[Kjorteo]

Thank you for the elaboration. That was extremely enlightening. It's always good to learn!

To me, the word "sinful" implies condemnation for certain behavior with a religious motivation; something is to be reviled simply because God says so. This is problematic because the religious right tends to enjoy legislating morality based on these grounds, and enforcing it even for those who don't share the same religious views. I, for example, am an atheist with a boyfriend. My legal standing compared to heterosexual couples is fairly atrocious, primarily because enough lawmakers read Leviticus that they felt like restricting and denying things wherever they could. I don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I'm practically a second-class citizen because enough other people do that their rules still apply to me.

(I realize that we've had the gay rights debate before and you've come up with more secular reasons that you're uncomfortable with gay marriage and such, but the fact remains that the "small-town family values" mindset is undeniably a dominantly large part of the whole issue.)

How do insane fundamentalists see me? Probably like this.


I honestly don't know enough about where you stand to compare how you see me to that beyond the obvious basics: obviously, you must either not believe in the sin-condemning parts of the Bible quite that strongly or you're much much nicer about it when interacting with others, because you have been nothing but kind and respectful to me as a person even when disagreeing with my opinions, whereas I would actually fear for my physical safety around the people in this picture. Of course, there is often a difference between how you view a person and what you actually say to them, and I must admit that I simply do not know enough about your views to guess what goes through your head when confronted with someone whose death is called for in several various passages in your holy book.

I apologize for what seems like me turning this entire post into one very specific issue, but I must admit that it was the most obvious and convenient example that came to mind. It even ties back to my problem with Huckabee beneath his affable exterior:

Wikipedia wrote:

Huckabee stated in 1992, "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk". He stuck by those comments in December 2007 when asked if homosexuality is sinful. He replied, "Well I believe it would be — just like lying is sinful and stealing is sinful. There are a lot of things that are sinful. It doesn't mean that a person is a horrible person. It means that they engage in behavior that is outside the norms of those boundaries of our traditional view of what's right and what's wrong. So, I think that anybody who has, maybe a traditional worldview of sexuality would classify that as an unusual behavior that is not traditional and that would be outside those bounds."

While I appreciate the lack of Westboro levels of hate, the fact remains that evidently having a boyfriend is unusual and wrong enough behavior to someone with a "traditional worldview" that I've reached "guy you put up with despite the glaring character flaw" status along with liars and thieves. Gee, thanks.

(In other news, for a less extreme example of what happens when condeming sin becomes legislation, try to envision what someone who isn't Mormon must go through to get a drink in Utah.)

[commanderkai]

Kjorteo wrote:

How do insane fundamentalists see me? Probably like this.

You know, these dumbasses from the Westboro Baptist Church aren't exactly typical Christian fundamentalists. These are the same guys who protest at funerals of soldiers and such. Aka they're douchebags who make average Christians/Evangelicals look really bad.

Look, sure there are crazy Evangelicals in the US, but these guys are nowhere near mainstream in either the Christian right or left in the United States. Conservative groups and sites/blogs report on these guys and organize counter protests.

[Kjorteo]

You know, technically, they have the most spot-on literal interpretation of the Bible of any Christian sect with which I am aware. The passages they point to really do say that. They just sided with the Bible over society at large when the latter's views on things started getting more progressive. Everyone else instead started reading the Bible selectively instead of cover-to-cover and glossed over the questionable parts, which raises the question of "how exactly do you reconcile that" which I would ask of all of the more mainstream faithful out there.

Also, much of the more mainstream religious right appears to me to be just as worked up but simply more wishy-washy in how far they'll actually go to object, like Huckabee's lukewarm "they do bad things but they're not actually bad people" answer which I'm sure pleased absolutely no one.

[commanderkai]

Kjorteo wrote:

You know, technically, they have the most spot-on literal interpretation of the Bible of any Christian sect with which I am aware. The passages they point to really do say that. They just sided with the Bible over society at large when the latter's views on things started getting more progressive. Everyone else instead started reading the Bible selectively instead of cover-to-cover and glossed over the questionable parts, which raises the question of "how exactly do you reconcile that" which I would ask of all of the more mainstream faithful out there.

Okay, I just looked up Romans Chapter 2, lines 4-11 in the King James Bible. This is what it says:

4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

Now, forgive my ignorance, but I don't see anything about "No Tears for Queers."

