There’s a recent post at The Atheist Ethicist, The Source of Hatred, where Alonzo explores the question of why theists hate homosexuals.
According to him, religion is not the cause. It’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “the Bible says it’s an abomination.”
But… Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! Yet most Christians probably eat shrimp, and, anyway, there was never any persecution of shellfish-eaters. Why is that? Why is one sentence taken as “God’s law”, and another just as “ancient dietary laws”, when they’re both forbidden in the same book, and the condemnation for both (”abomination”) is the same?
The answer, of course, is that people are already bigots (though an important source of that bigotry may well be church sermons). Saying “It’s God’s command” instead of admitting to their prejudice makes them feel better.
I loved this part in the article:
If biblical prohibition were the real source of condemnation, we would find ourselves in a society where shellfish eaters and bankers would be prohibited from participating in youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those who insist on such a ban would argue that those who so flagrantly violate God’s law cannot possibly be moral, and clearly cannot be considered good role models for our children.
What type of message does it give our children to be a member of a troop whose troop leader is known to be a practicing shellfish eater or banker – when the Bible so clearly identifies these acts as a violation of His law? These children will no doubt come to think that all of God’s law are open to question. This type of moral relativism is the last thing that we need to be teaching impressionable young minds.
Related posts:
I think it’s kind of a double sided concept.
I’m sure there are plenty of Christians who don’t hate gay people, and actually think it’s proposterous.
They can always explain that they’re not denying God by explaining that it was what one persons opinnion was at one time, it just happened to be that the person in question wrote something that made it into the bible.
You can probably also find people of all different faiths, or no faiths, who are biggots.
The thing to always remember is the act of actually TEACHING biggotry can sway someone to that line of thought. Which is evil.
In other words, being religious doesn’t necessitate being a biggot, but it certainly ups your chances.
The logic you use can be used in reverse:
Why do atheists hate believers in God and then
live in His world as though it’s okay to sponge off his creation
without giving him credit for giving it to them.
In fact they hate Him so much, they spend blog line after blog line
denouncing His very existence. Yet they eat His food, drink His water and today look for His creation in space. Everything they find, they think it is just there for the taking, but deny any God was behind their privilege to take it.
In other words, Kren, “being an atheist doesn’t necessitate being a bigot, but it certainly ups your chances.”
Rev,
You make a number of false assumptions.
1. That those who employ reason suddenly abandon it in order to “hate” those who embrace hatred in the form of religion.
2. That there is a god which created the world.
3. That living by your own means and living responsibily is not living responsibly at all.
Unlike the case with Xns who have openly and often celebrate their hatred of jews, blacks, homosexuals, and various other groups throughout the ages, the fact is that those who employ reason have no need for such hatred. Certainly you cannot find any such examples as necessary to or inherent to rataionality unlike the case with xnty.
Also, (I’m quoting someone here, but I actually forgot who at this point)
“You can’t have hatred for something you don’t believe exists.”
Exactly. Rev, should I assume that, when you say you don’t believe in Thor, you really “hate” him instead?
Regarding shrimp: the New Testament seems to say that after Christ’s coming, dietary prohibitions no longer apply; this was revealed in a vision to St.Peter (Acts 10:9-16). But I’m just being pedantic, and I agree with your general argument about inconsistent attitudes.
Let me say that Christian’s should not “hate” anybody. If you want to make an argument based on the bible that’s probably the best place to start. Sin or not, Christians have plenty of commands and rebukes to love everyone.
That being said, and I’m not saying this to agree, but just so that you make sure you have a strong argument, Nikolay is right about the dietary prohibitions. Christian’s believe in the New Testament also and they’ll point out that most of the law is no longer necessary, however there are still a couple verses (just a couple) in the NT that reference homosexuality. Again, I’m not saying I agree at all, I’m just try to help you clear up your argument.
[quote comment="7338"]Regarding shrimp: the New Testament seems to say that after Christ’s coming, dietary prohibitions no longer apply; this was revealed in a vision to St.Peter (Acts 10:9-16). But I’m just being pedantic, and I agree with your general argument about inconsistent attitudes.[/quote]
Actually, Jesus SPECIFICALLY stated that the dietary laws did not apply. But the same thing is also stated about ALL of the Law. So this discussion is irrelevant to someone who is trying to follow Jesus’ teachings, because Jesus’ teachings dismissed the Law as a source of authority.
Arguments about homosexuality are usually made from various principles, not scripture, because the bible rarely mentions the subject.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
The main flaw I see in the rev’s argument is that, while us atheists don’t thank god for anything (being that we don’t acknowledge his existence), many of us do see the value in respecting all of “creation,” in that this is the only planet we get and we’re stuck with it for a while. Many Christians (and almost half of the U.S. population) are expecting the rapture any day now,e Jesus says it’s ok to ignore some old-testament laws so while they may be saying thanks, they’ve got no respect for the natural world or their fellow man because they’re sure god will destroy it all anyways.
And yea, I’ve also read up on wher, so the whole eating-shrimp-thing isn’t a contradiction for them. I think the real question that was side-stepped is, why do some christians feel the need to use the bible as an excuse to bash gays? What is it about gays that threatens their christianity?
Hi Pedro,
Thanks for the invite.
Just came over to check out your blog.
Possummomma
I think that Jesus teaches respect for the world and the universe we inhabit. The bible says that the earth will NOT be destroyed by any wrath of God, ever again.
Jesus is NOT returning to destroy the world, etc, etc.
