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.
Sometimes I find these conversations sooooo politically motivated. I suppose you (Fred) and most of the poster's here WOULD justify anti-nuclear, green-earth, feminist, anti-kkk etc, ideologies from scripture? Just wonder'n.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 23, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Thanks for corrections to my chronology re: KJV. I knew it was way back in the day, just couldn't remember exactly when. I could've Googled it, but I was too lazy. I figured someone would correct if necessary.
Posted by: LL | Feb 23, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Andy,
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."
I don't normally make theater recommendations based on a single line from a blog comment, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone who could write that not loving "The Big Voice: God or Merman?"
Posted by: Beth | Feb 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
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.
wow. you are so naive.
Posted by: the opoponax | Feb 23, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Sometimes I find these conversations sooooo politically motivated. I suppose you (Fred) and most of the poster's here WOULD justify anti-nuclear, green-earth, feminist, anti-kkk etc, ideologies from scripture? Just wonder'n.
have you ever actually read the bible?
especially the new testament parts?
to be honest, while i can't speak for Fred or for other Christians here, it would be good to remember that many who participate here are not Christian, and thus it is immaterial to us whether any particular political stance is mandated by Christian scripture or not. however, having grown up Christian (and not a liberal one), i can find much better justification for an anti-nuclear stance in the Bible than i can for those often made by conservatives. the Bible is not a conservative book, in either the classic definition or the current one. and anyone who thinks so is either quasi-illiterate or some brand of cynic/liar/hypocrite.
Posted by: the opoponax | Feb 23, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Opoponax, it seems to me that Fred is justifying homosexuality from scripture so that's why I ask it. That being the case and given your "finding a better justification" for an anti-nuclear stance in the Bible the question is legitimate.
By the way, I'm one of those Evangelicals who neither wishes to be put into a conservative/liberal box myself.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 23, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Sometimes I find these conversations sooooo politically motivated. I suppose you (Fred) and most of the poster's here WOULD justify anti-nuclear, green-earth, feminist, anti-kkk etc, ideologies from scripture? Just wonder'n.
So how do the free-market conservatives justify violating the Book of Acts, where the early Christians pooled their resources "each according to his ability to each according to his need?" just wonder'n.
See, everyone can pick and choose scripture to meet their viewpoint!
I also remember getting into trouble in my Southern Baptist Sunday School for asking about the bit where Paul says a little wine is good for the stomach. For those who don't know, SBs are virulently anti-alcohol. I was told that it was figurative language.
The seeds of doubt were planted. Oh, so that's symbolic, but other parts are to be interpreted literally?
Posted by: lou | Feb 23, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I understand your frustration lou but there ARE certain hermeneutical practices, i.e. authorial intent, what is cultural and what is not, trajectory of scripture, etc, in place for one to justify why they hold to a position "as biblical" (meaning biblically "imperative" for us today) that they do. The one thing that Fred wants to avoid (exegetical analysis more like hermeneutical analysis) is probably the thing he is in need of the most. Gotta go to work. Back later.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM
I understand your frustration lou but there ARE certain hermeneutical practices, i.e. authorial intent, what is cultural and what is not, trajectory of scripture, etc, in place for one to justify why they hold to a position "as biblical" (meaning biblically "imperative" for us today) that they do. The one thing that Fred wants to avoid (exegetical analysis more like hermeneutical analysis) is probably the thing he is in need of the most. Gotta go to work. Back later.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM
"Sometimes I find these conversations sooooo politically motivated."
As is often the case with political conversations.
Posted by: Rob | Feb 23, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I suppose you ... WOULD justify anti-nuclear ... ideologies from scripture?
Mark 10:9 - What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Obviously, God is not a fan of fission.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 23, 2007 at 01:18 PM
@Raka:
Nah, he just wants us to go straight to fusion. God knows what's best for us !
Regarding usury:
As I see it, usury serves an important function. It lowers the barrier to entry into business, to the point that everyone can afford it. Even a lowly programmer such as myself could walk out tomorrow, get a loan, and start my own business. The reason I can get a loan is because it's profitable for someone to loan me money. And the reason it's profitable is because they charge interest. So, I pay a little extra for a chance to make a lot of money of my own. I could always fail, of course, but that's the risk I have to consider anyway.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Feb 23, 2007 at 01:30 PM
A. Kennedy:
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. ... Instead, you are saying "let me buy a portion of every dollar you earn from now until you pay me off."
Okay, I'm a big fan of redistribution, and I think attempts to dodge/decrease capital gains taxes are both immoral and bad economics, but this is an awfully adversarial depiction of usury. It's also sort of a quasi-Marxian view of Capital vs Labor.
For one thing, more lenders tends to mean more competition, which generally means lower rates and fewer restrictions for borrowers. There's nothing inherently evil about Capital. The evil comes about when it becomes all but impossible to transition from Labor to Capitalist (if one so chooses); then you get an exploitive oligarchy where Labor has no power and no recourse. America is showing some disturbing trends in that direction, but we ain't nearly there yet.