Or Romans 9:13

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. "

As of right now I'm getting a crash course on Esau, so let me see if Esau was gay. So far nothing, and if I am wrong, please show me as such, but so far the only "gay" act was when the brothers kissed, but that is a custom that Italians, Arabs, and who knows who else do as a greeting.

There is literal interpretation, and there is twisting things to see it as you see fit. If someone claimed that Osama Bin Laden is doing the most literal interpretation of the Qu'ran, would you agree? It seems to make more sense, considering.

[Kjorteo]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Not all of these are relevant (this is just a list of every conceivable mention of homosexuality in the Bible, not just the parts that call it an abomination and such,) and a few of them are a bit of a stretch, but there are still some good ones in here. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, as well as anything mentioning Sodom, are the usual favorites for this sort of thing, to the point where I just kind of assumed after not paying close attention that they were among the passages referenced in the picture, and am actually quite surprised that they aren't.

I note that one of the signs there points to Romans 1:24--"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves"--which I would have considered one of the weaker examples, but I guess I can sort of see that.

[commanderkai]

Kjorteo wrote:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Not all of these are relevant (this is just a list of every conceivable mention of homosexuality in the Bible, not just the parts that call it an abomination and such,) and a few of them are a bit of a stretch, but there are still some good ones in here. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, as well as anything mentioning Sodom, are the usual favorites for this sort of thing, to the point where I just kind of assumed after not paying close attention that they were among the passages referenced in the picture, and am actually quite surprised that they aren't. 1 Kings 22:43-46, and Romans 1:26-32 are also up there.

So wait, you just said the Westboro Baptist Church has the most literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet they're "stretching" quotes from the Bible, aka not being literal at all. Is that what you just said? You grabbed a picture of these douchebags, and then painted all Evangelicals as them, even though these Westboro morons somehow have both the most literal interpretation, and yet stretch Bible verses for their agenda.

[Kjorteo]

I said the list of homosexuality references in the SAB page I just linked included some that I considered a bit of a stretch. The very first one, for example, cites Genesis 9:24--"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him"--as a possible reference because exactly what his younger son had done unto him is a little vague and "some commentators have suggested" that it might have been homosexual rape. Right.

I was criticizing the SAB for being excessively generous with their definitions, not Westboro Baptist. And the main reason I was doing that is so that I could link to a page which actually does have a few genuinely good examples in there while making a disclaimer that I'm not quite thin-skinned enough to think every questionable thing they pull up is equally valid. In other words, "here's a list, and from this list you can see that things like Leviticus 20:13 do indeed give them some ammo, but please try not to mind the fact that the list also includes some goofy things like Genesis 9:24." It was a disclaimer, nothing more.

[commanderkai]

Kjorteo wrote:

I said the list of homosexuality references in the SAB page I just linked included some that I considered a bit of a stretch. The very first one, for example, cites Genesis 9:24--"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him"--as a possible reference because exactly what his younger son had done unto him is a little vague and "some commentators have suggested" that it might have been homosexual rape. Right.

I was criticizing the SAB for being excessively generous with their definitions, not Westboro Baptist. And the main reason I was doing that is so that I could link to a page which actually does have a few genuinely good examples in there while making a disclaimer that I'm not quite thin-skinned enough to think every questionable thing they pull up is equally valid. In other words, "here's a list, and from this list you can see that things like Leviticus 20:13 do indeed give them some ammo, but please try not to mind the fact that the list also includes some goofy things like Genesis 9:24." It was a disclaimer, nothing more.

But, no offense, you painted all fundamentalists with one large brush with that picture. That is what I've getting you for. I will not say there aren't any sin condemning parts of the Bible, and fundamentalist Christians aren't too accepting of gays, but at the same time, I don't like anybody using a fringe group to stereotype a significant portion of the population, just like any gay man wouldn't want to be called a NAMBLA supporter (National American Man Boy Love Association, I think, aka pedophiles), and then saying they have the most literal interpretation of whatever gay literature out there, when the picture you provided shows otherwise.

I don't care if you like or dislike Christians, or Evangelicals, or that you're a gay or a supporter of gays. I'm getting you for using a picture of an extremist group of the Evangelical movement, and then DEFENDING it, when that picture shows their extreme, and far from literal interpretation of the Bible.

[Kjorteo]

First off, this whole thing started when Psudo asked me how I thought insane fundamentalists viewed me compared to I thought Psudo viewed me. I'm pretty sure that Westboro Baptist qualifies as insane fundamentalists, so I answered the first half of the question with that and the second half with a simple declaration that I don't know enough about Psudo's views to compare and contrast.

