"Modern" Christianity and the Ignorance of Sin in Terms of Homosexuality, et al

[Paschendale]

I think the whole concept of sex as something to be ashamed of and to consider sinful is just outdated. It was a stupid idea in the first place and it's proven harmful. The sheer amount of confusion and insecurity we have in this country over our ridiculous double standards with regard to sexuality damage so many people's lives. Very few people actually believe that our sexuality is something to be rejected, and those who are forced to follow these notions about sin and suppression suffer for it.

 

[German guy]

I think the whole concept of sex as something to be ashamed of and to consider sinful is just outdated. It was a stupid idea in the first place and it's proven harmful. The sheer amount of confusion and insecurity we have in this country over our ridiculous double standards with regard to sexuality damage so many people's lives. Very few people actually believe that our sexuality is something to be rejected, and those who are forced to follow these notions about sin and suppression suffer for it.

To some extent, I agree. A double standard is bad, so is considering sexuality as sinful or sinister in general. A healthy sex life is the most natural thing on earth, and too many people have a sad sex life or severe issues because of the taboo that's on sexuality.

That said, I believe regulating sexuality is probably necessary, because a certain responsibility comes along with it (regulating not by the state, but individuals having their drives and urges under control). Sexuality is not just fun, but can result in pregnancy, there is the danger of spreading diseases and it plays an important role in social relations. Effects can be unwanted pregnancy, resulting in unwanted children having to grow up under bad conditions. Infidelity can severely damage the social cohesion of families and cause much emotional pain for the people involved. The list goes on, but I assume you know where I am coming from.

Now don't get me wrong, all this is not an argument in favor of stricter legal regulation. I don't want the government to restrict the people's freedom. But I believe the individual has a responsibility to use his freedom with responsibility. Many people are obviously overextended with this task, as we can see when we look at the numbers of broken families and the resulting psychological damage, unwanted (teen) pregnancies or STD statistics. That's no reason to legally restrict people indiscriminately, including those who are up to the task of being responsible.

But religion may help many people to live up to this task. It can be a good guideline that helps people to act responsibly, as a kind of moral yardstick.

 

[Paschendale]

Absolutely, GG. Like all interpersonal interaction, sexuality needs to be done responsibly. There are real dangers and real consequences. But a healthy mentality about it leads to healthier practices.

 

[Jerry]

Well, I have been thinking about this for a while already, because I still don't understand why God would condemn a loving, committed homosexual relationship, as opposed to homosexuality in the context of debauchery, blind lust or heathen rituals.

I believe a commandment is not good because God says it, but I believe God demands this or that because it is good. By using our God given conscience and reason, we can understand the wisdom behind the divine commandments. Blind obedience to religious authority is not my cup of tea, I believe God has provided us with conscience and reason to understand the wisdom in his commandments. He would not have provided us with these skills, if we were supposed not to use them.

Add to that that each religious scripture was revealed in a specific historic context, and no revelation is eternal, but depends on man's capacity to understand and follow it in the respective historic and cultural context. Taking this into consideration helps us to understand the wisdom in the respective commandments.

So all I can say is that I don't really understand why homosexuality is such a bad thing. Maybe I just fail to see it.

At any rate, I believe people often make more fuss about this, than the topic deserves. Even if you are a Christian believer, you will find there are many more important commandments and laws, which deserve much more attention than homosexuality, of all things, which, if you look at Paul, just is one sin among many. Lying is a sin just as bad, yet everybody is a liar and nobody makes remotely the fuss about as people make about homosexuality.

As I understand the related scripture, God condemns sodomy only. Homosexuality itself is left alone.

 

[Jerry]

This thread is not about homosexuality in particular, but sexual morals in general.

I believe much can be said in favor of a condemnation of blind lust, debauchery, infidelity and so on. It's pretty obvious why these things can be considered bad. But homosexuality does not necessarily come along with these things. Historically, it probably did, which for me is an explanation for the condemnation.

