| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever religious organizations are criticized, there are two defenses that keep coming up. All the time.
1) That's only a vocal (and oh so extremely tiny) minority that says.
2) There is an ongoing discussion within the church about changing this, but everyone has to accept that change takes time.
I call BS. A vocal minority of the church that claimed something the church did not like or think would be silenced and made to conform faster than you could say "holy inquisition batman". The very fact that this doesn't happen to people who claim that "God hates fags" and similar drek means, directly and unquestionably, that the silent churches agree with this.
As for 2 above, it's disgraceful that a church that claims to stand for love and good thinks an ongoing discussion is even a relevant argument in this issue. As a direct consequence of various church policies, children commit suicide, get thrown out and ignored by their parents, and so on. It happens all the time. And guess what? If we're discussing the roman catholic church, it's so top-down-directed that if the pope were to demand and end to the discussion, it would be done. In short: I don't think the gay teens who commit suicide care that you are discussing whether they are perversions of nature, or merely commit sins against God when they express their love for one another.
Try this discussion again, and don't do these cop-outs. And if you find it harder, well, perhaps it's time to act instead of discuss after all.
I've always argued that the sin was a lack of hospitality and not an act of homosexuality, but we're all well too aware of the mutability of language over the years to obfuscate its initial origins.
If we actually read the Bible, we discover that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with sex at all.
Which is not to say that the authors of the Bible were exactly marching in Pride parades, only that they did not think Yahweh nuked Sodom over the sex. Nor, of course, does it suggest that taking advice from a bunch of people who thought the world was flat and knew less about it than your average high school student is a good idea to begin with.
I've always argued that the sin was a lack of hospitality and not an act of homosexuality, but we're all well too aware of the mutability of language over the years to obfuscate its initial origins.If we actually read the Bible, we discover that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with sex at all.
Which is not to say that the authors of the Bible were exactly marching in Pride parades, only that they did not think Yahweh nuked Sodom over the sex. Nor, of course, does it suggest that taking advice from a bunch of people who thought the world was flat and knew less about it than your average high school student is a good idea to begin with.
That is the exact verse I reference, which tends to be forgotten / overlooked.
|
Seeing that the vast majority of religious people do not care about how you or the LGBTQ (whats Q now?) community lead your personal lives, I see and hear the bigotry coming from your side of the street.
I tend to agree with the first part, and mitigate the impression of the second part with the not-too-unexpected minority-group defense mechanism kicking in because of the very vocal (but arguably small) religious population.
Not unlike what Milgram found in the 60s, ordinarily reasonable and good people will find themselves echoing the dictates of an authority figure, whether for good or ill. In this way, it almost doesn't matter that only 10% (or whatever small %) are truly fire-and-brimstone, because the more passive and otherwise reasonable 90% (or whatever larger %) will watch as the minority burns me at the stake...and if that happens enough times, the majority will eventually and gradually, then suddenly, find themselves cheering at my agony.
Keep in mind that the quickest way to change the course of some of these so-called 'Christian' bigots is to show them that their anti-homosexuality stance is a heresy.
This doesn't work.
1) The argument for this being the case is incredibly weak. Even while saying to love homosexuals, Paul is condemning homosexual acts on more than one occasion. Not to mention the old testaments stance on the matter.
2) Even if it were strong it wouldn't matter. There is enough wriggle room to interpret the bible however you want. If people want to see homosexuality as bad they will interpret the bible so that homosexuality is bad.
The only way to get people to see anti homosexuality as heresy is to change peoples minds about homosexuality. Their biblical interpretation will follow. Will and Grace did more for that then every biblical scholar combined.
Yet, you accept whole-heartedly that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has equal weight in issues of religion.
Equal weight? I don't think he's saying that at all. The truth is, since it's all utterly imaginary, there's really no way of proving X or Y...since as we've determined in previous threads, god's will let alone existence cannot be empirically verified or validated.
Some people may, in fact, be swayed by the scholarly argument as you've put forth that Paul wasn't referring to homosexuality, etc. I would imagine, and granted this is just conjecture, that those people who are reasonable and willing to be swayed by AN interpretation of scripture, aren't really the problem people anyway.
The problem is that people read INTO scripture what they already believe easily as often as people build their beliefs around scripture. I'd say almost always it's a bit of both, and religion is intensely personal (as well as communal, but ahh there's the paradox...).
The point is, to me, that arguments that prove TO YOU that the bible and christianity is not inherently anti-homosexual (which I'd weakly agree with you on) just plain won't sway the very staunch religious reich.