Second, I said that there are, in fact, passages in the Bible that condemn various sins (homosexuality being the given example here) about that strongly, because there are. I wasn't trying to say that all evangelicals interpret them the same way Westboro Baptist does. My point was, and I quote:

Kjorteo wrote:

They just sided with the Bible over society at large when the latter's views on things started getting more progressive. Everyone else instead started reading the Bible selectively instead of cover-to-cover and glossed over the questionable parts, which raises the question of "how exactly do you reconcile that" which I would ask of all of the more mainstream faithful out there.

I wasn't actually declaring anything with regards to evangelicals, let alone that they're all the same as Fred Phelps. I was simply asking how they dealt with the particularly extreme passages of the Bible. Clearly, Westboro Baptist is an example of one way to interpret them, and equally clearly, it's not a way that everyone else shares. So I repeat: if you are religious, what's your take on Leviticus 20:13 and other similar passages? I'm not saying what it is, I'm asking you to tell me.

I will concede that I may have gone a bit too far when I said that Westboro Baptist has the most literally accurate interpretation of the Bible due to passages like Leviticus 20:13 which they clearly pay attention to while most other denominations ignore. That statement obviously excludes the parts of the Bible that other religions play up that Westboro Baptist ignores--loving thy neighbor, for example. Also, even they take some liberties with the hateful passages, in that I'm pretty sure that no Westboro Baptist members have actively murdered any homosexuals, and have instead simply resorted to making very angry speeches about how they're in Hell whenever they just happen to be dead anyway. So yes, I'll take that part back and I apologize. I believe the rest of my point still stands, though.

[Psudo]

commanderkai: Kjorteo has not "painted all Evangelicals as [like] these Westboro morons". He made a clear distinction between radicals and "the more mainstream faithful out there." You're inventing reasons to be offended.


Kjorteo: I asked you what sinful meant to you because I suspect you see it as an extreme thing. Your answer, while clear and direct in response to my overt question, didn't do so much to clarify my covert one.

In mainstream Christian thinking, sinful does not mean awash with abominable, horrible villainy. Sin is a part of everyone's choices, mankind's failure to be their best, most moral selves. It has degrees of relevance, just like being physically dirty does. It ranges from just bathed an hour ago to been livin' in a pile of soiled diapers for years.

The Bible does describe homosexuality as a sin. I think Leviticus gives the clearest examples of this, as it is a book of law for ancient Judea. Chapter 18 lists homosexual sex (v22) next to incest (v6-18), sex with contagious lepers (v19), adultery/wife-swapping (v20), and bestiality (v23). (v21 seems to be about some kind of ritual fire cult and not getting tangled up with them.) Technically, it refers to "uncovering the nakedness of" these groups, which to me suggests both sex and the intimate romance that surrounds it. The chapter is also awash with hints of opposition to sex by force or manipulation.

Working backwards from these many conclusions to search for a common theme, it generally seems to be a call to avoid confusing one's sexual urges with other social bonds and relationships (family, religious, neighborly, owner-livestock, nurse-patient) lest the "the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." (or, in other words, you will lose the land, nation, home, or lifestyle you currently inhabit.) Therefore, I reason the argument thusly: "If your sexual ties tangle with your other social ties you can be hindered and manipulated, leaving others with the same talents but without such obstacles to rise to replace you." This could be in business or political ambition, in social or national sovereignty, in complicated romantic situations where someone is bound to get hurt, or in any other pursuit of success or peace.

Chapter 20 of that book ascribes punishments to these and other crimes, including prescribing death for cursing one's parents, adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, sex with menstruating women, or for having "a familiar spirit" or being "a wizard". (For some reason, the latter makes me think of the KKK.)

Obviously we don't prescribe death for these things anymore. I've heard arguments for the death penalty for incest, but sex with a menstruating woman? Cursing one's parents? There's no way. Even adultery is virtually decriminalized these days. But since the punishments for all these things are the same (death), they must be of approximately the same significance in Leviticus' eyes. The Christian theological explanation for the reduced sentences is that Jesus suffered the punishments for these crimes, paid our debt to society for us, so all that is left is not to do these things (sin) to the extent possible. The increased tolerance is not a matter of hypocritically ignoring the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but of considering it in light of everything else the Scriptures have said.

It should not be assumed that one sentence or phrase of the Bible vetoes all else God has said. Notably, He also said we will be judged in the same manner that we judge others. If we look for ways to condemn others and assign them the strictest punishments for which we can find some frail justification, we are in for a unendurable judgment in the world to come.

