Christian Group Behavior (Episode 44)

[NH Baritone]

To return to the topic of the thread, I had made this comment earlier. SpongeBob called Scott's argument a case of "special pleading."

I still wonder how Scott (or other Christians) would respond to it.

I was struck by Scott's assertion that God is not interested in rapid transformations. Looking at the Biblical evidence (e.g., disciples simply dropping their nets to follow Jesus, Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, the miraculous healings, the instruction that if people don't want to hear the gospel to leave the city immediately, etc.), it seems that God is ONLY interested in rapid transformations. I know of no evidence in the Bible of slow transformations, probably because both in Biblical times & now, slow changes can be better explained via maturing.

[ScottBarger]

NHB (et al.)

It seems I need to respond to two separate issues.

First, the idea of judging sin (and sinners). I may have misspoke, or at least misused the word "judge" in my posts. I understand that if I have concluded that homosexuality is sinful, then I am judging. I do believe it is possible for me to have an open, honest, respectful dialog with someone who engages in behavior I consider morally wrong. I don't think I should force this behavior on others, especially since the call to follow the teachings of Jesus (and by extension the Bible) is not something that everyone embraces. I am not sure how I would approach this with a person who has decided to follow the teachings of Jesus. I would have to be humble, acknowledge the ambiguities in the text, and try to focus on the things I have in common with them...beyond that I am just not sure.

Second, in response to NHB's post concerning "radical transformation." I think there are many examples of epiphanies in the Bible, no doubt, but VERY few (if any) accounts of complete and rapid transformations. Even the men who left their nets to follow Jesus (as per NHB's example), had a long way to go before they fully understood and accepted what he was all about. I stand by my original assertion that God values the process of "becoming" and I feel that the Bible validates this conclusion.

[NH Baritone]

First, the idea of judging sin (and sinners). I may have misspoke, or at least misused the word "judge" in my posts. I understand that if I have concluded that homosexuality is sinful, then I am judging. I do believe it is possible for me to have an open, honest, respectful dialog with someone who engages in behavior I consider morally wrong. I don't think I should force this behavior on others, especially since the call to follow the teachings of Jesus (and by extension the Bible) is not something that everyone embraces. I am not sure how I would approach this with a person who has decided to follow the teachings of Jesus. I would have to be humble, acknowledge the ambiguities in the text, and try to focus on the things I have in common with them...beyond that I am just not sure.

So from your pastoral stance, which you stated as "we all have behaviors we struggle with," let me ask you about a scenario.

Every married straight couple and every committed gay couple experiences romantic intimacies. I don't think I'm being too presumptive to imagine you do so with your own wife. Then after a good night's sleep, you kiss your wife, get out of bed, look in the mirror, and feel like your relationship to God remains uncompromised.

Yet for committed, Christian gay couples, your statements have stained every moment of their love-making with guilt and shame. When they arise in the morning, what are they to think & do? Are they to apologize to one another for the love they feel? Are they to pray that they don't do it again? Are they to seek forgiveness in a Christian counseling session? Are they to break up, thereby damaging two lives?

These two loving couples are intensely similar, but you have cast them in opposite moral lights. Just like you in your physical relationship with your wife, they are doing the best they can to live a loving, faithful, and honest life. Given that you live your life in almost exactly the same fashion as they do, what's your pastoral response to those efforts?

[Emery]

I'd like to know too, Scott.

NHB has thrown you a very tough question, and I think the only way to answer it with moral credibility, is to explain why homosexuality is morally wrong, outside of religion. Otherwise, I don't see how you can defend the Christian position.

That is the problem with all religions: they have rules that either supercede humanism, or exist outside of it, and we all know the danger of rules that are cut loose from ethical moorings. Jesus chastised the Pharisees for such adherence to empty rules. He was always looking for the "why," and what effect these rules had on people. He seemed to indicate that if you couldn't articulate a moral reason aside from the "it's in the scripture" argument (the Pharisees knew scripture quite well), then your adherence to the rule was suspect.

