Amaranth

"Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" says not a particular category of the male gender, but men. Period. No gay or straight involved. Simply "men". It seems rather obvious that Paul was speaking of "men [commiting] indecent acts with other men", and not just previously straight men. Futhermore, the mere fact that the acts are labelled indecent is telling, and clearly defines the acts themselves as wrong, regardless of the subsection Paul is identifying.

As to the Leviticus verse rebuttal, while an excellent red herring, is still just that. All you have done now is justify why you don't follow that particular part of the bible. It still exists, and it still labels homosexual sex as both abomination, and an act punishable by death. While such reasonings will get you far in a discussion on why it is ludicrous to follow a "biblical" lifestyle and set of morals, it's relatively anti-productive in a discussion attempting to prove Christianity as a raltional world-veiw, don't you think?

Biff the unclean

We as non-Christians have a tendency to speak of "Christians" as though they were some sort of single body of believers with one set of doctrines.
If these boards are any indicator no two of them agree on anything.
But the one thing they may have in common is a complete disregard for the history of Christianity. For instance if you say here is where Paul calls Homosexuals dogs and says they deserve to die, and here Jesus orders unbelievers to be burned you get an instant "NO HE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN THAT, HE MEANT SOMETHING NICE." The thousands of years that Christians have been acting on whatever awful part of the bible is in question are just dismissed. Nope, doesn't count, kings X. Christianity is something fresh and new and you should really give it a chance. If only everyone believed in Jesus things would be so much better. Only Christianity already had that chance, everything religious that would make life so much better was already tried. Tried for a thousand years. Christianity failed miserably.

danielius

Genesis 13:13 only says 'Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord'.

No evidence for or against homosexuality there then.

What about Genesis 19:4-5?

Source (comprehensive): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...invention.html

Genesis 19:24-25?????????????????????????????????

"Then the Lord rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities - and also the vegetation in the land."

No evidence for or against homosexuality here either

Deuteronomy 22:5 -

"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."

First, this has nothing explicitly to do with homosexuality. Second, these are Hebrew Laws, such as not wearing clothes of wool and linen woven together, which Christians believe that Jesus superseded.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 ??????????????????

"No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both."

This has absolutely nothing to say to the question of homosexuality in the Bible

1 Samuel 18:1-4 merely speaks of a loving relationship between David and Jonathan.

1 Samuel 19:2 says that Jonathan warned David that Saul, who was jealous of David's success in battle, wanted to kill him.

At the risk of repeating myself...

Still nothing here about homosexuality being condemned in the Bible

1 Samuel 20:30 and 20:41 simply refer to David and Jonathan's relationship and Saul's continuing jealously of David.

2 Samuel 1:26 simply has David referring to Jonathan in very affectionate and loving terms. Nothing anti-gay here either.

1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 all refer simply to 'male shrine-prostitutes'. Nothing specifically anti-gay here at all.

1 Kings 22:43 ??????????????????????

"In everything he walked in the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. The high places, however, were not removed, and the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there."

Nothing anti-gay here at all

2 Kings 23:7 again refer only to male shrine-prostitutes.

Isaiah 3:9 simply refers to people 'parading their sin like Sodom'. This says nothing anti-gay at all.

Joel 3:3 refers to people trading 'boys for prostitutes; sold girls for wine.' Nothing anti-gay here either.

Romans 1:31-32 actually says:

"they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them."

Nothing, bad or otherwise, about gays here

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 speaks only of 'homosexual offenders'. As the words it uses immediately beforehand refer to adulterers, idolaters and male prostitutes, it is reasonable enough to assume that those who specifically have unloving, unconsensual sex with another man are referred to here.

1 Timothy 1:10 refers only to adulterers and perverts, slave traders, liars and perjurers. Nothing specifically anti-gay here.

2 Timothy 3:3 simply says:

"without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good"

Nothing anti-gay here yet again

Jude 7-8 refers to Sodom and Gomorrah's 'sexual immorality and perversion'. But there is nothing specifically anti-gay here. I'm sure everyone would agree that gang-rape is no good thing.