That is the typical way moral lessons are derived from the bible: one observes the examples provided, moral and immoral, and judges how best to act from those examples. God states His commandments, often in the harshest terms, but offers no enforcement but the inevitable consequences of our own actions. He designed the clock we call our world, so He knows when and where the pendulum will swing back.

In ancient Judea's defense, I understand their standards of proof and systems of preventing judicial bias were extreme. Convictions being as difficult as they were, trials were more about encouraging moral choices -- or at least pushing objectionable behavior out of public observance -- than removing free will.

So that is my view: homosexual sex, both the act and seeking the act, is wrong in that it limits your capability for happiness, stability, and prosperity. Maybe some people can't choose their attractions and are unalterably bound to their behavior; so much the pity for them. To choose one's behavior, to pursue one's aspirations with a minimum of obstacles and the maximum capability one can muster is the purpose of life. It excites one's joy and it's benefits pour into society round-about. (Even the atheist Ayn Rand recognized that.)

To be crippled by a lack of choice is unfortunate. To be capable of choosing and to abandon some great dream in favor of nearby incitements is similarly sad. While I can never advocate self-limiting choices, I recognize that everyone makes them at least occasionally (myself included). I can't contentedly condone nor capably curtail, so I tolerate and try to politely persuade.

This explanation, I think, reflects the mainstream of Christian thought on the subject at least roughly. Theologically, Mormons are unique in many ways, but I don't know of any reason the view of this Mormon on this topic would differ from the average Joe Bible out there. It's basic Bible plus brain equals argument.

[commanderkai]

Kjorteo wrote:

I will concede that I may have gone a bit too far when I said that Westboro Baptist has the most literally accurate interpretation of the Bible due to passages like Leviticus 20:13 which they clearly pay attention to while most other denominations ignore. That statement obviously excludes the parts of the Bible that other religions play up that Westboro Baptist ignores--loving thy neighbor, for example. Also, even they take some liberties with the hateful passages, in that I'm pretty sure that no Westboro Baptist members have actively murdered any homosexuals, and have instead simply resorted to making very angry speeches about how they're in Hell whenever they just happen to be dead anyway. So yes, I'll take that part back and I apologize. I believe the rest of my point still stands, though.

I'll accept that, and I'd want to apologize too, I did misread what you said. I really need to stop posting before going to bed. Lol.



It was nice arguing without insults though.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo, that's a very fair and well-thought-out response, and I can respect that view. Obviously, I question the basis for some of your calls on what's wrong or sinful in the first place--if I have attractions that lie that way, does it really "limit your capability for happiness, stability, and prosperity" to follow them? Personally, I think being comfortable with myself is a better way to be happy than to struggle with one of those ex-gay conversion camps or something.... But anyway. We've been over this before and I don't think trying to have a debate on homosexuality itself is going to lead either of us any closer to a resolution now, so suffice it to say that I'm willing to accept that analogy in a "close enough" sort of way (not hating me has to count for something, really,) and I thank you for that.

commanderkai wrote:

It was nice arguing without insults though.

I try.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo wrote:

if I have attractions that lie that way, does it really "limit your capability for happiness, stability, and prosperity" to follow them?

It does if you choose those attractions over greater goals. Really, it's a general criticism of placing lustful motivations over practical concerns rather than an argument against homosexuality specifically. A heterosexual married couple with more interest in bedroom games than paying the rent is equally guilty.

One could make an argument that choosing your attractions over societal acceptance shows an inclination toward choosing them over other things too. But, in the end, it's your moral decision with the consequences falling on you. I have a little at stake in the status of gays in society and politics as part of that society, but I have no stake in your personal choices and, thus, my view is of little or no consequence to your individual choices.


On an approximately related note, ancient Greece and Japan had a different perception of homosexuality than the modern Western view; they tolerated homosexuality as harmless or perhaps a little immature, but still expected those people to get married and raise children. What do you think about that? I don't know any modern gay perspective on it at all.

[Kjorteo]

Now that I can accept. Well said, sir.

Edit: Fired off my response before you edited in the last paragraph of yours, so allow me to edit my post to include your edit. Confused yet?

Psudo wrote:

On an approximately related note, ancient Greece and Japan had a different perception of homosexuality than the modern Western view; they tolerated homosexuality as harmless or perhaps a little immature, but still expected those people to get married and raise children. What do you think about that? I don't know any modern gay perspective on it at all.

