Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

Ethics was fun for me, my lecturer was quite offended when I said Kant was stupid. I am a rationalist idealist existentialist, mostly interested in Spinoza, Descartes, Socrates...pretty much the mind/body problem, existence of God etc.

I believe in God, my bhakti is Shiva. My personal belief is that Hinduism supercedes everything else in the terms of its scope and magnitude of understanding, and its incredible simmilarity with scientific fact. However, fundamentalism of any sorts, regardless if it is religious or scientific or anything else, is harmful to the peaceful existence of all human kind.

If you deny the rights of a fellow human being, you might aswell go back to the thinking that 'primitive' people have no souls, or that African's have the curse of Ham. It's just ludicrous, and I'm tired and can't think enough to back it up in a proper argument...

 

Probably true - chances are that I was hoping for ironic effect or something or other at the time of writing - but this is the internet and such things get lost in translation pretty easily (no guarentee that this was actually what I was thinking mind you - it might just be what I hope I was thinking )

*throws up*

I find that kind of thinking to be really braindead. Answer me this - why would I feel inclined to obey these commandments if I don't believe that this God exists? The only way that I could be convinced that this God exists is if some credible evidence was presented for it - which might then lead me to want to obey the commandments (not likely - seeing that I find many of the commands of your God to be abhorent).

Following a set of beliefs that doesn't make sense to me doesn't sound appealing - does it to you?

 

What's the point in procreating after resurrection?

I would have thought that the divine word of God and legal procedures defined by people wouldn't be on the same scope as per whether they can be changed by the people.

How exactly do you make the distinction?

 

That is amazing. Simply amazing. I would be willing to stake all of what I own on a bet that if your religion was banned (or made you a second class citizen) in your country, you would try to give yourself equal rights as well.

Religion haters? Slightly strong terms there.
We'll be envoking Godwin's Law very shortly, at this rate

There is a clear difference between changing written laws and changing something that is claimed to be god given. I am sure you would agree that the only way the latter could be changed is by god himself, or someone speaking for him. Now, compare this to a law, which is designed with the ability to be changed by humans through legal means. I hope you can see the difference there.

Could not the same be applied to any of the arguments that have been used against you, as well? This is a copout argument.

 

i wonder if gnarff roughly 100 years ago would qoute the bible when women demanded equel rights and the right to wote?
I meen the bible tells us women are inferior to men, and it was not before 1912 that women got the right to vote.
the bible also tells us that certain people forever should be used as slaves. in fact the bible has nothing against people using slaves.

face it the bible is writen of men of it time and on many parts it can not be used in our time. in my world it clearly shows its not divine, allthough some of it messages are good. and i have nothing against people who believe in it. as long as they dont try to force does believes on me or anybody else. Especially not the outdated ones.

 

Hey - now that's a very good point. The inferiority of females is supported in the New Testament also - so it must still be valid according to Gnarff's reasoning on homosexuality and why it still is...

 

Aikanaro & Equester:
Could you please specify where the New Testament says women are inferior? I've read through it several times and I haven't noticed that anywhere. As for 'out of date' messages, you're supposed to read things in context, they make more sense then. Paul's letters to the Corinthians are all out of date as the problems the churches in Corinth are experiencing now are probably very different, but if you know what the Corinthians were dealing with at the time, you can apply Paul's advice to your own similar problems. Context, that's all it takes.

 

NOG can you point out to me where in the new testemony god, jesus or a prophet of some credibility says that women are no longer inferior to men?
cause if you cant i must asume, just like in the case of homosexuals that the old testemony still applies here.
the same goes for slavery.

if you on the other hand cant find a single place in the new testemony where gods rules about slaves and women being inferior is lifted and still says that clearly we cant have slave or call women inferior, even though the bible tells us to.
you must explain to me why the same dosn't apply to homosexuals.
If you cant do any of this, your religion and believe is build on hyprocazy, not mine.
and i must again stress you dont need to go more then 200years back to ind the churche sanctionen slavery and no more then 100years back to the church finding women inferior to men. Even today and woman cant raise as high in the clergery as a man in the catholic faith.

and regarding context, as soon as you start reading in context you are in the nature of it making up your own rules and conclutions and by that almost anything can pass as a sin or as justifieble, its then in the eye of the beholder.

 

The OT doesn't say women are inferior to men, unless you're talking about the Catholic Bible, in which case women are the root of all evil . The Bible does say that women are weaker (in a physical endurance sense) and that they should be respected and protected, but if anything it raises women on a pedestal above men. In the Old Testament, in Israel, women could work, in fact most of them participated in earning money for the family somehow, they faced the same punishments under the law, in fact, Proverbs even says that the woman of good character takes her husband's money during the day and trades with it, making a profit off it, or invests it in good ventures, making a profit off it. Now how does that say that women are inferior to men?