The Old Testament should not be considered to be binding in any way on us today, and the New Testament is not a rule-book.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com
I have no doubt that the Jesus of the bible actually taught the idea of respect for the earth and others. That’s the Jesus I always liked.
You may not believe that Jesus is returning to destroy the world, but many people do. Just yesterday morning I was listening to the local preacher-station where a pastor was (trying to) describing the end-times as god “letting go” of all atoms in the universe, resulting in universal nuclear fission. Seriously. Many are taught to believe that science is a farce, the world is 6000 years old, and global warming is a scam to get them to stop having more christian babies on government welfare.
But, if god is going to destroy the earth, and they all think they’re going to heaven, what’s wrong with the gays again? Do they hate gays because they love gays and really just wish them to find Jesus? Or do they hate gays because gays can’t get married, so they’re all adulterers? Or are they threatened by the thought that all gays want to rape their sorry ass? Or the idea that perhaps they really do want a good ass-raping?
The Christians that hate gay people are just using something somebody wrote a LOOONG time ago, for a reason TO hate.
In other words, they CHOSE to hate.
Actually, true Christians do not hate anyone. We’re taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. People who use the label of Christianity to promote hatred of fellow humans are simply sinners in a different manner and I will love them and hate their sin just like I’ll do for anyone else.
[quote post="207"]People who use the label of Christianity to promote hatred of fellow humans are simply sinners in a different manner [/quote]
I agree.
You don’t need to be Christian to hate peoples horrible deeds and have love for fellow man though. No need for a God of ANY religion to live that way.
Either way, hating the “sin” of homosexuality is quite wrong.
There’s no need to hate something that doesn’t harm anybody.
Pedro,
First off, I am a Christian and I do not hate shellfish-eaters, homosexuals or you. Actually, I can’t think of anyone I hate now that I’ve taken time to think about it.
I think I’m going to make it part of my personal fun time to help you actually put together rational, well-developed arguments. For example, the simple answer to this is….
Things change over time. In Genesis alone God went from requiring a vegetarian diet to allowing for the eating of anything. Then, at a later point in time, He put forth more strict dietary requirements and other laws. By the way, these same dietary laws are later called into question in Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 14).
Reading Romans 14 (actually, for someone who talks about it so much I would have to recommend reading the entire Bible) will give you a little better understanding of the full-breadth of what changed when Jesus came. I would suggest that you study a subject before you claim any kind of authority because to make such a simple error speaks of arrogance, ignorance and agenda, not of logic.
Another simple answer is this, when people claiming to be Christians hate someone they are actually not being Christian they are being bigots and hypocrites.
So, I won’t make my opinions about all portuguese people based on you and would suggest that you, through your infinite logical skills, not base your opinions about a centuries old faith based on the few people you have met.
Pedro, you are cracking me up! Great thought provoking post!
The Advanced Soul,
Please understand that the existence of a soul, advanced or rudimentary, cannot be proven. Therefore, your name makes claims that cannot be true. By the way my “name” is Inuwashi - They exist but cannot type ;>
I am very curious why “atheists” are so interested or upset with people that hate other people. I am a christian but i haven’t always been and when i wasn’t christian, when i didnt know Jesus Christ i didnt really care what people thought of me or anyone else. I think postings like this show that somewhere in our souls God has built in portions of himself. And because we live such sinful unregenerate lives we start to hate and fight against our souls with our flesh.
I am sorry any christian has ever hurt a non christian in any way shape or form because Christ does not teach that ever. I pray that anyone who says there is no God at least takes the time to actually search. If you claim you do not believe in God but have never asked him to show you himself then i pray for you and your soul that God shakes you and reveals himself to you the way he did to me. Forget the idiots who hate gays or make it their life goal to tell everyone they are going to hell…. Look up, or down, close your eyes or leave them open and simply ask God to reveal himself to you.
This life is so short and no certain amount of years are ever garunteed. Think hard and try and come up with a reason why we are on this earth and why this earth is even here and what is going to happen when you die…if you can’t answer all of those questions then i think it is only in your benefit to actually search out the true Jesus and ask him to be your lord and savior.
adam.
[quote comment="8492"]I am very curious why “atheists” are so interested or upset with people that hate other people. … Think hard and try and come up with a reason why we are on this earth and why this earth is even here and what is going to happen when you die…if you can’t answer all of those questions then i think it is only in your benefit to actually search out the true Jesus and ask him to be your lord and savior.
adam.[/quote]
Adam, I am probably an atheist by most Christian standards; I don’t believe in any sentient, conscious being controlling the universe. I have a couple of points to make in response to your statements.
1. I don’t know any atheists who hate Christians or have any animosity towards anyone simply for their beliefs. People can believe whatever they want; that’s the beauty of not living in a theocracy. Where I start to dislike Christians is when they take their faith, i.e., opinions about an unprovable and unfalsifiable cosmology, and start using it as a basis for controlling the behavior of others. When your belief in an ancient text is used as a rationalization for hatred, I have problems with that.
2. Merely because a question has no scientifically provable answers does not mean that Christianity is the correct answer. I love the idea of a God watching over humanity, and I do feel there is much science cannot (and may not ever) explain. That does not mean that God exists or that Christianity is true. Your argument is pretty specious.
Can you prove why humans need to sleep? No? Well, my parents taught me that invisible fairies enter our brains at night and inject vital nutrients through our eyelids. If you don’t have an answer and can’t disprove my answer, then my answer must be correct.