But then, maybe there is wisdom in the condemnation of homosexuality even today, which I fail to see. But so far, nobody has managed to explain to me yet why a loving, committed and devoted homosexual couple is not supposed to live out their love. It usually boils down to "uh bah, yuck yuck, perverts" or "God says so".

I can't offer you any such explanation because, as I understand the scripture, God offers no such prohibition.

 

[German guy]

As I understand the related scripture, God condemns sodomy only. Homosexuality itself is left alone.

Yes, I understand it the same way. Homosexual feelings are not condemned, but acting on them.

Which, as I said, I still fail to understand, if that happens in a committed relationship.

 

[German guy]

I can't offer you any such explanation because, as I understand the scripture, God offers no such prohibition.

But you won't deny that this is how many Christians understand the scripture?

 

[Jerry]

Yes, I understand it the same way. Homosexual feelings are not condemned, but acting on them.

Which, as I said, I still fail to understand, if that happens in a committed relationship.

I don't think it's accuret to characterize sodomy as a homosexual feeling. I don't have the data handy, but more heteros perform sodomy then gays. I understand many gay couple don't perform sodomy at all.

But you won't deny that this is how many Christians understand the scripture?

In my experience most Christians don't truly care. Many may have an opinion and voice it here or there, but it has little if any impact on their lives so it's just not a big deal.

It's like Creationism. People believe what they choose to believe, but it ultimately doesn't change anything so its not a hill the majority of ordinary, ever-day-people Christians are willing to die on.

 

[SlackMaster]

1. Has there not been a movement by the more youthful in society to mold and change Christianity to fit the beliefs of secular societty? I would hate to think the end product of the modernization of Christianity is simply: tolerate sin, be nice to people, don't "hate/judge". Hey, that modernized Christianity sorta seems like liberalism.

2. Why do modernized Christians ignore the scriptures on homosexuality, fornication, lust, worldliness, adultery, etc?

To answer #1:

Yes, there has been change by the younger members of society. Same as the generation before that, and the generation before that, and so on.

To answer #2:

Setting aside the numerous sometimes contradictory versions of the bible, and the multitude of ways in which one can interpret the bible...I would say it's because they have to ignore certain parts of scripture.

Just to name a few:

Exodus 22:20

New International Version (NIV)

20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

New International Version (NIV)

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Exodus 21:7-11

New International Version (NIV)

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

I could keep going, but you get the picture. There are many many wicked things that the bible commands you to do and we no longer obey those commandments.

And before anyone trots out the "that was the old testament" argument. The main crux of this thread is to point out the objective morality of God. If it was bad at one time, then it should still be bad, and should forever more be bad.

Even the bible states this.

Matthew 5:18

New International Version (NIV)

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If it's no longer bad, then morality isn't objective and there shouldn't be any issue with the modernization of scripture.

It's an all or nothing situation. Either morality is objective and the bible (of which many atrocities are commanded) is the standard, or you concede that morality is subjective.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

1. Has there not been a movement by the more youthful in society to mold and change Christianity to fit the beliefs of secular societty? I would hate to think the end product of the modernization of Christianity is simply: tolerate sin, be nice to people, don't "hate/judge". Hey, that modernized Christianity sorta seems like liberalism.

2. Why do modernized Christians ignore the scriptures on homosexuality, fornication, lust, worldliness, adultery, etc?

I personally believe that judgment and condemnation should be left for God since He's the only one who really knows what's going on and I know a lot of others feel that way too so what you might be seeing is a movement in that direction and an emphasis on the "love your neighbor" part instead of the "let me tell you what's going to send you to hell" parts of the Bible.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

And before anyone trots out the "that was the old testament" argument. The main crux of this thread is to point out the objective morality of God. If it was bad at one time, then it should still be bad, and should forever more be bad.

...

It's an all or nothing situation. Either morality is objective and the bible (of which many atrocities are commanded) is the standard, or you concede that morality is subjective.