A classic investment in a business also carries with it some assumption of control: if I buy 1/3 of your business, I'm going to want a say in how you run it, and 1/3 of the money that business makes over its entire existence is mine. Whereas a loan has very limited control and a very limited cap on how much the total repayment can be. It's sort of misleading to say "let me buy a portion of every dollar you earn from now until you pay me off", since what you pay me has almost nothing to do with what you make. If you make twice as much, I don't get the same "portion" of every dollar-- just whatever fixed interest amount we determined when the loan was made.
You also seem to be skipping other reasons for loans. I own a house, which is not something I could do if loans were restricted to investments in business. My wife couldn't be in her ninth consecutive year of college without loans-- okay, that one might not be such a bad thing.
Modern loans aren't the Dickensian model of a rich aristocratic landlord sucking up cash and releasing driblets in luxury purchases and servant wages. I make a pretty fair living crunching numbers for a major mortgage banking corporation with thousands of employees, most of which don't directly represent Capital. I agree that it's sort of ridiculous that all of us make a living shuffling numbers on a computer from one place to another. But it's part of a system (America's semi-regulated quasi-capitalism) that does provide incentives and encouragement for productivity and innovation from the top to the bottom.
It's not perfect, and there's lots of room for adjustment and improvement. But I don't think the world would necessarily be improved if all of us white-collar number-shufflers went out and hitched up plows or started smelting ore.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 23, 2007 at 01:54 PM
@ Brandon:
i didn't really read it as Fred justifying homosexuality biblically, but as saying that if one is going to read certain obscure references literally in order to mandate a stance against homosexuality, then one must not forget the many quite transparent references to things our culture has no problem with. he doesn't point to some particular passage and say, "y'see? right here it says EVERYONE MUST BE TEH GAY!"
Posted by: the opoponax | Feb 23, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Also:
you have nothing invested in the borrower's success
I worked for a small start-up business that got way, way over its head in debt to all sorts of people. I've sat through multiple debt judgements and one forced bankruptcy proceeding, and dealt with more collection agencies than I ever knew existed. It was a distinct minority who showed no interest in helping the business be successful (a loud and extremely unpleasant minority, to be sure, but a minority nonetheless). Since the system makes it so easy to go into debt for many times the value of the company's collateral, individual creditors would get pennies on the dollar if the company failed. The law might say they were owed more, but that wouldn't do them a lot of good if the money just wasn't there to be taken.
So from a purely pragmatic perspective, many of the creditors were supportive and extremely open to varying terms and even (in some cases, before things got REALLY bad) extending additional credit to get over the "rough spot". It was very much in their interest to do so.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 23, 2007 at 02:16 PM
Daniel: [Divorce] definitely bothers protestants
Yes and no. Even the protestants I know who are most profoundly against divorce:
Etc. Or replace "divorced" with "adulterous"; as I recall, there are no New Testament bans on homosexuality that don't also mention adultery, and remarrying after a not-sexually-immoral divorce counts as adultery. So by everything I can see, their treatment ought to be equal. And the only folks I know of who treat it that way are the extra-protestant sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Posted by: Raka | Feb 23, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Arrgh!
I must apologise. I am a new, and very shaky convert to Radical Orthodoxy, and Raka points out well the errors in my reasoning about usury. What I should have said was, the Gospel is a challenge to us. It is not a statement among other statements to be judged by the laws of logic as being "in-step" or "out-of-step" with our current polity. It is a giant question mark, which is supposed to leave us feeling uncomfortable (and, paradoxically, comforted).
I also happen to believe that the modern loan system is logically flawed, although I agree it's the best system we have to date (I'm sure we can figure out something better, in time). But as a Christian, I wish to continue to be challenged by the gospel.
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 23, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Not an enormous amount to add, but going back to one of the origninal points, modern behavioral science may show us that a certain amount of infidelity is 'natural'.. as is homosexuality, rape, necrophilia, infanticide, and orchestrated campaigns of murder. You can find animals that do all of these things. BUT, it also gives us the "naturalistic phalacy:" Just because something happens in nature doesn't make it necessarily good or bad. Botulism comes from nature and kills people who eat canned goods that have gone off, and helps cure various ailments when used in modified medicinal ways.
The good/bad distinction comes in when we start attaching a positive value to things that help humans, provide health and comfort, distribute resources reasonably (whatever one might consider 'reasonable' to mean), meets with certain traditions, etc.
Posted by: Alexela | Feb 23, 2007 at 04:19 PM
Botulism... helps cure various ailments when used in modified medicinal ways.
like facial expressions?
Posted by: the opoponax | Feb 23, 2007 at 04:54 PM
the opoponax: like facial expressions?
LOL. That, acting careers, and (according to Wikipedia):
"Botox is used in the treatment of migraine headaches, cervical dystonia (a neuromuscular disorder involving the head and neck), blepharospasm (involuntary contraction of the eye muscles), severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating).
