Would Jesus speak out against homosexuality today?

[mitchellmckain]

I do agree with you, that there is no absolute right or wrong without some kind of ultimate arbiter. But you still can't escape the Euthypro Dilemma: Does God command it because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

Yep, the latter is divine relativism and it makes the claim that God is good completely meaningless. This is the ethics of a tyrant whose logic is that we should believe he is good because he says so? Well it is my expectation that people will take their ideals and logic from the god and divine parent they worship, and so it is no surprise that the real effect of this kind of thinking is that people tyrranically use "God" as a tool for forcing their ideas of right and wrong on other people.

So I say that God commands things because they are for the best for those whom He commands and that means that there are necessary truths which are not a product of the decision of God but are a standard by which we can meaningfully say that God is good. But if that is the case then morality and ethics is independent of God and therefore cannot constitute a proof for the existence of God.

And how do we know which god the buck stops with? So the question of whether absolute right or wrong exists is useless from a practical standpoint since humans decide what is best for them to do all by themselves, which includes the effect of their belief in a deity. Your god says absolute right is X, mine says it's Z. Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!

Yep, and the God which I see DOES NOT force His ideas of right and wrong on people, but very much tries to get us to think for ourselves. But this does not mean that what is moral and ethical is for us to decide however we choose, rather they are principles for us to learn, either by listening to His advice or learning them the hard way by suffering the consequences of doing otherwise.

[Salwinder]

Aaron - if you're holding up the Abrahamic God responsible for the murder, genocide, rape, incest, plague, stoning and homophobia prevalent in the Bible as our moral teacher, then this is a primitive morality I will never subscribe to. If you really can't conceptualise secular ethics, that has to call into question your own inherent morality. Do you really need the threat of hellfire hanging over you before deciding not to act immorally? Or is it that you think it's others that need such a threat? And if you do face God on judgement day, are you really so sure that He is going to be persuaded that someone only doing good to avoid eternal damnation is really an inherently moral person?

[JustJim]

Aaron,

You and I agree it is morally wrong to commit murder. We probably also agree it is morally wrong to steal, to lie, to cheat, to intentionally inflict unnecessary harm on other people, and probably a whole slew of other moral standards.

You believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I don't.*

You believe in God (the one in the Bible). I don't.

From where did each of us get our moral values? Why aren't they identical?

Jim

*(In line with the subject of this thread, neither, apparently, did Jesus. Or at least if he did, he didn't think it was wrong enough to mention it - ever. Paul, on the otherhand, apparently believed it was a terrible sin - an opinion he didn't appear to have received from Jesus. But that's all beside the point. For now, I'm only interested in you and me....)

[NH Baritone]

What makes murder wrong? What makes forcing anothers will upon someone else wrong? Where do these moral views get such power? Are they know apriori?

• Because murder and intimidation worsen life for all of us by making it more likely to happen to us and those we love.
• Because we empathetically know that the pain inflicted on another is subtracting from the joy in all of life.
• Because murder and intimidation diminish our ability to build community and trust.
• Because they increase the suffering in the world.

This looks like an excellent answer to me. I would quite agree. It is too bad that you did not stop there.
<snip>

YOU are lecturing ME about not recognizing an opportunity to shut up? Have you read your own posts with the same critical eye?

And inserting a deity into the discussion only diminishes the importance of these elements.

I do not follow your reasoning in this statement. Could the reason you conclude this be because you don't think that such considerations should not apply to people with a belief in God???

Don't be silly. I mean that God has no relevance in discussion of morality. All you need to do is examine some of the moral issues where people decreeing moral dictates of God have actually taken polar opposite viewpoints:

• slavery
• the holocaust
• women's suffrage
• poverty programs
• torture
• war (specific wars and warfare in general)
• gay marriage
• abortion rights

The moral dilemmas involved with each of these issues arise from the suffering that they enhance and/or reduce. Bringing God into the discussion distracts from noticing and focusing on such suffering, a distraction that we cannot afford. You said something similar in your next sentence:

It seems to me that that the mention of God is simply irrelevant.