Just as sometimes firmly held religious beliefs are an instrument of social change, I think that this particular issue is going to rely on social change to influence the widely-held scriptural interpretation at the root of much of the bigotry.
Now I have my suspicions about which part of this you'll nitpick while ignoring the rest. I hope I'm right cuz then I get to treat myself to a bowl of ice cream!
|
|
[hypothetically] You're a scientist. How would you like it if every Tom, Dick, and Harry weighed in on issues of scientific importance regardless of their credentials for doing so? I suspect you wouldn't like it. Yet, you accept whole-heartedly that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has equal weight in issues of religion.
Curious.
[also included scholarly texts analyzing meaning and context in Scripture]
The issue here is that, for the rational nonbeliever, the supernatural is as measurable as the proverbial infinity of invisible flying pink unicorns living a third of the way down the spout of Russel's teapot. I invite absolutely anyone and everyone to argue the merits of said unicorns, since anyone and everyone is as likely to offer as completely an absurd argument.
Now, in terms of a scholarly analysis of religion, belief, the nature of god or the divine, etc.; in terms of scholarly analyses of Scripture as history, criticism, literature, a structuralist analysis of biblical culture, and so on--no. I might listen to BNW or Kirth or DD, et al; or to Dawkins or Hawking, or Krauss, but such is not their field of expertise. The Saul Kripke's of the world are few and far between. For example, I'm more inclined to take for granted the analysis of a theologian over a physicist on the dual nature of Genesis, and the analysis of a physicist over a theologian on the metastability range for the Higgs, even though both may have very astute opinions on either.
What I mean to say is that there's a very distinct difference between arguing the nature of the Garden in such a way that belief or disbelief in the Garden is irrelevant to the argument, and arguing whether or not homosexuals are sinners and should have their own water fountains.
My goal is not to sway the staunch religious reich. My goal is to sway enough of the sane people that we can keep the religious reich from hurting people.
Ahh. Well I'd argue anyone sane has already jumped ship from these religions altogether.
You're a scientist. How would you like it if every Tom, Dick, and Harry weighed in on issues of scientific importance regardless of their credentials for doing so?
I don't mind disagreement as long as there's a rational basis for it. Tom, Dick, or Harry's point rests on their points, not their degree.
I suspect you wouldn't like it. Yet, you accept whole-heartedly that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has equal weight in issues of religion.
Its not only the general public that disagrees with your friends interpretation. There are respected biblical scholars that disagree as well. So what are people supposed to rely on then?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one of the reasons some of the claims by atheists and Aretas et al in these threads drives me insane. They just defenestrate academia and speak exproctophatically.
So here's the problem, from one of those "crazy atheists" about your arguments.
When we talk about religion, we're talking about four separate things (at least).
1)Talking about the dogmatic beliefs of a religion. Not all religions are dogmatic.
2)We talk about the generally accepted beliefs of a religion. Its rituals, as well as its general outlook on life: its inherent perceptive lens.
3)We talk about the practices of those who self-identify as that religion. and
4)We talk about the actions of officials in that religion.
If someone brings up one point, like oh hey it says in the official doctrine of Catholicism (catechism) that homosexuality is icky, that must be what Catholicism says, you just say "well but that doesn't matter, because we don't know what the PEOPLE believe". If we show polls saying what people believe, you say "yes but the SCRIPTURE doesn't say it". Etc. Not all four of these categories have to be in agreement for it to be reasonable to surmise that a religion stands for X.
Academia has NO BEARING on what the vast vast majority of Christians decide to believe. We can all agree, on this internet message board, that the bible isn't against homosexuality. It's not going to sway a whole lot of people. You're going to need to appeal to their decency first, without using the bible, to get them to think that their beliefs need to be reexamined in the first place.
@BNW-Precisely.
Math and science, in the end, demonstrably work.
There is no empirical point of view on a document that is inherently subjective and open to interpretation.
@DD-Show me a poll of biblical scholars, across social and economic strata and geo-political landscapes, and across denominations, that shows overwhelmingly that they don't believe it to be a sin. Surely if this is the "correct" interpretation then at least a slim majority will have found it to be so.
I don't believe it can be done, since I think that christianity by and large (scholars/leaders I'm talking about, not necessarily adherents/laity) is anti-gay. But I'm totally open to be proved wrong! In fact I'd like to be.
Easy solution. Instead of making broad, sweeping, unsourced statements about religion written large, make specific, sourced statements about specific groups or people.
Ooh, methinks you should try your own advice first.
Law is subjective and open to interpretation. Do you think its of no value?
