Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 1)

How did gay-hatin' come to be the "most-common perception" of Christianity?

Theory No. 1: The Safe Target

"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all," St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

If you're a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that's problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved. Pick any of the seven deadlies or the 10 commandments and you risk alienating everyone in the pews and exposing yourself as less than perfect. Awwwk--waaard.

But lately, many American evangelical preachers think they have found a loophole: Homosexuality. Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all. It seems to be the perfect "sin"* -- the perfect safe target. Straight preachers can rail against it without worrying about exposing themselves as hypocrites or, even worse, as fallible humans just like everyone else. And statistically speaking, most of the congregation will be able to say "Amen" without squirming or feeling the least discomfort. It's all win.

No other sin provides this kind of free shot. Point an accusing finger at gluttony, pride or envy and the proverbial four fingers pointing back at yourself underscore Paul's point about temptation being "common to us all." That's way too Pogo -- too "we have met the enemy and he is us." But here, instead, is the allure of an "enemy" who is not us. This is a unique opportunity, and kind of a rush. It's the chance to rail against sinners who seem completely other -- people whose sin doesn't tempt us in the least. (And since these others are clearly in the minority, we don't even have to worry much about a serious impact on the offering plate. Contrast that with gluttony, pride and envy -- the foundations on which some of the church's biggest donors have built their fortunes.)

I don't think this safe-target dynamic fully explains the motive or the cause of American evangelicalism's anti-gay obsession, but I do believe it accounts for part of its appeal. That appeal is all the more appealing in the American church, where we're deeply anxious about the fact that we don't seem significantly different from everybody else in our culture. Since we expend our lives chasing after the exact same things as everyone else, and since we can't say with any confidence that "They'll know we are Christians by our love," we have to latch onto whatever insignificant signifiers we can. We don't drink (in public), and we don't dance (well). Still not convinced we're the elect, the chosen few? Well then, um, we're heterosexual. Dazzled yet?

As that Barna survey demonstrated, the increasing popularity of railing against the supposed safe target of homosexuality has come at a cost. Evangelical Christians have become famous, or rather infamous, for being anti-gay. It is the "most-common perception" of who we are. The public face of Christianity is not the face of Christ, or even of Billy Graham or Martin Luther King Jr. or Dorothy Day. The public face of Christianity has become that of Fred Phelps and of his slightly more tactful, smiling surrogates like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Tony Perkins. That is the "most-common perception" of American Christianity, both inside and outside the church.

But there's another theologically perilous cost to this safe-target preaching. The idea that there are "super-sins" worthy of particular opprobrium and the idea that there are "others" subject to temptations not "common to us all" are spiritually dangerous notions. I don't have the time or the wisdom to unpack all the ways that these ideas have altered our preaching and teaching, but consider just one example: Fidelity is the virtue at the core of nearly all Christian sexual ethics. Yet our safe-target condemnation of homosexuals treats fidelity and infidelity as indistinguishable. That suggests to me that something has come off the rails.

The passage quoted at the beginning of this post is the central insight of G.K. Chesterton's delightful Father Brown stories. The priest-sleuth is able to solve these mysteries not because of his keen powers of observation or because he is a Holmesian deductive genius, but rather because he is an expert on human nature, having studied the subject for decades by hearing confessions. The wisdom of Father Brown is that we're all pretty much alike, that there is no temptation that is not "common to us all." This was true for the Corinthians, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the first-century church, and it is true for the Americans, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the 21st-century church.

Chesterton, like Paul, could be a scold. But also like Paul he was never so foolish as to think that he could exempt himself when he preached against sin and temptation. Seeking such an exemption by taking aim at safe targets leads to self-delusion, smugness and complacency, and it goes against everything the Bible (and experience) teaches us about human nature. That point is worth repeating: The anti-gay preaching that has become the pre-eminent characteristic of American Christianity contradicts what the Bible says about human nature. It is unbiblical.