So exactly what (and how relevant) is the difference between this statement and my own?

[mitchellmckain]

YOU are lecturing ME about not recognizing an opportunity to shut up?

Lecturing? I was agreeing with the meaninful content of your post even though I was offended by the rhetoric.

Have you read your own posts with the same critical eye?

Always. I can disagree with someone without suggesting that the point of view they express means that they are brainwashed, which is a completely different issue. Now if someone starts complaining that you are thinking for yourself (like with that inappropriately used "cherry picking" accusation) well then perhaps that is a different matter. But anyway, it is better to get back to the topic of discussion before this becomes a pointless battle of personal criticisms.

And inserting a deity into the discussion only diminishes the importance of these elements.

I do not follow your reasoning in this statement. Could the reason you conclude this be because you don't think that such considerations should not apply to people with a belief in God???

Don't be silly. I mean that God has no relevance in discussion of morality. Bringing God into the discussion distracts from noticing and focusing on such suffering, a distraction that we cannot afford. You said something similar in your next sentence:

It seems to me that that the mention of God is simply irrelevant.

So exactly what (and how relevant) is the difference between this statement and my own?

Hmmm... ok... on the one hand you mean same, that the mention of God is irrelevant, on the other hand you are expressing a sentiment a little bit like Aaron's, but where he seems to be saying that he cannot feel empathy unless he thinks about God, for you thinking about God interferes with your ability to feel empathy...?

Hmmm... perhaps this is a rather common element in the usual conflicts between theists and atheists.

[NH Baritone]

Hmmm... ok... on the one hand you mean same, that the mention of God is irrelevant, on the other hand you are expressing a sentiment a little bit like Aaron's, but where he seems to be saying that he cannot feel empathy unless he thinks about God, for you thinking about God interferes with your ability to feel empathy...?

Hmmm... perhaps this is a rather common element in the usual conflicts between theists and atheists.

Willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation seems more to be your M.O. than genuine discussion, so rather than allow you to cheat, I'm dropping the rope.

[mitchellmckain]

Hmmm... ok... on the one hand you mean same, that the mention of God is irrelevant, on the other hand you are expressing a sentiment a little bit like Aaron's, but where he seems to be saying that he cannot feel empathy unless he thinks about God, for you thinking about God interferes with your ability to feel empathy...?

Hmmm... perhaps this is a rather common element in the usual conflicts between theists and atheists.

Willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation seems more to be your M.O. than genuine discussion, so rather than allow you to cheat, I'm dropping the rope.

So I take it that the answer to my question is no this is not correct and I assume that you are talking about the part about God interferes with your ability to feel empathy. And therefore we simply agree that the mention of God is irrelevant, right?

I can get things wrong and so can you. There is no willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation no matter how fustrated you may feel in the effort to communicate with me. But if you say something that sounds like one thing to me but you mean something else and want me to understand what you meant correctly, then you will have to explain. Sorry.

Can no one understand what I am trying to say? Is my use of hypothetical language that hard to understand? Apparently. Of course I am using extreme language, I am trying to get my point across. But I'm about to give up... My goal was to point out that right and wrong are as liable to change as the seasons, they have no foundation. Oh well..........

I was thinking about this in church today and I began to wonder about the connection between this kind thinking and the Christian idea expressed by Augustine and Calvinists concerning total depravity and inability, for I can see how this might be turned into an argument that man is incapable of moral understanding without the intervention of God. But I think this is incorrect. In fact I could not understand the message of Christianity until I read the words of Paul in Romans chapters 1-7 where it makes it quite clear that man IS capable of moral understanding (Rom 2:14-15) but that there does seem to be something wrong with us such that we fall short of our own standards (Rom 7:21-24) and fail to do even that which we do understand is right.

So I think it is very likely that we do not see the whole picture and that our moral understanding is entirely inadequate to the challenges of our lives and more importantly that we do seem to quite often find ourselves doing things even when we know that they are wrong. But EVEN given this need for the guidance of God in order to adequately navigate the moral landscape of our lives, it does not follow from this that there is no rational access to an understanding of right and wrong (and I see no basis for such a claim in the Bible).