Revelation 22:13 in fact says:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

I think you're trying to refer to Revelation 22:15:

"Outside are the dogs, those who practise magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practises falsehood."

Nothing anti-gay here at all. The reference to sexual immorality most likely is to prostitution (specifically shrine prostitution, a double taboo) and (gang)-rape.

That makes 26 references directly refuted. It seems you hoped to make your case with something like an argument to quantity. However, the quality of these references does not bear up to any amount of scrutiny.

Danielius

danielius

Hi Bill (Snedden),

I'm very grateful for your insightful input.

I would indeed be happy to examine the articles of the Nicene Creed and ask the question: 'Do they constitute a reasonable world-view?'

I think this might give more focus to this ongoing dialogue.

Best wishes,

Danielius

Jinto

Wow. That was unexpected. In that case, please allow me to apologize to you for criticizing your grammar.

Indeed, siince it has nothing to do with the existance of freethought.

So then there is indeed such a thing as free love then. Glad we agree. But since this is a tangent of a tangent anyway, it is irrelevant.

In other words, you can't be sure that the reason you feel like you fall short everyday isn't because you have been conditioned to. As such, it doesn't support any kind of moral or teleological imperative. Thank you.

Apparently I misread what you meant when you said that you 'find' yourself in others. What I got out of it was that you defined yourself based on how you relate to others, which would imply that how you view yourself is contingent on your relationships. If this isn't what you meant, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Hardly meaningless. It is an indication that my definition is not contingent on other entities. Even if every other human being on the planet were to suddenly vanish, I would still be Jinto. A very lonely Jinto indeed, but still Jinto.

And yet... do you have an identity seperate from your relations with others?

Personally, I don't hold you responsible for the condition of humanity. After all, that sounds a lot like holding the sons responsible for the crimes of their fathers. They aren't. To hold otherwise would be to say that people have moral guilt because of the circumstances of their birth, which is absurd. as for "mitigated free will," can you please say precisely what you mean by that? What parts of our will are free and what parts dictated by outside forces?

And you never answered the more interesting part of my reply. If people can be held responsible for crimes they did not personally commit, then wouldn't that make God responsible for every crime on Earth, because he didn't program us not to commit them (or design us so that would be physically impossible)?

But that's the thing - you define your identity in terms of your relationships, which suggests that you have no core identity. A tree is a tree, whether it was grown from a seed or manufactured in some fashion. Similarly, you are you and I am I regardless of how we got here. The circumstances of our birth do not define who we are. At least, it doesn't define who I am.

And I hold that it is because you are different people, regardless of your relationships to others.

Affected? Perhaps. But a tree will not stiop being a tree even if everyone decides that it shouldn't be. Perhaps people will cut it down... they can do that, but their opinion does not affect the properties of the tree. Such is the nature of real things: they are, whether we think they are or not. Consider the following scenario: you are Dan's friend (where Dan is the name of one of your friends). Suppose something happens that causes Dan to suddenly hate you. According to your model, your identity is noe changed, since you are no longer Dan's friend. But this is absurd. How can I change you by changing Dan? This is what "I am I" avoids: because I am Jinto, regardless of my relationships to others, I remain Jinto even if Dan is suddenly changed. Perhaps I am no longer Dan's friend, but I am still Jinto. You cannot, even in theory, change me just by changing others.

Then why award them the award? After all, most of the steps that they took to get there were really taken by others. But not even those others deserve it, since they were building on the foundation of even older knowledge. Frankly, if we extrapolated your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, we would have to start every awards ceremony by thanking ancient Egyptians for inventing writing. Wait, no, sorry, we have to start by thanking the long line of monkeys who survived and carried their genes along until some of them were smart enough to invent writing in the first place. But the biggest problem with this line of reasoning is not that it can be reduced to absurdity, it's that it misses the point of the awards ceremony in the first place. Because who actually did the acting for which the award was given? Oh yeah... the actor. The awards ceremony isn't for nurturing a human life to maturity. While the actor's mother may or may not deserve an award for her parenting job, she has absolutely NO place in an awards ceremony for best actor. Why? Because she didn't do the acting. It doesn't matter what set of circumstances made it possible to do the acting, what matters is who did the acting.