 

the bible and there is no such thing as a specific catholic bible quite clearly states that women are inferior and shall be the servants of man for all eternety after Eva have offered the forbidden fruit to adam.
and you fail to produce any links and take into account the rest of my post

 

Ok, back to the topic...homosexuality, which is basically "morality depends on religon."

In the major theistic traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is conceived as a lawgiver who has laid down rules that we are to obey. He does not compel us to obey them. We were created as free agents, so we may choose to accept or to reject his commandments. But if we are to live as we should live, we must follow God's laws. This conception has been elaborated by some theologians into a theory about the nature of right and wrong known as the Divine Command Theory. Essentially, this theory says that "morally right" means "commanded by God", and "morally wrong" means "forbidden by God."

This theory has a number of attractive features. it immediately solves the old problem about the objectivity of ethics. Ethics is not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. Whether something is right or wrong is perfectly objective: It is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it. Moreover, the Divine Command Theory suggests an answer to the perennial question of why anyone should bother with morality. Why not forget about "ethics" and just look out for oneself? If immorality is the violation of God's commandments, there is an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable.

There are, however, serious problems for the theory. Of course, atheists would not accept it, because they do not believe that God exists. But there are difficulties even for believers. The main problem was first noted by Plato, the Greek philosopher who lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus.

Plato's writings were in the form of dialogues, usually between Socrates and one of more interlocutors. In one of thse dialogues, the 'Euphythro', there is a discussion concerning whether "right" can be defined as "that which the gods command." Socrates is skeptical and asks: Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right? This is one of the most famous questions in the history of philosophy. The British philosopher Antony Flew suggests that "one good test of a person's aptitude for philosophy is to discover whether he can grasp its force and point."

The point is that if we accept the theological conception of right and wrong, we are caught in a dilemma. Socrates's question asks us to clarify what we mean. There are two things we might mean, and both lead to trouble.

First, we might mean that 'right conduct is right because God commands it.' For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is God's command that 'makes' truthfulness right.

But this leads to trouble, for it represents God's commands as arbitrary. It means that God could have given different commandments just as easily. He could have commanded us to be liars, and then lying, not truthfulness, would be right. (You may be tempted to reply: "But God would never command us to lie." But why not? If he endorsed lying, God would not be commanding us to do wrong, because hsi command would make it right.) Remember that on this view, honesty was not right before God commanded it. Therefore, he could have had no more reason to command it than its opposite; and so, from a moral point of view, his command is arbitrary.

Another problem is that, on this view, the doctrine of the goodness of God is reduced to nonsense. It is important to religious believers that God is not only all-powerful and all-knowing, but that he is also good; yet if we accept the idea that good and bad are defined by reference to Go'ds will, this notion is deprived of any meaning. If "X is good" means "X is commanded by God," then "God's commands are good" would mean only "God's commands are commanded by God", an empty truism.

In 1686, Leibinz observed in his 'Discourse on Metaphysics':

"So in saying that things are not good by any rule of goodness, but sheerly by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory. For why praise him for what he has done if he could be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?"

Thus if we choose the first of Socrates's two options, we seem to be stuck with consequences that even the most religious people would find unacceptable.

There is a way to avoid these troublesom consequences. We can take the second of Socrates's options. We need not say that right conduct is right because God commands it. Instead, we may say that God commands us to do certain things 'because they are right.' God, who is infintely wise, realizes that truthfulness is better than deceitfulness, and so he commands us to be truthful; he sees killing is wrong, and so he commands us not to kill; and so on for all the moral rules.

If we take this option, we avoid the troublesome consequences that spoiled the first alternative. God's commands are not arbitrary; they are the result of his wisdom in knowing what is best. And the doctrine of the goodness of God is preserved: To say that his commands are good means that he commands only what, in perfect wisdom, he sees to be best.

Unfortunately, however, this second option leads to a different problem, which is equally troublesome. In taking this option, we have abandoned the theological conception of right and wrong - when we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we are acknowledging a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God's will. The rightness exists prior to and independent of God's command, and it is the reason for the command. Thus, if we want to know why we should be truthful, the reply "Because God commands it" does not really tell us, for we may still ask "But why does God command it?" and the answer to 'that' question will provide the underlying reason why truthfulness is a good thing.

Many religious people believe that they must accept a theological conception of right and wrong because it would be impious not to do so. They feel, somehow, that if they believe in God, they should say that right and wrong are to be defined in terms of his will. But this argument suggests otherwise: It suggests that, on the contrary, the Divine Command Theory itself leads to impious results, so that a devout person should not accepti it. And in fact, some of the greatest theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), rejected the theory for just this reason.

 

That's a funny one, since Jesus said something along the lines of "whether man or woman, Jew or Gentile, Samaritan or Roman, all are equal in God's eyes". However, Paul said in one of his letters that women were basically the possessions of men. Contradiction!