I do agree with you, that there is no absolute right or wrong without some kind of ultimate arbiter.

I do not agree. (I think?) For the question is whether there is any reason why some things are right and some things are truly wrong other than the fact that somebody says so. I think that there is. I think that it may not be possible to arrive at them in a purely objective fashion for it probably requires some premises regarding what is of value - you know things like love and life. But I think it is quite obvious that people do not have to believe in God in order to value these things and that is why we disagree with Aaron's argument.

[Aaron]

But EVEN given this need for the guidance of God in order to adequately navigate the moral landscape of our lives, it does not follow from this that there is no rational access to an understanding of right and wrong (and I see no basis for such a claim in the Bible).

And I agree with you. The world I was speaking of was one I imagined. A world in which there really is no God. Unfortunately we can never know what a world like that would be like. So all I can do is imagine. Now as to this world, I think you are on the right track. We do have the ablity to know right and wrong, because God has made this knowledge avaliable (Genisis 2:9,17). Everyone knows in thier hearts what is right and wrong. BUT I do think that a persons ablity to discriminate can be blurried when sin begins to take more and more control of their lives. This is where the bible comes in handy. It is truth, pure and simple. Instead of relying on our own minds (which are incredibly succeptable to our evil desires) to decide what is right and wrong we can rely on the bible. Of course we can even bend and twist the bible, so it is my belief that if a person truly wants to know the unadulterated truth they must approach the word of God with humilty and a spirit of submissiveness.

But I think it is quite obvious that people do not have to believe in God in order to value these things and that is why we disagree with Aaron's argument.

Again I agree with you. The argument I was presenting was of a world that doesn't have a God. It was purely hypothetical. Yet I believe very accurate.

[Aaron]

From where did each of us get our moral values? Why aren't they identical?

Jim,

I believe we get our moral values from our conscience. Except I believe we get that moral discriminator from God and... well I have no idea where you think we get it from, probably some argument paralleling evolutionary natural selection to social and moral behavior. Of course I also believe that we have the bible to make sure our moral compass is aligning with God's perfect moral standard. So looking at morality from my point of view we see that murder, lying, and stealing are just as bad as homosexuality or adultery or idolatry. Each of these things is not only a wrong against yourself, or those around you but also against God and what he has made sacred. When sex is perverted in any of the numerous ways people have found to pervert it today it is a direct attack on what God has created to be pure and holy. That is how I account for the discrepancies between our moral values. You are looking at morality as to how it affects those around you and yourself. I am looking at how it first affects God, then others and finally my self. As to the bit about Jesus not speaking out against homosexuality, well I don't agree. Technically Jesus is God and God did speak out against homosexuality. Also way back in Genisis it is believed that when Abraham is visted by "the angel of the Lord" this is refering to Jesus. So perhaps when the three men came to Abramham and spilled the beans about the coming judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah the man who stayed behind with Abraham was Jesus. But I don't expect you to accept any of that. I just thought I'd point it out.

[mitchellmckain]

The argument I was presenting was of a world that doesn't have a God. It was purely hypothetical. Yet I believe very accurate.

I have my doubts. Can you truly imagine such a world? I know that the atheists can for the world they "imagine" is the one they live in. But clearly you and I believe the world we live in is contingent upon an act of God, right? But if you set this aside to imagine that it is possible for a "world" to exist without God then why not the same one that the atheist sees, why not this one?

Now in my case I recognize that all the reasons I have to believe that there is a God and that the universe was created by God, are subjective. To imagine a world where there is no God, requires no more that imagining the world without what I subjectively perceive or where my subjective perceptions are incorrect. But when I subtract these perceptions, all that is left are the objective observations of science, in which God plays no role at all. In other words, what I have is exactly what the atheist sees of this world.

