You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Today, I went to Ridgecrest where Exodus leader Alan Chambers personally threw me off the grounds. With a couple of muscle men behind him, he scowled, "you're not welcome here." He should know that the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is inhospitality. Earlier in the day, I waved to cars coming to the conference with some terrific young activists. I was proud to be outside with them. Tonight, I will be at a screening of the movie, "Fish Can't Fly."
43 Comments:
Ah yes - the Boswell-ian, revisionist nonsense that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality.
The basis for this argument is that the men of the city asked "to know" the angels in the sense of "to get acquainted" with them. The Hebrew word translated "to know" is yada and is the common word for "to know." Now, in some contexts, it can have this basic meaning.
However, the Hebrew Torah very often uses the term "to know" as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, or sexual relations. It is used this way first when Adam "knew" his wife Eve and she then conceived and bore him a son (Genesis 4:1). It is also used this way in the following passages: Genesis 4:17, 25; 38:26; Judges 19:25; 1 Samuel 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4. Notice how this is brought out in the following translations:
"They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them'" (New International Version)
"that we may have relations with them" (New American Standard Bible)
"that we may know them carnally" (New King James Version)
"that we may have intimacies with them" (New American Bible)
"so we can have sex with them" (New Living Translation)
This is the clear meaning of the text as Hebrew scholars and translators have agreed for centuries. The only way you would arrive at the meaning of "get acquainted with" in Genesis 19:5 is to approach it with a bias in favor of homosexuality.
Look, would all the men of the city surround Lot's house and beat down his door merely to "get acquainted" with these men? Would Lot have begged them "Please, my brothers...don't do such a wicked thing" if that was all that they wanted? And when Lot offered his two daughters to them instead and said that they "have not known a man" (verse 8), is it not obvious that he did not mean that they had never been acquainted with anybody so you guys can go ahead and get acquainted with them?
The point is further emphasized when Lot says "do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men" (verse 8). This indicates that the men of the city wanted to do something more than merely meet these men. It can also be seen in their response, since they told Lot "now we will treat you worse than them" (verse 9). Finally, in the New Testament, Jude 7 specifically states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality (cf. 2 Peter 2:6-10).
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality was and is wrong for the Jewish people. And it's wrong for Christians. In fact, homosexuality is a defiling and detestable and abominable sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 3:07 PM
Ah yes - the Boswell-ian, revisionist nonsense that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality.
The basis for this argument is that the men of the city asked "to know" the angels in the sense of "to get acquainted" with them.
Um, I'm pretty sure that the basis for this argument is actually Ezekiel 16:48-50. Ezekiel is pretty clear about the sin of Sodom, not once mentioning homosexuality when listing her sins. Now the men of Sodom may have wanted to rape the angels in this story, but regardless of the reason that Sodom's people wanted to do so, the angels were already en route to Sodom to warn Lot that God was planning to destroy the city, long before the citizens of this city laid eyes on them.
posted by Drew Costen, at
7/18/2008 4:00 PM
Ezekiel 16:49-50 (New International Version)
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Matthew 10: 14-15 (Jesus)
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."
Luke 10:7-16 (Jesus)
"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.' But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town."
INHOSPITALITY to strangers and for those in need is what destroyed S&G. That is why in Judaism the act of hospitality is very important practice in their faith.
Loving God and one another is fulfillment of the LAW.(Romans 13:8-10) Being inhospitable does not show love for neighbor nor God.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 4:15 PM
First, the city of Sodom was not destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days BEFORE the encounter.
Furthermore, St. Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.
But did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah simply for inhospitality? Simply because the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors and violating sacred sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them?
The suggestion itself is an odd one. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime.
Also, and more to the textual evidence, such a view doesn't fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath: a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard DAY AFTER DAY, in which the men went after strange flesh.
I understand the views expressed that the attempted rape of Lot's visitors violated the Ancient Near East's high code of hospitality. This inhospitality, however, is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself. In addition, the inhospitality charge is dependent upon and eclipsed by the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one.