FYI, I have studied Christianity, Judaism, Islam (Sufism), and a little Buddhism, and each religion has elements that are beautiful and have inspired me to live a better life.
-Al
Al -
Thank you for your reply.
on number 1, i do understand what you are saying about using the bible to control others. I agree with you for the most part. I also understand your point about fairies (as weird as that sounds), and why poeple have a very hard time believing in God/Jesus/Christianity.
I appreciate that you have studdied relegions and decide to live a better life. I truly hope you live a blessed life. I know that God cannot be 0 proven through science or studies because it takes faith. It takes believing in something we cannot wholly understand. Even when i think about it, it sounds crazy. But God is real. He has changed my life and many that i know.
I only hope that everyone will see and believe in the love and mercy that God has for them.
I am sure that the folks feeling the warmth of the xn god’s love upon them in Iraq and Darfur are truly appreciating that love.. Unless of course you are referring to the love from the men who speak with the xn god’s voice, who are his presense on earth who grant that special love to small boys.. I am sure that those boys fully appreciate that special privilege of the xn god’s love…
For me I cannot wish such evil upon anyone, rather I wish personal responsibility, happiness, and peace in their life.
TXStorm,
I said God’s love not the people who claim God’s love and hurt others. Abusing, killing, hatred, confusion to name a few are not a part of God’s love at all. I am sorry that’s the way you see christianity because of imperfectness of human nature. I never said i wanted people to feel the love of humans, nope. I said i hope they see and believe in the love and mercy of God. Please dont misquote me and turn things around. There is no human on earth that can perfectly display who God is because he is perfect. We try and that is our purpose but we screw up.
So Darfur is because of Christians? And Iraq? What about World War II, and Desert Storm? It is easy to blame your problems and the wrolds problems on an entire “Religion” due to some false witnesses.
Necessarily all of the evils of the world are the creation of this “god” and are directly its intention that the victims suffer, for were it otherwise this supposedly all powerful being could have prevented it, and this supposedly all loving being WOULD have prevented it.
BTW nice try, but the evilness of xnty cannot be so easily dismissed. It is not any move away from xnty that brings these evils, but rather the evil is inherent to the religion. I am NOT blaming anything based upon any false witnesses, nor even the blatant dishonesty of those who are christians such as yourself, but rather upon the religion and the description of this impossible entity they claim to worship.
And yes the attrocities in Iraq and Darfur are being udnertaken by xns in the name and full spirit of xnty. These are fine examples of xn love, as is your own use of dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation. I have not and will not misquote you, but I will not abide by your dictate to “not turn things around” given your own rather dishonest misrepresentation of the facts and the very nature of the evil known as xnty. We should all desire turning around falseness and revealing truth. Either your “god” created all evil, or else it is not the god you claim to worship. Of course if your god is evil, as it must be given the world in which we live and the evil nature of the religion dedicated to it, then it is not the god claim to worship. (Which of course simply proves that this notion of a “god” is self-defeating)
I stand behind my statements, and will not as you seem to demand, retract them because they are in direct opposition to your own desires for others.As I state in response to your wishing the full brunt of your religion/god’s “love” upon all others, for me I cannot wish such evil upon anyone, rather I wish personal responsibility, happiness, and peace in their life.
Why are these traits so undesirable and offensive to you that you have to mischaracterize what has been said, the facts, and my own actions?
Rev. Purser - You words were written like a true member of the privileged majority, and if you don’t know what I mean by that, it only illustrates it further.
Meantime, the problem with any logical argument relative to bigots, Christian or otherwise, is that almost none of them can follow it. Their brains do not work on logic, but on the rote soaking up of and regurgitation of information. Not knowledge, and certainly not wisdom, but simply information - like a robot. This is true for all bigots, but I think, most especially, religious ones (especially from the Abrahamic traditions, who, collectively, have been the overwhelmingly most violent in history).
tony
Tonyo: I don’t follow dghe religion I was brought uip with, but use the Bible only as another book of reference to live my life or to form opinions. Words from Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin carry as much weight when i find something which they say that i like. Several atheists on this very blog have gained my respect because of their insight.
It is not fair for you to stereotype any opinions as Christian, Muslim,
Atheist, or whatever, but to argue for or against only the content in front of you as you read the words sent to you, such as in this blog.
The objective is to arrive at the threshold or your own understanding of life for you and for you only. Once you polarize, you become a pope, whether it is, for instance, a Christian one or an Atheistic one.
A good “fight” would be:
1. Be willing to fight. (No namecalling and then running away.)
2. Don’t hit below the belt. (No attacks on what i cannot change.what ancestors have done is not my fault, nor relate to what I am now saying.
3. Stick with the fight until it is over. Keep the hits coming.
4. End in a clench.(Remain friends when the debate is over.)
Thesis, Anti-thesis, Synthesis. That is the fight ring we must assume.
We help each other throw our punches.
Whagt I need from you in the paragraph you wrote are specific
knockout punches to stop my antitheses to your arguments. Instead, I am thrown punches in the air, (generalities).
In the above, I have just illustrated what I am complaining about.
Rev,
Honest intellectual discussion also requires that one does not try to mislead, or mischaracterize. So for instance, when rational persons take the claims of xnty seriously, they see immediately that necessarily this “god” MUST be evil, if it could even exist. After all this “god” created everything, including the evil that it inflicts upon us (if it could exist).
Of course the rational individual may well not get that far since the rational individual recognizes quite quickly that the judeo-xn notion of a “god” is simply impossible and sadly quite silly if taken seriously. Since entities which cannot exist cannot possess traits, assigning evil to literally nothing at all is also impossible, and nonsensical.