Other uses of botulinum toxin type A that are widely known but not specifically approved by FDA include treatment of: overactive bladder syndrome with or without incontinence, anal fissure, spastic disorders associated with injury or disease of the central nervous system including trauma, stroke, multiple sclerosis, or cerebral palsy, focal dystonias affecting the limbs, face, jaw, or vocal cords, TMJ pain disorders, diabetic neuropathy, wound healing, excessive salivation."
Who woulda thunk, huh.
Posted by: Alexela | Feb 23, 2007 at 06:32 PM
Wintermute:
That was my point about having money rather than assets. It's also worth noting that it was the money that was put to work rather than the servants. Perhaps the money was spent on equity rather than debt (as I noted above, this is kind of how Islamic finance works). Roman provincial economics does not favour equity in the way that modern economics does, because markets were much more heavily localised and illiquid. Remember that the sums involved are very large (roughly half a ton of cash), so this isn't "buying a camel": this is buying a herd. How easy do you imagine it would be to efficiently realise that kind of a gain in first century Judea?
Still, if Christ was suggesting that we should buy equities rather than debt, what kind of a motive do you think he might have had? None of the servants are enhancing their own ability to work, they're investing in some capacity. It seems odd to suggest that loaning someone the money to run their own bakery is abusive, while owning the bakery and employing them to run it is not. Still, it is conceivable that Christ wants us to invest in equities rather than bonds.
Until, that is, one looks at the very similar parable of the Minas in Luke (the same gospel being quoted for Christ's objection to interest). Remember that a Mina is . There the master is explicit about what the bad servant should have done. Luke 19:23 "Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?"
Any takers for arguments that that does not refer to the collecting of interest on money laid on deposit?
Posted by: James of England | Feb 23, 2007 at 07:29 PM
@ lou: See, the thing is, is that Fred was the one who started out saying that there are fundamentalists who pick and choose what scriptures they are going to believe in and then in good post-modern fashion (not saying he has done this, but you can see it in some of the posts here) hit a homosexual over the head (power trip over them) telling them how they must live, yada, yada, yada, don't give them certain rights, etc. Yet, the point is, is that once you start to use the argument, "Why are conservative fundamentalists pick'n and choos'n scripture?" The same question can be posed to you, Fred or whoever. Here, however, it was Fred who ragged on conservatives and not the other way around. Why castigate others for pick'n and choos'n when he does it himself?
@ opopanax: No. What Fred is attempting to do is justify experience (the "trap street"). In this case, that trap street would be homosexuality. Having said that, Fred, like Walter Wink (a major proponent of affirming homosexuality, biblically speaking) over simplifies the issue. I don't fault Wink for highlighting culturally located practices in the Bible (i.e. don't have sex during menstruation), something that evangelicals should consider more seriously, however, Wink seems pretty sloppy by such an oversimplification of placing ALL of these within the same category or domain of human sexuality. In the case with Fred, he simply lumps all categories together i.e. homosexuality and usury--two TOTALLY UNRELATED ISSUES--which is REALLY sloppy.
One rule of hermenutical practice is that of "closely related issues." That is, a text may be cultural if "closely related issues" are also themselves culturally bound. This is very much like what happens in the legal world with circumstantial evidence. That is, we would need to examine related factors that impact a case. While these factors may not directly be incriminating or vindicating, as the circumstantial evidence adds up, it can play an important part in the final verdict. In doing this hermeneutic, we are not simply looking for some other related subject area. The related matter must be intrinsically linked or logically related to the issue at hand.
On this issue of sexuality, for example, it is not logical to connect two different categories together under the broad category of human sexuality as though they are directly related to each other. So for i.e. though menstrual-intercourse is related to homosexuality in as much as they are a part of the sexual taboo domain, it would not be a sin because that particular law has been repealed. If we grant that intercourse during menstruation is not applicable today, does this mean that homosexuality is acceptable? No. Because:
A. The homosexuality prohibition is not tied to mere ceremonial impurity. This is shown through the death penalty that is invoked. Ceremonial washing doesn’t cut it in this case.
B. All ceremonial laws were repealed. The only ones that were not abandoned were those related to homosexual behavior. As a matter of fact, New Testament prohibitions appear to be directly derived from the holiness code, i.e. compare 1Cor 9:6-11 and 1 Tim 1:9-10 with Lev 20:13 and 18:22. Thus the early church did not interpret these Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual activity as a part of the ceremonial law to be left to a previous era.
C. No intrinsic or logical connection exists between the menstrual intercourse prohibition and homosexual prohibition.
Surely, ANY two texts within scripture can be grouped together using some kind of shared category between them. But this should caution us against hasty conclusions in cultural analysis based on shared domains. So, for example, while polygamy and concubinage affirm that some biblical legislation in the sexual domain is culturally confined? This does not decide the case for homosexuality. All it really does is open the question as to whether homosexuality prohibitions are culturally located or not. What has to be found is a necessary connection between the two areas being cited.