Anyway, so much for Theory No. 1. (As you've probably already guessed, I'm following the hackneyed convention here of dismissing the unsatisfactory theories first, gradually working toward what I think the actual explanation is. Next up: Theory No. 2, Inner Demons.)

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

* I want to make a distinction here between two things, both of which I disagree with. The first is the contention that homosexuality is, by definition, a sin. The second is the belief, implicit and explicit, that homosexuality is the worst and most odious of sins. This post is primarily concerned with the latter belief and in order to challenge that here I have accepted here for the sake of argument the language, if not the logic, of the former belief. The larger point is that the belief taught by most Christians -- that any sex outside of holy matrimony, narrowly defined, is a sin -- does not, and ought not, entail the idea that homosexuality is thus some kind of super-sin or that homosexuals should be singled out for condemnation from which other humans are exempt by the supposed virtue of their heterosexuality.

Comments

[Ember Keelty]

I would like to take this opportunity to point out something that I like to point out whenever I have an opportunity: that the Bible does not have one word to say against lesbianism.

Sodom and Gommorah? Once again, male homosexuality. Just check the name. Even more specifically, male-on-male rape. And probably a whole host of other things not related to sexuality that just weren't explicitly mentioned. Those were some pretty fucked up cities, by all appearances.

Leviticus? "A man shall not lie with another man." Most of the other sex-related sins specifically mention both genders (i.e. "A man shall not lie with a beast" followed by "A woman shall not lie with a beast"), but nowhere does it say "a woman shall not lie with another woman."

Conclusion: God may hate gays, but he still loves lesbians. Probably has a thing for girl-on-girl. But then, who doesn't?

Of course, if I wanted to be logical and weren't averse to abandoning the literal reading, I might conclude that the men who wrote the Bible were simply that clueless about female sexuality. But that would be interpretation, and we know where that path leads.

[Edo]

Sodom and Gommorah? Once again, male homosexuality. Just check the name. Even more specifically, male-on-male rape. And probably a whole host of other things not related to sexuality that just weren't explicitly mentioned.

And muddying up the Order of Things by attempting to mate outside your kingdom (yay, human/angel sex!) This is Genesis; last time anybody tried that, it led to Nephilim shortly before the Flood.

(All of this glossed from Jacques Ellul's The Meaning of the City, although I can't provide a citation.)

[Ember Keelty]

I do have to hope that human/angel sodomy would not produce Nephilim. Then again, Biblical m-preg would be awfully amusing.

[nationElectric]

L: "This is wrong, very wrong. I know what I'm talking about firsthand."

nationElectric (in response to Alison): "Yeah, good point. My original post was poorly articulated. I've known gay people who've struggled in straight marriages, and the problem isn't a lack of love."

L, does this address your point?

[Dahne]

This was true for the Corinthians, the most screwed-up collection of misfits in the first-century church

Hey, life's not easy when you've got teeth for eyes.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Attn: Jesu
Memo:

I just have to say, and these seemed like the most convenient place to say it...

"Were-rat."

*snicker*

No matter where I go, you are there to fill my Interwebs with tiny bubbles and joy.

Thank you.

Also, I don't know whether Dahne wins the internet, but I will gladly hand over one of mine from my prized collection of internets (those that I have not yet attempted to send, because I heard that the tubes were clogged) as a forever-memento of the loveliness perpetrated at 2:33 AM.

I'm just a bundle of warm fuzzies tonight, ain't I?

[Jesurgislac]

No matter where I go, you are there to fill my Interwebs with tiny bubbles and joy.

Thank you! :-D

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

No, thank you.

Because this is the second night I find myself up since 2:00 AM and still not caught up with that comment thread. Totally scrolling past the trolls' contributions doesn't seem to speed matters up as much as it ought.

[Dahne]

Hey, if I don't provide the recommended dose of incredible geekiness, who will? ^_^

[Rozzen]

I'm wondering if they've realized how homosexuality cuts down on pregnancy-as-a-consequence-of-sex.