But in every discussion with a xn there is an axiomatic unquestioned assumption that necessarily this impossibility cannot be explored, and the existence of this supposed entity necessarily exists despite all of reality. So given this, it truly is not possible to move forward with anyone who employs this tactic as they are not trying to understand anything or discover anything at all about reality, rather they are necessarily trying to prop up a false belief, to support an illusion against the bright light of reason and reality.
I can’t help it, but it does seem a little biggoted to say that people who disagree with homosexuality hate homosexuals. Atheists disagree w/ Christianity, do they hate Christians? I understand the problems there. All I’m saying is, don’t judge all of us based on the grievous behaviour of some of us.
sorry, I’m posting this so I can get emailed when folks respond. Forgive my idiocy
FR Iain,
You are jumping FAR too quickly to conclusions based upon false assumptions. The fact is that there is an enormous degree of hatred at the very core, and certain residing in the hearts of xns world-wide. To pretend that there is a mere dislike, or disagreeal, is nothing short of simply dishonest.
The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, to be punished by death.
Individual Christians can be good, to the extent that they ignore much of the Bible… or of Christianity. Because, according to the Bible, and to many of the most influencial Christians, God really is a bigot.
TXTstorm,
Sorry for jumping to conclusions. That wasn’t my intent. Certainly many people calling themselves Christians, and even many Christians, have acted shamefully towards those who they should treat as made in the image of God. I don’t question that at all. My intent is more to ask questions and question assumptions. The assumption I want to question, or discuss, is that Christians, by virtue of their moral opposition to the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual acts, automatically *hate* homosexuals. I very adamently disagree w/ many if not most aspects of capitalism, but i don’t hate captalists. In fact, most of my friends are capitalists. If we cannot talk about the assumptions behind what we think and believe, then we have bigger problems than just ideology. So, the question is, can we question our assumptions? Or must we remain bound to what we have already assumed?
I would also question what my false assumptions are? If the object of argument should be progress not victory, it would be helpful if you would give more concrete examples. Otherwise, it just seems like name calling, (which I learned in logic class years ago is called an ad hominem).
First an ad hominem is the tactic used to distract from the lack of an argument by attacking the individual. Nothing remotely similar to this is found in the responses to your assertions, so the implication is unwarranted.
Since in order to be a xn you must advocate KILLING homosexuals, as shown to be a necessary aspect of xnty, then is your position that the basis for killing them is not fear or hatred, but…. something else entirely?
As for your capitalism example, and I realize that this is probably best handled in the forum since it is off topic, but I must ask: What do you have against freedom?
TXTstorm, two things on the ad hominem “*you* are jumping far too quickly to assumptions based on false grounds” until the assumptions and false grounds are clearly communicated, I think that that could constitute the ‘ad-hominem.’ Second, the accusation that there is “an enormous degree of hatred at the very core, and certain residing in the hearts of xns world-wide” doesn’t address the argument that I’ve posited, that Christians don’t hate homosexuals, we disagree with their lifestyle. To simply respond by saying “you’re wrong because Christians *do* hate homosexuals doesn’t address the issue. It simply sets up a straw man, and an easy one to attack since hate is evil. Thirdly, in my experience as a Christian (albeit a short time) I’ve never run across anything necessitating my killing any homosexuals. I have homosexual neighbors and go to church with homosexuals, so I’ve got ample opportunity. Most of the time, though, I say high and give them a hug rather than kill them. I’d like to hear where that comes from. My overall point, though, TXTstorm, which I would like not to be diverted from, is that to focus on those Christians who are filled with hate towards homosexuals deals with individual fallible people, and not the system of faith in Christianity. When we do that, we shut down dialogue. As for your final statement. You have to be able to see the problems in the logic there. There’s quite a jump from not agreeing w/ an economic system to having a problem w/ freedom. I don’t speak for all Christians when I say that. But I say it b/c of the breadth of freedom of thought that Christianity allows. A much greater breadth, I think, than American culture. As evidenced by how people react when you disagree w/ our particular cultural and political systems. Everything needs to be questioned TXTstorm, or, as the bible puts it (sorry) “Test everything, accept the good.”
[quote]I think that that could constitute the ‘ad-hominem.’[/quote]
You can think or feel that it is a cherry pie, but that belief will not make it so. Ad hominem is literally attacking the man. Pointing out FALSE ASSUMPTIONS is addressing the argument, not the individual. To attack the individual in the sense of ad hominem, I would have to say that your conclusion is false because you are an idiot or some other personal attribute rather than pointing out that your conclusion remains unsupported because the argument itself is logically flawed by the existence of false assumptions.
As for strawman you would have to demonstrate that in fact the argument made was not in fact the argument offered. Since you rely upon the notion of xnty, and since Pedro clearly established that killing homosexuals is central to xnty, then the burden of proof that this killing is not hate based but is rather based upon… what exactly?? is entirely your own.
I did not respond with the simple negation of your claim, but rather with the clear reference to the tome of xnty, the xn bible. Now you claim that you have never come across this, which would cause me to believe that you are employing the fallacy of equivocation with regard to the term “christian.” Either you follow the xn bible, and thus are an xn, or you adopt your own beliefs including this one contrary to the xn bible, and therefore are not xn. To switch back and forth between the two uses is textbook equivocation.
