Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

hairyheretic

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/02/12/1959244.shtml

"Today is the 197th anniversary of the great biologist Charles Darwin's birth. In response, some 450 Christian churches are celebrating Darwin's birth, saying, 'Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science.' There's also an interesting perspective on Darwinism and Christianity in the San Jose Mercury News."

The links in it take you to ..

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1096932.php/Churches_celebrate_Darwin%60s_birthday

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/13847613.htm

I'll be curious to see peoples responses to this.

Excelsior

It is an excellent way to stimulate conversation and thought in church communities. I'd be pulling mischievious schemes like this all the time if I was a church leader.

Christian community is the ideal place to lay your opinions out to close examination because the level of respect offered to each person should be massive. At least in churches that seek to follow the reformer Philip Melanchton who wrote: "In essentials we have unity, in non-essentials we have liberty and in everything we have charity".

Talliesin

Excelsior wrote:

Christian community is the ideal place to lay your opinions out to close examination because the level of respect offered to each person should be massive.

This is of course true of most faiths, and also sadly often not what actually happens in just about all faiths. The only way to make it so is to actively encourage such respect and events like this are a way to make it happen.

/me tips his hat.

Excelsior

I thought that the guidance of the Holy Spirit was how it happened.

I think there is more to Christian community than people trying hard to like each other. But permit my cheeky digression and let's get back to the topic...

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

I think there is more to Christian community than people trying hard to like each other...

Of course there is! Christians all gotta try very hard to like themselves, too...

wolfsbane

Maybe May 5, 2006 will see:
"Today is the 188th anniversary of the great social scientist Karl Marx's birth. In response, some 450 Christian churches are celebrating Marx's birth, saying, 'Marx's theory of historical materialism is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and history.'

Once one is 'liberated' from Scripture, no telling where one will go.

Excelsior

I look forward to playing Karl Marx at table tennis in heaven.

robindch

> Once one is 'liberated' from Scripture, no telling where one will go.

Hmm... depending on one's own beliefs, 'liberating' oneself from prejudice towards homosexuals, prejudice towards unmarried parents (or their kids), prejudice towards people of other religions (or none), fanatical belief in creationism, the belief that most of humanity is 'lost' and going to spend eternity toasting in hell? I'd say the only way is up

From this article comes this quote:

Those who live by faith are not intellectually inferior. One could even say that it takes a certain brilliance, or at least extraordinary mental flexibility, to engage in the mental gymnastics required to apply reason in most areas of life and then suspend it entirely on other areas. So this isn't really about intellect. And to say that faith is a failure of reason or abdication of reason is just to name it, not to explain what's wrong with it. I think something stronger can be said.

Faith is a moral failing. The abdication of reason is the abdication of justification. When people stop even trying to rationally justify their actions in the world - when they decide to act from faith instead - then they might just do anything at all and call it right and good.

...which is a point worth considering, isn't it?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Hmm... depending on one's own beliefs, 'liberating' oneself from prejudice towards homosexuals, prejudice towards unmarried parents (or their kids), prejudice towards people of other religions (or none), fanatical belief in creationism, the belief that most of humanity is 'lost' and going to spend eternity toasting in hell? I'd say the only way is up.

Well, that's quite a mixed bag. If prejudice towards means disapproval of, then we all pick and choose according to our presuppositions. Obviously for you those who believe in the biblical doctrine of salvation are not up to your standards. For Christians, all unbelievers are in need of radical change, be they homosexuals, fornicators, idolators or whatever.

Are you prejudiced towards pedophiles? Thieves? Liars? Christians? You make the judgement that homosexuality is OK, but not these - on what basis?

then they might just do anything at all and call it right and good.

The most significant 'anythings' of the previous century were done by those who believed man evolved from the slime. They murdered by the millions, all in the the name of an upward evolution of mankind. The logic of evolution lends itself to individual nihilism and corporate megalomania.

John Doe

wolfsbane wrote:

Are you prejudiced towards pedophiles? Thieves? Liars? Christians? You make the judgement that homosexuality is OK, but not these - on what basis?