We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter," to the point of disregarding available women. After they were struck sightless they still persisted. These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels.
Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah - the "grave," "ungodly," "lawless," "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard" it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went after "strange flesh."
You cite Ezekiel 16:49-50, and indeed that is no mention of homosexuality in that specific text. That only proves that the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That's not in question. The main issue, however, is whether homosexuality was part of that general wickedness. The analysis of actual text in Genesis that I provided shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins, which not only did I never deny, but actually mentioned. Ezekiel doesn't contradict Moses. He simply offers more detail.
Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God's wrath in the instance of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word "abominations." And this precise word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an "abomination" in God's eyes.
The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination [Hebrew, toebah]" Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [the exact same Hebrew word, toebah]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."
Moses speaks as clearly in Leviticus as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the abominable and detestable sin of homosexuality.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 7:08 PM
Oh Wayne: You deserve so much better than that but look at Alan Chambers. I am convinced he is in love with you but cannot deal with it so it comes out in the normal ways a disfunctional person handles things and that is disfunction. Do not be discouraged. You already know that "Truth Wins Out." The lies they say to one another do not hold as much weight if your great presence is in there to combat their dishonesty. Denial just has a harder time surviving because you fearlessly face it up front. Those beautiful people in the street are so much better to be with anyway. I send you hugs, kisses and great thanks for being there.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 8:46 PM
If it makes you feel any better, i am blocked from Chambers blog. In her world gay people who accept themselves do not exist so it is absolutely no surprise. I hope you are sincerely having a good laugh at how pathetic these people are to someone like you who is bringing them the light of truth.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 8:50 PM
I wish I could've been there. They look like a wonderful crowd.
posted by Emily K, at
7/18/2008 9:36 PM
Theo, you are correct in that sexual abuse of the guests was threatened. "Yada" is translated correctly. however, another word is crucial to the text, one that has been mistranslated in your Bibles.
The Hebrew text reads that "all of the PEOPLE" (Hebrew: "anasim," often translated to "men" at the exclusion of the presence of women) surrounded Lot's house. The PEOPLE of Sodom then asked where the PEOPLE (that is, the Angels) invited into Lot's house were (again, "anasim" is used). The homosexuality interpretation is based on this misunderstanding of that single Hebrew word to mean "men" and not "people."
no where in Genesis does it say they were homosexual or that they engaged in homosexual acts. In the Talmud, which is part of the whole of the Jewish law, the interpretation and exegesis relating to S&G is always about cruelty toward humanity. And since Hillel summed up the Law as being "Love your neighbor as yourself," then I'd say the harsh condemnation that befell the cities is very appropriate.
Even the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was learned but was not one of the great learned sages, referred to the sin of Sodom as being inhospitality.
posted by Emily K, at
7/18/2008 9:55 PM
Honestly, who cares about this biblical arguing back and forth. Why can't gays be left alone to be gay. And if someone wants to go to Exodus - let them go. There is no inconsistency in saying homosexuality is a sin but I accept you anyhow. And there is no inconsistency in saying that I don't believe your bible but I accept you anyhow.
Really folks - this gay/ex gay argument is boring.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 10:40 PM
Except for those of us who ARE religious, and for whom faith IS an important part of their life.. It's a little distressing to see your Scriptures twisted to harmful purposes by others. For those people, it DOES matter and is far from boring.
posted by Emily K, at
7/18/2008 10:46 PM
"Ah yes - the Boswell-ian, revisionist nonsense that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality."
Ah yes, typical "Christian" morality.
Intimacy between to people of the same gender -- sinful.
Offering up your virgin daughters to be gang raped -- holy.
Theo should have his/her own blog instead of poisoning Wayne's blog with long-winded space gobbling diatribes of hatred and ignorance. I hope you religionists dont take these bible stories literally! How could they fuck angels anyway, since they dont have physical bodies, their dicks would be flopping around in thin air. BTW, I wonder how many of those 'muscle men' that were following Chambers around, also 'knew' him carnally. Ouch.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 10:23 AM
Emproph, where precisely did I or anyone else state, or even imply, that offering up one's virgin daughters to be gang raped was "holy." Are we reading the same blog, or was your statement a really bad attempt at sarcastic humor?
