices in this life we determine whether that seed will sprout or whether it will rot and die in the ground. If we are fruitful, we basically attain godhood. But like Jesus, "who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6), we are not to imagine that Christian faith is a deal we make for deification: a "pay now, buy later" sort of scheme. We are called to believe that God's love can and will transfigure us into beings of exceptional, celestial magnificence -- and then to largely forget that (except when it edifies us to remember) because we are so busy practicing and participating in love.
I apologize if my language seems obscure, but I don't know how else to speak of God.
Oh no, no, dude, Pandas, that's completely false. Paul most certainly did tell people to treat homosexuals differently from other people.
Where? Specifically (as to what I said earlier) where did he tell Christians to act with hostility towards homosexual non-believers? Because, yes, he told his audience not to associate with any of the "sexually immoral" people who were also professing to be Christians. Christians were to hold one another to a certain standard, but not seek to impose that standard outside of the church. I think 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 sums it up:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
This is a silly metric - just because people generally like to feel important doesn't mean that they are incapable of expressing the idea that they might not be. Lots of philosophies have included ideas of predestination, fate, determinism, etc., which minimize our role in deciding our future.
True. The weird thing about the Christian view is that you have a personal God who loves people enough to incarnate and die a horrific death for their sake, and yet who also asserts that they are dust and their best deeds are "filthy rags" in His sight. Which indicates that He loves us not because of anything we can intrinsically be or do, but because love is His nature. I am not aware of any other worldview in which humanity's relationship to the divine is so passive, in which our role is not to do any meritorious deeds or prove ourselves worthy, but simply to accept a gift of unmerited love and then to serve as conduits of that.
Why does something being naturalistic make it irrelevant? That's just nonsense.
I said that naturalistic morality is irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of society. If I have no more interest in being a member of society (perhaps due to a terminal illness) -- or if I have utter assurance that I can get away with something without being noticed -- what is to stop me from doing whatever "bad" thing strikes my fancy?
Do you assume that I haven't actually read the Bible? To take the gretachristina blog post a starting point: it may seem clever and smart to those who haven't done any serious study of Christianity; yet it is full of willful misinterpretation of the texts and basic exegetical errors. Still, I can see why someone with "modern, progressive morals" would have troubles with a lot of Jesus's teachings. That's fine. Now demonstrate that the modern and progressive morals in question are actually the best and truest morals that have ever been held, the golden standard by which all others should be judged. (Also, much of what Jesus says assumes, axiomatically, the sovereignty of God the Father. If you do not (even for the sake of discussion) accept that axiom, then many of Jesus's words will of course seem absurd.)
I reject Christianity because there's no good reason to embrace it -- certainly not a reason that outweighs the massive harm that Christianity and religion as a whole inflicts on us.
Bad religion does indeed inflict massive harm. And good religion does massive good. Why must all religion be bad? Is religious fundamentalism inherently bad; or doesn't it (as one would reasonably suppose) depend on the nature of the fundamentals? We are obviously justified in fearing an Islamic terror attack. So why don't we fear an Amish terror attack in the least?
Also, I had to laugh at your statements of how Christianity emphasizes the insignificance of humanity. Nothing emphasizes the insignificance of human beings like believing the entire universe was created with you in mind and that that creator knows your thoughts, hears your prayers, cares who you sleep with (and how), and wants you to sacrifice animals to him. How could a god put any more importance on the minor activities of some high primates in the Milky Way than the Christian one does?
Ah, but don't you see? The importance God places upon us is only noteworthy because of our inherent insignificance.
The idea that anything in the Bible could not have been written (or even hints at not being written) by ancient humans is laughable. What about stoning adulterers, sacrificing animals, and bitterly cursing fig trees says "divine" to you? If a divine being wrote any of it, why didn't they think it important to mention electricity or germ theory? The Bible is written exactly as you'd expect it to be written if it was written by ignorant, ancient huamns.
Again, I don't think that the Bible was written by God (that's what Islam says about the Koran). I believe that many human authors were, to varying degrees, inspired by God to transmit a message. The message was couched in the language and circumstances of its time and, in some instances, adulterated by the prejudices of the authors. But its overall story is clear and its message timeless.