I don't know about robindch, but I tend to discriminate on the basis of good or harm done to other people. I am prejudiced against the act of thieving, as it often harms people, but not so much that I would be incapable of reviewing specific cases. I am prejudiced against paedophilia, because it almost invariably harms people when exercised, but I could still have compassion for a paedophile. I'm a bit prejudiced against lying, but I'm not that mad against it. I am only prejudiced against Christians in my weaker moments, and I shouldn't be. I am not prejudiced against homosexuality or homosexuals because I fail to see where the harm in it lies.

wolfsbane wrote:

The most significant 'anythings' of the previous century were done by those who believed man evolved from the slime. They murdered by the millions, all in the the name of an upward evolution of mankind. The logic of evolution lends itself to individual nihilism and corporate megalomania.

This is a stupid point to make. There have been many, many atrocities recently and not so recently committed in the name of one religion or other. Would you like us to count up the total killed by religious fanatics and the total killed by non-religious fanatics? As well as being very, very hard it would prove nothing unless one side or the other was negligibly small. Neither is.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

For Christians, all unbelievers are in need of radical change, be they homosexuals, fornicators, idolators or whatever.

So, homosexuals and fornicators are unbelievers? Hmm, that's a new and special interpretation...where do you get that from?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

So, homosexuals and fornicators are unbelievers? Hmm, that's a new and special interpretation...where do you get that from?

Scofflaw

A careful reading of Wolfsbane's comment is that homosexuals and fornicators are included in the group called 'unbelievers'. But, not all homosexuals and fornicators are unbelievers.

Which leaves room for homosexuals and fornicators to be in the category of believers. I know homosexuals and fornicators who are believers, but they do not practice that sinful lifestyle and try very hard not to be tempted by it. Just as all Christians recognize their sin and try and stay away from whatever it may be.

All non-believers are in need of radical change. Once they accept Christ the change begins.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

All non-believers are in need of radical change.

This non believer would like to politely but firmly disagree with that statement.

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

This non believer would like to politely but firmly disagree with that statement.

Politeness and disagreement is duly noted.:D

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

A careful reading of Wolfsbane's comment is that homosexuals and fornicators are included in the group called 'unbelievers'. But, not all homosexuals and fornicators are unbelievers.

Well, it either suggests that unbelievers are all "homosexuals, fornicators, or idolators", or that "homosexuals, fornicators, or idolators" are therefore unbelievers.

You might do better to plead the "or whatever" clause, but it's either an amazingly offensive comment or a rather interesting take on sin.

regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

A careful reading of Wolfsbane's comment is that homosexuals and fornicators are included in the group called 'unbelievers'. But, not all homosexuals and fornicators are unbelievers.

Which leaves room for homosexuals and fornicators to be in the category of believers. I know homosexuals and fornicators who are believers, but they do not practice that sinful lifestyle and try very hard not to be tempted by it. Just as all Christians recognize their sin and try and stay away from whatever it may be.

All non-believers are in need of radical change. Once they accept Christ the change begins.

I know a bisexual christian who studies the bible extensively and has written a rather convincing thesis on why the bible does not actually condemn homosexuality.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

I know a homosexual christian who studies the bible extensively and has written a rather convincing thesis on why the bible does not actually condemn homosexuality.

I have always been curious where that idea comes from. The Bible is pretty clear: 1 Corinthians 1 6-9: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

He seems to have covered that - should I paste the whole thesis?
Uh, I think this is a start though: http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html

BrianCalgary

That is good. I'll go read it.
Thanks

Ah, I found a place to host the thesis, heh - http://bluewolfcub.livejournal.com/409.html

Some additional links:

http://www.theturning.org/folder/samesex.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://www.truluck.com/html/sexual_orientation_not_in_bibl.html
http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5352005&page=2
http://tomway.home.att.net/bible_homo.htm

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

He seems to have covered that - should I paste the whole thesis?
Uh, I think this is a start though: http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html

Hmm, yes, I've read the "Arsenokoités and Malakos" thing before, while trying to find out exactly what they did in Gomorrah that was so bad. Very interesting, and I would strongly suggest giving it a read - particularly those of you who I happen to know argue about whether Jesus had "cousins" or "brothers".