Anonymous, I do wonder why you and others here throw such of childish fit when people comment - not blog, comment - in the very section labeled comments. And I'm not sure which Bible you're reading, but why do you assume that angels can't and didn't take on a physical state? Or are you basing your objections on your childhood story time?
Emily, before responding I want to be clear I understand what you're claiming. Is it your claim that (a) the women of the city were apart of the mob that sought to abuse Lot's guests and (b) that because women were in that mob homosexuality is out of the question? Also, please provide documentation of your Talmud and Josephus assertions. I have many of the associated works and want to check your citations.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 11:53 AM
I appreciate any gay men or women who study religious texts and use the same words that are used against us to clarify what these words real meaning was. Although i consider these books to be tired and old and not even a correct historical account but more of an outlet by elitists scribes of the day, i also think it is very important for these stories to be dissected and discussed since so much evil and murder along with love and service have been carried out in the name of spiritual beliefs and religious practice. It is important.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 12:01 PM
True ewe my favorite part of the 'word of God' is where the psalmist rejoices at the thought of smashes the heads of his enemies' children against rocks. Oy Schmeckena!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 1:25 PM
Actually, Theo, the issue is still hospitality. I wrote this a while back when responding to another know-it-all who thought that spouting off citations they found in Strong's or some other century-old lexicon settled the matter:
'...hospitality is obviously a major issue in this story because Lot explicitly says to the mob, after offering his daughters as a substitute: “Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof (lit: they have come under the shade of my rafter)” (19:8). No other explication of the wrongness of the crowd’s behavior is stated in Gen 19 except this one. Also, Lot offers the crowd his own daughters. You have to go through backflips to say that strong social taboos about hospitality are not at play here if a man is willing to incur major economic loss by offering his own virgin daughters to be gang raped!
Judges 19, a brutal story similar to the Sodom and Gomorrah episode, also makes it clear that the crime of the Sodomites is sexual violation of a stranger, only this time the mob violates the stranger’s concubine. And this text is more explicit than Gen. 19 in using the language of rape and sexual abuse. Here, an Ephraimite staying in the Benjaminite town of Gibeah tells a crowd who wants to have sex with his Levite guest, “do not do this evil thing because he has come to my house” (19:23). Instead the man offers the mob his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine to “abuse” or “rape” (the verb here is ‘nh, a verb also used many times to describe oppression in a social-justice sense). The man then seized the Levite’s concubine and threw her to the crowd, which then rapes her all night, showing that the issue here is not just sex but sex that involves oppression (‘nh—cf. Judg. 20:5). Afterwards the Levite, whose concubine was violated, calls an assembly of the Israelites who then go to war against the Benjaminites for the crime that happened in their city.
Yet, anti-gay Christians think it’s just ridiculous for people to interpret the passage as a condemnation of inhospitality—as if Gen. 19:8 said, “Do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof and by the way, they’re men too.” Where is the evidence that the text is concerned with sex with the “wrong gender”?'
Lot and the Ephraimite are resident aliens (gerim) and, especially when read in conjunction with Judg 19, the motive of RAPE and SEXUAL VIOLATION is explicit. This is would be a horrible, horrible crime in a culture where it is a mandate to do justice to the gerim.
Nice try, Theo but once again your rock solid case is based on dogmatism and "it-has-to-be-this-way-because-I-said-so" interpretations.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 1:37 PM
Brian why do you waste your time engaging these assholes? They will always find an excuse for their hatred and discrimination. No matter how scholarly and cogent your arguments are, they will never change their minds, just as we will never change ours. Let Theocrazy spin his/her wheels in the slime; we have better things to do.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 4:26 PM
In fact, homosexuality is a defiling and detestable and abominable sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now. -------------------------------
Geez Theo - are you trying out for a badly scripted episode of "Charmed?"
It utterly amazes me what these "ex-gays"...(is that like "former members of the Supremes?") will stoop to in order to make a dishonest living.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 5:02 PM
Yes, I am saying women were involved in the surrounding of Lot's house. Not one righteous person was in Sodom, including the women.