A crucial concern in using this “closely related issues” criterion is that the various related issues be culturally confined themselves and have a close and substantive correlation to the issue at hand. When the connection is by means of a broad category it invites fallascious reasoning. I mean any two categories could be made to cover almost any two items under the sun. Putting everything under one broad category is one genus removed from or one genus broader than the actual issue at hand, “homosexuality.”
At most what guys like Wink and therefore Fred show is that some features of biblical sexuality are cultural. Their case would be stronger if they demonstrated through the “closely related issues” criterion that certain components of a biblical development of “homosexuality” not just “sexuality” were cultural. Thus the “one-category-removed” approach makes the homosexual case extremely weak.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 23, 2007 at 09:25 PM
Show of hands: Is Brandon even trying to convince other people of anything or is he just one of those people who derives physical pleasure from typing?
Posted by: J | Feb 24, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I think Brandon is trying to convince us that there is actual scriptural justification for being down on homosexuality, as opposed to the post-facto pick-n-choose justification that we accuse fundies of.
I remain unconvinced for two reasons. The first is that Biblical-era cultures (old or new testament) had no concept of homosexual love, only of homosexual practices. So homosexuality is lumped in with infidelity and other sexual sins, and I think that is because the idea of two men falling in love and pairing off into an exclusive romantic relationship indistinguishable from marriage was literally inconceivable to the writers.
So, that's why I think it is possible for practicing homosexuals to be Christians.
The second reason I remain unconvinced, is that when we talk about this issue we aren't really talking about whether homosexuals have to be celibate if they are Christians. We are talking about how our society treats homosexuals, Christians or not. The loudest advocates for treating homosexuals badly all claim Biblical justification for their prejudices, but, our society is secular. "The Bible says" might be one individual's reason for believing something is good or bad, but it's not supposed to sway our laws and courts one way or another (and it's appalling that it does).
Plus, the fundie laser-focus only on supposed sins that involve sex is a gross misrepresentation of the Bible. It's a long book and I've read most of it, and very little is about the evils of sex.
And further, (see, I like to type too) if you use Jesus in the Gospels as your core model, and the rest of the New Testament as commentary on the teachings of Jesus, not only did Jesus never say one word about homosexuality, but he also acted to prevent a woman from being stoned to death for adultery, and preached against excessive concern with the specks in other people's eyes at the expense of the planks in one's own.
In other words, being obsessed with other people's sexual righteousness is completely anti-Christian.
Posted by: McJulie | Feb 24, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Brandon: You have not quoted a single New Testament prohibition against homosexuality. From Part 3 here:
Compare the direct, inarguable message of Romans 13:8-10.
You go on to say, Their case would be stronger if they demonstrated through the “closely related issues” criterion that certain components of a biblical development of “homosexuality” not just “sexuality” were cultural.
I don't know if I follow you here. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that whoever wrote that part of the Hebrew scriptures did so because they wanted a small nation with no real allies to breed as many warriors as possible (in those days before nukes).
Posted by: hf | Feb 24, 2007 at 01:19 PM
The first is that Biblical-era cultures (old or new testament) had no concept of homosexual love, only of homosexual practices.
I like what you wrote, McJulie, but I don't think this is true. Certainly, Greek pederasty was supposed to involve love of the older man for the younger boy, and at least worshipful admiration of the boy for the man, if not necessarily love. I'm also fairly sure that some Greek comedies involved male-male love, but please don't quote me on that.
So, that's why I think it is possible for practicing homosexuals to be Christians.
But once they get really good at it, they're out? :P
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 24, 2007 at 02:31 PM
Remember that a Mina is . There the master is explicit about what the bad servant should have done. Luke 19:23 "Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?"
Yes, because in a parable like this, if there is a cruel master that demands an increase of money from his servants, that means exactly that Jesus was for demanding interest on money. Just like how the parable of the unjust judge indicates that Jesus doesn't really care about justice for people, but it's just that people won't keep bugging him about it.
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 24, 2007 at 02:37 PM
I think McJulie used "love" to mean 'lifelong monogamy', which seems like a common mistake.
Posted by: hf | Feb 24, 2007 at 05:23 PM
@Everybody: Granting that my assumptions are correct concerning homosexuality, then the question and comments that I have raised are legitimate. My concern was not to address exegetical questions raise by hf. It was not my intention to get into a debate about that (though I don't agree with hf's take on "arsenokoites"). Merely, that it is not simply about pick'n and choos'n what texts of the Holy Bible one wants to believe in. There's a method behind the madness.
Having said that, why have you picked homosexuality to justify as opposed to incest or say bestiality?
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 26, 2007 at 09:01 AM
Well, I was using "love" in the usual Christian-culture romantic sense -- to refer to a close, long-term, emotional and sexual partnership. I could shorthand it to "marriage" and I do know homosexual couples who refer to "my husband" or "my wife" even without the state-sanctioned bit of paper.
Greek and Roman pederasty was not partnership love. It was more like having a mistress in the French court.