I understand your dilemma, Scott. It seems if you were to have written the Bible, according to your conscience, you would not have included the prohibitions against homosexuality. But your religion demands it, and thus you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is your integrity as a moral being, and what the Bible teaches. I don't know if this will ever be relevant to you, but that is the reason I left Christianity: I could either believe [insert Christian doctrine here], or maintain my integrity as a rational, ethical human being. I chose the latter.

[JustJim]

...the call to follow the teachings of Jesus (and by extension the Bible) is not something that everyone embraces.

Scott,

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. It seems you're going to be a tad busy coming up with a response to NHB and Emery. I just offer these thoughts for your consideration....

First, when you say "the teachings of Jesus", I assume you're talking about the things attributed to Jesus in his sermons and parables and other teachings as outlined in the Bible, and maybe, from some other things you've said, some of the things contained in some of the extra-canonical writings about Jesus and his 'sayings'. Personally, I believe those things form the only legitimate basis for Christian beliefs, doctrines, and thinking, but, unfortunately, they are subject to the interpretations and applications of mere mortals like you and me and Saul of Tarsus, et al. And that accounts for the wide disparities among Christian faiths in their doctrines and teachings about most of the minutia of Christian beliefs. What Jesus (supposedly) said is one thing; how it's interpreted is quite another. And each interpreter believes his/her interpretation is the correct one.

Second, and this is a much bigger issue, when you say "and by extension the Bible", I believe you are committing a non sequitur. It does not follow from "the call to follow the teachings of Jesus" that the rest of the Bible is also to be followed, let alone trusted, believed, or revered as something "special". In fact, much of what Jesus said contradicts, sets straight, cleans up, re-interprets, or updates what the rest of the scriptures (as opposed to "the Bible", which didn't exist in Jesus' time, of course) have said. To me, it is quite clear that Jesus not only didn't follow many of the teachings of the scriptures himself, but that he also relieved his followers from the nit-picky adherence to the details of the scriptures (see "the two greatest commandments" teaching, for example.)

Anyhow, I'm saying a person can be a "follower of Christ" without accepting the whole Bible as anything more than a collection of writings of a diverse set of authors from a wide variety of points of view about a wide variety of subjects as they pertained mostly to the ancient tribes of Israel. Their contents may or may not, coincidentally, apply to us today in some situations.

Anyhow, I look forward to your responses to NHB and Emery. Keep hangin' in there! )

Jim

[JustJim]

That is the problem with all religions: they have rules that either supercede humanism, or exist outside of it, and we all know the danger of rules that are cut loose from ethical moorings. Jesus chastised the Pharisees for such adherence to empty rules. He was always looking for the "why," and what effect these rules had on people. He seemed to indicate that if you couldn't articulate a moral reason aside from the "it's in the scripture" argument (the Pharisees knew scripture quite well), then your adherence to the rule was suspect.

This is so accurately descriptive of Jesus, and is reflected throughout his teachings. It's also the kind of question I believe he'd ask Rian (and others who share her beliefs), for example, about her objections to homosexual marriage.

...I could either believe [insert Christian doctrine here], or maintain my integrity as a rational, ethical human being. I chose the latter.

Tsk tsk tsk, Emery. This too strongly implies that anyone who believes [insert Christian doctrine here] has chosen not to maintain their integrity as a rational, ethical human being. So anyone who believes [insert Christian doctrine here] lacks integrity, is irrational, and is unethical. And you know, of course, that ain't true. So what are you really saying here?

Jim

[Emery]

...I could either believe [insert Christian doctrine here], or maintain my integrity as a rational, ethical human being. I chose the latter.

Tsk tsk tsk, Emery. This too strongly implies that anyone who believes [insert Christian doctrine here] has chosen not to maintain their integrity as a rational, ethical human being. So anyone who believes [insert Christian doctrine here] lacks integrity, is irrational, and is unethical. And you know, of course, that ain't true. So what are you really saying here?

Jim

Good catch, Jim. I had second thoughts after I posted that part, Scott would be right in calling that condescending. But on another level, that is exactly the thought process I went through. So perhaps I should rephrase it, "insert Emery's understanding of Christian doctrine here."