Also, why should God have told us about electricity or germ theory? From a divine perspective, why should it matter one bit whether humans live in huts for forty years or in condos for eighty years? What does it avail us to live longer, or with more material comforts, if we are not actually living better? Look at the news and tell me with a straight face that human nature is any less avaricious, cruel, deceitful or petty than it was 2000 years ago.
How do you tell which parts are the word of God and which parts aren't?
I am most confident that a message is divine in origin if it seems least like a message that a human would've invented. I am certainly not ignorant of other religions; and Christianity strikes me as unique in the way that it minimizes the worth of human effort while maximizing the importance of God's grace. Other religions emphasize taking the right actions (i.e. observing the Five Pillars of Islam, following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism) as a way people can "get right" with God or the Universe. People like to feel important and these religions confirm that feeling. So far as I know, only Christianity emphasizes the intrinsic insignificance of human beings, while reminding us that we can have hope because of the significance that is imputed to us by God's love.
You should be willing to question your morality. If believing that it is from cultural consensus makes you do that, that is a good thing. If believing that it comes from God makes you not do that, that is a bad thing.
I certainly do question my own understanding of morality. I simply don't entertain the thought that morality itself is something which, being naturalistic and utterly irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of a society, can be easily discarded under duress or as a matter of expedience.
And I could give you hundreds more disgusting ones. You are cherry picking because you choose to believe the "consistent message of the Gospel" is what you agree with instead of whatever you happen to disagree with. For every nice verse you post, I can post just as many if not more horrible ones. Fred Phelps would say that hating **** is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, savages in Uganda would say that burning witches is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, and a few U.S. presidential candidates would say that denying gays message is part of the consistent message of the Gospel. If you really cannot see the "immorality, hatred and intolerance" in the Bible (as you stated before), then you're willingly ignorant.
Look, I'll level with you. I'm frankly not that interested in the Old Testament. I'm not Jewish. I'm not interested in defending Yahweh's actions in the Pentateuch. Christ is for both Jews and Gentiles; and "Gentiles" like me don't need to embrace Judaism in order to embrace Christ.
So if you'd be so kind as to narrow your focus to the New Testament, I defy you to find a single verse that commands a Christian to act cruelly or hatefully towards a non-Christian. Yes, there are still anti-gay verses, where Paul says that homosexuals (amidst a laundry list of others) will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you know what? Never once did he command his audience to treat gays any differently than other non-believers, i.e. with respect and humility and inoffensiveness.
You won't get anywhere by cherry picking verses that agree with modern morality and ignoring the ones that are obviously despicable.
Like I said, I could give you hundreds more verses from the New Testament that accord with what I quoted already. So that's not cherry-picking. That's the consistent message of the Gospel.
You're only proving how useless (and in fact counterproductive) the Bible is as a moral compass. I can give you plenty of quotes with morally abhorrent advice that has justified injustice through the ages, that you probably find disgusting because you're a modern human who didn't get his morality from The Bible or a god.
I will certainly agree that there are some Bible verses that I find abhorrent. That is only problematic if I believe the Bible is 100% verbatim the word of God, which I do not (that's the Islamic approach to the Koran). It also has no bearing on the origins of my morality; and if I really believed that my moral compass came not from God, but rather from cultural consensus or blind natural forces, I would probably be less inclined to take morality seriously.
Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution.
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all since they abide by Christianity's foundational text and loudly preach it, as The Bible orders. The reason Christianity is so repugnant is not people falsely judging it by the few "bad apples," just like there are in every institution. It's built on a horrible book with immoral teachings and most of its followers still retard intellectual, moral, and technological progress to this day, often with deadly consequences. The fact that there are some young, "progressive" Christians that lean toward reasonableness doesn't compromise how detestable Christianity is.
Would you care to back that assertion up with evidence? Because I'll give you, right now, several verses from the Bible which instruct Christians how to live their lives, which sound nothing at all like what you're claiming.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37)
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.” (Luke 6:29)
“See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
“He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11)
“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” (1 Corinthians 10:24)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:14-18)
There are hundreds more verses just like that. Consistently like that.
Where in that do you see immorality, hatred and intolerance? Where in that do you see anything like a justification for someone like Fred Phelps, who was repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone?
