Let us reason together

A bit of a follow-up regarding my epiphany on Glenwood Drive ...

I grew up attending a fundamentalist Baptist church and a nondenominational fundie school yet, fairly early on, I realized I couldn't reconcile much of what I was being taught with much of what I was otherwise learning about the world.

In the footnote to the previous post, I mentioned an epiphany of sorts that occurred when I was confronted with the disparity between the "trap street" shown on my county road atlas and the actual terrain of the actual county. The analogy is not precisely perfect, but that disparity between the map and the terrain somewhat paralleled the disparities I was also encountering between the text of scripture and the actual world around me.

So there I was, at the end of what was, undeniably, a dead end street, consulting a map that claimed otherwise. It was something of a Groucho moment: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" I sided with my own two eyes, thus accepting the principle that reason and experience were essential considerations for evaluating the meaning and application of the text. In a sense, I was fumbling my way toward something like Wesley's "four-legged stool."*

No one was claiming, of course, that my county road atlas ought to be read as the inerrant, infallible and authoritative Word of God, so my fundamentalist teachers would not have disagreed with my choosing, in this case, to regard my own experience of the terrain as worthy of consideration.

Nor did they deny that I would encounter similar disparities when consulting the "map" of scripture. In that case, however, they taught that I must always side with the map. That is what it means to be a fundamentalist.

Thus, to cite one of the more infamous examples, we were taught that evolution was a lie. The map, the Bible, said that the world was only 6,000 years old, and if that's what the map says, then this must trump any claims of "science" or any other observation about so-called reality. If reality and the map conflict, then we must reinterpret reality to conform to the map.

That's not an ideal example, though, since it's based on a supposed, rather than an actual, conflict between the text and reality. The supposed conflict here is based on the premise that "the Bible says" that the world is only 6,000 years old, even though it never actually says any such thing. The whole elaborate 20th-century invention of "scientific creationism" is premised upon a misreading of the map, a misreading of the text.

The same is the case with Marshall Hall, our delusional friend over at Fixedearth.com, who believes that, "The Bible teaches that the Earth is stationary and immovable at the center of a 'small' universe with the sun, moon and stars going around it every day." Since this is what he believes the Bible teaches, and since he believes that this biblical teaching outweighs any other source of information, he is forced to concoct an elaborate system for reinterpreting all of reality. Hall's whole endeavor is based on a faulty premise, that "the Bible teaches" what it does not, in fact, teach.

Such cases, in which the supposed conflict is an invention based on a misreading, are probably more common than the cases of apparently actual conflict, but they are a separate category, a different matter.

Let's consider a case of actual conflict. Based on my e-mail, my fellow evangelical Christians are greatly interested in the matter of homosexuality. Many of my correspondents disagree with my advocacy of equal rights for homosexuals because they perceive such equality as incompatible with the teaching of scripture. I'm not talking here about the Phelpsian homophobes or those who seem primarily motivated by bigotry.** I'm talking about people who seem like they wish they could agree with me, but feel they are not allowed to do so because they have no choice but to side with the map.

I don't think this perceived conflict is as substantial or as actual as they imagine. Their premise of unambiguous biblical teaching may be much closer to Hall's "biblical" geocentrism than they realize. (I don't want to get sidetracked here into a detailed exegetical analysis of the handful of New Testament passages dealing with the subject, so let me just generally point out that if your interpretation of scripture leads you to believe that "homosexuality is a choice," yet you cannot find a single homosexual who thinks this is so, then perhaps you ought to consider rethinking your interpretation.)

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is an actual instance of actual conflict and that I am, in this instance, siding with reason/experience against the text. In that case ...

Wait. You know what? This example is too easy. I'm a straight guy, and my evangelical critics on this matter seem also to be heterosexual, so this seems a bit too conveniently abstract. (It's also unseemly, too much like we're telling homosexuals, "You wait out in the hall while we discuss your fate. We'll call you in later and let you know what we decide.")

So let's pick an example that hits closer to home.

The Bible prohibits the charging of interest. No getting around it. This is explicit and unambiguous and more frequently discussed in scripture than is homosexuality. Jesus himself didn't just repeat this prohibition, he amplified it by forbidding the expectation of repayment. So no wiggle room there.