History of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Talmud http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/pol/pol05.htm Homosexuality is not listed as a sin, much less the most evil sin. I would give that award to the one where the people gave a starving pauper money but refused to sell him any goods, so he starved to death, at which point they robbed him of the money they'd given him and his rags, burying him naked in the wilderness.
Rashi states that the men intended to act homosexually with the angels; he makes the assumption that all involved were men. However, he does note that the "populace" surrounded Lot's house. And he doesn't mention the sins of the city to be homosexuality. Here, at most, Rashi's interpretation is "homosexual rape" - which anybody knows is a gruesome punishment used in wars, in prisons, and in Sodom's case, towards strangers. Also keep in mind that Rashi's interpretation is not the end-all-be-all. No such thing in Judaism. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/8214/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-19.htm
Rabbi Richard E. Friedman's commentary on the Torah gives us the translation of anasim I mentioned. Sorry, you need to buy the book to see the source.
Wikipedia also correctly states the Jewish view of the story. They also show Josephus' view, who also interprets the people to be rapists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish_views
There is no clear Jewish source that states, ultimately, that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. The closest thing that comes to "homosexuality" is rape. But anyone who knows about prison rape knows that it doesn't occur because the prisoners are attracted to the man they are victimizing.
But I do have to say, I agree with God's destruction of Sodom from all interpretations. I'm opposed to homosexual rape. Just like I'm opposed to heterosexual rape.
posted by Emily K, at
7/19/2008 5:37 PM
Nice try Brian, but the Genesis account is a straight-forward condemnation of homosexual behavior regardless of your eisegesis and failure to engage the arguments already presented.
The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the reason God destroyed the two cities was PRINCIPALLY the offense of homosexuality. You've ignored my points and simply made points that I've already dealt with.
Again, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of an ALREADY OCCURING grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, "And the Lord said, 'The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.'" Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city at the time. What was this already occurring offense Brian?
Again, the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter." The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example to the homosexuals at this site that God judges, and will judge, the abominable and detestable sin you practice.
Again, the peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality" and going after "strange flesh." Peter wrote that Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented DAY AFTER DAY with their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10).
Again, the textual evidence does not lead to the conclusion that God judged Sodom and Gomorrah PRINCIPALLY because of inhospitality. Why?
Again, because such an explanation simply doesn't fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath: a corrupt, lawless, ONGOING, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard DAY AFTER DAY in which the men went after strange flesh.
Also, setting aside your lack of proof that the cities inhospitality was present and ongoing before the angels arrived, are we to believe that God annihilated these two cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now?
Furthermore, there's no textual or historic evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime.
However, homosexuality was punishable by death. Does God ignore the clear and obvious capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense constituting capital punishment?
Emily, I'm checking your SECONDARY SOURCES (wikipedia? LOL!) and comparing them to the PRIMARY SOURCES. Your case so far isn't good. More on that later...
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 9:15 PM
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 109) says that in Sodom it was illegal to welcome strangers.
Wikipedia is not what i would call a "primary source." the sources they list are the primary sources. They present quotes from Josephus' writings at the Project on Ancient Cultural Engagement. Both the Greek and the English are available for you to peruse here. http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/York/york/texts.htm
Search www.aish.com (THE resource for Jewish understanding) for "Sodom" and you won't find a single article on homosexuality in the results.
posted by Emily K, at
7/19/2008 9:45 PM
First of all, I think it's despicable that you conflate rape and homosexuality (an important distinction made by many that YOU just ignore). So let me spell it out for you: "homosexuality" /= rape.
"are we to believe that God annihilated these two cities because they had bad manners...
This is an INCREDIBLY asinine statement. Do a search on ger (resident alien) in the Bible. Not oppressing the ger is talked about quite often and quite seriously. Are you saying a law code that mandated, "You shall not oppress or mistreat a resident alien" (Exod 22:21) several times just saw it as an issue of "bad manners?"