EDIT: BTW, welcome to these forums! (Although, if your intent is simply to bash Christians with unsubstantiated blanked statements, you will not find much welcome even from atheists.)
Thanks to everyone who answered thus far. The vibe I'm getting here is that rejection of Christianity stems from intellectual and moral objections to its doctrines rather than from disgust with the behaviors of some individual Christians; which does reflect positively on the thoughtfulness of this crowd. Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution.
Anyway, thanks again for the replies; and this thread can now resume being a China vs. Europe debate...
On a side note, I can see this thread becoming a bashfest, but I'll post this against my better judgement anyway...
I certainly hope it doesn't (and my years of experience with this forum encourages me to believe that it won't). I'm just looking for an honest metric of opinion among unbelievers. Admittedly, "willing respondents to a MtGSalvation thread" is a very small and skewed sample size; but it does provide data and just a sort of feel for how the query is received.
I know that most people who aren't Christian, yet who live in a "post-Christian" or "Christ haunted" culture like that of America today, have at least some familiarity with the religion and could cite any number of reasons why they are not Christians themselves. Without assuming too much, I'd like to get a sampling of real-world responses to see what factors carry most weight in peoples' minds.
Some objections I have seen or could anticipate:
1. Christians have done and continue to do great evil (Crusades, Inquisition, gay bashing, etc.)
2. Christians in general don't behave any better than their irreligious counterparts, so what's the point?
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
4. Even Christians who accept evolution are violating Occam's Razor by proposing God, Satan, angels, etc.
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
6. Religious fundamentalism always leads to disharmony and violence; and religious belief in any capacity validates fundamentalism.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
9. Christianity makes as many untestable claims as any other religion; why should it be right and they not be?
There could be many more. I'm just wondering what objections carry the most weight for you, personally? And please don't say, "All of the above." Thanks in advance for your time and thoughtfulness.
I control Death's Presence and my only creature in play is a Grizzly Bears with a Herald of Torment bestowed on it. If the Grizzly Bear dies, do I end up with an 8/8 Herald of Torment? That is, does the aura fall off and become a creature in time to be targeted by the triggered ability on Death's Presence?
Okay, fine. I've heard what you've said and we'll see if there is some consensus to be had after all.
I think we ought to be very careful with our language here. Paul (and the rest of the Bible) does not acknowledge the existence of gay people as we understand them. Everyone is assumed to be heterosexual in their nature; but some give in to unnatural desires to engage in homosexual acts (and/or acts of incest, bestiality, etc.)
So the letter of Biblical law counts against gays. But the spirit of the law says that God's anger is aroused when people defile such natures as He has given them. If, then, our modern understanding of homosexuality is correct -- that some people are that way simply by nature -- then being gay is nothing to condemn and "progressive" Christians have a leg to stand on.
It has everything, everything, to do with their methods.
Check out this video from John Piper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UousPa1ks0w
He expresses very strong (and some would say very offensive), Biblically grounded views against gay marriage. But he does so without name calling, without deliberate provocation, in a soft-spoken way and expressing genuine sorrow rather than rancor.
Fred Phelps, by contrast, became the "most hated man in America" because he gleefully positioned himself as the most hateful. Just saying such things as "God hates ****" or "Thank God for dead soldiers" is bad enough. But who even thinks to protest at funerals? Who seeks notoriety by harassing grieving people in their most vulnerable hour? That sort of wicked inspiration, calculated for maximum vulgarity, comes straight from Satan. The WBC is thoroughly demonic.
And I could not call their protests non-violent. True, they did not involve physical assault; but every manner of psychological and spiritual assault they could get away with under the exceedingly broad provisions of the First Amendment, they did.
I never said it consistently goes against what Phelps believed. I said that the Bible (or at the very least the New Testament, which ought to have primacy for a professing Christian) consistently goes against how Phelps acted.
And you have not refuted this. You have not provided so much as one verse from any gospel or epistle that even suggests it is acceptable for true followers of Christ to harass, mock and degrade non-believers under any circumstance. So if I am wrong, prove me wrong.
I'm going to respond one last time to you on this matter and then be done. You can have the final word if you'd like, but it's clear that neither of us is going to very well persuade the other.