The charging of interest is, of course, the basis of our market economy. It is as unavoidable now as the air we breathe. I have several interest-bearing accounts (as well as, unfortunately, several interest-charging accounts). So does my local church. So does my denomination. So do even the least "worldly" of our coreligionists, the Amish. And so do, I'm guessing, my evangelical detractors who feel my advocacy of homosexual rights is "unbiblical."

How on earth do we justify this? More to the point, why is it that we don't even feel the need to bother to justify this?

I would argue that free markets can be a Good Thing. The charging of interest, when properly harnessed, can be a powerful engine for growth and prosperity, creating incentives for investment that makes possible many good things which would otherwise be impossible. The recognition of this fact, over the centuries, led to an evolution of our interpretation of the prohibition against usury. It ceased to mean the charging of any interest (even "the hundredth part" or 1 percent) and came to mean, instead, the charging of "excessive" interest. We began to reinterpret the evident meaning of the text in an effort to reconcile it with what we were learning about the world and how it works. The prohibition against usury remains in recognition of the principle contained in the text, a principle we continue to honor despite the sometimes laughably elastic application of that weasel-word excessive.

This argument can be challenged as mere "rationalization," in the psychological sense, an after-the-fact attempt at self-justification by a religious tradition whose adherents had become wealthy and worldly. But I would counter that in the non-psychological sense, rationalization is, well, rational. The application of reason is reasonable and necessary, and I find the reinterpretation of the prohibition against interest to be a reasonable step.

This reasonable step is regarded as noncontroversial when the matter involved is our own money. When the matter involved is someone else's sexuality, however, such a reasonable step is regarded as extremely controversial. Why do you suppose that is?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Wesley's "quadrilateral" included scripture, tradition, reason and experience as the four "legs" of a stool. Ever sit on a stool with one leg that was longer than the others?

** Of course, as Atrios recently noted, "If you think your misogyny or homophobia is sanctioned by God, it doesn't make you not a misogynist or homophobe." True enough. But there are also those who I would characterize as reluctant homophobes. To understand their point of view, substitute "commanded" for "sanctioned" in Atrios' comment. About which more later.

Comments

[Kriz]

Oooh, good one. I like to bring up the stoning people to death thing, but this is much better - less extreme, until you really start to think about it.

And *then* we could get on to the Jubilee years ... (heh heh heh)

[PurpleGirl]

As David Swanson noted in "Debt Slavery: What the Bankruptcy Bill Could Do to You" (BlackCommentator.com, 2005): "Columnist Robert Scheer notes that Grassley [R-Iowa], the bill's sponsor in the Senate, in another bit of hypocrisy "actively opposes abortion and same-sex marriage on biblical grounds yet believes the Good Book's clear definition and condemnation of usury is irrelevant. The Old Testament, revered by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike, mandates debt forgiveness after seven years, as was pointed out earlier this month by an organization of Christian lawyers in a letter to Grassley. 'I can't listen to Christian lawyers,' said the senator, 'because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population.'"

This comment has stuck in my mind since I first read it and I think it illustrates your point your point to a T. (I think you've referred to it, but I couldn't point to when.)

[Dave]

This is excellent, Fred. Might be one of the best blog posts I've ever read. Thanks for encapsulating so much of what I've been coming to terms with about my own upbringing over the past few years.

[Trevor]

Interesting post. I think that the parable of the talents might temper your claim that Jesus explicitly forbids charging interest. Specifically Matt 25:27:

"Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest"

Of course it does raise the thorny issue of why he would seem to be endorsing what the Old Testament explicitly forbade, and certainly doesn't negate your point.

[Darryl Pearce]

Ah, the Church of the Slacktivist! I knew there was a reason I keep coming back. There's also a passage about it being a sin to go against nature. Well, if my sexuality is x, would it not therefore be a sin to pretend I am y (as it were)?

[yesteray]

Darryl Pearce: "There's also a passage about it being a sin to go against nature."

No, I don't think that there is. Perhaps you are thinking about Romans 1:26-27?

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

This doesn't exactly make your point.

[McJulie]

You cannot go against nature... because when you do... go against nature... that's part of nature too.

Most people seem to not only mistake the map for the territory, they mistake a map of the map for the territory.

[Bugmaster]

You cannot go against nature... because when you do... go against nature... that's part of nature too.

That's only true if you believe that there is a nature that exists outside of Scripture... And fundamentalists do not.

[Lurker]

The parable of talents tells about a master who left talents for people to take care of. The parable is about taking good care of those talents, not about economics. The master who requires interest is actually portrayed as an unkindly man: "a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed." I don't think Jesus raises the master as a model for us but the good servants.

