6/24/2009

Honesty

Things are a bit buys, so I have not had time to do a review of the next chapter.
I thought I would quickly share something that I thought was interesting and honest. Recently I was around a conversation about homosexuality. I did not actively partake, but something interesting was said. A person stated they had to believe being gay was via nurture and had nothing to do with persons biological makeup. This person stated this because if it was something you were born with, why would g0d condemn it? That would make g0d, or at least the Bible, immoral and something to be ignored. Seeing how this person could not believe that, then being gay can't be something you are born with.
I found it interesting, and also found the honestly refreshing. I would tend to agree too, if being gay is biological, the g0d found in much of the Bible is evil and should be ignored.
Mr Deity touches upon this in the latest episode.
Cheers,
Scott

7 comments:

  1. Hey Scott, I really hesitated commenting on this but considering your quest for rational thought ... what the hell. I do admire your honesty in what you are thinking and your willingness to "put it out there". My concern is not for the content of this arguement per se (ie. the morality of homosexuality), but its (il)logical structure. To illustrate one of the possible flaws I've substituted other things the bible/god apparently "condemns"(to use your phrasing).

    "A person stated they had to believe being envious/jealousy/angry was via nurture and had nothing to do with a person's biological makeup. This person stated this because if it was something you were born with, why would g0d condemn it? That would make g0d, or at least the Bible, immoral and something to be ignored. Seeing how this person could not believe that, then being envious/jealous/angry can't be something you are born with ... if being envious/jealous/angry is biological, the g0d found in much of the bible is evil and should be ignored."

    There is so much more that is problematic with this. I don't know, in a way I guess I'm a little suprised that you found this even remotely compelling. But I am glad that you are willing to seek for truth in ways that make this world a better place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S. hurry up and do the review of the next chapter... I'm vicariously reading this book through your reviews!

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you're born homosexual, I don't see how that compares with the emotional "sins". I would say the argument works for psychopaths. As a society we can agree that we can't tolerate sociopath behaviour, but if it's something a person is born with, I don't see how their supposed creator could punish them. He MADE them that way. That would make the creator guilty, not the creation. I am only saying this about things you would have no control over. You have control over anger/jealousy/envy. Now, we can view psychopaths the same way we would a rabid dog. It's not their fault, but we have to put them down. Being gay, on the other hand, is similar in that, if you believe in a creator, that's the way he MADE the person. If you take away the creator, you don't have that problem. I don't have time at the moment to flesh this out in writing, but if you buy into a 'biblical' world view, that's the problem I see.
    Oh, I am not saying being gay is like being a psychopath in a immoral sense. The only similarity is if they are both something you are born with.
    I'll try and get another review done when I get back from the stag:)

    ReplyDelete
  4. While this distinction may be valid, it is a distinction that is not made with in the argument itself; a major premise of the argument is that if your are born with it, why would g0d condemn it. Thus under the terms of this premise anything we are born with that the bible "condemns" must be included or the premise is invalid.
    Also, the differentiation of "emotional sins" from emotions is not something that is made in the biblical texts, what is considered today as in-born emotions like anger, envy, and jealously are "condemned" alongside the so-called behavioral or sexual sins (whether or not this includes homosexuality as is conceived in our day and age is an entire topic unto itself). Another thing that can be problematic here is the concept of "emotion" itself. This is a modern psychological concept, whereas ancient Greeks/Jews/Mediterannean peoples had a vastly different framework of thinking about the person and what we call emotions. Categories such as emotion, nature/nuture, (even religion) are something that would be foreign to these ancient cultures (and thus to the bible).
    Lastly, the main premise above is not a valid christian/biblical premise in terms of what is considered christian theology in any of its flavors (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc). True, some christians may hold such a premise but it could by no means be considered representative of and of the main christian theologies (as established by the creeds and confessions of each). All of these would hold in some way or another that g0d made humanity perfectly but because of us everything about humanity (and the world) has be tainted in some way. So, in terms of trying to invalidate these theologies, this premise could be considered a strawman.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i wonder where the distinction is between God's condemnation of homosexuality and man's condemnation? i think of all the issues in humanity's history (like slavery or the segregation and harm of the Native Americans, for two examples among MANY) that were argued for and provoked by "god's" condemnation and moral ruling (biblically and inspirationally). was it not human's declaration of "god's" word/stance/will/judgement that led to the oppression of so many?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I understand your meaning correctly, I would agree that in those cases it was all human made condemnation.

    ReplyDelete