Actually, that's not true. When the religious say that "morality is objective", they mean that it is determined by God. In other words, when God says it, it's a fact - morality is not determined by human beings.

Consequently, God can change morality over and over again, but it will remain objective for human beings - it doesn't just depend on where we grow up.

(FTR, I don't believe this, but I'm just clarifying).

 

[Jerry]

And before anyone trots out the "that was the old testament" argument. The main crux of this thread is to point out the objective morality of God. If it was bad at one time, then it should still be bad, and should forever more be bad.

Even the bible states this.

If it's no longer bad, then morality isn't objective and there shouldn't be any issue with the modernization of scripture.

It's an all or nothing situation. Either morality is objective and the bible (of which many atrocities are commanded) is the standard, or you concede that morality is subjective.

It's how we react to the behavior that changes, not the evil of the act itself. The nature of the behavior remains the same, and our obligation to avoid it also.

I don't believe anyone ever argued that we never have to change. I understood it was the morality of the behavior which never changed.

 

[Jerry]

Actually, that's not true. When the religious say that "morality is objective", they mean that it is determined by God. In other words, when God says it, it's a fact - morality is not determined by human beings.

Consequently, God can change morality over and over again, but it will remain objective for human beings - it doesn't just depend on where we grow up.

(FTR, I don't believe this, but I'm just clarifying).

I think you're correct in that Christians are turning to an outside 3rd party (God).

I think your post could more accurately represent Christianity by trimming away implications that God changes His law whimsically. There is a reason for each change.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I think you're correct in that Christians are turning to an outside 3rd party (God).

I think your post could more accurately represent Christianity by trimming away implications that God changes His law whimsically. There is a reason for each change.

I didn't intend to portray God as whimsically changing morality, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that no matter how many changes He makes, the objectivity of morality for human beings would remain the same as it would always come from Him.

 

[Jerry]

I didn't intend to portray God as whimsically changing morality, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that no matter how many changes He makes, the objectivity of morality for human beings would remain the same as it would always come from Him.

I think that's essentially correct.

And I agree God does change His law over time. I liken it to how a parent changes their method as the child grows.

 

[SlackMaster]

Actually, that's not true. When the religious say that "morality is objective", they mean that it is determined by God. In other words, when God says it, it's a fact - morality is not determined by human beings.

Consequently, God can change morality over and over again, but it will remain objective for human beings - it doesn't just depend on where we grow up.

(FTR, I don't believe this, but I'm just clarifying).

So God could say that murder is moral and then it would be moral?

Why do we take notice of the homosexual commandment, but ignore the commandment about wearing clothes of two different fabrics?

 

[Jerry]

So God could say that murder is moral and then it would be moral?

If in the future God ever decides to condone or support something which is "murder" today, then there would be a solid foundation of reasoning for that decision, justifying it rationally.

This is simply how God works. He doesn't do things whimsically.

Because of that, God's authority is legitimate, and so if he were to say "this form of murder is now ok", it would be.

Why do we take notice of the homosexual commandment, but ignore the commandment about wearing clothes of two different fabrics?

1: There no such "homosexual commandment". That is a commandment against sodomy, specifically. Scripture says the punishment is "received within them". This is evidenced by the increased risk of contracting an STD, urinary tract infection and the Drip when performing sodomy.

2: The command against mixed fabrics (cotton and wool, specifically, not just any 2 fabrics you wish to match) is about committing fraud, something which is still held as unethical and in fact very illegal today. The commend comes from tailors who would say their robes were made of 100% wool, when in fact the robes were a 50/50 cotton/wool blend. This resulted in an inferior product which did not last nearly as long, yet the vendor would lie and charge full price. Today we have a wide variety of 'truth-in-advertising' laws to guard against this.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

So God could say that murder is moral and then it would be moral?

Yes.

Why do we take notice of the homosexual commandment, but ignore the commandment about wearing clothes of two different fabrics?