How did you even get that from what I said? I'm not even talking about the value of religion here, you know how I feel about that and it's stupid to bring it up.
so I'll repeat: @DD-Show me a poll of biblical scholars, across social and economic strata and geo-political landscapes, and across denominations, that shows overwhelmingly that they don't believe it to be a sin. Surely if this is the "correct" interpretation then at least a slim majority will have found it to be so.
Name one religious scholar holding a position at a secular University (Yale, Oxford, Harvard, etc.) who has stated in a scholarly environment (a gathering of religious scholars is fine) that Paul was anti-homosexual.
In one fell swoop you have changed the goalposts (MY goalposts I might add, and I don't take kindly to it) and shifted the burden of proof.
Nope. Respond to my challenge first please. Show your work.
You continually dodge responding to any points raised by any of the scholars I link you to. The only reason the only thing you see from me is degrees is because that's the only thing you let yourself see.
I've tried responding to points. You go back to the "you don't have a degree".
I don't find the arguments that convincing. I find them to be strained, reaching and frankly an insult to reading comprehension. Its patently obvious that the author has a goal in mind and he's shoehorning the text to meet it. I accept that there is a fair amount of wriggle room with a lot of interpretation but I don't think it goes this far.
Ideas come at different levels besides right and wrong. You don't just need an argument that's right, you need an argument that's SO convincing that disagreement with it is insane. You don't have that. I don't think you CAN get that in something as subjective as interpreting the bible.
What mental barrier is it that you think is preventing me from recognizing the greatness of these arguments? I don't care what the bible has to say on homosexuality. I don't need it to say anything on homosexuality. When paul starts ranting about men knowing men and women having relations with each other I don't think i need to go out on a limb to get the hint that he's speaking of homosexuality.(especially when you point out the context he's displaying a very progressive view for the time, and frankly something that would be left of center in a lot of states to this day)
If you can't convince me, someone that has no vested interest one way or the other, why do you think you can convince someone who's wrapped their anti homosexuality and biblical interpretation together? Citing biblical experts is pointless: you have to know that there are experts who take every view from homosexuality is fine to homosexuality is a sin but love them anyway to homosexual love is no different than any other love (get married first) to the rock quarry solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For you to take a position without proof until someone knocks you down is not academics, its a carnival act.
What you mean like believing in god?
Look, you seem to be of the belief that the bible is not explicitly anti-gay. Not talking about just Paul, but old testament as well, and anything really. SURELY, if this is the case and you've made (in the past) rather stirring arguments for how the bible is misinterpreted in these areas, then the majority of biblical scholars would be in agreement with you. All you've been doing is cherry picking people who agree with you.
Paul never rants about men knowing men and women having relations with one another. He rants about people being turned over to unnatural desires (ie. desires they weren't born with).
I happen to believe you (on this point) but for the sake of playing devil's advocate:
1)How do we know that's what Paul actually said?2)How do you know that unnatural desires wasn't simply code for homosexuality itself?
3)Sort of like 2, how do you not know the word he used, while literally interpreted not to mean homosexual, wasn't simply a euphamism for homosexuality whose context was lost?
Though I admit for 2&3 that if that's true it could easily be a code for something else, like vegetarians.
And, if I'm cherry picking, then why are you having so much trouble answering my request. One name.
Thing is, I never claimed there was one (scholar that says paul is anti-gay) so I have no reason to even attempt to prove it. So I have no problem saying you're right, or assuming you're correct at least until someone more knowledgeable than me chimes in.
All I said is that the majority of biblical scholars LIKELY concur that homosexuality is a sin. For whatever reason/whatever scripture they use to justify it. Do you believe otherwise? It was not my intent to strawman anything, that's what I thought you believed. That's why I said "you seem to believe". If I'm incorrect, you can just CORRECT ME rather than insulting me.
Also, when you make broad sweeping generalizations (as you did) it's perfectly fair to turn them around on you to show you how much of a hypocrite you are.
Paul never rants about men knowing men and women having relations with one another. He rants about people being turned over to unnatural desires (ie. desires they weren't born with).
Or he's calling homosexuality an unnatural desire. Desires they weren't born with is... a stretch. I wouldn't call it anti biblical but i definitely think its a stretch.
I realize you won't respond to this statement because it would require you to get into what Paul actually said, which is in ancient Greek, and your side of the argument stands only if we don't look at what Paul actually said.
I'm not an expert on ancient greek, but the people that translate the bible are and most of them agree with me. We've gone over the meaning of arsenokoitês before.
And you absolutley do have a vested interest in this. You aren't fooling anyone.