Are you saying that a law code that permanently excluded ethnicities (Deut 23:3) for NOT offering people food and water in the wilderness just saw inhospitality as "bad manners?" With such a stupid comment, you betray yourself as a dilettant with superficial knowledge of the Bible and Israelite culture.
Read and study your Bible (you know, other than the anti-gay parts).
"there's no textual or historic evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime..."
There's no evidence that not performing your duties in a Levirate marriage is a capital crime and, yet, Onan is killed by God for it (Gen. 38:8-10). Whaddaya know! Again, read and study your Bible.
"What was this already occurring offense Brian?"
Well if there was an already occuring sin, it must have been "homosexuality!" And you were lecturing ME about eisegesis? How about, a breakdown of justice to the point in which they would rape the guest of a resident alien? When the someone "cries out" about something, it usually has to do with a justice crime or an unavenged offense AGAINST someone, not a consensual act--because they are appealing to God for justice. Again, read and study your Bible.
There are explicit references to hospitality in the passage, e.g. 19:8. Lot is willing to incur major economic loss to protect his guests. The root 'nh is used to refer to the rape of the Ephraimite's concubine. You have to go through backflips to ignore the references to the social injustice involved in these episodes.
"the textual evidence does not lead to the conclusion that God judged Sodom and Gomorrah PRINCIPALLY because of inhospitality."
And the evidence shows that the city was destroyed PRINCIPALLY because of "homosexuality?" Really? A rape of male guests or the rape of a concubine shows that the crime here is "homosexuality?" Wow, talk about eisegesis.
And what of the social justice angle? You use second century Christian texts like Jude and 2 Peter to interpret a Hebrew text, but ignore the Ezekiel's comments on Sodom that point to social injustice? What about the Gospel references to Sodom and Gomorrah, which tie it to inhospitality?
Heck, even 2 Peter says that Lot was "oppressed" by the behavior of the Sodomites and their "licentiousness" is connected with his oppression.
Using a catch-all terms like to'ebah to relate Sodom to "homosexuality" in Ezekiel depends, of course, on the assumption that Gen 19 (or even Lev. 18:22; 20:13) are about "homosexuality" in general. It's tautological. Trying to relate catch-all terms like "sexual immorality" (porneia, and its derivatives--Jude 7) to "homosexuality" is downright deceitful. porneia can refer to any kind of sexual violation--be it related to injustice or not. It does not have the kind of specificity to rule out what I'm arguing.
The issue in Gen 19 is injustice and oppression--in this case of a resident alien and his guest. The way that this injustice was expressed was through rape. My argument is that the references to social justice and hospitality in Gen 19; Judg 19; Ezekiel; the Gospels and 2 Peter should lead a responsible exegete to tie the crime in Sodom to social injustice--namely the rape of a ger's guest. To say that Sodom's crime was PRIMARILY "homosexuality" completely ignores the social justice aspect.
When Abner Louima (a Jamaican immigrant) was raped with a toilet plunger by two (heterosexual) NYPD cops--THAT is closer to what Gen. 19 was talking about than "homosexuality." Or maybe Theo would like to argue that was an example of "homosexuality" too!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 11:51 PM
"The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example to the homosexuals at this site that God judges, and will judge, the abominable and detestable sin you practice."
Theo, there's no victim. No victim, no crime. You're not even suggesting that gang rape was the sin of Sodom. At least I could understand that as a "moral" issue.
You have yet to explain how homosexuality itself is a "moral" issue. Yet you continue to frame same-sex attraction and same-sex sex as having to do with the principles of right and wrong, good and evil, innocuousness and malice (or negligence), etc.
By doing so you demonstrate that you're not talking about morality, but amorality. And that kind of an outlook is definitively immoral. Because going through life with an arbitrary, "because I say so" sense of right and wrong, WILL eventually result in victims.
To then attribute this outlook to a perfect God of infinite love just goes to show that you worship a god who is also immoral.
This is what you're selling, and it's absolutely as cheap as it gets - because it's the easiest way out. And you think God had to come down from infinity to show you how to be like this?