[quote]My overall point, though, TXTstorm, which I would like not to be diverted from, is that to focus on those Christians who are filled with hate towards homosexuals deals with individual fallible people, and not the system of faith in Christianity[/quote]
Then how pray tell do we decide which parts of the xn bible to accept as *really* xn, and which are not?
[quote]There’s quite a jump from not agreeing w/ an economic system to having a problem w/ freedom.[/quote]
There is no jump here at all. You stated that you dislike capitalism, the free market which is necessarily simply the lack of government intervention in the free exchange between individuals. It is simply one of the inseparable characteristics of freedom. Therefore necessarily if you oppose the free association of individuals with regard to their welfare, including economic welfare, you must oppose freedom per se. No other option exists.
TXTstorm, sorry for the delay, I’ve been moving into a new house w/ no internet connection, so I’ll have to disengage after this post (I’ll try to close up whatever loose ends I can). As for the equivocation argument, I don’t see the ‘proof’ that killing homosexuals is central to Christianity. In fact, I don’t think it’s rude to say that the claim is preposterous (first off, since there actually is no biblical text calling for the death of homosexuals. But, that’s beside the point, because the text does call for their exclusion which could be just as distasteful.) Actually, I think it’s on the level of claiming that raising up a militia and overthrowing the gov’t is central to the Constitution. After all, don’t we have the right to keep and bear arms and organize militias? (I don’t think the claim is true, I’m using it to prove a point). To select a text from the bible and posit that it’s central to Christian teaching betrays a deep misunderstanding as to what the bible is. Unlike the dhamapada and some parts of the Koran, the bible is not simply a religious manual. So, you can’t look up the chapter “what to do with homosexuals” and find the instruction “kill them”. In reality, the bible is a collection of literature (poetry, narrative, laws, letters, etc.) ranging across centuries, continents, and cultural contexts, and must be interpreted in light of that. So, when Ecclesiastes says, “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” you have to decide whether it’s a proscriptive command or a descriptive statement of the author’s existential experiment. I do a lot of work trying to open up dialogue between Christians and Non-Christians, and what I find, often, is that those who are most opposed to Christianity know what its critics say, but they have never really examined what *Christians* say about their own religion. So, if I may be so bold, I’d like to leave you with a challenge. Examine Christianity’s claims from the perspective of what intelligent respected Christians say. Until you can do that, you really have no room for challenging the faith. Sorry to leave you w/ that, but I have to get the house cleaned up! Peace out
Well Fr Iain, if the xn bible is insufficient evidence of what is central to xnty, then necessarily nothing can be. Claiming otherwise, as you do here, to use your turn of phrase, demonstrates a deep misunderstanding as to what the bible is.
The notion that someone is making the argument that the xn bible is designed in the manner of a modern instruction guide is a rather silly strawman tactic. Yes necessarily the xn bible DEFINES what xnty is. In this sense it in fact is an instruction manual in the form of a conditional statement: IF you wish to be xn, then necessarily you must abide by ALL of the dictates of the xn bible. So this means that you will kill homosexuals, kill those who do not share your faith, treat women as chattle, do not overly abuse your slaves, etc.
Now, as to the implication that I and others who merely happen to disagree with your own assertions and recreations about xnty must not be familiar with xnty, well this is merely a form of an ad hominem attack, as well as an appeal to private “knowledge.” I have examined the claims of “intelligent xns” and have refuted them quite easily as has been done here with your own proclamations. You see the very faith which defines xnty is the key to the defeat of the claims because faith is directly contrary to reality and truth, thus making any argument which is based upon truth, knowledge and evidence impossible for the faith based position to succeed.
So as I have met your challenge, and since clearly you advocate the use of such challenges, I challenge you to familiarize yourself with sound reaosning, the nature of evidence, and then examine the claims of xns, along side the many and varied refutations of those claims.
I would also ask that you actually read the arguments presented and address those rather than engaging in these intellectually dishonest and uncivil tactics. An honest civil intellectual discussion has no need for such tactics, nor can it exist where one side refuses to allow that the only possible common ground (reality/reason) can exist.
I’d offer up this quote as direct refutation of your claim that “there actually is no biblical text calling for the death of homosexuals.”
Leviticus 20:13
13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Unless you wish to claim that this is not part of the bible (an obvious false and silly claim) then clearly the xn bible DOES in fact require the killing of homosexuals (at least male homosexuals). Perhaps your are reading it in such a way that since you are killing them, but this bible claims that the responsibility for the murder lay upon the heads of those who were merely peacefully giving pleasure to each other, that you are not actually killing them.. dunno.. regardless it remains true that the xn bible does require the murder of homosexuals so the entire argument based upon this false assumption that this does not exist in the xn bible is necessarily unsound.
Christians pick and choose what they want to believe, which is fine with me. What I find disgusting is how they try to legislate their idealogy so that others are forced to live by their rules. I have no respect for that at all.
TX: The Judae-Christian Religions believe that evil is inflicted upon the good because the good did evil and God uses evil upon the
not done for God, but for mankind. God needs nothing, has no ego trip going, and simply, and incredibly to mankind, only gives Himself away. Such a liberal belief is still a matter of faith, cannot be proven, but is an improvement over the belief in a vengeful God who inflicts judgment uon mankind when he is irritated with the way mankind operates in God’s world and universe.
Mankind is also allowed to be atheistic, ignore God, (atheists never seem to want to go that route, seem to have more fun debating his existence).
Christians say, “Let go and let God.” Atheists just won’t let God go and use the ploy that the reason they are so interested in his non-existence is that those who believe in his existence, historically have been abusive to the rest of mankind.