Well, I'm not really deeply involved in movements or communities or anything, so don't take my answer as anything more than my personal opinion, let alone me speaking for a modern gay perspective in general or anything.

Still, personally, I disapprove of that notion, but not for reasons that have anything to do with homosexuality in particular. I feel that society is there to benefit its citizens, rather than the other way around. Society should do what it can to make sure the average quality of life is as high as it reasonably can be, that citizens are reasonably protected from most things, etc. Society has every right to ask a little back from its citizens in return, to a point--taxes, military and community service, jury duty, etc. However, I'm very leery about that being taken too far, because people can eventually start being a part of the machine that powers their country and stop being people.

So, I object to homosexuals being expected to get married and raise children for the same reason I object to heterosexuals being expected to get married and raise children: if they don't want to, it seems excessively authoritarian to me to try to pressure them into it.

Actually, I remember this being a part of the debate the last time we clashed on homosexuality: I asked for secular reasons to object to things like gay marriage, you said that it produces no gain to society because of a lack of children, etc., and I objected to the entire overall idea of deciding whether someone should be allowed to do something based on the measure of its possible gain to society.

[Psudo]

Yeah, sorry about the edit. It really was a last-second thought.

As far as movements or communities, as a general rule I prefer an outsider's perspective. If I have a plumbing question I call a plumber, not a leader in the plumber's union or a plumbing regulation lobbyist.

I remember the individual vs. society being a big part of our discussion, too. I don't really think that people exist to benefit society. I'm rather Objectivist in my belief that society cannot morally demand individuals sacrifice themselves to aid the greater good. But I'm also Christian in my belief that aiding the public good is a moral achievement. Since there's nothing praiseworthy about self-destruction or hurting society, the only praiseworthy actions are those that better the self without harming society or those that benefit society without harming the self. Obviously, mutual benefit is ideal.

My argument before was that a government-issued marriage certificate was recommendation by society; that is, society repays the benefits it receives from marriage by providing legal benefits to the couple. While I'm not obviously hurt by gay relationships, I'm not obviously helped either. If that is true for the rest of society, what benefits is society receiving for those that it's giving?

I do see societal benefits from a stereotypical mom-dad-kids kind of family. When working right, it's an institution that creates the next generation of humans, shows them what it is to be able and healthy, and sends them into the world to continue human civilization. Children reared with both a male and female role-models in the home are, on a societal scale, psychologically healthier. The traditional family is the engine that drives human society, and it deserves legal recognition for that.

On a societal scale, it's also struggling. There are a lot of broken homes, single parents, teen pregnancies, and the like demonstrating that families as an institution are hurting. When I mention this online, I usually get as rebuttal first-hand accounts of unhealthy, failed homes. Maybe my perspective is skewed by the fact that I came from a working, healthy home, but I can't see how a failure to reach an objective makes the objective itself bad. And I know, with a knowledge deeper and more powerful than philosophical discourse and speculative debate, I KNOW what family done right can do. We can debate political philosophy and individual morality, but no matter the government the success or failure of a society, from a neighborhood to a nation, depends on family done right. Government makes up reasons to associate itself with something so grand in order to look better than it could ever be.

It's not that I think homosexual relationships (or single parenthood or divorce or the countless other limitations and weaknesses families face) are evil. It's that I think they lack the same magnitude of good that I witnessed while I was growing up. Even so, it wasn't perfect. We had fights and bad choices and teenage rebellion and the rest, too. So something greater still is possible. My hands shake and my heart shivers to think of it.

It's amazing... just talking about it makes me worry about my own future family. In the face of statistical probability and knowing my own failings, how can I hope to do so well as my own parents? Knowing how valuable my past has been to me, how can I do any less for my children?

Usually in these posts, I stay intellectually cool and aloof. This time, I have not. This time, it's personal and powerful to me, with all the emotions I associate with divinity shaking me, holding me at the verge of tears. If everything else I've ever said is proved wrong, this will yet be true: a successful family is greater than all else. These words are my creed and my conviction beyond any others.

Now I will collect myself and conclude.

Perhaps I set an unreasonable standard for homosexual relationships to earn my approval. Perhaps I also set an unreasonable standard for myself, for my own life. But what I feel now, the past I've lived, was real. It happened, thus it can happen. Knowing that, how can I settle for lower expectations? If others can have this joy, they should have it. It must be available, achievable, known. Anything else is sin to me.