Furthermore, who are you to speak for God? Isn't God perfect, and wouldn't you also need to be perfect in order to know the mind of God?
The inerrant Bible? Again, wouldn't you have to be inerrant in order to determine that?
And if the Bible is incapable of error, why would there be a warning on the last page not to change it?
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Oh and P.S., Theo. Since you have ignored Judg 19 in all your arguments, instead spinning 2nd Century CE references to "immorality" and "strange flesh" into "clear" references to homosexuality, doesn't Judg 19 suggest that this kind of thing may have happened fairly often? You know, raping the guests of resident aliens? After all, the same kind of episode appears TWICE in the Hebrew Bible. Strangely enough, both episodes are sure to point out that the violated guest is a guest of a resident alien. Hmmm...I'm sure it's irrelevant though. And I'm sure the Benjaminites in Judges were decimated because of "homosexuality."
I dare say this kind of behavior (which, apparently happened not infrequently to resident aliens) could be the "already occuring" sin that was a problem in Sodom and Gomorrah.
As I said, your argument runs primarily on dogmatism.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 1:09 AM
Oh, so now it's rape Brian? Before your claim appeared to be that the principle cause was inhospitality. Now the principle cause is rape. What you're ignoring in your attempt to sidestep this particular condemnation of homosexuality is that God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days BEFORE the encounter (cf. Genesis 18:20).
Furthermore, and again, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. Again, the outcry had already been going up to God for some time.
Your jumping from inhospitality to rape and vice versa when it's convenient and when you need to is noted Brian, and I understand why. You're ignoring the principle reason that ties all the general reasons together - the sin of homosexuality (the detestable and abominable sin you and others practice and want to be excused).
I do wonder why you ignore the clear parallels between the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality and the capital penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus, both sections written by Moses? Or is Leviticus misinterpreted as well?
And hold on here! The crime wasn't just described as ongoing (your assertion on this was laughable), but also "grave, "ungodly," "lawless," and "sensual conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard" it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went after "strange flesh." What's the ongoing corrupt desire? What's the strange flesh? Good luck trying to climb around those as well as, and along with, "ongoing" and find a unifying theme.
As far as crying out goes, why do you assume that Lot and others wouldn't have viewed the consensual homosexuality taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah as injustice, etc.? Or does consensual action = just action?
And once again, I don't and didn't ignore that inhospitality may have been part of the GENERAL reason. However, and you go back and read it again Brian, the PRINCPLE reason was homosexuality.
I love how you slipped in there that Jude and 2 Peter were second century sources. That's your claim and we can debate that anytime Brian.
It is entirely appropiate to use Jude and 2 Peter, which offer sense of how ancient JEWISH thinkers steeped in JEWISH culture understood these JEWISH texts. It's no secret why you want to disregard them, as they demonstrate the historic, traditional, and orthodox view that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed chiefly for their practice of the detestable sin of homosexuality.
Furthermore, I didn't ignore Ezekiel. Go back and read what I wrote. You can apply that to many of the other references you bring up and I deal with.
Your inhospitality argument as a principle cause is weak Brian and makes no sense in light of Lot's responses.
His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests.
His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters - another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests.
And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged - Lot's, or Sodom's citizens? Your theory raises more questions than it answers. While you are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in these ancient times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of (1) Lot's response to the men or (2) for the judgment that soon followed.
Finally, your argument related to rape as the principle cause is unimpressive but does contain some partial truths. The men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape at one point. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old," (I'm going to address Emily's vacuous argument soon) homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. There is much evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices (which Emily and you ignore).
For example, the second century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites "sexually promiscuous" (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to "Sodom, which departed from the order of nature" (Testament of Nephtali 3:4).
From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were "polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh" (16:5, cf. 20:5-6).
And both Philo and Josephus (Emily's claims will be dealt with) plainly name homosexual relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 1:21 PM
I'll ask you again Emproph, where precisely did I or anyone else state, or even imply, that offering up one's virgin daughters to be gang raped was "holy." You made the claim, now back it up or simply retract it.