 

--------------------------------------------------
I am a christian and a (worse to some) Baptist, still I believe all have a right to decide how they want to live even if I do not agree on what they do or say.
--------------------------------------------------

But when they put that life out in public, then they invite the judgement of those who they present themselves before. Their right to live as they choose does not make it morally right, and if they attempt to re-engineer society to their liking, then they can expect a negative reaction from those that are offended.
--------------------------------------------------

Yes a negative reaction can be expected if a person or people are "in your face" and radical. I am saying my bible tells me not to judge and to obey the laws of the land where they do not conflict with Gods law. If a HLB couple move next to me and live as good neighbors I am to treat them as such, Jesus did even while condeming behavior contrary to "law". At the same time if the party gets to loud at 3am on one of my bad days the s**t will hit the fan. Respect for another. And don't expect me to push my version of the Bible on others unwanted. No one can be expected to listen to a maniac shouting and waving a book in their face. Works both ways. this is what I was trying to say. I would react badly too (and did years ago) if a woman naked to the waist came up to me shouting "do my **** upset you do I bother you" (as close as I can remember) yes, her behavior did, not the fact she was trying for equal rights!

 

Of course you would if you insist on considering yourself superior because you don't feel you need to look to external morality...

How about to test what I say? I say that by obeying these commandments, your life will be better. You are refusing with no reason other than an objection to the source is not good enough.

One of the promises is a never ending posterity. We can have more children when we will have the time and energy to enjoy our time with them.

I was referring to attempts to change the laws of the land to reflect our beliefs. They wouldn't budge on the issue of Polygamy, so we gave up the fight. The fair thing is that the laws should not be changed for gays, so they should follow our example and stop the fight.

In parts of the 19th century, the Mormons were routinely forced to leave communities by armed mobs who tried to wipe us out. We suffered the cowardly murder of our Prophet in a jail in Illinois. They left community after community until we found somewhere we would not be run out of. That arguement gains no sympathy from me.

A great many things that people would reccommend to me I have reasons against that don't come from God or the Bible. Between my own experience and the experiences of others, that rules out many of those things.

about slavery: Matthew 25:40 states that "In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me". This means that by enslaving another race, we are enslaving Jesus Christ.

As for Women, I believe that somewhere in the new testament, it states that men and women are equal partners in marriage, not the woman being property of the man. The scripture stated above also extended to abuse as well. A man abuses his wife, he abuses Jesus Christ...

Yes, that's right. As a Mormon, I'm taught that "as man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Basically, God is viewed not only as a father in Heaven, but as one who's been where we are, and is where we strive to be. His counsel is seen as the best way to get there.

Bassed on my previous statement, God commands it because it is right. Having been through what we face, and being where we want to be, he is viewed as a credible teacher. Just as a parent (assume a good parent) gives children directives to help the children learning right from wrong and to protect them from harm, similarly, God gives us similar directives.

Likewise, my religion teaches that we must study the scriptures ourselves and develop our own testimony of them.

But Bearing False witness (lying) can be viewed as harmful and dangerous. Harmful as it spreads inaccurate information, and dangerous because you can be tripped up in a lie and lose all credibility.

Only when viewed from a position of lesser understanding. It makes sense from His infinite, eternal perspective.

Does that matter? If we have a qualified teacher to teach us morality do we need to question the source of this morality? Do you call your professor and ask every little detail of his own educational experiences or simply learn from him? The advantage in this arguement is that since God forbids Homosexual relations, then they must be bad, and not just because God says so...

But if God's will is chosen by Him because it is Good, then in submitting ourselves to God's will, are we not serving this goodness? Since God, in Chirstian theology, is our father, he wants what's best for us. If God is all good, then how can we go wrong in trusting Him?

@Old One: The law is not personal. We ought to love all, but we are not required to sustain or support them in their sins. If a gay couple lives next door and does not make that known, I would not know. If they make it my business to know, then my opinion becomes their business.

 

Can you explain this further please? Was God a human once?

 

@Gnarfflinger: This took some thought, I don't think I am hitting where I am tryung to. Condemning someone for something personal, and sex is as personal as it gets, cannot be a confrontation and get that person to listen to what you are saying at all. If a gay neighbor is acting as a good neighbor and not asking your opinion why tell him he is an abomination in your eyes. If he asks, discuss and reason and don't try to force your beliefs making an confrontation and argument inevitable. The rest of my point is that I would ask him/her to be just as respectful of me and my beliefs.

 

HB: Basically yes, but I don't have the source of the quote handy at the moment.

 

Well, I have a rebuttal to Gnarfflinger's rebuttal, but I am way too drunk to post coherently...hope this sentence itself made sense...

 

Mwahaha - I read a verse earlier today which basically said how women are inferior - will dig for it...

This is the one I was thinking of (it's a lot harsher in my Catholic Bible mind you...)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Try also 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-7, and perhaps especially 1 Timothy 11-15.

 

How about before condemning homosexuality as a temptation and a sin you actually experience it?

As to objecting the source... how about I write a book telling you to jump off a bridge and that God commands you to do so. You'd better go jump off a bridge and not object the source of this word of God.