In summary, the suggestion (well-backed) is that the terms normally taken to mean 'homosexual' actually mean "people who who fraudulently or forcefully sexually exploit others", and "effeminate/unmanly men".


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> The most significant 'anythings' of the previous century were done by
> those who believed man evolved from the slime.

Like 99.90% of scientists who disagree with you about science, I would imagine that around 99.90% of historians would disagree with your analysis of 20th century history.

Consider the following interesting quote, last seen on boards.ie a week or two ago, from the end of chapter two of the first volume of Mein Kampf:

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

...which would suggest that perhaps Hitler was more driven by religious hatred than by any particular interest in Darwin's core concept of differential reproductive success?

Excelsior

On the topic of arsenokoites, I follow (as with most things) NT Wright's argument that even a magazine-depth familiarity with the ancient world through its literature will demonstrate that while categories such as "bicurious", "bisexual" and "homosexual" could not have been discussed or considered in 50AD, long term monogomous, altogether orthodox homosexual relationships (both gay and lesbian) were commonplace. In such a setting, it is higly unlikely that Paul would use the term to mean only those acts of what we would now perhaps call paedophilic rape which took place for cultic purposes without hinting at that.

What makes such a reading even less convincing is Jesus' only comments on sex in the Sermon on the Mount which reinforce marraige as a gift from God and the only context for sexual relations. In light of Jesus' teachings on the sanctity of marriage and on divorce and adultery, it is difficult to grasp why Paul would teach that only homosexual sex for the purposes of idolatry would be out of line for the Christian.

Finally, if you consider the 2nd Temple Jewish interpretation of the Holiness Code in Leviticus, particularly chapters 18 and 20 and then take the background of both Jesus and Paul into consideration, it is difficult to see how these Rabbis would argue that homosexual sex within a committed long term monogomous relationship is ok. (Lev 18 and 20 butress, serve as the 2 pillars surrounding Lev 19 which lays out the crucial justice teachings of Judaism. They are as strategically placed as any text in the Hebrew Scriptures and serve as another challenge to the new interpretation of 1 Cor 6 and Rom 1).

I understand why the redefinition of arsenokoi is attractive. I would love for it to say something different, something more contemporary, something easier for me to swallow. But there is a real stretch involved in understanding it in the terms outlined by Bluewolf's friend.

As another note, of a less textual nature, I know plenty of bisexual practicing Christians and some homosexual Christians. They struggle on a daily basis to live out their relationship with Jesus but that inherently involves practicing Christ, and not their bi or homosexuality. Although the Christian churches have been absolutely retarded in their treatment (and demonisation) of homosexuals, the Biblical account is very even handed; Everyone is loved by God but sex (for everyone) takes place only inside of marriage.

I know that is hard. It might even sound primitive to you. But that is the standard God holds us up to.

In that case I suppose gay marriage should be legalised

Excelsior

I certainly think that long term homosexual relationships should be afforded the same tax and civil status as heterosexual relationships by our secular state.

Do I think that is the best thing in the world? No. But politics is about compromising to win the least amount of harm possible. Better by far that two people who love each other can live happily in the knowledge that should one get sick, the other will be able to care for them.

If the gay married couple become Christians in some church I might someday in the future minister, then I would have to have the hard conversation with them where I propose they get two single beds....


But this is far off the topic of Darwin's birthday....

Scofflaw

I can see your point, Excelsior. However, if the guy has documented a historical shift in the translation of these terms, how is that explained?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Heck I wasn't going up against an expert Scofflaw! I am an interested amateur. I was just offering you all the wonderful presence of my opinion.