Now does this mean that I actually think this is possible? No it does not. Just because I can imagine such a world does not mean this at all. After all I can imagine quite a lot for I have read a lot of science fiction and fantasy. I can imagine a world just like this one that was created this very morning exactly as it is with all our memories in place. The products of our imagination, like our dreams do not even have to be logically consistent. The world I have imagined with all my subjective perceptions subtracted is a world where I have subtracted myself, and this is not consistent with reality as I have experienced it.

The world where I imagine that my subjective perceptions are incorrect are bit like that one that was created this morning or like imagining that I am really in a mental hospital where everything I experience is a dream or a halucination; but all suppositions like this are ultimately meaningless, because we believe what makes the most sense of our experiences in a way that best enables us to be a part of the world and suppositions like those only disengage us from the world, for denying its reality is to say that participation is pointless.

[crazylegsmurphy]

I agree that Aaron is brainwashed beyond belief.

The reason I think this is because almost everything he says sounds like it's regurgitated from somewhere else. When you challenge his ideas he outright avoids it and spouts off more rhetoric. When you present him with facts, he outright denies or avoids them.

He comes up with these fictitious ideas about the world that have no basis in reality. He makes claims about homosexuality (and other things) that are so outdated and false that it's laughable. He compares homosexuality to things that aren't in any way related without batting an eye. He spouts of hurtful comments without tact or regard, and he has absolutely no idea about what he's going on about half the time.

He honestly displays all the signs of someone who is brainwashed...or a undeniable closet case.

[JustJim]

Of course I also believe that we have the bible to make sure our moral compass is aligning with God's perfect moral standard. So looking at morality from my point of view we see that murder, lying, and stealing are just as bad as homosexuality or adultery or idolatry. Each of these things is not only a wrong against yourself, or those around you but also against God and what he has made sacred. When sex is perverted in any of the numerous ways people have found to pervert it today it is a direct attack on what God has created to be pure and holy.

I've read the Bible, cover-to-cover, eight times. I've also read the NT in its entirety several more times, and several books of the OT and NT quite a few more times. I've read several different translations, with several different "study notes" and commentaries accompanying them.

If murder, lying, stealing, adultery, and idolatry are "just as bad as" homosexuality, how come there's no "Thou Shalt Not Have Sex With Same Sex Partners" commandment, while there are separate commandments for each of the others?

As to the bit about Jesus not speaking out against homosexuality, well I don't agree. Technically Jesus is God and God did speak out against homosexuality.

Well, "technically", Jesus is not God; you believe Jesus is God. That's not the same thing. Nonetheless, I don't buy that "easy out" explanation, that Jesus is God, and therefore it was Jesus speaking in OT rules about homosexuality. (In reality, those were more likely Moses' words (or whoever else might have written them), and not the words of God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit.) You dig yourself quite a deep hole, with no way out, if you want to stick to the claim that anything quoted in the Bible as being from God or Jesus is interchangeable as to who really said it. You don't want to go there. Jesus could speak for himself, and appears to have done quite well at it.

You say you believe we get our moral values from our consciences, but that we get that from God. So you're saying we get our morals from God, as well as our sense of them. I'm sure there's a difference there.... But, if we get our moral values from God, do we get them through revelation (scripture, nature, personal, etc.), or do we get them through "instillation" (they're somehow instilled upon our hearts, minds, and souls... or whatever)? How can we distinguish between moral values we received from God and moral values we developed ourselves and received from other human beings? How can you tell? And what does it matter where they came from, so long as we all practice them? If we both believe murder is wrong, and act accordingly, who cares where we get that value from?

You are looking at morality as to how it affects those around you and yourself. I am looking at how it first affects God, then others and finally my self.

How do you know how it affects God? Is it only because you believe the Bible is God's word and he tells you what's right and wrong? Was there no sense of right and wrong before there was a Bible? I think you're kidding yourself. You have no idea how things affect God. You're only guessing. But like me, you have a pretty good idea how things affect you, and maybe other people, and I think that's how you determine your moral values. After you've done that, then you assign those values to God and claim he gave 'em to you.