Personal responsibility, personal credit. Nothing else makes any damned sense.

And that you do remember someone does not entail that you do owe them anything either.

Uh... what? People are guilty of the crimes that THEY comitted. People are not guilty of the crimes that OTHERS commit. Whether or not there are any people who have sucessfully obeyed every letter of the law is irrelevant (there are, by the way, although most of them are under the age of six). The POINT is that no court would ever hold someone responsible for a crime SOMEONE ELSE comitted. No court has or will ever uphold such a principle because it is patently absurd. Imagine if you will, a girl is raped. She was out on the streets at midnight wearing a miniskirt. For that, the court throws her in jail for a year for being raped, since if she had had any goddamned sense she wouldn't have provided a temptation for the rapist and thus he wouldn't have raped her. Further, she is held liable for the loss of the rapist's job because had she not been there, he wouldn't have broken the law and thus wouldn't have lost his job. This is what you are advocating.

Personal responsibility, personal credit. Nothing else makes any damned sense.

Our knowledge also outweighs our capability. Further, people are not morally obliged to ameliorate a problem they bear no responsibility for. My nieghbor broke his leg. Am I obliged to pay his medical bill? No. My neighbor can't afford food. I am still not obliged to pay his food bill. And if my neighbor is infected with AIDS, I am still not obliged to pay for his treatment. People use the latter two as examples of where our "knowledge exceepds our compassion," but never the former. Why? Because it's an appeal to emotion, not logic. People would like to have you believe that I am somehow responsible for the starving man because I don't pay his food bill, but if you use an example that doesn't evoke emotion, it's incredibly easy to see that responsibility is NOT transferrable to people who have nothing to do with the situation in the first place.

And if I'm wrong here, then what does that say about God, who actually DOES have the capability to feed every starving person, heal every sick person, give sight to the blind, hearig to the deaf, etc. Does that then make him personally responsible for ALL the suffering in the world, because he actually could ameliorate it, and doesn't? Then WHY, WHY, WHY do you worship him, if you feel that way?

Godwin's law. You've lost the argument.

But seriously: Htiler was basing his anti-semitism on common Christian beliefs, in particular, the long standing endictment against all jews for killing the Son of God. Based, by the way, on the uniquely Christian viewpoint that people are responsible for crimes they didn't commit. (Ex. 20:5, Ex. 34:7, Num. 14:18, etc.) So as an example, that would seem to be an endictment against Christianity.

Well that's nice, but Christianity does not agree with you. Sorry.

It IS. It is so seriously disputed, in fact, that we wonder just how the hell you can ignore the obvious that Christianity is NOT based on equality. Among the more obvious: it clearly shows that women are unequal in both worth and authority to men, that wives are the property of their husbands, that slaves should submit to their masters in all things, that people can be held responsible for being born to someone who comitted a crime, that effeminate men and homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9), and most damning of all, Deuteronomy 7:6 - For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.. You heard right: God himself has declared that the Israelites are above all people on the face of the Earth.

Please do your own apologetics. Anyway... it's not that God places a monetary value on humans (although that, too, is offensive; I personally would not want to know that my life was worth only $100,000 of today's money), it's that he places a LOWER value on women than he does on men. This is not an estimation of the physical labor they can accomplish, but an estimation of the worth of their vows. The young and very old are worth less than the middle-aged, and women are worth less than men. Also, as for the "no discrimination of rank or wealth," keep in mind that the verses after that also provide for the priest to add one-fifth of the person's material wealth onto their estimation, if they sanctify their property unto the LORD. Clearly, this would make people who actually HAVE property far more valuable than those who do not. Finally, the analogy to the "ladies' tee" is ridiculous: why would you use an example from a sport that is an acronym for Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden (GOLF), as an example of "equality"? Unless they're trying to tell us something...