You write: "Again, wouldn't you have to be inerrant in order to determine that?"
As a matter of fact no, one wouldn't have to be.
"And if the Bible is incapable of error, why would there be a warning on the last page not to change it?"
Actually, the warning there is to not change the message and warnings of the particular revelation given to John. But your point is still an asinine one. The warning is to not change the message that was already given.
Finally, if you're an atheist Emproph, then that's where our debate would really lie. Anytime you'd like to debate that, tell me where and when and I'll be there. Perhaps over at your blog for all to see?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 1:34 PM
Theo, my argument has been consistent all along. Just treatment of resident aliens is a central part of Israelite law. Raping their guests would flout this law quite severely, humiliating both the guest and his host. It very well could have been an common sin (as Judg. 19 indicates), and would have fit all of the negative language about it.
You can't believe the biblical writers would see this as a gross violation, enough to warrant that kind of vituperation? Well, that's your own tunnel-vision and cultural arrogance. A coalition of Israelites thought it was bad enough to wage holy war (the haram) against the Benjaminites.
"And once again, I don't and didn't ignore that inhospitality may have been part of the GENERAL reason. However, and you go back and read it again Brian, the PRINCPLE [sic] reason was homosexuality."
I see! Hospitality (more accurately, social injustice against aliens, not "rudeness" as you so ignorantly put it) is at least one of the reasons mentioned, but people have no right to say that the city was destroyed because of a sin connected to this "general" issue? You can't rule it out. All you can do is scream louder about how "clear" it is.
People have every right to read the crimes of Sodom as an act of social injustice and the text gives us plenty of permission to do so--as you acknowledge. The references to "hospitality" (or more accurately oppression of a resident-alien) are everywhere. This is what "unites" the descriptions of Sodom. Sodom often humiliated resident aliens through rape and sexual abuse. They were epitomes of social injustice and "inhospitality."
"or such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old,"...homosexuality must have been commonly practiced"
Not necessarily. That's how YOU imagine it because you want "homosexuality" to be the "principal" reason (as opposed to the "general" reason--ROTFLMAO). Maybe gang rapes of aliens and strangers were commonly practiced (the only concrete description of Sodom's sin we have in the Bible). Again, you can't rule it out; all you can do is scream louder about how "clear" everything is.
Yes, there are some pseudepigraphic texts that read more acts into Sodom than simply rape/inhospitality. But do you REALLY want to read 1 Enoch or the 12 Patriarchs into the theology of the NT?
Don't introduce pseudepigrapha and Jewish writers unless you are willing to read a whole host of problematic theological ideas into the NT. Or maybe you're just citing Hellenistic Jewish writers when it's convenient for your anti-gay agenda.
If you don't understand the difference between Hellenistic Judaism and ancient Israelite religion (conflating ancient Israel and the Hellenistic period as "Jewish") then that's just silly. You'd be laughed out of any reputable seminary or biblical studies program.
I am giving the Hebrew texts more weight in my interpretation since they do, in fact, describe the episode in more detail and are closer to the tradition than texts written centuries later (i.e. late Christian texts).
"As far as crying out goes, why do you assume that Lot and others wouldn't have viewed the consensual homosexuality taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah as injustice, etc.? Or does consensual action = just action?"
Why do YOU assume the "homosexuality" in Sodom was consensual at all? Your own imagination. If you're going to read "consensual homosexuality" into "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old," (an interpretation that goes WAY beyond what is written) then I can certainly read "rape" and "inhospitality" into Sodom's sins--you know, because the episode involved rape and inhospitality.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 3:01 PM
I'm tired of debating this issue with people. I'm going to have to agree to disagree. I don't care if you will "deal with" my claims. My claims are the truth, and you think YOUR claims are the truth - just like my Bible tells the truth that a person like Jesus could never be the messiah, while you claim it does.
But it doesn't matter. Your truth is always going to be your truth to you, and my truth is always going to be THE truth to me. Trying to change someone's mind is exhausting and not worth it.