[Sarah Jane]

Nicely stated, and your analogy is spot-on. I especially appreciate the fact that you pointed out how unrealistic it is for a bunch of straight people to be carrying on this conversation about homosexuality, without bothering to consult the very people whose insight is necessary to help us better understand what's going on.

I am fairly conservative on many other issues, but am extremely uncomfortable making a stand about homosexuality -- I often find myself falling back on "Oh, it's not for me to judge!" when in reality I'm still very uncertain whether homosexuality *is* anything to be judged in the first place. So it's helpful to read others as they stumble towards a better understanding of how the church ought to approach homosexuality as an issue. It seems that when it comes to actual individuals, there should never be any question but to welcome and embrace them in compassion and love, just as we would anyone else.

So -- thank you.

[chris y]

Hm, of course there are ways and ways of approaching this. Muslims, for instance, take the biblical injunction against usury at face value. So they find a work-around for the financial sector, usually that the lender takes a part stake in the object of the loan, which the creditor buys out over time at an agreed (higher) rate. These days more and more western financial institutions are offering Islamic financial services to their growing Muslim customer base.

Is this in the spirit of the biblical injunction? Not likely. Is it in the letter? Sure, big deal. Does this then mean that we should regard homophobic views as more acceptable when they're held by Muslims than when they're held by Christians (or anybody else), because the Muslims are making an effort to be literally consistent? I don't think so.

Suppose, in the future, Islamic finance became the norm, and similar get-outs were invented for all the other heathen practices that grease the wheels of capital, would the biblical literalists then be able to get away with saying, "We're absolutely consistent, we obey all the unreasonable demands of Deuteronomy with equal cynicism, including our institutional homophobia"? Or would we be able to persuade them that the prohibition of usury is not about interest rates, but about getting rich on the backs of the needy?

[ako]

Wait. You know what? This example is too easy. I'm a straight guy, and my evangelical critics on this matter seem also to be heterosexual, so this seems a bit too conveniently abstract. (It's also unseemly, too much like we're telling homosexuals, "You wait out in the hall while we discuss your fate. We'll call you in later and let you know what we decide.")

Thanks for that paragraph. Too often this kind of thing gets treated as an abstract problem, largely because it's being argued by disinterested heterosexuals. There's a lot of difference between debating other people's rights and worrying about ones that apply to you (or in this case, me).

[J]

Of course, as Atrios recently noted, "If you think your misogyny or homophobia is sanctioned by God, it doesn't make you not a misogynist or homophobe." True enough. But there are also those who I would characterize as reluctant homophobes.

Sorry, Fred, but I've never met or heard from these people. I've never met a misogynist or homophobe whose misogyny or phobia wasn't fairly enthusiastic.

[Richard Hershberger]

There are various classic work-arounds found in Christianity back when we were at least paying lip service to the prohibition against charging interest. If, for example, a prince held the right to charge tolls on a road or river or bridge, he might sell this right to someone else for cash up front. The sale might be for a set number of years or for the buyers lifetime or whatever. The point is that the expected revenue from the toll over the lifetime of the sale would be higher than the up-front sale price. This was de facto a loan to the prince, but couched differently.

There are always ways to do this sort of thing. This prohibition is ultimately unenforceable (which, for the economy, is a good thing). A church could actively discourage its members from participating in these work-arounds, but I don't know of any church that actually does.

Fred's larger point is dead-on: people who imagine themselves to be strictly Biblical are no such thing: they are carefully picking and chosing which bits of the Bible to read literally, which to interpret heavy-handedly, and which to quietly ignore. Or rather, in most cases they have been indoctrinated to this and are unaware of what they are doing, not that this is an excuse.

[A. Kennedy]

I find myself astonished to disagree with Fred, but I'm sure my budding "Radical Orthodox"* brothers would agree... reason is a wonderful tool, but we do, in fact, use it to weasel out of biblical prohibitions against usury. Yes, lots of people are usurious. Yes, modern society is based on usury. But that doesn't make it right. Society was once based on life-long slavery and owning other people's children. That was an essential part of the society, and it couldn't exist without it. But it was still wrong.

*Of course, it's important to note that the RO crowd doesn't necessarily put "scripture" per se at the top of the epistemelogical ladder, but rather "revelation." It just doesn't buy in to this modernist project that says "well, 'reason' (so-called) is going to be the universal basis for truth, and reason is inherently other from scripture and revelation."