The very fact that you ask that question shows that you will not understand anything else we talk about, but just for the record:I believe that sexual behavior between consenting adults is generally acceptable. Further, I believe that monogamous sexual partnering between consenting adults is generally acceptable according to Christian moral teachings.
Are animals consenting adults? No. Are children who are the victims of incest consenting adults? No.
Are a brother and sister, or a mother and son, who never knew each other until they were adults, and then sleep together, consenting adults? Yes. So, that falls into a creepy gray area, but anyway, it just doesn't come up that often.
Also for the record, there are fundamentalist Mormon sects that think homosexuality is The Worst Thing Ever, but engage in incest and child abuse like nobody's business. Ask them what their justification is.
Posted by: McJulie | Feb 26, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Also for the record, there are fundamentalist Mormon sects that think homosexuality is The Worst Thing Ever, but engage in incest and child abuse like nobody's business. Ask them what their justification is.
I'm not sure those particular groups could be justly called "fundamentalist" Mormon sects (I really seem like I'm picking on you, McJulie, but I'm really not); the word usually means "based on an ostensibly literal reading of scripture." There's absolutely nothing in Mormon scripture or tradition that promotes or justifies incest or child abuse. (Polygamy, yes, in older, now discounted traditions, but not incest or child abuse). In fact, Mormon "fundamentalism," if it existed, would necessarily accept the authority of modern prophets, so would quickly become identical with modern Mormonism (which is perhaps anti-homosexual, but in many ways very pleasant).
The sects you're talking about seem to hold the same place in Mormonism as sedevacantists in Catholocism.
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 26, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Brandon,
I've been largely staying out of this, because the Biblical stance on homosexuality is largely irrelevant to me (as are most religious view on the matter). One thing that does concern me is when people use (almost invariably religious) arguments to decide what I can and can't do, how safe I am to walk down the street, and what my legal rights are. Could you give me a quick idea on what you want to do with your religious views? I have no intention of getting married in any church that doesn't want me (or probably any church), or forcing you to express approval of my relationships. I'd just like to know what you want to do with people who don't share your beliefs on this.
Posted by: ako | Feb 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM
the word usually means "based on an ostensibly literal reading of scripture." There's absolutely nothing in Mormon scripture or tradition...
That "ostensibly" is more important than you seem to be giving it credit for. "Fundamentalism" has a lot more to do with the practitioner's belief in the unquestionable correctness of their interpretation of the source text than it does with any objective analysis of what the source text literally means. Generally it's a rejection of the structure and traditions of organized religions in favor of what they consider to be a literal reading of the source text (or whatever the "fundamentals" of the religion happen to be). Of course, that "literal reading" may well be based upon the teaching of a new religious structure with its own unscriptural traditions and objectively questionable interpretations of the source material, but that's as it is.
I'd wager the Mormon pedo-polygamists justify their activities on their own "literal interpretation" and fully fit the current usage of "fundamentalist".
Posted by: Raka | Feb 26, 2007 at 01:58 PM
That may well be. This is the trouble... it's like fundamentalist protestants who believe that women should not have jobs or what have you. Sure, OK, maybe they call themselves fundamentalists, but it does harm to the rest of us who also call ourselves Christian, because we really don't believe that nonsense.
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 26, 2007 at 02:18 PM
maybe they call themselves fundamentalists, but it does harm to the rest of us who also call ourselves Christian, because we really don't believe that nonsense
Seems to lead us right over here, doesn't it?
Posted by: Raka | Feb 26, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Yet, the point is, is that once you start to use the argument, "Why are conservative fundamentalists pick'n and choos'n scripture?" The same question can be posed to you, Fred or whoever. Here, however, it was Fred who ragged on conservatives and not the other way around. Why castigate others for pick'n and choos'n when he does it himself?
Because Fred is saying that some degree of pick'n and choos'n is in fact mandatory for any sort of rational outcome. You pick and choose the territory in preference to the map. That's his point. Those who claim not to pick and choose really are picking and choosing. If you accuse him of picking and choosing he will admit it. They don't. That's the difference. They're hypocrites; he's not.
Posted by: eyelessgame | Feb 26, 2007 at 04:00 PM
@McJulie: if it is consenting between a father and son or mother and son or father and daughter or a mother and daughter or between two siblings, then that's all it would be, is just your own personal creepy feeling and we really couldn't make any moral statement about it. But we all do make moral statements.
By the way, by my pointing out homosexuality as a sin, does not mean that I (and the Church for that matter) do not think that that there are no heterosexual sins. For the most part, heterosexuals are the worst of sinners. My thing is is that I don't see heterosexuals justifying adultery, fornication, etc.
@ako: Ultimately a secularist view of the world is at it's base religious. But what it tries to do is set itself up as if it is neutral territory, but really is not neutral at all as it tells those of religious persuasion to leave their religiousity at the public door. But as a faith-dependent way of life or a comprehensive, life-directing foundation, it is just as religious as it is not free from nor rests on unproven or unprovable assumptions. Just because it is not cultic or have pious practices, doesn't mean that it is not recognizably religious. Thus, religious bonds, convictions and presuppositions about the meaning of life are fundamental and pervasive throughout all areas of our highly differientiated society.