Seriously, I think that he is entirely right at one point where he cuts through the nonsense and declares that all translations are subject to ideological bias, just as interpretations are. But his interpretation of translation is, I might argue, a classic case of the assumptions the researcher brings filling in the gaps in the argument they construct.

I would love a New Testament that declared loving homosexuality to be a-ok. That would very much be my ideological bias. But the New Testament seems to me to say something else so I am left choosing to take the attractive reading offered in our link or trying to be authentic to what the text, taken holistically and contextualised, says.

John Doe

Excelsior wrote:

I would love a New Testament that declared loving homosexuality to be a-ok. That would very much be my ideological bias. But the New Testament seems to me to say something else so I am left choosing to take the attractive reading offered in our link or trying to be authentic to what the text, taken holistically and contextualised, says.

That's a very interesting point. If I really believed in the New Testament I'd say I'd take the same line as you, after all if you really believe in something you have to go along with it 100%. As an unbeliever though, I tend to follow this argument: that some things that are warned against in the Bible are obviously damaging to us as humans: killing, raping, lying etc. Other things warned against have no ill-effect upon us in this life and I doubt whether an all-powerful all-loving God could be really upset by them either, things such as wearing clothes made from more than one type of fabric or loving someone of the same sex.
I know that both of those are expressly forbidden in the Old Testament, but may I ask whether homosexuality is the only one of them forbidden in the New? I think the multiple fabric one is ridiculous, anyway, and I can't see harm in homosexuality either.

Scofflaw

Well, again it seems that we have no direct teaching by Jesus on the matter. We have a mention in epistles by Paul (to be honest, I'd fling Paul and all his works straight out of the canon, given my druthers - once a fanatic and a persecutor...), and we have the Old Testament injunctions (depending on translation).

Those following the Old Testament injunctions are presumably avoiding the wearing of cloth made of two kinds, etc?

regards,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Brian Calgary said:

Which leaves room for homosexuals and fornicators to be in the category of believers. I know homosexuals and fornicators who are believers, but they do not practice that sinful lifestyle and try very hard not to be tempted by it. Just as all Christians recognize their sin and try and stay away from whatever it may be.

Let me use Brian's comment to rely to Scofflaw's point as well.

Both Brian and Scofflaw are right in a sense in their interpretation of my position. Just because one falls into any sinful action - theft, homosexuality, fornication, etc. - does not mean they are not a Christian. Every believer knows the power of sin wrestling against his new nature. We all have something to repent of every day, be it an unkind thought, a boastful word or a harmful action. King David is a good example of a godly man who fell into a shameful sin - adultery - and then to cover it up, an even worst one - murder. That he did not end up in hell for that is due to his repentance - he turned away from his sin and looked to God for pardon. He did not continue in the practice of adultery and murder.

Same goes for homosexuals. Their sexual lifestyle is contrary to God's design for us and a violation of His will. Yet homosexuals will be pardoned if they turn from their way. They may not, however, continue to practice their sin. They will recognise any ingrained attraction to their own sex as a sinful perversion of God's gift of sexuality and seek to replace it by natural desires.

I have read the thesis of the guy who claims to be a Christian homosexual and tries to defend it from Scripture. He is quite right that in this New Covenant age we cannot just go to the Mosaic Law for our ethics. His problem is the New Testament texts that address homosexuality. His treatment of them is tortured. He insists they need not be speaking of homosexuality, but cannot say then what they are addressing. That is because there is no other target on the horizon. Paul was either speaking of homosexuality or we cannot tell what he was referring to. Hardly likely for the crucial theology he seeks to explain and the practical issues he addresses. Further, the Church down the ages has then also been strangely ignorant of the acceptability of homosexuality and of the real meaning of Paul's teaching on it.

Such an approach to Christian ethics would also justify free-sex, bestiality, mother/son and father/daughter sex. About the only thing ruled out would be prostitute sex. No, the historic Christian doctrine of sex is the only one we can find in the New Testament.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

...which would suggest that perhaps Hitler was more driven by religious hatred than by any particular interest in Darwin's core concept of differential reproductive success?