You can feel moral outrage in your heart; but you don't serve as the "salt of the earth" by continually and publicly raging. If there is something regarded by society at large as a "victimless crime," or not immoral at all -- gay sex, looking at porn, getting drunk (as long as you're not driving) etc. -- then you have to engage the matter with tact and grace. Yes, you'll express your outrage when "preaching to the choir;" but in that case you still must walk a delicate line and be sensitive to the fact that immature Christians who hear you will be eager to prove their devotion by hating the sinner concurrently with the sin.
So afraid to extrapolate even a little?
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Gay people would count as simply one category of those "not under the law." And Paul would try to save them by all possible means.
You don't seem to appreciate that Paul insisted Christians hold each other to a much higher standard so as to preserve their identity and integrity in a largely godless world. It can't get any more explicit than this:
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people." (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
Whenever, therefore, Paul told Christians to abandon anyone to hellfire, he was always speaking about severing ties with false or fallen Christians.
God disciplines those whom he loves. Also, kicking them out was not the initial impetus but the measure of last resort.
"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)
The doctrine of hell itself is a separate issue for a separate discussion.
So what? The Nazis sincerely believed they were doing the best thing for Germany; does that excuse them? The WBC people are twisted through and through, claiming allegiance to God with their lips while mocking him continually by their hateful actions. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." (1 John 4:20)
And if they *can find* justification for their hate in the Pauline epistles, that also proves nothing. I once read on the internet a sincere argument that Jesus wanted people to drink their own urine for health reasons; the justification provided was John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them." Because that passage was *found* to be a veiled reference to urination. What nonsense.
I haven't been dancing around anything.
Yes, that's exactly right. So too is "envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness" and all other manner of "things that should not be done." All of which is symptomatic of the sin nature inherited by all people from Adam. The fact that Paul chooses to make an extended example of homosexuality most likely has to do with the fact that it is a very unambiguous and commonsense deviation from "God's design." Even so...
Again, in various points in the epistles (and at least once in Revelation) homosexual acts are indeed mentioned as mortal sins. But they are always part of a laundry list of mortal sins, such as what you already quoted. There is no indication that the gay are "double damned." They are in the same hell as "those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." (Rev. 22:15)
And it would indeed make sense if a Christian were to preach against all such sin, which is what Paul does. Sometimes, yes, he highlights gay sex. At another instance he highlights, as exceedingly immoral, a man who has heterosexual relations with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)
But now let me ask you to imagine that St. Paul were to witness two men kissing in ancient Athens. No doubt he would engage them in conversation. But would he engage them in a constructive or combative way? Would he say, "Brothers, don't you know that what you are doing is an offense against God?" Or would he say, "You filthy heathen dogs, you're going to burn in hell for giving in to your unnatural passion!"
Hopefully the answer is obvious. In case not, 1 Corinthians 6:9-12 reads, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, if the early Christian churches could include people who had used to engage in homosexual acts, then clearly Paul and his cohorts did not drive them away with hateful and condemning words and deeds.
Two thoughts, then, in closing. Paul consistently preached "hate the sin, love the sinner;" though I think he would err on the side of love if it came to that. The problem with a number of Christians is that they are eager to hate the sin but incapable of fully loving the sinner, because they have not fully accepted the depths of their own sin or the impartiality of God's love. Therefore their compassion is feigned and forced, and their insincerity is obvious and repulsive to everyone. And then you have people like Phelps, who are simply twisted by hate and darkness through and through.
Secondly: no, I do not agree with Paul that gay sex is inherently sinful. I recently began attending a Congregational church specifically because they declared themselves an "open and affirming" congregation. But I can see arguments both ways; and I do believe that a Christian is capable of genuinely hating or "abominating" gay sex (and murder, and thievery, and pedophilia, etc.) while also genuinely loving gays (and murderers, and thieves, and pedophiles, etc.) But it takes deep humility and maturity to attain such faith, and the voices of those who do are only a whisper in the shouting match of the culture wars.
"Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." Colossians 4:5-6
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 1 Peter 3:15-16
Such verses support and are supported by others I've already quoted in this thread. There is no Biblical justification whatsoever for a Christian to act in a way that is deliberately hurtful or mocking towards anyone; and it would be the height of dishonesty to claim that Fred Phelps wasn't acting in a way calculated to be as hurtful and mocking as possible.