[magistra]

I can see the justification for using reason to alter/adapt/ignore particular Scriptural demands, and as a liberal Christian I'm conscious of the way that can produce a more humane form of doctrine. But a big problem remains: whose reason/experience do you choose to follow? Suppose you are a well-educated man in any period up to and including the nineteenth. You read St Paul (Galatians 3:28) 'there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' and hear someone interpreting this as meaning the equality of men and women. What 'reason' (the best informed science of the day) tells you is that of course women are inferior and that therefore this bit of the Bible should be rationally rejected.

Similarly, what do we do if 'reason'/'experience' tells us today (as some sociobiologists claim) that monogamy is 'unnatural', that violence is innate to humans, that men cannot be expected to be faithful? Do we just decide that Jesus' teachings on marriage and loving your enemy should be scrapped because they're obviously irrational? What are good grounds for deciding which traditions we maintain and which we alter radically?

[J]

Lending money at interest is good. It is the basis of our society, not simply because we've dispensed with scripture but because it is a good thing. It enabled us to put away both feudalism and slavery and for the economy to grow beyond purely natural constraints (i.e. the supply of land, live bodies, and mineral resources). Yeah, it's a bummer to be trapped in credit card or student debt or have no health insurance or be chased by creditors or collectors. But it's worth it. It's worth it to live in a capitalist society. People make their way in rickety boats, trek on foot across deserts, and flee from "traditional" religious societies to for a chance to get into "usurious" states like ours.

This has parallels to the boldly stupid suggestion I hear voiced that we'd all be happier without "technology." (Textiles, fire, and agriculture are technology, so just as soon as you make your suggestion while naked and starving in the dark, maybe I'll listen). The fact of the matter is, no, actually, we wouldn't. Technology is an unfettered good. No, the atomic bomb does not affect that in the least. The millions killed by weapons have been hugely, gallopingly outweighed by the billions saved and whose pain was reduced by vaccines, surgery, vitamins, rapid transport and communication, meteorological warning systems, water purification and agriculture. Oh and no, pollution doesn't outweigh any of this because, guess what, pollution-control is technology, too.

Capitalism is good. Technology is good. To suggest that we ought to discard these things in favor of the dustry writings of shepherds is purest, buck-toothed, bloody-minded stupidness.

[McJulie]

But there are also those who I would characterize as reluctant homophobes.

I'm related to fundies, and I thought I understood what he was talking about -- picture somebody's nice fundie grandmother, for example. They are frightened of "the gays" because they don't think they know any, and the image they have of them comes from Fox News. So, these are the people who vote against gay marriage and civil partnership, but still, if you met them and you were gay they would treat you decently.

These are people who are nice, and seem reasonable, so it seems like a well-crafted argument ought to get through to them. Yet, it never seems to. So I don't know. Are they a bigger or a lesser problem than the rabid hatemongers?

People think they are following the Bible, when they are really following their culture, but part of the culture is prefacing intolerance with "the Bible says..." Nobody who thinks the Bible is down on homosexuals came to that conclusion independently. They didn't read, say, Leviticus with an open mind and then suddenly get struck by the inspiration that men should not lie with other men.

(Anybody reading Leviticus with an open mind is more likely to be struck by the notion that having sex with the livestock, and close relatives, must have been quite the problem in those days, because it's certainly forbidden a lot.)

[PK]

It's pretty simple, really: interest was prohibited between Israelites.

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest." -Exodus 22:25

"If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit." -Leviticus 25:35-37

"Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess." -Deuteronomy 23:19-20

And prohibition of excessive interest is not an extrabiblical construct either. You just have to take it in context of the aforementioned permissible interest charged to foreigners.

"He who increases his wealth by exorbitant interest amasses it for another, who will be kind to the poor." -Proverbs 28:8

"[The righteous] does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. [The unrighteous] lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head. [The righteous] withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live." -Ezekiel 18:8,13,17

"In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD." -Ezekiel 22:12

[rm]

This reasonable step is regarded as noncontroversial when the matter involved is our own money. When the matter involved is someone else's sexuality, however, such a reasonable step is regarded as extremely controversial. Why do you suppose that is?

Heed the prophetic words of a wise man from our contemporary book of proverbs. "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." -- Mel Brooks

[Fraser]

I have known people who firmly believed homosexuals were damned, and genuinely distressed about it.