Maybe they have, and maybe it's one of their reasons for opposing homosexuality actually. Because need I remind you that fundamentalists are totally for any negative consequence of sex be it illness or pregnancy ? Because that gives them an excuse to condemn sex, you see. That's also why the oppose condoms (reduces STIs, so the "God doesn't want you to have sex because He knows it's dangerous, look at STIs" excuse goes out the window), HPV vaccines and contraception.

[Tonio]

"Women controlling their own involvement in reproduction freaks a lot of people out, and the same people tend to be anti-gay. "

Fascinating theory, Ako. I've never encountered that particular phenomenon, but perhaps that's because I'm a man.

Why do some people oppose "any success at making procreation choice," as Jesurgislac put it? While I think it's related to the strange belief that non-procreative sex is sinful, it doesn't explain what motivates these beliefs. We really need to probe this motivation further.

"Honestly I don't know how anyone can have the audacity to use the 'If everyone were gay, the human race would die!' argument."

Mad Latinist, the argument was directed both at gay marriage and contraception, and it wasn't that quite explicit. But you're right that the argument seems to anticipate some worldwide crisis of infertility.

[Ursula L]

PREVIEW. Use it, love it, have its children. (It will not prevent double posts, but as Mr Loaf said "Two out of three ain't bad."

Alas, I've found that using Preview erases my saved personal information - name and e-mail address - making it quite likely that my next post winds up without my name. I've found I'm better at manually closing tags than I am at remembering to fill in the extra fields every time. Not perfect, but better results over the average.

[Lurker]

As sorry as I am to note, the idea that something is not a choice, but an inborn property of a certain human being, does not console anything in many theological doctrines. For example, Lutheranism, along with St. Augustine, teaches that we are all quite incapable to do any good deeds that were commendable to God without His help. (Of course, we may still lead pretty decent lives in human sense, but we are absolutely rotten inside, reaching the human perfection only to satisfy our pride.) Therefore, it is no wonder that a man may wish to sleep with another man. After all, I often find myself fancying sleeping with women I see walking by, committing a sin. That alone is enough to condemn me to eternal perdition unless I am saved by God's grace. I am quite sure that no one thinks that my being attracted to opposite sex is a "choice" instead of an inborn phenomenon. However, it is still a sin, although I am not able to do anything to it. (Catholic church may have a bit different position.)

I do not have clear position whether homosexuality is a sin, if both parties are acting in the spirit of love and faithfulness. My conscience does not tell me, and I do not presume to judge with my ration.

[Tonio]

Lurker, when I read the Lutheran/Augustinian position, I don't know whether to retch in disgust, scream in outrage, or both.

[Lurker]

Tonio,

there are many ways to interpret this position. In my opinion, the idea of all sins being mortal is freeing. I do not have to try to win God's love, it is given to me without any conditions. On the other hand, I am a sinner, guilty of sins worth eternal damnation. How could I condemn my neighbours when I am just as guilty? My seemingly better life is only a gift from God, so I have nothing to be proud of.

[A teacher]

Sodom and Gommorah? Once again, male homosexuality. Just check the name. Even more specifically, male-on-male rape. And probably a whole host of other things not related to sexuality that just weren't explicitly mentioned. Those were some pretty fucked up cities, by all appearances.

May I *sigh*, although not at you in particular?

Listen, this is exactly the problem with cherry-picking from the Bible. The exact same Bible later on EXPLICITLY EXPLAINS what the sin of Sodom was, and it had nothing to do with gay sex.

Ezekiel 16:49-50:

" 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

[Tonio]

"I do not have to try to win God's love, it is given to me without any conditions."

If we're absolutely rotten inside, how can be worthy of love? And how can we know that God gives us love? We do not feel that love, we are simply told by the Bible and by Christians that God loves us.

"On the other hand, I am a sinner, guilty of sins worth eternal damnation. How could I condemn my neighbours when I am just as guilty?"

What relevance to one's neighbors have regarding one's status as a sinner? The question is about earning God's love and approval.