Sure, Phelps had Biblical justification for believing that unrepented homosexual acts would send people to hell. He had no Biblical justification, as a professing Christian, for how he acted.
@ Tiax:
My apologies, I've been away from Debate for a very long time. To clarify:
The foundation of Christianity is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. The latter of which seems highly implausible. I personally find that the doctrinal explanation of the resurrection (in concert with the historical evidence surrounding the early church, which is another topic entirely) helps make that highly implausible event believable. The grounding in history is something lacking in, for example, the idea of the Fates and other such notions you proposed.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying. Extreme asceticism and austerity make sense if you're trying to impress God with your non-worldliness. Christianity says, "Um, hello? You can't impress God. So stop trying and just enter into His love." Like what Paul says in the famous "love" discourse: "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3).
"Grace, not works" has been a rallying cry since the Reformation.
Rationality is fine and good until a person is under duress, in which case circumstances could suddenly make reasonable what was before unthinkable. Moral convictions should be confirmed by reason in times of peace, but must also be grounded in a faith which sustains them in times of strife. (Not that such faith must be explicitly religious. But atheists who are willing to make great sacrifices in hard times "because it's the right thing to do" would seem to have a self-understanding that transcends naturalist orthodoxy.)
I think that these lives of ours are basically the "seeds" of a crop that has been planted in Eternity. By our choices in this life we determine whether that seed will sprout or whether it will rot and die in the ground. If we are fruitful, we basically attain godhood. But like Jesus, "who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Philippians 2:6), we are not to imagine that Christian faith is a deal we make for deification: a "pay now, buy later" sort of scheme. We are called to believe that God's love can and will transfigure us into beings of exceptional, celestial magnificence -- and then to largely forget that (except when it edifies us to remember) because we are so busy practicing and participating in love.
I apologize if my language seems obscure, but I don't know how else to speak of God.
Where? Specifically (as to what I said earlier) where did he tell Christians to act with hostility towards homosexual non-believers? Because, yes, he told his audience not to associate with any of the "sexually immoral" people who were also professing to be Christians. Christians were to hold one another to a certain standard, but not seek to impose that standard outside of the church. I think 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 sums it up:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
True. The weird thing about the Christian view is that you have a personal God who loves people enough to incarnate and die a horrific death for their sake, and yet who also asserts that they are dust and their best deeds are "filthy rags" in His sight. Which indicates that He loves us not because of anything we can intrinsically be or do, but because love is His nature. I am not aware of any other worldview in which humanity's relationship to the divine is so passive, in which our role is not to do any meritorious deeds or prove ourselves worthy, but simply to accept a gift of unmerited love and then to serve as conduits of that.
I said that naturalistic morality is irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of society. If I have no more interest in being a member of society (perhaps due to a terminal illness) -- or if I have utter assurance that I can get away with something without being noticed -- what is to stop me from doing whatever "bad" thing strikes my fancy?
Do you assume that I haven't actually read the Bible? To take the gretachristina blog post a starting point: it may seem clever and smart to those who haven't done any serious study of Christianity; yet it is full of willful misinterpretation of the texts and basic exegetical errors. Still, I can see why someone with "modern, progressive morals" would have troubles with a lot of Jesus's teachings. That's fine. Now demonstrate that the modern and progressive morals in question are actually the best and truest morals that have ever been held, the golden standard by which all others should be judged. (Also, much of what Jesus says assumes, axiomatically, the sovereignty of God the Father. If you do not (even for the sake of discussion) accept that axiom, then many of Jesus's words will of course seem absurd.)
Bad religion does indeed inflict massive harm. And good religion does massive good. Why must all religion be bad? Is religious fundamentalism inherently bad; or doesn't it (as one would reasonably suppose) depend on the nature of the fundamentals? We are obviously justified in fearing an Islamic terror attack. So why don't we fear an Amish terror attack in the least?
Ah, but don't you see? The importance God places upon us is only noteworthy because of our inherent insignificance.