Magistra, reason (and research) has shown most of those sociobiological arguments to be horse manure.

As for taking the Bible literally, I know that's a defense sometimes adopted by racists: The Bible approves of slavery, therefore God must be OK with it.

[Fred]

PK --

Who, then, is my neighbor?

[Rob]

"Similarly, what do we do if 'reason'/'experience' tells us today (as some sociobiologists claim) that monogamy is 'unnatural', that violence is innate to humans, that men cannot be expected to be faithful? Do we just decide that Jesus' teachings on marriage and loving your enemy should be scrapped because they're obviously irrational? What are good grounds for deciding which traditions we maintain and which we alter radically?"

Nobody is suggesting that we should be required by law to all keep the same traditions, just as laws enforcing homosexuals' equal rights do not require any specific individual to stop being a homophobe. I would suggest you use your own reason to determine which traditions are harming you or the people around you, and which are not.

Also, I believe all of your examples are strawmen, because love, compassion, and devotion are all also innate to the human race. The human race is innately contradictory like that. Perhaps it should be rephrased "Some men cannot be trusted to be faithful," "the urge for violence is innate to humans," and "monogamy is unnatural for some people."

[PK]

Fred: Who, then, is my neighbor?

I'm giddy at having gotten your attention :)

Let me put it to you this way: since God prohibited the Israelites from intermarrying with foreigners, did that make marriage itself sinful? Of course not. Likewise, forbidding the imputation of interest among countrymen did not attribute sin to the mere act.

Of course, as alluded by your retort, the New Testament abolished the distincton and also freed us from much of God's old nomadic utilitarian decrees (mmm... bacon!)

[Hagsrus]

The Talents parable -- I always wondered what would have happened had the good stewards lost the money. Perhaps there were no risky investments in those days?

[Daniel]

J - this book is an example of a "reluctant homophobe" (not an endorsement, just an example). The author seems to really want to say that homosexuality is okay, but just can't bring himself to do it. Regardless, he (by his account) has gay friends, has had close friends and family members come out to him (IIRC) - he's not the usual detached, clinical observer.

FWIW.

[Beth]

Let me put it to you this way: since God prohibited the Israelites from intermarrying with foreigners, did that make marriage itself sinful? Of course not. Likewise, forbidding the imputation of interest among countrymen did not attribute sin to the mere act.

You're mixing apples and anti-apples, PK. Biblical law did not outlaw marriage between "neighbors". It did outlaw charging "neighbors" interest. So Fred's question still holds: Who is your neighbor?

[alsafi]

Yeah, it's a bummer for someone else to be trapped in credit card or student debt or have no health insurance or be chased by creditors or collectors. But it's worth it to me. It's worth it to live in a capitalist society. People make their way in rickety boats, trek on foot across deserts, and flee from "traditional" religious poverty-stricken, repressive, or unsafe societies to for a chance to get into "usurious" freer and more wealthy states like ours. If, that is, they can afford to come in the first place. Otherwise we generally deport them, if we don't just leave them out on the ocean to begin with.

Cleaned up some of your post, there, J--sounds like you've never been one of the "lucky" ones sitting in an emergency room at midnight slowly bleeding your life out because you can't afford medical insurance, and therefore care, until it reaches the point where you start to go into shock and being unable to afford it suddenly takes a back seat to not wanting to die. So if the religious among us want to fight for a society where that doesn't happen any more, then I don't really care what their justification is.

[Bugmaster]

I'm always somewhat surprised when people claim that the Bible promotes gender equality. In the Bible, especially the OT, women are treated basically as property, somewhere between slaves and donkeys in value. There are laws and commandments that protect women, but they are concerned solely with preserving their economic value (you don't want a stock shrinkage to take place if you can avoid it). Yes, the NT does treat women a bit better, but even there women are seen as basically subservient.

In fact, sometimes I think that when Jesus talks about men and women being equal before the eyes of the Lord, he's explicitly doing it to drive the point home about the Lord's greatness: "here on Earth, you're a man, and you think you're so great compared to women; well, the Lord is so much greater than you, you're less than a woman to him".

[Rob]

I thought this might be relevant here.

http://contraskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/02/request-for-advice.html

It's a blog entry by a Christian whose wife knows, to the best that Western medicine can know at this date, that another pregnancy will kill his wife, yet feels that getting a vasectomy is a sin. He is faced with these options: sin by contraception, sin by living in a sexless marriage, or kill his wife by making her pregnant again.