[Lurker]

Of course, if you accept modern exegesis, you might note that Ezekiel is writing several centuries after Genesis was put together. So it's only an interpretation of Genesis. However, it is still the Bible, and Ezekiel was a prophet, so I agree with you. In addition, it fits to the story and to the notions common throughout the Bible. (Of course, with a little will, you could read this passage as a denouncement of Lesbian sex: she and her daughters -- and did detestable things before me. It's so tempting to go for the easy pray.)

The sin of Sodom was not sexual depravity. It was unloving behaviour towards other people. Sexual sins were just one way showing it in the story. The gang coming to Lot's door and requiring him to give his guests to be molested could have been from a modern prison. They were not after sexual fulfilment. They were trying to humiliate and violate the strangers and through them, their host Lot, the only righteous man in the town. Lot, the righteous man, respected the norm of defending his guests so high that he offered his two virgin daughters for the mob to gang bang, if they only let the strangers go. (Remember, his brother Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son, so the idea of parents owning their children is common in the era described.) If you continue reading from Sodom all the way to the other four Mosaic books you see how the Lord requires Israel to show mercy to the strangers living among it. This was also the standard cry of the prophets.

[Lurker]

Sorry, Lot was Abraham's nephew.

[hapax]

Tonio: I personally find the Augustine doctrine appealing because of its opposition to the Pelagian stance on human perfectibility.

In short, what Augustine was saying is: if we are capable of being good, we are capable of being perfect; if we are capable of being perfect, we are obligated to be perfect.

The question is about earning God's love and approval.

There is no possibility of earning God's love and approval. There is absolutely nothing that we can give to God that God does not already have. We are given God's love and approval absolutely freely, unconditionally, without merit, just because God wants to do that.

This drives us humans crazy. We so desperately want to be the ones in charge, in control, that we just can't stand the idea that God's love in no way depends on what we do, what we think, what magic words we say. So we come up with all sorts of pathetic little dodges to pretend that we are really managing God.

It's sort of cute, in the way that a toddler pretending to boss around Mommy and Daddy is cute, but is also the definition of Original Sin.

[Tonio]

"In short, what Augustine was saying is: if we are capable of being good, we are capable of being perfect; if we are capable of being perfect, we are obligated to be perfect."

No, humans are incapable of being perfect, but we are capable of both good and bad. That doesn't mean that we are inherently bad or even inherently good. It also doesn't affect the basic fact that humans have inherent worth.

"We are given God's love and approval absolutely freely, unconditionally, without merit, just because God wants to do that."

That is contradicted by two facts - one, we do not have any experience in our lives that equates to a god's love; and two, the doctrine of eternal reward or punishment is about earning approval, which is variously defined as doing good works or holding the "right" belief about Jesus.

"This drives us humans crazy. We so desperately want to be the ones in charge, in control, that we just can't stand the idea that God's love in no way depends on what we do, what we think, what magic words we say. So we come up with all sorts of pathetic little dodges to pretend that we are really managing God."

That would be a good description of most religious doctrines. The universe is indifferent to our existence - it neither loves us nor hates us. How does your position jibe with the notion of prayer, where people ask a God for guidance or blessings?

[nieciedo]

Jewish tradition has always maintained that the sin of Sodom was selfishness, especially as manifested inhospitality to strangers. There is a midrash that says that giving money or food to the poor in any way was illegal in Sodom and punishable by death. An act of compassion and charity by a young woman led her to be burned at the stake and it was her cries that caused the sin of the Cities of the Plain to "rise up before" God.

The Mishnaic tractate Pirkei Avot states that the one who says "what's yours in yours and what's mine is yours" is the characteristic of the pious and righteous man. This is in contrast to the one who says "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours," which is middat Sedom, the characteristic of Sodom.

The notion of "super-sins" that are especially worse than others has a legitimate place in Christian tradition. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church P 1869:

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel,139 The sin of the Sodomites,140 The cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 The cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

All of these, if we interpret the sin of the Sodomites in its proper understanding, show that the greatest sins are those of social and economic injustice -- injustice based on greed and selfishness.