Atheists have a high sense of respect for mankind as long as they do not believe in God and will want to protect those non-believers from any abuse, usually only with words.
If atheists are volunteering in any service organizations just to help those who suffer, they must be doing it without publicity, the perfect Christian act, “Doing What Jesus Would Do.” I can’t think of one atheist who is doing it any other way.
If all of you are helping this way, then neither God nor I should complain about what any of you believe. You are living the way Jesus would want you to live. However, it would be an eye- opener to all Christians were the Atheists who are helping make the world a better place would “come out of the closet” so more Christians would be inspired to do more Christian acts of Justice, Kindness,and Humble Walks with God. Chhristians then would not have a leg to stand on when Atheists announce that they do not believe in God.
[quote comment="7331"]Exactly. Rev, should I assume that, when you say you don’t believe in Thor, you really “hate” him instead?[/quote]
I don’t hate Thor enough to spend my debating time against those who believe in Thor or disbelieve in Him. I just can’t get up enough energy to discuss Him. I wonder why we both do about God.
[quote comment="26482"]Christians pick and choose what they want to believe, which is fine with me. What I find disgusting is how they try to legislate their idealogy so that others are forced to live by their rules. I have no respect for that at all.[/quote]
Atheists pick and choose what they don’t want to believe, which is fine with me. What I don’t find is legislation about their ideology which forces them to live by the rules of society which are designed to keep criminals, disease, etc. in check. I have no respect for any rule which we are forced to live by because it is someone else’s religion, fundamentalist, liberal agnostic or atheist. I would like to hear what you are forced to live by and if you then are living by those rules because they were voted on by people who believed in God. And I suspect, then that you refuse to lie by the rules if any of them were forced upon you by those who did not believe in God. In other words, I don’t think ideology had anything to do with “approved rules” insisted upon by those who rule us, Governments. List them and I will comment.
Pedro: I do not have to live today with yesterday’s religious opinions, beliefs and commands. God speaks to me just as he spoke to them years ago,i.e. via my searching for answers. “Seek ye the Kingdom.” If had to limit my life by the Bible, we would not have flush toilets in churches and the Church of Christ (non instrumental) denomination would be joyous
For someone who does not exist, you all sure to spend a lot of time keeping him alive in the hearts and minds of all you read you.
We call people who have to do that “Evangelists.” That word comes from the word “angel” and means “messenger.”
Pedro: my last response was about 1/5 of what I actually wrote. is this site limited to so many word? If it is, I don’t want to respond any more.
Examples are important in writing. I think you got the first and last paragraph and the reference to the Church of Christ was about organs, not the flush toilets which was the sentence above it.
Now, I don’t have a copy of what I wrote and it was priceless.
rev: I didn’t censor or edit anything, nor is there any size limit here. I’ve just gone through the list of comments automatically tagged as spam (the spam filter occasionally makes mistakes), and there wasn’t anything by you in there. So I don’t know what might have happened, but believe me: I didn’t delete anything, and, as far as I can see, neither did WordPress.
Pedro: I believe you. I must have inadvertently done it. I didn’t see it go. Thanks for your reply.
Tony: Your judgmental statements are basically correct, but for the wrong reasons. I do think many of the rules and regulations of the laws were designed to stop impositions upon people. Then, by establishing authority among the priests of the temple, they were to be obeyed.
However, there is a progression in history of law changes, starting in the Bible or other religious books of other groups in that time. For instance, “If Cain is avenged 7 times, truly Lamech 77 times” changed to “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,” then again with Jesus to “turn the other cheek, go the second mile” and then Jesus again to “love your enemies, do good to them that hate you.”
Throughout the Bible is proof that it is only a record of the progressive revelation of God, given to mankind as much as mankind has been willing and able to receive. Every science and math book, for instance, is a word from God because all comes from one source and that source is all there is in existence. Also, God is not the Alpha and the Omega (The beginning and the end” because life is eternal and there is no beginning nor an end. Everything there is comes from everything there was and will become everything there will be. That concept is new to this century, once again a revelation from the Creator. This is why Jesus said: “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it will be opened unto you, Call upon Him while he is near. The Kingdom of God is at hand (at your fingertips) and always was and always will be That is the WAY it works. That is the Truth. That is the LIFE.
HOW ELSE?
And re: this blog: the progression of sex is showing there will not be a distinction between any of them soon. You can see it coming.
Gays right now are going through the same abuse blacks did decades ago.
Women in the middle of these two. Foreign countries behind most of us in women, but ahead of us in racial acceptance. All progressing along.
America owns 70 of the world’s resources and the world lives on the other 30%. The progression has begun to change that too. 3rd world countries are angry over it and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell will come true, the proletariat will rise up and make it very difficult for the rich. 9/11 is just the beginning of this.
All of it is the Family of God trying to find out how to live and enjoy themselves in a place given with no strings attached except to learn how to do it right by respecting one another as brothers and sisters of a Heavenly Father.
As a Christian, or a person, or a liberal, I cannot prove my belief in the creator of it all, but I believe it is the best answer offered in 20 centuries or more.
I challenge you to offer a better one.
Christianity aka organized religion is frequently used as excuse for hate. It was used to justify the inhuman attack against Matt Shepard, it is being used by hateful Fred Phelps to justify his picketting at funerals, it has been used to start wars and committ horrible acts of hate and violence.
If God and is charge of so many thing (and I believe He is) then why does He create gays in the first place?