He has chosen a sexless marriage. This is a serious case study of the map not matching the terrain, as it appears God has trapped him in a vicious Catch-22.

[Rob]

I screwed that up.

"... wife knows, to the extent that Western medicine can know at this date, that another pregnancy will kill her..."

[tony]

Perhaps a more apropos commandment would be: "what god has joined together, let no man put asunder." Divorce doesnt seem to bother protestants too much.

[Daniel]

@tony: Oh it definitely bothers protestants. I'm currently separated from my wife, and my well-meaning, fundamentalist parents have asked me more than once, "You know that divorce is sin, right?" "Do you believe that God hates divorce?" They're definitely trusting the map more than the terrain.

[Daniel]

Oh, and my mom also said "It's too bad you two don't have kids - then this [separation] wouldn't be an option." (!) Yeah, because kids growing up with unhappy, fighting parents who are only in the relationship out of some familial obligation are really getting a great understanding of the meaning of Christian love...

[paulf]

Fred: I was a liberal Christian for many years, but the more I studied to figure out the right way to interpret the Bible, the more I realized how blatantly unhistorical and contradictory it is.

I'm sure Jesus existed and thought he was the Messiah, but it turns out he wasn't. John and he weren't supposed to die but they did. They were expecting the Kingdom in their time and were wrong. Not just about timing, as is now believed by Christians, but everything. There is no way to make sense of it in any other way except in some sort of mystical sense, which I don't buy.

I wish there was a fancy way to interpret the bigotry in the Bible, but there isn't. The taboo on homosexuality was one of many irrational prejudices that were held by ancient Hebrews, which formed the basis of the denunciations of the practice by New Testment writers, which feeds prejudice today. There is no other explanation that makes sense.

You should read books by Bart Ehrman and books and blog by James Tabor, two former evangelicals, who have figured it out.

[The Barefoot Bum]

I don't have much to add to the discussion about interest, but I'm struck by this:
"Wesley's "quadrilateral" included scripture, tradition, reason and experience as the four "legs" of a stool. Ever sit on a stool with one leg that was longer than the others?
If you'll forgive me for stretching the analogy a bit, we atheists have an easier time because we simply remove one leg; a three-legged stool is more stable than a four-legged stool when one leg is slightly longer or shorter than the others.

[Steven S.]

a three-legged stool is more stable than a four-legged stool when one leg is slightly longer or shorter than the others.

When I saw the 4-legged-stool comment, I was immediately reminded of Samuel R. Delany's Neveryon books, in which the marker of movement to a more technological age was "the sellers stopped selling three-legged pots, and started selling four-legged pots", since a three-legged stool could be made crudely and still balance, unlike a four-legged one.

I wonder if he was thinking of Wesley as well.

[hf]

I'm sure Jesus existed and thought he was the Messiah

Why? At this point I don't think I have enough evidence to endorse either this theory or the "Paul had a vision that tied together various sects, one of which thought their Teacher died by crucifixion much earlier" theory.

But in some ways the Christian Bible seems more reasonable than you portray it. For example, Paul -- in Romans, which I've seen people quote to try and prove the sinfulness of homosexuality! -- says plainly that Christians have no moral responsibility on Earth except to love their neighbor. People who think gay sex is a sin against Jesus had better explain logically how it hurts people. You'll notice that passage we saw earlier does not call it a sin to 'go against nature'. It calls this (inexplicably, I'll admit) a punishment for a particular set of long-dead people.

I personally consider this a contradiction between Old and New Testaments. But one could always claim there used to be some moral reason for Israelites to avoid gay sex that has since gone away. Or, as Lewis Black says, maybe God just mellowed out with the birth of his son.