Having said, that, though I can't approve of homosexual marriage, I am definitely tolerant of gays living together and recieving benefits, but I would not be in favor of gays marrying, thusly, changing the definition of marriage.
Lastly, I want to say something about Fred's whole presupposition about when reality and the map conflict. This tension has been around for centuries and continues to be an ongoing and challenging issue. There have been several responses to this, however.
1. Deny science and argue that it is patently false and give scripture preeminence?
2. Deny faith/religion and argue that it is patently false and give science preeminence?
3. Point out that scripture and science never REALLY DO conflict because all truth is God's truth and truth does not conflict?
Though I think it is honorable to place scripture ABOVE human reasoning, I think too much damage can be done in terms of being dishonest with evidence so as to hold on to the harmonization idea (harmonizing reality and the map). For example, Christians will bend the evidence just to be certain that their faith is tight. Though the intention is good, it can quickly degenerate into self-deception.
At times the Church is flat out wrong. Having assumptions that scripture is divine revelation does not automatically lead believers to correct beliefs about what scripture teaches. Humans as well as their interpretations are fallible and so they are in need of constant re-examination and possibly REVISION. One thing that Christians seem to forget is that Scripture NEEDS TO BE INTERPETED TO BE HEARD. So, it is faulty methodology to AUTOMATICALLY deny science when it conflicts with scripture. That is, that the conflicts that are between science and faith are between human interpretations (not "brute facts") of nature (science) and human interpretations of the data of scripture (theology) in which case human interpretations are involved in both areas of knowledge. And once we have INterpretation, there is the possibility for MISinterpretation. The one thing that Christians cannot do is assume that science is on the wrong track.
For Christians who believe God’s truth doesn't change it DOES mean that our interpretations do. So human fallibility applies to both areas of knowledge and to change our thinking on some things does not mean that Christians are questioning God’s authority (and moving into relativism). One could say, (and rightly so me thinks) that the changing of our theologies is motivated out of a desire to understand (properly) and grasp divine nature better. Therefore, conflicts can give rise to occasions to reexamine what we think is divine revelation. So the new interpretation will have to be justified on it’s own grounds and not give to quick and UNREFLECTIVE accommodation to science. Which means that we shouldn’t “agree with science at all costs” either because IT may be wrong.
This is why Christians who have made peace with evolution are not necessarily on the wrong track. That is, that they are on solid methodological ground. Some Christians may not agree with their conclusions, but methodologically, they are not intrinsically illogical or heretical. It is not heretical because they are willing to be self-critical and call into question not authority BUT interpretation of that authority. In the end all of us must walk this “tight-rope” and walk in epistemic humility as well as treat each other with humility and sensitivity.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 26, 2007 at 07:10 PM
@Brandon:
Well, there are times when faith and science clearly conflict, on matters of ontology, leaving very little weasel room. For example, the Earth is either covered by a crystalline dome, or it isn't. This means that either religion is wrong, or science is wrong. You have to pick one.
However, in science, there's an established mechanism that lets you determine how wrong it is. It doesn't just come down to your personal choice, or to your own moral compass, or to your interpretation of some holy book -- you can actually go up in the sky and check if there's a dome there. In other words, there's a way to actually tell how likely any given hypothesis (or theory, or law) is to be true -- regardless of who is doing the checking. Religion lacks such a mechanism. Thus, religion and science are not comparable; they are not on equal footing. In matters of ontology (crystalline dome vs. space, 6000 years old vs. 4.5 billion years old, etc.), you really do have to pick one or the other.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Feb 26, 2007 at 07:54 PM
McJulie:
Are a brother and sister, or a mother and son, who never knew each other until they were adults, and then sleep together, consenting adults? Yes. So, that falls into a creepy gray area, but anyway, it just doesn't come up that often.
At the risk of upping the "Ick" factor, what about two siblings* who have known each other all their lives and, as consenting adults, have sex? Would you call that "acceptable"?
* For purposes of argument, let's assume equal power and that neither is coercing the other.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 26, 2007 at 08:16 PM
@Bugmaster: Umm...I think that I stated that one or another can be clearly wrong. When that happens some adjustment to the interpretive grid needs to take place. However, my point is that science is not simply about "brute facts." Science is ultimately about interpretation and myth. "Science" or "history" or the "social sciences" are sustained and transmitted by stories as well as mathematics and so forth such as to at times distort science and history in order to make its point. Just as the Bible cannot be regarded as a myth because it is ancient, so modern stories of our place in the universe cannot be regarded as history simply because they are recent texts. Yes, ancients had mythical stories, but that does not mean that we don't have our own in which we no less use stories to reinforce our own BELIEFS about our existence.