[hapax]

No, humans are incapable of being perfect, but we are capable of both good and bad

Bzzzt. Does not compute. If you are capable of good, you are capable of being good all the time -- just because it is very very difficult doesn't mean that it's impossible.

one, we do not have any experience in our lives that equates to a god's love

I'm sorry that you don't, but I certainly do. The love of my parents. The love of my children. The love of my pets, fer cryin' out loud. They aren't precise analogues, but they're close enough that the notion of absolutely unconditional love isn't inconceivable.

Moreover, we humans acknowledge the existence of plenty of things of whhich we have no personal experience. I have never been tortured, but I don't have to undergo the experience to acknowledge that it exists and to judge it a Bad Thing.

the doctrine of eternal reward or punishment is about earning approval,

It is if you frame it in terms of "reward and punishment." Not all religions do; not all Christians do. "Eternal Life"/"The Kingdom of Heaven"/etc. is what Jesus talked about (mostly); that isn't a reward, but a gift.

How does your position jibe with the notion of prayer, where people ask a God for guidance or blessings?

If you can't at a glance distinguish between "asking" for something, and thinking you have "earned" something (or "control" something), I really don't know what to say to make my position clearer.

[Rozzen]

Augustine channelled through hapax : if we are capable of being good, we are capable of being perfect

Of course that's where the chain of logic breaks down. I mean, it might be true but alone it's an unsupported assertion that's contrary to everyday experience, so without some support I don't see how we should take Augustine's word for it.

This is true of a lot of philosophical reasonings I find.

Tonio : That is contradicted by two facts - one, we do not have any experience in our lives that equates to a god's love

Well to be fair I think religious people report feeling such experiences. We can argue their validity, but being subjective you can't disprove they aren't evidence of God's love.
A truer statement would be that there is no universal experience in our lives that * equates to God's love.

* I'm tempted to insert a "clearly" here : the clearly is a weasel word because just like nonbelievers can say the religious person's experience wasn't God's love, believers can say nonbelievers had such experiences but didn't interpret them correctly. Both statements are unfalsifiable, but given I granted religious people the benefit of doubt about their experience, I should do the same with nonbelievers. So forget the "clearly".

[Tonio]

Niciedo,

I suspect that the vast majority of Christians see the Sodom story as condemning homosexuality, not rape or selfishness. I only knew about the rape interpretation because I had read "Ancient Mysteries" by Peter James and Nick Thorpe.

And I strongly suspect that almost no one outside of Judaism has even heard of the Jewish tradition regarding Sodom, except the small community of religious scholars.

[hapax]

To make it clear, Tonio, I'm not trying to convert you to my perspective on human depravity and God's love. if it doesn't work for you (or anyone else), it doesn't work work you -- move along, nothing to see here.

I'm just trying to illuminate how it needn't necessarily be the oppressive, guilt-inducing, soul-crushing doctrine that it can be used as.

[Rozzen]

If you are capable of good, you are capable of being good all the time -- just because it is very very difficult doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Sounds good in theory, except that as you know the real world is complicated and if you want to be good all the time you're going to have to make judgement calls - should you go visit your daughter at the hospital, or volunteer for a day at the soup kitchen ? Or like our favorite hypothetical situation goes, should you torture a person to save a million lives ?

So I guess the question would be, how would you define "being good all the time" ?

[hapax]

@Rozzen: Augustine channelled through hapax : if we are capable of being good, we are capable of being perfect

Of course that's where the chain of logic breaks down.

How so? This is a serious question. If you are capable of something, you're capable. It's not like the ability to reason, choose, or act turns on and off (or, if it does, most ethical systems absolve a person of responsibility when one of these capacities is impaired).

One might argue where the failure lies -- in the mind, the will, or the body -- but surely their individual functionality is a yes/no proposition.

[ako]

Bzzzt. Does not compute. If you are capable of good, you are capable of being good all the time -- just because it is very very difficult doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Not necessarily. People who can run twenty miles at a stretch can't run a hundred. Most humans can go a week without food, but no one can last a year. I can hold my breath and stay underwater for a couple minutes, but not a couple days. There's a lot of things people can only do in limited stretches.