[LL]

Atheist here. I usually don't bother pointing out someone's tiresome inconsistent "interpretation" of the bible (though I applaud Fred doing it, he's certainly better equipped to do so than I am) because such people always think their exceptions are OK. They're cafeteria Christians. Homos are bad 'cause the bible says so but the stuff they like to do (cursing, drinking excessively, screwing around, "casting stones," usury, etc.) is A-OK. It's especially amusing when not-particularly-religious people throw the "it's against the bible" thing into the same-sex marriage debate. This often from divorced people, people who shack up with people they're not married to, etc. They seem to really believe that their deity politely looks the other way when their behavior is involved but will lay the holy smackdown on all the homos, just for being homos. I deal with the "what does the bible say" situation by not depending on stuff written by ignorant men several thousand years ago to tell me how to behave in the 21st century. Also, people know that the bible was written by many different people (many unknown) in several different languages over quite a long period of time, don't they? And that the bible as many of us here in the U.S. know it (KJV) didn't even exist in its current form until 1300-something? People know that, right? Basically, a committee of 13th century men decided what the KJV says. That sorta says everything I need to know about how much attention I should give to it. But maybe that's just me.

[Bugmaster]

Well, if "love your neighbour" is the primary moral standard that we want to follow, then both homosexuals and heterosexuals are remiss in their duties. Only bisexuals (or other N-sexuals for N>1) are truly righteous.

:-)

[Steven S.]

And that the bible as many of us here in the U.S. know it (KJV) didn't even exist in its current form until 1300-something? People know that, right? Basically, a committee of 13th century men decided what the KJV says. That sorta says everything I need to know about how much attention I should give to it. But maybe that's just me.

17th century, actually. And yes, it's just you. ;)

No, it's not just you, but I have to say, it pains me to be in a camp near yours.

I'm a scholarly agnostic, who once ran across the assertion (Aquinas, IIRC) that the existence of God can be proven by the unaided reason. Given this as a starting point, I'm quite willing to give the scripture and tradition a close and careful examination. I've learned a lot from the theologians and moral philosophers I've read, even if I haven't run across any convincing proofs. ;)

But bad scholarship and sloppy assertions of irrelevance don't do the argument, either side, any favors.

[Steven S.]

Well, if "love your neighbour" is the primary moral standard that we want to follow, then both homosexuals and heterosexuals are remiss in their duties. Only bisexuals (or other N-sexuals for N>1) are truly righteous.

Nah, it means we have to live in single-person dwellings, with neighbors only of the opposite sex. Clearly, that's God's plan, and anyone living with another person (let alone in an apartment building, that mammoth den of perversity) is the occasion of sin. ;)

[PurpleGirl]

LL -- King James I authorized an English translation of the Bible in 1604, it was finished in 1611. Earlier English translations of the Bible were done by the followers of John Wycliff and then by William Tyndale in the 1520s. The King James Version is a refinement of the Tyndale translation.

[Bugmaster]

Nah, it means we have to live in single-person dwellings, with neighbors only of the opposite sex. Clearly, that's God's plan, and anyone living with another person (let alone in an apartment building, that mammoth den of perversity) is the occasion of sin. ;)

Nah, it all depends on how the apartment building is structured. In the trivial case, it should be possible to construct an apartment building where neighbours are placed in a checkerbox grid (male/female), thus ensuring that all possible neighbour-to-neighbour pairings are utilized.

The situation gets more complicated when you throw homosexuals and bisexuals into the mix. You will basically need to balance homosexuals by using bisexuals as "glue" between them and their heterosexual neighbours. Given enough time, I'm sure I could calculate the optimal mix of space utilization/sexuality distribution for such an apartment building.

Computer Science: saving the world from sin since 1801 !

[Andy]

if your interpretation of scripture leads you to believe that "homosexuality is a choice," yet you cannot find a single homosexual who thinks this is so, then perhaps you ought to consider rethinking your interpretation.

Well, you will find a lot of so-called "ex-homosexuals" who will tell you it's a choice, or, at the very least, that you can choose to "exit the gay lifestyle" even if you never manage mastery over your attractions. I'm gay as a Christmas goose, but my early church experience was a very conservative one. I wouldn't have chosen this for myself for anything, and I spent a lot of miserable years feeling ashamed and disgusted with myself, feeling unworthy and weak for being unable to change. I tried. I prayed and prayed and prayed and yelled and screamed and prayed some more, and then finally what God did is He sent me someone to fall in love with and then I said, "Oh."

[James of England]

Lurker: "The parable of talents tells about a master who left talents for people to take care of. The parable is about taking good care of those talents, not about economics."

OK. There are three people in this parable. One of them "takes care" of his talent by not earning interest on it. He buries it. He is an idiot and god doesn't appreciate his stupid behaviour.