Natural science, has a place? It attempts to explain ordinary events. However, it pushes further and further in it's explanatory quest and its claim that its explanations are ultimate and final does not seem to be a testable scientific claim. Science tries to describe the structure and processes of nature? But the question as to whether there is anything more ultimate than nature which can explain nature itself with it's processes and structures, is one which cannot be answered by sceince itself--though this does not make scientific knowledge irrelevant to the question.
Having said that, it is (very) difficult to hold a dialogue like this, not because one sides appeals to "reality" and the "collected wisdom and knowledge of humanity," and the other doesn't, but because the whole debate is already about what is real and what isn't real, and what humanity has or hasn't discovered to be wise and true.
In other words, how do we decide what counts as real, and what doesn't? And having done this, how do we relate the contents of reality to what we count as wisdom? That is, how do we connect what there is, with what is important. As a Christian, I have to be honest and say that my notion of what constiutues "reality" is very, very different to most atheists understanding of these things, so far as I can tell, anyway. And if we can't agree on what is or is not real? Then productive dialogue is going to be pretty difficult.
Again, your response in deciding what counts as real and what doesn't is through empirical verification--a useful set of tools in the scientific method, i.e. the scientific method works extremely well for dealing with supernatural questions i.e. we have nine thousand years of moral philosophy to guide us—all the way from the Sumerians, Egyptians and Greeks right through to Richard Carrier and Sam Harris.
However, the scientific method would seem to dismiss those questions entirely. That's certainly efficient, but I don't know that I'd call it working "extremely well." It seems to me that if we (or you in this instance) say that the scientific method itself tells us what is and is not real--what is permitted to be included in a full count of "what there is"--then there is a difficulty, I think, in saying in what sense justice, love or beauty are real, in what sense they are. These things can't, strictly speaking, be observed or demonstated by being reliably repeated.
You see, there seems to be a circularity that occurs when scientific method is turned into something like a philosophical principle: the only truths there are, are those that can be demonstrated empircally, except the truth that the only truths there are, are those that can be demonstrated empirically.
It seems to me as though if what you have said above is the case, then there must be a disconnect of some kind between an account what there is, and an account of what is important, if things counted as important include things like justice, love or beauty. Or in other words, you must at some point admit that something that is not strictly speaking "real" in the terms you have specified is nevertheless important within some kind of moral framework.
Now, maybe there might be some good reasons for approaching things like this, that is, to treat any account of what is and is not important - moral philosophy - as completely separate from an account of what is and is not real. But for me, that is one of the reasons why the Christian worldview makes more sense than an atheistic one (or what I suppose one to be like - I'm not sure I can properly imagine one...): I see it as a more harmonious account of reality as it presents itself. All the things we know, deeply, to be not just real, but important and fundamental, are actually construed as being part of the fabric of things in some way, because all things are good by God's goodness, to use Augustine's phrase.
I guess that may well sound like speculative christian mystification. But to me it seems like a very, very good point.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Brandon: My thing is is that I don't see heterosexuals justifying adultery, fornication, etc.
You don't? I do. According to at least one passage in the gospels, Jesus said that even lusting in your heart after someone else's spouse is adultery. I see justifications of that all the time: and working on the strict Catholic assumption that a person can have only one living spouse and sex with anyone else after divorcing your spouse is adultery, I see justifications of that all the time. As for fornication, defined as sex outside marriage, yes, I heterosexuals making justifications for that all the time. What media do you read or look at that you don't see this?
Having said, that, though I can't approve of homosexual marriage, I am definitely tolerant of gays living together and recieving benefits, but I would not be in favor of gays marrying, thusly, changing the definition of marriage.
Well, there are two points to be made to that. One is, you're too late. Same-sex couples can already legally marry: so, if your definition of marriage is wholly and exclusively about two people of different genders, your definition is already several years out of date, worldwide, and specifically in four countries, including the US. Marriage simply does include two people of the same gender marrying.
The second point is that you are not just several years too late: you are two centuries too late. The definition of marriage in Western culture has for a couple of centuries been that marriage is about finding the one person whom you intend to love and live with for the rest of your life, and marrying them. If you want to change that definition - as most of the anti-marriage appear to want to do so - you are struggling against two centuries of tradition.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM
> Having said, that, though I can't approve of homosexual marriage, I am definitely tolerant of gays living together and recieving benefits, but I would not be in favor of gays marrying, thusly, changing the definition of marriage.
How do you feel about interracial marriages? Are you upset that the definition of marriage ("A man and a woman of the same colour...") changed in 1964?
This is the thing: Definitions change. Once, marriages were arranged, and the bride's parents would pay dearly for the privilege of a good marriage. Are you upset that the definition changed away from that?
What is sacred about the definition you're using? Why should it be set in stone for all time, when it's always been fluid before?
It sounds like you accept that homosexuals can fall in love and want to bond for life. With that in mind, I always thought marriage was about finding someone you loved and wanted to spend the rest of your life with. Does that definition really sound so horrible to you?