[hapax]

playing merry cross-posting with Rozzen: how would you define "being good all the time" ?

How would I define it? I would define it as "always acting in accordance with the will of God for me."

If you answer (as surely you would) "well, how do you know what the will of God is in every situation?", I would respond "I don't, and I can't, in any situation, not with absolute certainty. That's how I know that I am a fallen creature, incapable of being truly good."

Of course, this is all nonsense to someone who doesn't accept the concept "God", let alone "ethical, interested God" in the first place. But for those of us who do, it is a very serious issue.

[hapax]

*sigh* bold begone!

[Tonio]

"Bzzzt. Does not compute. If you are capable of good, you are capable of being good all the time -- just because it is very very difficult doesn't mean that it's impossible."

It's impossible because humans have limitations that prevent us from being good all the time or even being bad all the time. Each of us individually has done good things and bad things. I cannot think of another explaination for this, other than lapses in judgment or "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

"I'm sorry that you don't, but I certainly do. The love of my parents. The love of my children. The love of my pets, fer cryin' out loud. They aren't precise analogues, but they're close enough that the notion of absolutely unconditional love isn't inconceivable."

Those wonderful examples of love do not themselves prove that there is some being that we cannot perceive who also loves us. They only prove that love exists. Besides, the idea that God loves us unconditionally conflicts with the doctrine of eternal damnation. No one who loves us would subject us to eternal suffering, and I emphasize the eternal part.

"It is if you frame it in terms of 'reward and punishment.' Not all religions do; not all Christians do."

I've never heard of Christians who believe in an afterlife as anything but reward or punishment. And I've never heard of other religions who teach specifically about heaven as opposed to a generic afterlife.

"If you can't at a glance distinguish between '"asking' for something, and thinking you have 'earned' something (or "control" something),"

Why are you equating earning with controlling? I used "earning" in the sense of getting good grades for fulfulling certain requirements.

[ako]

It's not like the ability to reason, choose, or act turns on and off (or, if it does, most ethical systems absolve a person of responsibility when one of these capacities is impaired).

But that only means you can be good all of the time if you define goodness negatively, as absence of badness. If being good is a positive thing, not just a failure to do wrong, then there isn't much chance of being good in your sleep. Ethical systems may absolve you from responsibility for that, but it's still a limit on the ability to be good.

[Lurker]

Hapax,

Thanks for adding to the discussion. You said it better than I did. After all, that doctrine is extremely difficult, because it is so absolute. Law and Gospel: Law without Gospel leads to soul-crushing, unbending oppression. On the other hand, Gospel without the understanding of Law, leads one to a merry-go-happy life without a thought given to other people. Properly understood, though, it can be a life-changing, freeing concept. Martin Luther started the reformation because of this very thing.

BTW, why I introduced the subject was: if I am endlessly guilty, yet forgiven all my sins without any reason, how can I be condeming other persons? It is utterly inappropriate: like a pardoned death row inmate demanding the execution of his cell-mate. The rampage against gays is exactly the same thing.

[nieciedo]

@Lurker:

Law without Gospel leads to soul-crushing, unbending oppression

Which "Law," pray tell, would that be?

[nieciedo]

@Tonio:

suspect that the vast majority of Christians see the Sodom story as condemning homosexuality, not rape or selfishness...
And I strongly suspect that almost no one outside of Judaism has even heard of the Jewish tradition regarding Sodom, except the small community of religious scholars.

All the more reason to publicize it. Of course, I'm happy that it is also goes only with James Connolly's assertion not only can a Christian be a socialist, but he should be one.

[hapax]

@ako "There's a lot of things people can only do in limited stretches."

Yes. And when they can do them, they can do them.

Your examples explain why ethics demand the tripartite concordance of reason, will, and action.