It wouldn't be the first time I'd managed to fool myself...
What vested interest do you think I have in this? I don't need to make the bible look bad, nor do i think that Paul looks particularly bad here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because of the Greek words used. They are the same root as "physics". When Paul is talking about "unnatural" he truly does mean "unnnatural" (as in "artificial"), not "immoral".
No, that's the meaning of the WORD. You don't know the precise cultural context. Similarly, in several thousands of years when people are poring over documents from our time, I suspect they'll have curiosity as to the preoccupation with the idea that our primitive god hates bundles of sticks.
Similarly, in several thousands of years when people are poring over documents from our time, I suspect they'll have curiosity as to the preoccupation with the idea that our primitive god hates bundles of sticks.
Obviously the Westboro baptist people are anti cancer crusaders, given their hatred of cigarettes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Side note: It entertains me that when talking about anything religion in GENERAL is allowed to bag and attack with impunity. When it is attacked in turn, people cry foul, and ask for decency.
So i would ask, at what point do we stop, and realize there are more important things then worshiping something? anything really? Shouldn't we be focused on helping people, Fixing what things we've broken?
it just seems ludicrous that people use things LIKE religion as a means to defame and deface their fellow man. Why? why does it matter? and please dont say "Because the Bible says so!" [for those of you who do], because i dont care, I want people to fight for people, to look to each other for strength.
I could care less if Your gay or straight, or anything else as long as you live your life and do not cause harm. [Principles i live by, by the way]. Know what i would like? A world were we can reach the stars, cure diseases, feed people, and Make humanity Stronger: Physically, mentally, and spiritually.
I dont think you have to go to a building every Sunday, listen to someone tell you what you should think (in effect that is what their doing) Or anything else like that. People should be able to have their beliefs, but keep them YOUR beliefs and dont patronize people who do not share them (And i have met and known a lot of people, socially i try to experience a wide variety of people, sometimes to my chagrin).
Yes this was a long rant, but neither side here is really accomplishing anything (Like everything else, people just stick to their side of the mountain not seeing the valley below {republicans and Democrats anyone? [im aware that was snarky, elections are coming up and as a server at a highly popular local and tourist resteraunt... you hear a lot :) })
I personally am not religious, because i see it as a falacy, Because god is considered to be all powerful, all knowing. Hence he needs no worshipers because he wants for nothing, and to be everywhere at once requires him to be non-linear which means he can not exist in the reality as it is percieved. Which means he can do nothing, IF he does exist i imagine he would more want us to try and become like him, because he just might be lonely. Its always been true its lonely at the top.
Finally i have gay friends, the're not monsters, the're not sinner's. Many of them are better people then a lot of people i've met, and ya know what even if the church that screams anti-gay, anti-science, creationism, self loathing, god fearing, anti abortion, anti choice, and anti intellectualism is a minority... It is the loudest. So if the majority wants it to change then you need to do something... Remeber it only takes a pebble to start an avalanche, and it only takes one voice to start a revolution.
and im done, as always happy gaming!
BNW, there have only been one or two major Bible translation projects done in the last 50 years and most Bible translators didn't work on those projects. Further, those projects have come under multiple criticisms from various Bible translators for various translation errors.
So, I want to know how you've determined that most Bible translators agree with you.
I went to biblegateway.com and went through all the translations there.
Now, since we're playing the question game Dr. Hannibal, What vested interest do you think I have in this? I don't need to make the bible look bad, nor do i think that Paul looks particularly bad here. I know its hard to believe but Pauls statements as I'm reading them don't offend me in the slightest.
If it helps the conversation I will contact my friend who is a budding biblical scholar, and who learned ancient greek with the sole purpose in mind of being able to translate the bible from the original language himself and cobble himself a Nathan bible.
JadedDemiGod, you dismiss church then go on about how we should help our fellow man. But, religion does help our fellow man.
BWOOP BWOOP "broad, sweeping, unsourced statements about religion written large" ALERT!
If you're going to make an asssertion that the cultural context changed the meaning of the word, you have to have evidence to support your assertion.Because of the Greek words used. They are the same root as "physics". When Paul is talking about "unnatural" he truly does mean "unnnatural" (as in "artificial"), not "immoral".No, that's the meaning of the WORD. You don't know the precise cultural context. Similarly, in several thousands of years when people are poring over documents from our time, I suspect they'll have curiosity as to the preoccupation with the idea that our primitive god hates bundles of sticks.
I'm not making any such assertion. I'm merely offering it as a potential counter-argument to yours. Hence why I identified those arguments as "devil's advocate".