Come to think of it why did His Son KISS Judas if its such a sin?
Well,
The truth is is that the old testament is more of what we look back on. Shell fish was prohibited because they could not correctly cook it and would become sick and possibly die. The same reason they were commanded to use the restroom several hundred feet from their tents; because it was not healthy.
I am a Christian and not even one claims it and embraces other ideas; I am a missionary, and a worship leader, but I do not by any means hate homosexuals. Christ loved all, regardless of who they were. When an adulteress woman was brought before Jesus, the accusers used law from the old testament, from which the rules of shell fish and homosexuality are also drawn. They told Him that the law required them to stone her and Christ replied, ‘Let the person who has not sinned throw the first stone.’
Wait, don’t judge? WHAT? Jesus said that? He doesn’t hate homosexuals? WHAT?
No, we are called to love, not judge. I do not hate them by any means and I was actually in the middle of writing a debate paper for my governement class. What was my argument? I am arguing for homosexuals rights in the army. Wow, what a crazy idea.
And to the guy who wrote this, it’s obvious that your atheist author didn’t do his research. Even Christ said that he came to fulfill the law, not enforce it. He wasn’t there to judge or rule, he was there to love.
And to TXstorm, don’t get angry at Christians who hate homosexuals if you are going to make statements like, ‘You make several false assumptions…that there is a god who created the world.’ If you are so much better than the hateful christian, act like it and don’t take shots at other people’s beliefs. Act like the grown up that atheists profess to be.
Most of the criticism of my statements in this blog are
criticisms of historical statements of belief from former Christians or the Bible.
God, creator of everything, reveals to mankind progressively as mankind pursues answers to his questions at each level of his growth.
This would mean, in this blog, that we should only deal with the thoughts, ideas and beliefs expressed in the present.
When those thoughts, ideas and beliefs adhere to the historical
thought, outdated as they are,we have to be replace them with better solutions to the questions asked.
It is easier to judge a person’s thought by what those from whom they have come and then document how wrong they are with what they say with what others said earlier. It is an easy trick to win a point.
Leave the New and Old Testament alone and deal with the
present thought. “Speak with authority, not as the scribes.”
For instance, when i have a thesis, come at me with an anti thesis rather than trying to prove ;me wrong by reviewing the writers from which I may have read 40 years ago which are centuries old. Then when you offer a rebuttal, assume that you are right about my thesis being wrong, and that you will be wrong when a rebuttal of what you says proves it, whether it comes from me or someone else.
My chief complaint here is that atheists thrive of what they do not believe, rather than on what they do and if we both stuck with what we do believe, we could help each other grow to a higher level of thinking about our reason for existence.
For instance, my personal belief in this reason is that we are
to multiply the universe, there is no end to creation,and that
creation was created by…. I cannot go with everything just happens and always has. Stay with this argument and leave everyone else’s beliefs alone when you do the rebuttal. It is not helpful for you to damn me with anyone’s former beliefs.
I have a right to be me.
tx storm: you assume that God is responsible for evil when
He is Good. Evil is the absence of Good. God is not there.
just because the hebrew and 20 centuries of xtndom gave God credit for evil does not make me a believer in a God who creates evil to balance out good.
i do believe that Creation is designed so that if certain rules of creation are not followed, mankind gets in trouble, just as you would get in trouble if you were working on your car and decided that you were going to turn the screwdriver or wrench the opposite to what it was designed to do. You don’t blame gthe screwdriver or the wrench for the screwup.
So, when we do what is in sync with Creation,, we cope and when we don’t, we sin (pun on sync) out of sync is sin because in sync serves us well.
God, in the meantime does not judge us as the Hebrew thought, but
our acts to get us out of sync judge us as we do them. Jesus said it: “I do not come to judge, for you are judged already!”
People assumed he was talking about God as judge, then gave him
credit for being God, even though he prayed to his heavenly Father, all of it really lousy theology, thus food for atheists
thought.
But, when you leave the history of belief out of it, and think for yourself God as Good and evil as the absence of Good makes a lot more sense than Creation just happens with no Creator.
Argue with me, but not with 20 centuries of theologians at different levels of belief. When we disagree, both of us can thrive on the disagreement and grow.
One of us has a thesis, the other then an anti thesis and when we
work it out, a synthesis happens and we start again from there.
Nothing we talk about is The Truth, but a truth competing with another truth and making a synthesized truth to build from again.
Such a debate produces the Revelation of God, given to man as he is willing and able to perceive it.
“Seek ye the Kingdom and all of this will be yours as well” means the same thing. Jesus was a smart cookie. Chew on the cookie.
TO BIRMS IN APRIL: YOU ARE RIGHT THE WAY YOU WRITE AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE, WHILE YOU DO NOT JUDGE,
THAT HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO THEIR LIFESTYLE
AND BE JUST AS GOOD A CHRISTIAN AS YOU AND I DO WITH OUR LIFESTYLE AS HETEROS.
YOU ARE RIGHT THE WAY YOU WRITE AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE, WHILE YOU DO NOT JUDGE, THAT ATHEISTS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO THEIR NON-BELIEFS AS ANYONE WHO PROFESSES TO BE A CHRISTIAN DOES WITH HIS BELIEFS.
PERSONALLY, I HAVE FOUND IN DEBATING ATHEISTS AND HOMOSEXUALS, THAT THEY ARE FOR THE MOST PART, JUST AS HONEST AND SINCERE AS THE REST OF US AND I VALUE GREATLY
THEIR OPENNESS IN DEBATE. IT, TO ME, IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO.