I may understand why there is a moral imperitive to run a hundred miles (to bring the good news to Athens, for example). My will may make the free choice to do so. If my physical abilities are incapable of effecting that understanding and choice, they're incapable, they are incapable, no matter what my mind and will decide upon. There is no moral culpability, then, of not making the distance.

If I am capable of running the twenty miles, however, I am capable, even if I get really really tired and hungry and my feet hurt and it's hot and I may drop dead at the end of the marathon. In that case, if I understand the need to go, and choose not to do so, I am morally culpable.

[Jake]

If you are capable of good, you are capable of being good all the time

That absolutely does not follow. I am capable of standing. I am not capable of standing all the time. If I tried I would collapse from exhaustion and no amount of will would prevent it. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's good enough. I often do good things, but sometimes my psychological needs and flaws overwhelm that attempt and I say or do selfish or unkind things.

I mean, the whole thing is kind of academic to me anyway, since I find the whole idea of a supreme being absurd, but I don't like logical inconsistencies and the above quote is one.

[Lurker]

@nieciedo: What "Law," pray tell, would that be?

Sorry, I lapsed to using the terms used in Lutheran exposition. The "Law" here is simply the ten commandments, or more shortly: "Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself". This is impossible. On the other hand, the Gospel is shortly: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

[Tonio]

"Well to be fair I think religious people report feeling such experiences. We can argue their validity, but being subjective you can't disprove they aren't evidence of God's love.
A truer statement would be that there is no universal experience in our lives that equates to God's love."

Good point, Rozzen. The validity of the experiences are not in question. What is in question is whether those experiences represent empirical evidence of the existence of a god or his love. The burden of proof is on religious people to prove that contention.

"To make it clear, Tonio, I'm not trying to convert you to my perspective on human depravity and God's love. if it doesn't work for you (or anyone else), it doesn't work work you -- move along, nothing to see here."

I understand and appreciate that. However, your perspective on human depravity includes me since I'm a human too. Just because you think I'm depraved because I'm a human doesn't make that true. That contradicts your idea of "it doesn't work for you." Basically, your belief amounts to a judgment about my worth even though that's not your intention.

[Rozzen]

hapax :
"@Rozzen: "Augustine channelled through hapax : if we are capable of being good, we are capable of being perfect"

Of course that's where the chain of logic breaks down."

How so? This is a serious question. If you are capable of something, you're capable.

Yes, but not all the time. I'm capable of eating, but I'm not capable of eating all the time : I'd throw up, or die like the guy in "Seven". I'm capable of staying up all night, but not of doing it all the time (as sleep deprivation studies show...). I guess those aren't completely analog because they require physical extertion, but being good also requires that sometimes. So I guess it works after all. And I'm not even getting into the logical loops a vaguely-defined word like "good" implies...

Of course, this is all nonsense to someone who doesn't accept the concept "God", let alone "ethical, interested God" in the first place. But for those of us who do, it is a very serious issue.
Long live crosspost-tag ! ^^
I would argue that my problem with your definition isn't in the existence of God, but in the fact that basically being good all the time is a random exercise... like a multiple-choice test where you don't know the answers, if you get full marks it will be through sheer luck. I don't think we can talk about the "capability" of being perfect in that case... but then, you aren't "capable" of being "good" either (that is, you can be but if you are it will be through random luck, you don't have the data to be knowingly good. You can try, but you can never tell you've succeeded. Until Grading Day...) which I guess was your point. So ok ^^

o one who loves us would subject us to eternal suffering, and I emphasize the eternal part.
Reminds me of the "evil exists because it's like a parent punishing or hurting their child to educate and protect them". With the eternal "wouldn't you tap your child on the hand it he reached for fire ? Or allow your kid to fall if she were learning to rollerskate otherwise how would she learn ?".

Of course we wouldn't look so kindly on a parent who beat their kid to a pulp until he died to teach him to walk. But that's what God does to a lot of people in the "evil as tough parenting" theory.