You really think Hitler regarded himself as a Christian? That his comments in Mein Kampf (written a long time before he gained power) were not designed to sucker in as many gullible 'christians' as possible? Look at his actions against the churches, against all non-Aryian types; his promotion of Germanic mythology. Even before Hitler commenced his political career, he wrote:
Weakness of the half-baked
Nature is quite unbending, which means: Victory of the
stronger whose strength or will gives him a greater claim to victory

Privilege through strength the basis of all Nature
The prerequisite of the world's existence.

the man of genius in tune with nature does not try to test this law
which also informs his own ideas about the world
but performs all his actions in accordance with it.

The 'educated man', i.e., the man who as been spoon-fed with
knowledge substitutes the idea of humanity and hence
becomes 'cruel' in the end.

Nature is never cruel
Cruelty is-- delight in
pointless suffering
Useless during the struggle--

Racial purity the highest law.

Miscegenation with inferior types means lowering the level of the whole [last word illegible]

But, OK, if we take him at his word in Mein Kampf then I concede - he was a theistic evolutionist!:v:

However, his career was cut short - so what can be said of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc? Were they not atheists? Did not their idea of man's origin allow them to to engineer society from the barrel of a gun? No constraints about man in God's image and being accountable for his blood. Just a more complex animal, fit for the abattoir.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, again it seems that we have no direct teaching by Jesus on the matter. We have a mention in epistles by Paul (to be honest, I'd fling Paul and all his works straight out of the canon, given my druthers - once a fanatic and a persecutor...), and we have the Old Testament injunctions (depending on translation).

In the sermon on the mount Jesus speaks out against adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28). In verses 31 to 32 He adresses divorce, which is between a man and a women. The only allowance for divorce is 'marital unfaithfulness'. If you divorce for any other reason you become and adulterer on marrying someone else. In conclusion: Marriage is between man and woman, sex is to be within marriage and any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Scofflaw wrote:

Those following the Old Testament injunctions are presumably avoiding the wearing of cloth made of two kinds, etc?

And I have problems getting my colours to match, let alone the fabrics.:)

hairyheretic

wolfsbane wrote:

You really think Hitler regarded himself as a Christian?

He certainly seemed to.

wolfsbane wrote:

Look at his actions against the churches, against all non-Aryian types; his promotion of Germanic mythology.

Hitler also acted against a great many others.

And for what its worth, Hitler made a number of quotes about paganism and the old Gods being dead and gone.

Hitler: On Paganism and Heathen Religion

On the 14th of October, 1941, Hitler said: "Nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself ... I especially wouldn't want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha."


"The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack" (Mein Kampf, Chap. 12).

We've covered the Nazi abuse of paganism before here, if you want to have a read.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3244636&postcount=5

wolfsbane wrote:

Even before Hitler commenced his political career, he wrote:

He also wrote a great many things which would appear to be pro-Christianity.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm


Still, identifying yourself as one thing or another doesn't mean very much, if by your actions you prove otherwise.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the sermon on the mount Jesus speaks out against adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28). In verses 31 to 32 He adresses divorce, which is between a man and a women. The only allowance for divorce is 'marital unfaithfulness'. If you divorce for any other reason you become and adulterer on marrying someone else. In conclusion: Marriage is between man and woman, sex is to be within marriage and any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I am forced to point out that that's a hell of a jump. It's a bit like jumping from a comment on family law to outlawing homosexuality - actually, that's not even an analogy.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I would read that instead as Jesus making the point that a literalist interpretation of the law (the letter) is not as important as the spirit of the law, and the consideration of consequences to others - something very much in line with his other teachings. In fact, I think I consider your interpretation both bizarre and unfounded, given that it's totally unrelated to homosexuality.


regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I am forced to point out that that's a hell of a jump. It's a bit like jumping from a comment on family law to outlawing homosexuality - actually, that's not even an analogy.

I don't see where the jump is?