Also way back in Genisis it is believed that when Abraham is visted by "the angel of the Lord" this is refering to Jesus. So perhaps when the three men came to Abramham and spilled the beans about the coming judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah the man who stayed behind with Abraham was Jesus. But I don't expect you to accept any of that. I just thought I'd point it out.

Well, "just pointing it out" doesn't make it any less baseless and ridiculous. Claiming "it is believed" as some level of authority is absurd.

Jim

[Carico]

Jesus did not go around speaking out against all the prostitues and other lowly sinners of his day, why aren't you following his example? I keep hearing this. It seems I should be tolerant just like Jesus was. I have to disagree with this 100 percent. Yes Jesus would mingle with people such as those but they knew, everyone knew, what they were doing was wrong. He was showing all that his gift was not just for the "religious" it was for everyone. His goal was never to make thier sin seem less like sin, it was to reveal it completely for what it was and then offer the incredible gift of forgiveness. Still not convinced? Take a look at Jesus' reaction in the temple. He knew what they were doing was wrong, but they thought it was okay. Notice he didn't show them the same comforting shoulder he showed all those horrible sinners. He made it very clear that what they were doing was wrong, he left no room for uncertainty. I think Jesus would do the same in our generation. It always seems that Jesus stands for the exact opposite of what the world stands for. Yeah I think he would be at the forefront making sure people understood homosexuality was wrong, along with adultery, stealing music, not lying, not putting people ahead of material things, porn and many other things. Yet I suspect he would be the first to forgive a terrorist, a rapist, a child molester or a wife beater.

Believe whatever you want. It's your right, and I will defend it mightily.

But would you then require the rest of the world to follow the tenets your religion? Would your religion require the government to relegate gay relationships to criminal status? Based on a faith that they do NOT share, would you forbid gay people from forming loving families?

If you approach your religion with such authoritarian tendencies, then I will oppose you mightily.

Jesus would never ever disagree with our Father in heaven since Jesus himself is not only united with the Father, he is also the Word as John 1:1-2 explains. So there is zero biblical justification for homosexuality regardless of how many people try to blaspheme Jesus to make it justifiable.

[JustJim]

Jesus would never ever disagree with our Father in heaven since Jesus himself is not only united with the Father, he is also the Word as John 1:1-2 explains. So there is zero biblical justification for homosexuality regardless of how many people try to blaspheme Jesus to make it justifiable.

Oh, no... not you again.... <<sigh>>

Has anyone claimed biblical justification for homosexuality on this forum? Has anyone even tried to "justify" homosexuality at all? I don't recall seeing any. Several people have opposed discrimination against homosexuals in a variety of ways for a lot of good reasons. Several people have challenged the idea that homosexuality is a 'perversion' or a 'sin' or somehow 'wrong'. Several people have tried to explain why it's not nice to treat homosexuals unfairly or cruelly, and also claimed Jesus was against treating people unfairly or cruelly, while also pointing out the fact that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality - not even to quote his 'father', even though he quoted his 'father' on a variety of other subjects, rather than just speak in his place as some kind of proxy.

What's the definition of a strawman argument, anyhow?

Has anyone on the forum tried to blaspheme Jesus to make homosexuality justifiable? Besides, blasphemy is "speaking irreverently about God or sacred things" (New Oxford American Dictionary). Someone who doesn't believe God exists, or who doesn't consider God or religious things "sacred", cannot, therefore, be committing blasphemy. They can be rude and insensitive, but they can't blaspheme.

Jim

[tirtlegrrl]

Also way back in Genisis it is believed that when Abraham is visted by "the angel of the Lord" this is refering to Jesus. So perhaps when the three men came to Abramham and spilled the beans about the coming judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah the man who stayed behind with Abraham was Jesus. But I don't expect you to accept any of that. I just thought I'd point it out.

"It is believed"...by people who have already made a commitment to squeezing a reference to Jesus out of as many places in the OT as possible. Observant Jews obviously don't interpret it that way. And if that was Jesus staying with Abraham, then he was able to take a human form outside of being born of the line of David. Doesn't that complicate one's Christology a little bit?