Bill Snedden

...the issue does come into sharper focus, but it becomes problematic.

Let me paste in the text of the Creed to facilitate discussion:

It doesn't seem to me that the articles of the Creed constitute a worldview at all. No mention of epistemology or a necessary moral foundation. In addition, it postulates a number of things that don't appear, at face value, to make any sense. Virgin birth? God as Man? Resurrection from the dead?

Unless one accepts some other doctrines or beliefs that are external to the Creed, this really doesn't fit as a worldview.

Perhaps instead of asking "Is Christianity's a reasonable worldview", you might have asked "Is my Christian worldview a reasonable one?" with an explanation of what you understand your worldview to be OR perhaps you could delineate how you get some of these other things (moral foundation & epistemology) from the Creed.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Biff the unclean

Oh good the Sodomites weren't sodomites. Well that explains everything and now I can see why you think Christianity is a reasonable view. Two thousand years of Gays being murdered by Christians because the bible told them to was just an unpleasant misunderstanding, water under the bridge. Too bad you weren't there to tell them that it doesn't mean what it says, you could have spared everyone a lot of trouble.

Cipher Girl

Hi danielius

Are you ever going to get around to debating your OP? What I said earlier:First you need to show the major tenets of the Christianity you believe in, then show how these comprise a reasonable worldview. You have done neither. If your posts in this thread are an indication of the reasonableness of Christianity, you are failing miserably.

You've also not addressed the couple of posts where I've asked you a couple of questions, even though you stated:
Try to keep up 'Ciphergirl'! These are being addressed step by step. If you like, read over my most recent posts, and drop in some of your own thoughts.
Rather rude, shall we say. Well, if you would address the topic of your OP, perhaps I would add in my thoughts. I don't see where you have defined your version of Christianity to begin with, much less show how it applies to a reasonable world view. Instead of debate, I would call your responses in this thread quibbling over word definitions and avoiding any serious questions. I've asked you some questions in my last post and have yet to see any sort of reply. I purposely restricted myself to a couple of questions only since you complained that you were getting swamped by replies.

danielius

Following on from Bill Snedden's extremely helpful suggestions and input, I'd like to refine the 'Christianity' of this topic to the following statements, and would then like to defend these statements as logical and, above all else, reasonable:

1. I believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth

2. I believe in Jesus Christ, unique Son of God

3. I believe Jesus is God's self-revelation to Man

4. I believe all men are fallen, and that all men are equal

5. I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus

6. I believe that Jesus is the Saviour through His atonement

7. I believe in the Holy Spirit, in God as One in Three

8. I believe in resurrection, that Life mightn't only be lifespan

I'll write some brief notes for why I consider each to be reasonable:

1. I believe that all men (including women) are equal in their humanity. People are not born equal, nor do physical circumstances (wealth, poverty etc.) constitute any equality. Therefore to hold the view that all people are equal (as the Founding Fathers declared as 'self-evident'), it is necessary to posit a Creator, who created all men as equal.

For anything to possess meaningful identity, it has to reach outside of itself. A 'tree' would be meaningless, unless there was something that wasn't a tree. The universe can only be meaningfully defined if it possible to reach outside of itself for definition. Therefore, I hold that there is something outside of the universe which makes the universe as a definition meaningful - God. The Christian God has no problem with His own definition, as we understand His nature to be uniquely made up of relationship; therefore the Father can be meaningfully defined by the Son and the Son by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit by the Father and Son.

2. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the unique Son of God, being fully man and fully God. Being the Son of God, he is in constant dialogue with the Father, and subject to the Father's authority. Jesus humbled Himself that He might be exalted. Hence the Christian belief that 'the meek shall inherit the earth'. Jesus gave many unique teachings, such as to turn the other cheek, love your enemies and the sanctity of marriage. His teaching was not 'suitable to the times in which he lived'. An indication of their suitability can be seen in the way in which His story ended.