Scofflaw wrote:

I would read that instead as Jesus making the point that a literalist interpretation of the law (the letter) is not as important as the spirit of the law, and the consideration of consequences to others - something very much in line with his other teachings. In fact, I think I consider your interpretation both bizarre and unfounded, given that it's totally unrelated to homosexuality..

I agree Jesus refers to the spirit of the law.

The point that I am trying to make is that sex outside of marriage is adultery. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore sex between same sexes is also adultery.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't see where the jump is?

I agree Jesus refers to the spirit of the law.

The point that I am trying to make is that sex outside of marriage is adultery. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore sex between same sexes is also adultery.

Jesus is referring specifically to marriage. I would certainly accept that he is saying the homosexual adultery is the same as heterosexual adultery, and that homosexual fornication is the same as heterosexual fornication, because he does not make any distinction.

However, he does not make any distinction. There are, therefore, no grounds in the quote above for a specific condemnation of homosexuality, which is what is being taught.

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [wolfsbane, quoting hitler] Privilege through strength the basis of all Nature

Well, reading this, it's clear that Hitler understands evolution crudely as 'survival of the fittest', which, as I've pointed out time after time, is nothing close to what biologists say about evolution (to remind you *again*, evolution can be understood as the results of differential reproductive success).

In fact, looking again, Hitler misquotes and misrepresents evolution for his own political ends. Just as creationists do

John Doe

robindch wrote:

In fact, looking again, Hitler misquotes and misrepresents evolution for his own political ends. Just as creationists do

Interesting. Berry interesting indeed... although Hitler did misquote and misrepresent just about anything he could for his own political ends. When it comes down to it, all he was interested in was power, and for some reason in the holocaust. Historians still haven't figured out any concrete motive for the latter.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

Interesting. Berry interesting indeed... and for some reason in the holocaust. Historians still haven't figured out any concrete motive for the latter.

I believe the consensus is that he had a personal problem with the Jews, and then turned that problem into a national problem, which he used as a political platform to launch his ****** here words fail me as I do not know what to call what he launched...the Nazi Party??.

Sorry if I am off topic.

John Doe

Asiaprod wrote:

I believe the consensus is that he had a personal problem with the Jews, and then turned that problem into a national problem, which he used as a political platform to launch his ****** here words fail me as I do not know what to call what he launched...the Nazi Party??.

Sorry if I am off topic.

I started the off-topicness, so I'll just have one more: though Hitler had a personal problem with Jews it still made no sense even in a cold, calculating way to attempt the Holocaust during World War 2. It contributed to his losing the war (along with other things). It really annoys me when people use the foremost evil men of the century to try to prove some abstract point: there's really very little we can take from these monsters.

Excelsior

I see where you are coming from Scofflaw but the definition of adultery that Jesus is extending isn't that which we commonly casually use today. If I go behind my wife's back and have sex with my neighbour I am said to be committing adultery. If my wife and I had sex before we were married, that would not be referred to as adultery. But Jesus (as a Jew following from the Pentateuch) would have understood adultery to be all sex outside of any marriage agreement.

With his sole recorded teachings on sexuality precluding any sex outside of marriage, it seems difficult to reconcile with a new interpretation of Romans 1 or 1 Cor 6.

Homosexuality as a category, it has been well traced, is an invention of the Victorian era. To demand that Jesus speak to the homosexual issue is like asking him to speak to the "professional". It is a category his listeners would never have understood.

robindch

> It really annoys me when people use the foremost evil men of the
> century to try to prove some abstract point:

Indeed. Around once a week or so for the last couple of months, we've been seeing "secularism" or "humanism" or "atheism" or "evolution" (and a few more) trotted out as the root motivator for the actions of a unpleasant variety of megalomaniacal mass-murderers and I'm thoroughly tired of it, as much for its glass-eyed repetitiveness, as for its daft inaccuracy.

> there's really very little we can take from these monsters.