ONE’S OPINION, WHILE NECESSARY IN DEBATE, IS SECOND AND THE WILLINGNESS TO BE OPEN TO DEBATE WITH THOSE OPINIONS IS FIRST.
IT IS THE PROCESS WHICH BRINGS ABOUT THE REVELATION OF GOD. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN GOD TO RECEIVE THIS REVELATION ABOUT THE WAY HIS KINGDOM, IN WHICH WE LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING, OPERATES.
THERE ARE NO EGO STRINGS TO AND FROM THE CREATOR. WE SEEK AND FIND IN A WORLD WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THIS GIFT IS TO US FROM THE CREATOR WITH UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. IT IS FREE, COMPLETELY FREE FOR US TO DECIDE WHICH WAY WE WISH TO BELIEVE ABOUT WHAT WE OBSERVE.
FOR ALL WHO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR, THEY SHOULD SEE THEIR CREATOR WELCOMING ALL LIFESTYLES AS HIS CHILDREN, EACH ONE IN THE FAMILY OF GOD SEARCHING FOR THE MEANING FOR HIS OWN EXISTENCE.
EATING FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE WAS FORBIDDEN IN THE EARLY BELIEFS OF THE HEBREW PEOPLE BECAUSE TO KNOW WOULD ,IN THEIR MINDS BE MAKING HUMANS EQUAL WITH GOD WHO KNOWS ALL. THAT, SINCE THEN, HAS CHANGED. MANKIND HAS LEARNED. JUST AS JESUS TAUGHT TO “SEEK THE KINGDOM AND ALL OF THESE SHALL BE YOURS AS WELL.” THAT IS PROGRESSIVE REVELATION, WHETHER WE CREDIT THAT REVELATION COMING FROM OUR CREATOR OR JUST HAPPENING BY PURSUIT. FRANKLY, I BELIEVE THAT GOD COULD CARE LESS WHETHER WE THINK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT HIM. IT DOES APPEAR THAT TO BELIEVE IN OUR CREATOR GIVES US SOMEONE TO BE GRATEFUL TO FOR WHAT WE HAVE. AND WE BUILD WHAT WE DO HERE FOR THOSE IN THE FUTURE, JUST AS OTHERS BUILT FOR US IN THE PAST. THAT TOO IS THE UNSELFISH WAY OF LIFE AS IT IS.
FUNNY HOW GOD DESTROYED A COUPLE OF CITIES (SODOM AND GOMORRAH) FOR SODOMY BUT NEVER ONE FOR EATING SHELLFISH! THE EATING LAWS WERE REVISED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS WERE NEVER CHANGED!
JOSSI: HIS SON DID NOT KISS JUDAS, JUDAS KISSED HIM, GOT PAID 15 SHEKELS OF SILVER (OR WAS IT 14, HMM?) TO DO IT, THUS I.D.ING
HIM TO THE ENEMY WHO TOOK HIM TO COURT. JUDAS BECAME A TRAITOR TO JESUS. YEH, THAT WAS A NO-NO. JESUS WAS THEIR SHEPHERD AND SO JUDAS WAS HIS SHEEP. SO IT WAS REALLY B-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-D!
GOD DID NOT DESTROY ANYONE FOR EATING BARBECUE SANDWICHES AT SCRUBBY’S EITHER. I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP REASON FOR RELIGION?
YOU GUYS AND GALS ARE TAKING THE REVELATION OF GOD THAT YOU BELIEVE IN TODAY (THE GOD IS ISN’T THIS AND THE GOD WHO ISN’T THAT) AND COMPARING THAT BELIEF WITH THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS. IT IS LIKE COMPARING ANY PRIMITIVE BELIEF WITH MODERN SCIENCE. YOU DON’T GIVE UP SCIENCE BECAUSE THOSE YEARS AGO SAW THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY.
I ALWAYS AM READING HERE A PATTERN OF WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU DO BELIEVE. TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT HOW ALL OF THIS IN WHICH YOU NOW LIVE GOT STARTED, IF THERE WAS NOT A WHO THAT DID IT, WAS THERE A WHAT? AND A WHERE? AND A WHY? SURELY, YOU MUST KNOW WHAT IT IS IF YOU ALSO KNOW WHAT IT IS NOT.
OK, I AM ALL EARS!errr….ALL EYES!
I really believe that the only reason that God destroyed the cities that were practicing to be homosexuals was because its plain down disgusting… T-T and the reason why he NEVER destroyed any cities for eat shell fish was because if u eat anything that is considerd unclean or touch the carcass of it u r only unclean until sunset… read and UNDERSTAND Levicitus 11 if u dont believe me.( about eating unclean foods and what will happen ) T-T and im pretty sure that ALL christians dont hate homosexuals. T-T i know that im a christian and i dont.
WHEN THE HEBREWS DESTROYED A CITY FOR ANYTHING, IT WAS SAID THAT “GOD DESTROYED” BECAUSE THE HEBREWS BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD AND SO ANYTHING THEY DID RIGHT WAS RECORDED AS GOD-DIRECTED. THE HEBREWS WHO WROTE THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS BELIEVED THAT HOMOSEXUALITY WAS DISGUSTING, SO THEY SAID THAT GOD DID IT WHEN THEY DESTROYED THE CITY. IT WAS NOT LYING, IT WAS A FAITH OF A PEOPLE TOWARD GOD. THEY REALLY DID BELIEVE THA