Posted by: wintermute | Feb 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Brandon,
Thanks for your answers. I think we do have fundamentally different worldviews. I always thought a good reason to favor secularism was the prospect of people who didn't hold your views on religion holding the majority of political power. Since I am, in fact, an atheist, I'll quite likely spend the rest of my life among people who hold different views on religion than me, and I'd rather not be obliged to practice elements of their religion, or follow rules that only make sense in the contexts of beliefs I don't have.
I'd have to disagree with you about unproven assumptions. I think what you're characterizing as assumptions are closer to conclusions, albeit conclusions from non-rigorous evidence. If I drop five hundred stones and they fall, I'm going to expect the five hundred and first stone to fall, even given the logical problem of predicting the future based on the past. This isn't faith; if one day I drop a stone and it flies like a bird, I'll be confused but not suffer a crisis of faith. But it's persistently effective to expect stones to fall. For me it's always been effective to disbelieve in the existence of that which I can't find evidence for.
As for changing the definition of marriage, it strikes me as a worthwhile change. Like I said, I don't want to force anyone, or any church, to acknowledge a marriage they don't believe in, but legal marriage wouldn't do that and strikes me as the best way to secure the political rights involved without getting a second-class status. There's been a lot of historic changes to marriage, and legalizing gay marriage seems to be in line with the best developments, in that it makes marriage more about love.
Posted by: ako | Feb 27, 2007 at 02:26 PM
wintermute: What is sacred about the definition you're using?
Assuming Brandon to be American, his definition of marriage is sacred because it does not match up to reality. (So speaks the atheist, at least.) If Brandon is either American or Canadian, the definition of marriage in the country he lives in includes same-sex as well as mixed-sex couples. It is therefore a matter of faith for Brandon that he must be allowed to have a definition of marriage that does not correspond to reality, and that he and his fellow believers should be allowed to speak and write as if their unreal definition of marriage is more real than the actual definition of marriage.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 27, 2007 at 03:13 PM
I am "just wonder'n" what the reasoning is behind Brandon's "pick'n and choos'n" which verbs in the present progressive he gets to fuck with apostrophicly. It can't be to save him typing strokes. Maybe it's to appear disarmingly 'plain but honest.' It's not working.
Posted by: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | Feb 27, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I agree! What is with the apostrophes, man?
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 27, 2007 at 10:22 PM
At the risk of upping the "Ick" factor, what about two siblings* who have known each other all their lives and, as consenting adults, have sex? Would you call that "acceptable"?
Well, yes, ick! But fundamentally it's a question of genetics, and perhaps in societies where it matters/mattered to reduce the chance of the female prematurely losing the virginity without which she might be ineligible for marriage.
Marriage of first cousins is perfectly acceptable in some cultures but regarded as incest in others.
Posted by: Hagsrus | Feb 27, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Hagsrus: But fundamentally it's a question of genetics
But fundamentally, it's not. Unless there's a nasty recessive in the family that a child of two full siblings would most likely inherit, any animal breeder will tell you that breeding sib to sib or child to parent tends to produce offspring that fix the good traits.
The feeling that incest is wrong comes from children who are brought up together: see the children of the kibbutz, who, brought up together as brothers and sisters, found themselves unable to be attracted to each other, because even though there was no genetic relationship, the incest taboo had been kicked in by proximity. Likewise with adopted siblings or children, at least adopted in infancy. Likewise, in fact, with same-sex incestuous relationships where there's no possibility that the relationship could produce children.
The rationale for this incest taboo is that it's genetic. But our social behavior can seldom be so directly explained by our genes, and the evidence is there that it's not in this instance.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Feb 28, 2007 at 02:59 AM
@A. Kennedy: re: "Fundamentalist" Mormons. That is what Jon Krakaur calls them in Under the Banner of Heaven. Although, according to the wikipedia article on "fundamentalist Mormons" the LDS church officially disowns the term -- dissenting sects aren't Mormons at all.
re: Adult consensual sibling incest: acceptable or not? I don't know. I can't find an ethical justification for making it a line in the sand -- you know, wrong, wrong, wrong. But it just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It seems... you know... icky and weird.
And I'm willing to accept that some people feel the same way about homosexuality. But I don't think that we should let nothing more than the dictates of some religious sects, or the instinctive "ick" factor that some people feel about a given practice, dictate our social policy.
The Egyptian pharoahs practiced sibling incest, I believe, and Theodore Sturgeon wrote a memorable short story on the topic of incest, "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?"
Posted by: McJulie | Feb 28, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Jesurgislac writes eloquently and correctly about the repugnant modern practice of using "genetic reasoning" to explain away social trends. Kudos to Jesurgislac. You're quite correct... incest taboos are not genetic, they're social. Having widespread incest in a population with dangerous recessive mutations might lead to a greater incidence of those traits appearing, but that would require that incest was preferred to other, random mating. In other words, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for population genetics still holds if you allow incest, as long as people don't tend to prefer it to any other form of mating.
Posted by: A. Kennedy | Feb 28, 2007 at 05:01 PM