So, if ONE were to make those assertions, indeed they would need to provide such evidence.
Of course, ONE could also argue that, inherent in your argument is the assumption that the cultural context has NOT changed in regards to this particular interpretation. Given that the overall cultural context of Greece, Europe, and Christendom has indeed changed, many times in fact, over the intervening time, ONE might argue that it were your position that has the burden of proof.
I'll just reiterate that these are not positions I hold, I am merely suggesting these potential counter-arguments you had PERHAPS not encountered/thought of, as a means of strengthening your scholarly argument. My vested interest here is to get those elusive rational christians that are also passively accepting of bigotry to stop hatin' the gays. If your argument is going to sway anyone who is at all entrenched in biblically-inspired homophobia, it will have to be tighter than a nun's arse.
What exactly are you contesting here? That churches support multiple charities?JadedDemiGod, you dismiss church then go on about how we should help our fellow man. But, religion does help our fellow man.BWOOP BWOOP "broad, sweeping, unsourced statements about religion written large" ALERT!
You didn't say churches, you said RELIGION helps our fellow man. Not religious organizations, not religious people, but religion IN AND OF ITSELF. Which I interpret to mean the concept, or that having religion is ultimately beneficial.
Would you like to amend your statement? Because certainly churches support multiple charities. But then so do individuals, and corporations, and labor unions, and the US government, yadda yadda.
Alright ill try to sum it up: (reminder please make sure you take in the entirity of the statement made)
1. Yes there are several factions of the the Vast number of denominations that do help, however, In doing so they also try to convert people to their way of thinking. Could not this aid be delivered just in good faith towards there fellows without the need for a religious dogma behind it?
2. It has also been shown to me (having seen people go the variety of different help available) That they continually use that as a basis, instead of empowring the person. Never once have i seen a single "YOU can do this, You have the ability, The strenght is within You" They do not empower the person.
3. There is an entitlemnt to it all, because if you dont believe in that particular faith (whatever it may be) Many times the help is given begrudgingly, because they expect you to go into their faith. Sometimes people just need help, they dont need or want a religious revival, a spiritual change; Life has just become difficult.
4. It has been my experience (please keep this in mind) that on a consistent basis, if you are not of the cliche, then you are an outsider. At the best of times worthy of only mild amusment, at the worst mental and sometimes even physical attack.
5. Yes i have met good people in the church, however, even then if you question the belief even in a curious manner you become attacked. I can not count the times i have tried to visit my parents at the local swap meet only to be told i should convert to Judeo religion number five or im going to hell. Should i have to deal with that from random strangers when i simply wanted to see my parents? (there both retired [73 and 64 respectfully, 26 personally]
6. I know several people who are biblical scholars, who have taken the courses and gone to college. I have had these conversations before (personal note more then anything else, this can be disregarded)
7. Finally, i feel there should be no strings attached, we should just be able to help people without having to have alterior motives. You should not have to join a religion, people should be allowed to be able to live their lives. Good does not have to come from religion, killing people is bad for more then just because you will go to hell. I could write a book on the reasons why, just with a number of other things.
This is why i say help your fellow man, not because of a religious belief. You should not need that, you should just help people, because in the end you help yourself.
Why do people feel they need a reason like that to help? should i need to be paid to give blood? should i be paid to give someone the Hiemlich? (think i misspelled that, and that lol grammer my old enemy). Should i be paid to give first aid? Do i need compensation to help someone to cross the street? or to read a book to a child, to help someone with their homework? Should i charge people for asking me for help with a problem, becuase they find me easy to talk to and friendly?
No, i shouldn't, i do these things because i feel it helps me by helping them, by making the world a better place.
Whos more selfish? the man offering a hand because he wants to and knows its the right thing? or the man who offers a hand because the bible, Curan (argh i dont remember how to spell that) or what ever text says his diety says its the right thing to do?
Problem with the world today and since the beginning of time? People need a reason outside of themselves to do the right thing. Morality was there long before the invention of religion as an actual ideoligy, something people forget. I do what i do because its the right thing to do, no other reason, i dont get paid, people dont follow my religion (dont really have one, but thats not the point) i dont get goverment funding or anything else.
If you dont believe me, just look at the beginning of this thread, One of the arguements was that the church veiws gays end of story, Everyone else might have over looked it, but it was their. So if one of the posters (a small majority of the greater whole, but bare with me) is willing to say that, however so eloquently, what does that say about the world?
Please, i ask for an understanding of people, of freedom of people from all things not just including religion. Am i really the only person who feels this way? and meatrace i appreciate the clarification :)