The other two "take care of" the money by making it earn more money. Perhaps you think that this doesn't involve charging interest. I'm fascinated to know how you think that they earned money (as opposed to accumulating assets) other than through the charging of interest. I guess there were foreigners about, as there were in most parts of Iudea, so they could earn the money legitimately, although it is worth noting that Christ often felt that bits of the law were fulfilled and no longer applicable, at least in the same way. The picking of wheat on the sabbat being the most obvious example. His views on fasting during his lifetime is another case, but my sense of parable construction is that violations of the law would not be implied as that would overly confuse the message.

Christ doesn't say that he is against usury. He says that lending money to those who you expect to repay you no better than loving your neighbour. It's true that, as he says, even the pagans do that, but that doesn't make it bad to do. It's OK to be nice to people who you get on with. It's OK to lend money to people for interest. There was some medieval confusion on this, based on misreading of the Fathers (not on the bible), but you don't see it in the modern or ancient churches.

It's not more frequently mentioned than homosexuality. It's not an unambiguous prohibition of anything other than excessive interest on debt, which really hits no one outside of the loan shark industry. If you're a Jew, then you shouldn't be charging interest on loans to other Jews, but my sense is that most Orthodox and more traditional Jews don't do that anyway. For Christians it means that we shouldn't become loan sharks, or possibly work in the poorer end of the credit card industry, assuming that we believe that those Old Testament rules remain in effect. This is a less impressive "gotcha" than the traditional "why do you eat shellfish and call yourself Christian" chestnut, as if Christians (and Christ) hadn't noticed that there was stuff in Leviticus that they didn't feel applied to them.

[Ian]

I know some reluctant homophobes, young people with graduate degrees obtained from secular universities. In my experience, reluctant homophobes who really are reluctant tend to be very humane people in other respects. They feel compelled toward a discriminatory position by their reading of the bible. Only a scriptural argument would change their minds, one I have so far failed to make, possibly because this is an area where scripture and reason/experience conflict. It's worth noting that the ones I know are fairly consistent in their applied theology, in that they also lay rather strict restrictions on their own sex lives, though not as strict as mandatory lifelong celibacy, needless to say. I think I would want to say that (some) such people are genuinely saintly in the same sense in which we can say that Paul was genuinely saintly -- saintly in a deeply flawed way, in a way that doesn't make them incapable of hurting other people.

A four-legged stool? Neat - new to me. I'm used to the Anglican three-legged stool (Scripture, Tradition, Reason) and I suppose it is less tippy. However, speaking as an Anglican, I wonder how many of our institutional failings stem from a theological unwillingness to learn from experience.

[James of England]

Just wanted to return to the Luke 6 question, as this was the most obvious misrepresentation of scripture.

32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Does anyone believe that this is a prohibition against doing good to those who do good to you? Does Christ think that we shouldn't love our family? It's not that we shouldn't lend money to people who will pay back. It's not that we shouldn't expect those people to pay us back. The idea that he's repeating the prohibition seems entirely false (where does he repeat the prohibition?)

[wintermute]

> The other two "take care of" the money by making it earn more money. Perhaps you think that this doesn't involve charging interest. I'm fascinated to know how you think that they earned money (as opposed to accumulating assets) other than through the charging of interest.

Maybe they bought a camel, and set up a delivery service, charging people for carrying goods messages between towns. Maybe they bought goods at wholesale prices and resold them as retail. Maybe they paid a government official to be assigned a post as tax-collector, or other profitable role.

I'm fascinated to know how you've managed to survive in such a massively capitalised society and yet believe that the only way of earning money is to lend money out for interest. Do you know no-one who owns a business?

[A. Kennedy]

In fact, the above points out the obvious fallacy of a society based on usury... everyone's making money off of interest... OK... so where's the wealth that money represents coming from? Money does not "naturally" reproduce itself. It's not like goats; you don't get little baby $1 coins from letting cute $5 and $10 bills mingle.

So where is this money coming from that we get in interest? Ultimately, someone in this system must be working in order to pay your interest. And the more people who are lending out money on interest (let's call them the "haves"), the harder those who are left (call them the "have nots") must work, and for less and less personal profit.

This is very different from investing in a business... when you lend out money for interest, you're not saying "let me buy a piece of your business, and if you make money, I will too" and therefore tying yourself to your sister or brother's success. Instead, you are saying "let me buy a portion of every dollar you earn from now until you pay me off." Therefore, you have nothing invested in the borrower's success... only in making sure that bankruptcy laws don't permit him or her to escape their obligation to you.