Don't agree with this at all. What these lads showed is that it's quite easy to install an uncontrollable dictatorship into a society, if you make free reference to some glorious and virtuous mythology, work on developing divisions within society (pre-existing religious divides are useful here), declare a looming external threat, make sure that you control access to information and make sure that everybody understands that anybody who questions the administration, or ignores or retaliates against the binding prejudices which it propagates, is a direct threat to the stability of society. Once you've done that, it's pretty easy to get a pliant population to do whatever you like.

Most, if not all, dictatorships arise by choosing a few of these old reliables to motivate enough people to control the remainder and the ease with which that can be done is what Hitler and the rest of that sorry lot should make us all aware of.

Bringing this briefly back on-topic, modern evolutionary psychology does provide evolutionary explanations for why this happens (here's a fanitly relevant short essay on the topic).

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Homosexuality as a category, it has been well traced, is an invention of the Victorian era. To demand that Jesus speak to the homosexual issue is like asking him to speak to the "professional". It is a category his listeners would never have understood.

Er, exactly. And how does that lead to the specific condemnation of homosexuality frequently made by Biblical literalists?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Homosexual sex is sex outside of marriage, yeah? Well then Jesus ticks that one off his list in the Sermon on the Mount.

John Doe

The concept of homosexual marriage wasn't around in Jesus's time though. Maybe he didn't know it would be. I'm hoping that if he knew that two gay men or women could have a loving and monogamous relationship then he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

John Doe

robindch wrote:

Don't agree with this at all. What these lads showed is that it's quite easy to install an uncontrollable dictatorship into a society, if you make free reference to some glorious and virtuous mythology, work on developing divisions within society (pre-existing religious divides are useful here), declare a looming external threat, make sure that you control access to information and make sure that everybody understands that anybody who questions the administration, or ignores or retaliates against the binding prejudices which it propagates, is a direct threat to the stability of society.

You're completely right there. My comment was a silly generalisation. I was trying to say that just because X was a Y doesn't mean squat without a lot of backing up. Actually I'd like to withdraw the comment altogether, on reflection.

BrianCalgary

John Doe wrote:

The concept of homosexual marriage wasn't around in Jesus's time though. Maybe he didn't know it would be. I'm hoping that if he knew that two gay men or women could have a loving and monogamous relationship then he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

He would have a problem with it, because it fits into the adultery category.

John Doe

It fits into the adultery category as it was then, but was there any group of people back then who proclaimed that they were attracted to members of the same sex and would, ideally, like to fall in love with one of them, marry them and spend their lives with them? If not, it's kinda like saying that Jesus wouldn't have been in favour of cars because he didn't mention them. Ok, not quite, but close!

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Homosexual sex is sex outside of marriage, yeah? Well then Jesus ticks that one off his list in the Sermon on the Mount.

Excelsior wrote:

If I go behind my wife's back and have sex with my neighbour I am said to be committing adultery. If my wife and I had sex before we were married, that would not be referred to as adultery. But Jesus (as a Jew following from the Pentateuch) would have understood adultery to be all sex outside of any marriage agreement.

I'm not asking about whether homosexual sex is condemned as being outside marriage - I can see where that derivation comes from (although I don't particularly agree) - I am asking about the specific condemnation of homosexuality.

I would also presume that the problem can be solved by allowing same-sex unions.

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I was trying to say that just because X was a Y doesn't mean squat
> without a lot of backing up.

Agreed; there has to be some causal link demonstrated between X and Y, which in the case of the stuff I mentioned, has never been shown, even mildly, despite it being claimed week after week. In my darker moments, I suspect that all of these claims are simply unhappy extensions of the curious religious notion that it's ok to assert that something is true, just because one might believe that it's true -- a mindscape where the mind's eye overrules the body's.

> You're completely right there.

Hmm... reading my post again, I can't help but think of religion. Dang, and I'm trying to be nice!

Anyhow, now back to the christianity forum's weekly discussion of gay sex :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I would also presume that the problem can be solved by allowing same-sex unions.

Can't agree with your presumption here. Surprised?:)

We may allow it with man made laws, but God still condemns it, because a marriage is between a man and a woman.