3. We are finite, yet we understand God to be infinite. Therefore, it is only possible to understand the nature of God through God. If there is a God, who wanted us to know Him, He would reveal Himself in the form most understandable to us as men, that of Man. Jesus did not bring any new religion or Law as revelation from God, the unique Christian claim is that Jesus *was* the revelation Himself.

4. All adults (those defined as of and above the legal age of culpability) have broken laws from this world. Whether it be a speeding ticket, domestic dispute, late tax return, perjury to help a friend or family member, dropping litter, parking in a disabled spot, driving under the influence, pinching a few things from a hotel or work office etc. We humans, as a society, have established over a period of several thousand years standards by which we know society can function healthily, yet each one of us breaks them, constantly.

I hold that there are other laws, absolute, such as regarding things like murder and rape. Unfortunately, many people break these laws as well and have to be imprisoned for them.

The courts have an obligation to prosecute criminal behaviour for the good of society and to uphold the principle of justice. But justice is by its nature absolute. That the courts do *not* prosecute every crime, only the tiniest percentage of crimes, demonstrates that they are unfair, and therefore injust.

I hold that all are fallen. The answer is not human justice, which is impossible as it is unjust, but divine justice, which is reconciled in Christ and strongly emphasises forgiveness over vengeance.

5. I believe Jesus was fully man as well as fully God, and that therefore he was resurrected bodily.

Jesus was clearly dead following crucifixion. He was laid in a tomb, and was wrapped from head to toe in linen and seventy-five pounds of myrrh (an embalming agent) and aloes. Yet the Bible reports that by the Sunday morning the tomb was empty. Jesus later appeared to many of His followers, ate in front of them and allowed them to touch Him.

Though there are a number of possible explanations for these events, the theory of Christ's bodily resurrection is consistent with the above ideas, and therefore resurrection is a consistent idea flowing out of the Christian world-view and its major tenets.

Physical resurrection marked the reconciliation of Man with God, the atonement for sin and therefore the reconciliation of Justice and Forgiveness, which Christianity uniquely holds as a tenet.

6. It stands to reason that only a guiltless person has the right to intercede and forgive others. If Jesus cannot forgive, then justice and forgiveness can never be reconciled. No matter all the high words and warm and tall praise for 'justice', our world will forever be unjust and our legal system based on inequality/injustice.

7. I believe Trinity to be the most reasonable definition of God's nature. In other words, if there is a God, one might reasonably expect His nature to be that of Trinity.

God is Love. Love is necessarily relational, therefore God is relational. By being relational, God is also able to meaningfully define Himself.

8. I believe life is process, not a thing. Each one of us is a unique living process. On death, our bodies perish but it is not impossible to imagine that our process re-emerges into eternal Life.

Danielius

emotional

Does divine justice mean that those who have not accepted Christ's blood are headed for eternal hell?



Why a Trinity? What's so reasonable about the Trinity? Why not a duotheistic God/Goddess scheme, as in Wicca? Why not a multitude of gods who are all aspects the universal God (Brahman, Aum), as in Hinduism? Why not One God alone, with no son, to make things simple, as in Judaism and Islam?

I believe Unity to be the most reasonable definition of God's nature. In other words, if there is a God, one might reasonably expect His nature to be Unitarian. Whenever I think of God, I think of ONE GREAT SPIRIT, Who is simple in His unity; and such contraptions as a Son or Holy Ghost, comprising a Trinity, I regard as having been taken from Pagan sources (the Egyptians had trinities, and the Hindus have a trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma).

I've never, ever been able to understand that crazy stuff called the Christian Trinity. 1+1+1 = 1 ?! It's just crazy! Give me the Jewish Shema and the Islamic Ikhlaas any day.

The Jewish Shema: "Hear, O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is One". The Islamic Ikhlaas: "Say: He, God, is One; God the Self-Sustained; He begot not, nor was He begotten; and there is no similitude unto Him".