Who's "we"? Some people do it for different reasons: hypocrisy, New Testament vs. Old Testament, etc. (FTR, the Bible mentions sodomy, not homosexuality)

 

[SlackMaster]

Yes.

And that's where I bow out of the conversation.

Why would you worship a deity that, at any point in time, condoned slavery? Why would you worship one that seemingly condemned homosexuality (despite Jerry's interpretation, that doesn't appear to be shared by a majority of Christians.)?

Why would you make something so obviously morally bankrupt your moral compass?

It's a good thing that modern Christians are not following this bronze aged mentality anymore.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

And that's where I bow out of the conversation.

Why would you worship a deity that, at any point in time, condoned slavery? Why would you worship one that seemingly condemned homosexuality (despite Jerry's interpretation, that doesn't appear to be shared by a majority of Christians.)?

Why would you make something so obviously morally bankrupt your moral compass?

It's a good thing that modern Christians are not following this bronze aged mentality anymore.

Why would you come into a thread just to tell people that you think they're stupid?

 

[Zyphlin]

1. Has there not been a movement by the more youthful in society to mold and change Christianity to fit the beliefs of secular societty? I would hate to think the end product of the modernization of Christianity is simply: tolerate sin, be nice to people, don't "hate/judge". Hey, that modernized Christianity sorta seems like liberalism.

If by "youthful in society" you mean "every generation of people since the inception of the religion" then I'd say yes, absolutely. Throughout the ages interpritations of the bible, what is deemed something to follow and what isn't, what is given focus and what isn't, has changed. To those of the Crusades modern Christians would likely look like sinful heathens who dishonor god by giving him only token praise while not actively seeking to spread the word. To early American Chrsitians, the notion of not burning a person who performs genetic experiments creating cloned creatures on a stake as a "witch" due to his transgressions of sins against god would likely seem like a "modernization" and weakening. Still go back much farther, and the fact that if your daughter is raped and you don't proceed to stone her to death would likely make you seem like a "liberalized" person tolerating sin and working towards a secular society.

Does religion adapt in various ways, through interpritation or what is most focused upon, as society shifts and grows? Absolutely. However, its ridiculous to make it out as if it is some kind of bad and horrible thing now while ignoring the centuries of examples of it happening that got us to the point we are now.

 

[Jerry]

Why would you worship a deity that, at any point in time, condoned slavery?

Biblical slavery has nothing in common with how slavery was practiced in the South. Biblical slavery has a lot more in common with modern contracted labor (ie Military enlistment) then the stereotype you apparently refer to.

Why would you worship one that seemingly condemned homosexuality (despite Jerry's interpretation, that doesn't appear to be shared by a majority of Christians.)?

The only "interpretation" I have on this is from Hebrew to English. I read that prohibition quite literally. It simply does not speak against homosexuality or even same-sex relationships generally.

Why would you make something so obviously morally bankrupt your moral compass?

God and scripture are nothing like what you're representing them to be. I simply can't relate how you can be so obviously wrong on so many things here, with the evidence so clear.

It's a good thing that modern Christians are not following this bronze aged mentality anymore.

We are following what it actually is, not what you misrepresent it to be.

 

[SlackMaster]

Why would you come into a thread just to tell people that you think they're stupid?

I never said anyone was stupid. Where did I say that?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I never said anyone was stupid. Where did I say that?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You're entire series of "why would you" questions make that implication, particularly since you made it clear you were less interested in understanding what you got wrong and more interested in shoving your own ideas about religion down people's throats. I knew that's what you came here to do, I was waiting to see how long it would take to come out - not long apparently.

Please put your BS back up your ass.

 

[Jerry]

I never said anyone was stupid. Where did I say that?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You're putting words in God's mouth, so if we're doing it to you, you still have no room to complain.

That is, however, exactly what you're doing here. You're just here to slam Christianity and flame it's members, not discuss the topic in earnest. May I remind you of the new rules governing this forum.