[hapax]

@Tonio: "It's impossible because humans have limitations that prevent us from being good all the time or even being bad all the time. "

Yes. Absolutely. Which is why I (and Augustine) would not argue for "utter depravity" -- all humans are good (at bare minimum) insofar as they merely exist. Existence is objectively better than non-existence, unless you're a nihilist. But what you call "limitations" I call "innately fallen nature." You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely trying to explain how I see the doctine play out.

I've never heard of Christians who believe in an afterlife as anything but reward or punishment.

You've heard of me. (waves hello) And Jesus, I presume? (Cf. the parable of the wedding feast, Luke 14) I do not see the Kingdom of Heaven as a reward or a punishment at all. Nor do I believe in eternal damnation, except such damnation as we choose for ourselves in refusing the greater good (yes, I do believe that there are people who would prefer to suffer eternally rather than give up a smidgeon of control and accept a free gift.)

I used "earning" in the sense of getting good grades for fulfulling certain requirements.

Yes. And in that case, you are in control of your own grade. If you fulfill the requirements, the teacher must

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: I suspect that the vast majority of Christians see the Sodom story as condemning homosexuality, not rape or selfishness.

For modern Christians, yes, I think that's true. Vyt medieval Christianity took the same position as Jewish thought - the "sin of Sodom" was gluttony or selfishness. Even when "sodomy" came to be defined as "unlawful sex", it was centuries before it was definitively "anal sex" and not just "any kind of forbidden sexual position".

[hapax]

ako: But that only means you can be good all of the time if you define goodness negatively, as absence of badness.

No, that only means that perfection is the absence of badness.

But to answer your example, well, when you're asleep -- assuming you're not, say, sleeping on your turn at watch -- well, you are being "good", if it is the will of God that you attend to the demands of your body at that time, and refresh your body, mind, and spirit for further good actions. "For He giveth His beloved rest."

[Jon]

Hey, life's not easy when you've got teeth for eyes.

Thank you for giving me my first laugh of the day. It's always nice to see a Sandman references.

[hapax]

Jake: I am capable of standing. I am not capable of standing all the time. If I tried I would collapse from exhaustion and no amount of will would prevent it.

Morality depends upon discrete individual choices, not one choice that streches on ad infinitum. Every nanosecond you choose to stand, or not to stand. At some point, no matter what you choose, you will no longer be physically capable of enacting what your will and understanding demand. At that point, there is no moral culpability for standing.

Cf 1 Cor. 10:12-14.

[Lurker]

I've never heard of Christians who believe in an afterlife as anything but reward or punishment.

You know, this shows why religious education at schools is a good thing. Religion plays so great a role in our lives and in society, that it is a good thing to be informed of world religions even if you are an atheist or agnostic (especially if you are an atheist.) For the last 70 years or so, most Americans have received their religious education from Capra's Wonderful Life and from other similar movies. This does not give a very deep insight to theologies of different churches. Similarly, it would be a good thing to know the four schools of Sunnism, their differences with Shiaism and e.g. the noble eightfold way with its different interpretations. Even if you hate them, it's a good thing to know thy enemy. In addition, knowledge of theology decreases fanaticism which is mostly the occupation of the ignorant.

[hapax]

Sorry, I cut off my own thought @11.47 above. When you physically can no longer act on that choice, there is no moral culpability for NOT standing. However, if you are not making the choice, but remain standing by mere inertia; or if you don't understand what you are doing, but merely make a random choice to stand, there is also no moral benefit to not falling.

Once again, reason, will, and action have to work together.

[Rozzen]

It's always nice to see a Sandman references
Lol ! Thanks Jeff, I was wondering what Biblical reference that was :D

[Tonio]

"But what you call 'limitations' I call 'innately fallen nature.' You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe."

That's not an accurate comparison, because the latter concept says that humans are inherently bad. "Limitations" is value-neutral.

"Nor do I believe in eternal damnation, except such damnation as we choose for ourselves in refusing the greater good..."

You miss my point. A loving God wouldn't create hell or allow hell to exist in the first place. There is no justifiable reason for allowing eternal suffering to even exist, or to offer someone a choice where that is one of the choices.