But I think there is still a principle to be salvaged from my inelegant language: if your personal sense of ethics and morality is offended by your religion, don't sweep that under the rug. It is a real issue that must be faced, something that must be reconciled.

[mikedsjr]

I'd like to know too, Scott.

NHB has thrown you a very tough question, and I think the only way to answer it with moral credibility, is to explain why homosexuality is morally wrong, outside of religion. Otherwise, I don't see how you can defend the Christian position.

That is the problem with all religions: they have rules that either supercede humanism, or exist outside of it, and we all know the danger of rules that are cut loose from ethical moorings. Jesus chastised the Pharisees for such adherence to empty rules. He was always looking for the "why," and what effect these rules had on people. He seemed to indicate that if you couldn't articulate a moral reason aside from the "it's in the scripture" argument (the Pharisees knew scripture quite well), then your adherence to the rule was suspect.

I understand your dilemma, Scott. It seems if you were to have written the Bible, according to your conscience, you would not have included the prohibitions against homosexuality. But your religion demands it, and thus you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is your integrity as a moral being, and what the Bible teaches. I don't know if this will ever be relevant to you, but that is the reason I left Christianity: I could either believe [insert Christian doctrine here], or maintain my integrity as a rational, ethical human being. I chose the latter.

I will let Scott give his view. For me, it isn't a tough question, Biblically. I'm not really going to answer it very well, because I would rather answer it as you request, by answering why homosexuality is morally wrong with a very elaborate answer, but I'm not sure I can do it justice at this time. In other words, I don't have the proper answer.

Here is my very brief answer to why it is immoral....and it is ever so brief and currently how I see it. We were created in the image of God, the triune God, which animals are not created in the image of God (i know some may want to argue this point, but that is for another thread). And God made man and woman in a covenantal relationship. It isn't a civil type of relationship where it is decreed a marriage by a government. And the marriage was/is a specific type of relationship, that reflects who God is and reflects Him. To desecrate the covenantal relationship is a sin. And the problem with us all, including myself, is that most of the time, we have no clue how much pain it gives God when we sin, because we don't think upon sin from God's perspective. It is much of the time from man's perspective. And certainly from that, I can understand why someone would question homosexuality as sin, because some will humanize it to fit the social need, instead of seeing from God's perspective. I imagine the study I'm doing, "Who is God", will me be more sure on if I'm correct, if I need tweaking, or that I might have missed something that I'm in error in some what with my interpretation.

[Emery]

Hi Mike, thanks for your honest answer. So I understand you to say that homosexuality is a sin because it distresses God? Though I respect your candor, I wonder about the implications of basing morality on what causes pain to God. First of all, no one really knows what causes God pain. Your religion might list A, B and C. Others X, Y and Z. How do we know which are correct?

Second, and this is the more sinister part, to what extent are we to prevent pain to God? If we can prevent God from suffering by causing people to suffer, should we? An extreme example (though evidently not extreme in the OT) would be to kill homosexuals. Are God's feelings worth the lives of these offending humans? Perhaps you don't think so. But what if others do? Couldn't you interpret loving God with all your heart, soul and mind as being a mandate to protect Him, even if it means harming others?

This is what I meant when I said that rules cut loose from their ethical moorings are dangerous. Perhaps I should have said "humanistic" ethical moorings. Because once what is good for God supercedes what is good for humans, we're right at the doorstep of religious abuse and the horrors we have seen, and continue to see, throughout history.

[NH Baritone]

I wonder about the maturity and potency of any "God" that can be brought to his metaphoric knees in "pain" because people are having sex.

If that's the case, then "God" is as neurotic as a basement dwelling troglodyte who's obsessed with virgins and Klingons.

[darkumbra]

I wonder about the maturity and potency of any "God" that can be brought to his metaphoric knees in "pain" because people are having sex.

If that's the case, then "God" is as neurotic as a basement dwelling troglodyte who's obsessed with virgins and Klingons.

Now Now... leave the Klingons out of this.

[mikedsjr]

But isn't this the differences between you, as atheist, and I and others in here as christians? We have the freedom to go our seperate ways at the end of day and say, I respectfully disagree with your stance. (hopefully it is respectful)

[darkumbra]

But isn't this the differences between you, as atheist, and I and others in here as christians? We have the freedom to go our seperate ways at the end of day and say, I respectfully disagree with your stance. (hopefully it is respectful)

To whom are you speaking?