Again, I don't think that the Bible was written by God (that's what Islam says about the Koran). I believe that many human authors were, to varying degrees, inspired by God to transmit a message. The message was couched in the language and circumstances of its time and, in some instances, adulterated by the prejudices of the authors. But its overall story is clear and its message timeless.
Also, why should God have told us about electricity or germ theory? From a divine perspective, why should it matter one bit whether humans live in huts for forty years or in condos for eighty years? What does it avail us to live longer, or with more material comforts, if we are not actually living better? Look at the news and tell me with a straight face that human nature is any less avaricious, cruel, deceitful or petty than it was 2000 years ago.
I am most confident that a message is divine in origin if it seems least like a message that a human would've invented. I am certainly not ignorant of other religions; and Christianity strikes me as unique in the way that it minimizes the worth of human effort while maximizing the importance of God's grace. Other religions emphasize taking the right actions (i.e. observing the Five Pillars of Islam, following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism) as a way people can "get right" with God or the Universe. People like to feel important and these religions confirm that feeling. So far as I know, only Christianity emphasizes the intrinsic insignificance of human beings, while reminding us that we can have hope because of the significance that is imputed to us by God's love.
I certainly do question my own understanding of morality. I simply don't entertain the thought that morality itself is something which, being naturalistic and utterly irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of a society, can be easily discarded under duress or as a matter of expedience.
Look, I'll level with you. I'm frankly not that interested in the Old Testament. I'm not Jewish. I'm not interested in defending Yahweh's actions in the Pentateuch. Christ is for both Jews and Gentiles; and "Gentiles" like me don't need to embrace Judaism in order to embrace Christ.
So if you'd be so kind as to narrow your focus to the New Testament, I defy you to find a single verse that commands a Christian to act cruelly or hatefully towards a non-Christian. Yes, there are still anti-gay verses, where Paul says that homosexuals (amidst a laundry list of others) will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you know what? Never once did he command his audience to treat gays any differently than other non-believers, i.e. with respect and humility and inoffensiveness.
Like I said, I could give you hundreds more verses from the New Testament that accord with what I quoted already. So that's not cherry-picking. That's the consistent message of the Gospel.
I will certainly agree that there are some Bible verses that I find abhorrent. That is only problematic if I believe the Bible is 100% verbatim the word of God, which I do not (that's the Islamic approach to the Koran). It also has no bearing on the origins of my morality; and if I really believed that my moral compass came not from God, but rather from cultural consensus or blind natural forces, I would probably be less inclined to take morality seriously.
More to come later; gotta go now.
Would you care to back that assertion up with evidence? Because I'll give you, right now, several verses from the Bible which instruct Christians how to live their lives, which sound nothing at all like what you're claiming.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37)
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.” (Luke 6:29)
“See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
“He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11)
“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” (1 Corinthians 10:24)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:14-18)
There are hundreds more verses just like that. Consistently like that.
Where in that do you see immorality, hatred and intolerance? Where in that do you see anything like a justification for someone like Fred Phelps, who was repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone?
EDIT: BTW, welcome to these forums! (Although, if your intent is simply to bash Christians with unsubstantiated blanked statements, you will not find much welcome even from atheists.)
Anyway, thanks again for the replies; and this thread can now resume being a China vs. Europe debate...
I certainly hope it doesn't (and my years of experience with this forum encourages me to believe that it won't). I'm just looking for an honest metric of opinion among unbelievers. Admittedly, "willing respondents to a MtGSalvation thread" is a very small and skewed sample size; but it does provide data and just a sort of feel for how the query is received.
Some objections I have seen or could anticipate:
1. Christians have done and continue to do great evil (Crusades, Inquisition, gay bashing, etc.)
2. Christians in general don't behave any better than their irreligious counterparts, so what's the point?
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
4. Even Christians who accept evolution are violating Occam's Razor by proposing God, Satan, angels, etc.
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
6. Religious fundamentalism always leads to disharmony and violence; and religious belief in any capacity validates fundamentalism.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
9. Christianity makes as many untestable claims as any other religion; why should it be right and they not be?
There could be many more. I'm just wondering what objections carry the most weight for you, personally? And please don't say, "All of the above." Thanks in advance for your time and thoughtfulness.
Just to clarify, is that because it transitions from being an aura to a creature as a state-based effect?