[NH Baritone]

Second, in response to NHB's post concerning "radical transformation." I think there are many examples of epiphanies in the Bible, no doubt, but VERY few (if any) accounts of complete and rapid transformations. Even the men who left their nets to follow Jesus (as per NHB's example), had a long way to go before they fully understood and accepted what he was all about. I stand by my original assertion that God values the process of "becoming" and I feel that the Bible validates this conclusion.

What is the difference between these transformations and the human maturation process? If someone practices every day, they get better. It's practically impossible not to improve. So if someone decides to practice card tricks, medicine, lock picking, guitar, computer programming, or a religious (or non-religious) behavioral protocol every day for years, then they'll get better entirely without any need for divine intervention.

Again, your argument rings of "special pleading." It's the same as saying that the longer a Christian works, the more wealthy he becomes. That's true of just about all Americans. It has nothing to do Christianity.

[stickmangrit]

scott,

having listened to the podcast, i would agree with you on most points. the key problem with north american christianity is a combination of a lot of cultural agents coalescing into a spiritual clusterf**k. as i've said numerous times, i was raised catholic, and was taught that whilst belief in Yahweh was important, it meant nothing unless you backed it with action. you can say you believe in Jesus and want to be like him all you want, but unless you actually get off your ass and do what he says to do then all you're accomplishing is sycophancy, not christianity. furthermore, i was taught that those who do not believe, but still do as Jesus said, then they are just as much in his service as any christian. the implications of this teaching(whether followed or not) are a general tolerance of other viewpoints so long as they are acting in a positive way towards humanity. it results in more importance being placed on doing for others, the importance of action over words.

this is not a widely held belief in the US. the larger population here is of the protestant standpoint, that whilst actions are important, they mean nothing without belief. you can save millions by curing cancer, dedicate your life to helping the less fortunate, and do everything in your power to improve the lives of all around you, but unless you go to church, get baptized, and swear all glory to Yahweh and Jesus, you're insulting them and will be sent to a pit of eternal suffering regardless. furthermore, in certain denominations, they view themselves as the only christianity, and that all others are heretics. the implication of this belief system is that the priority is based on words rather than actions. so long as they pray and go to church, it doesn't matter that they drive straight past the homeless shelter and the soup kitchen in a luxury SUV to a huge expensive church to pray for greater wealth. they prayed, and that's all that's important. you combine this blatant perversion of the "faith alone" concept that Martin Luther put forth, along with the growing fast-food culture(i.e. everything should be bigger, faster, and more convenient), the right wing call for jingoistic patriotism in the wake of 9/11, and the hijacking of the SBC by neo-conservatives have all meshed together into, as stated previously, a spiritual clusterf**k. the combined force of these cultural agents on the mind of the believer takes a message of "love god and love your fellow man as you would love god," to "love god and do everything in your power to make everyone else love god. so long as you continue to believe your sins are irrelevant, and as long as 'they' continue to reject our belief they are damned and are less than human, and the best way to save them is to use the laws of our great christian nation to prevent these evil people from sinning."

they write off the curbing of civil rights because they are rights that they themselves don't utilize. this is the point at which the monkeysphere kicks in and christians proceed to screw over "them" because "they" are faceless, nameless, and acting against the will of "us," who have the One True God(tm) on "our" side. furthermore since "their" actions are evil and bound to damn them to hell anyway, "we" are in fact saving "them" from "them"selves. again, go look at the gay marriage threads for a perfect illustration of this mindset in action. as i've said numerous times as of late, this mindset is the problem, and the problem is being actively pushed by those who stand to profit from it's presence.

what alternately greatly amuses and utterly horrifies me is that though these are the first people to start screaming of "false signs and teachings" being a sign of the coming apocalypse, they utterly fail to recognize that they themselves perfectly match this description. if there ever is a biblical anti-christ, he won't be coming from the EU, or any political organization, he'll be coming out of the SBC.