And why you keep hanging around a gay website like this I can only imagine. Because you aren't going to win any converts. And with "love" coming from Christians like you, who needs "hateful" Christians?
posted by Emily K, at
7/20/2008 3:28 PM
"And with "love" coming from Christians like you, who needs "hateful" Christians?"
I certainly understand your discouragement. The only reason I debate these folks is, that perhaps, if someone were to come across this forum they would see that there is another side to the story. We all know bigots stuck in their ways won't change. That's why federal troops were required to integrate schools. My audience is not Theo.
Theo's aggressiveness is understandable, seeing as the texts aren't nearly as obvious as he claims and their interpretations very contestable. But don't be discouraged. Just as people who insisted that the Bible didn't legitimate slavery had a hard road to go, so do we. Ultimately these arguments are not won by appeals to the Bible, but by appeals to human decency.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 5:15 PM
So it seems Emily is retiring (not surprising given the lunacy of her claims and the dishonest use of her sources - WOW!!!), but not without some more whining about why people might comment here who don't practice and/or find morally acceptable the sin of homosexuality. Seems to be a trend here. Oh well...
Emproph is, well, the ever-ducking, unoriginal, and cheerleading Emproph.
As for Brian, you continue to answer my questions with questions, so I guess we may have reached a standstill. If not, cool. If so, how about that verse by verse debate through Romans 1 or a look at Leviticus?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 5:33 PM
That Emily is why the gay ex gay thinga ought to be over with. people will always determine that their interpretation of a document is the truth. I rarely get into the bible argument - but hey = you have some good material and I'm going to research that. Thaks!
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 6:59 PM
"I'll ask you again Emproph, where precisely did I or anyone else state, or even imply, that offering up one's virgin daughters to be gang raped was "holy." You made the claim, now back it up or simply retract it."
Theo, if you're using a story whose "hero" offered up his own children to be gang raped in lieu of newly met strangers, for the express purpose of claiming that consensual adult same-gender relationships are somehow sinful in comparison, then yes, the idea that Lot’s actions in this regard were "holy," is wholly implied. Just as I take the following to be your implicit endorsement of mass murder:
"I do wonder why you ignore the clear parallels between the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality and the capital penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus, both sections written by Moses? Or is Leviticus misinterpreted as well?"
"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."
Emproph [re Biblical inerrancy]: "Again, wouldn't you have to be inerrant in order to determine that?"
Theo: "As a matter of fact no, one wouldn't have to be."
What logic, pray tell, do you base that "fact" on?
Emproph: "And if the Bible is incapable of error, why would there be a warning on the last page not to change it?"
Theo: "Actually, the warning there is to not change the message and warnings of the particular revelation given to John."
What are you suggesting, that if someone changed the book of Revelation that the Bible as a whole wouldn't be changed? The fact that the admonition even exists is evidence enough that the entire book of Revelation could be a fabrication, including the admonition itself!
"But your point is still an asinine one. The warning is to not change the message that was already given."
Obviously, I'm the one who posted the verse, remember?
So, back to square one. I repeat: If the Bible is incapable of error, why is there a warning on the last page not to change it, even if it does only relate to the Book of Revelation? In other words, WHY IS THERE A WARNING NOT TO CAUSE ERROR TO SOMETHING THAT IS INCAPABLE OF HAVING ERROR CAUSED TO IT?
Your inerrancy theory is DOA. But I can see why you would feel the need to cling to it. Without the authority of the Bible, you don't have the authority of God behind you to justify crapping on your gay brothers and sisters to get your egotistical little rocks off.
"Finally, if you're an atheist Emproph, then that's where our debate would really lie. Anytime you'd like to debate that, tell me where and when and I'll be there. Perhaps over at your blog for all to see?"
You haven't even been willing to debate the knowable love that we humans use to determine right from wrong. The very measurement by which we define the nature of morality, or "sin" as you put it, yet you want to debate the existence of the unseen love that we call God? First things first.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss my beliefs about God, but this is the second time you've ignored my observation that you have yet to explain how sin and/or morality can be completely and utterly arbitrary - as you continue to assert that gay sex is "sinful," and somehow falls under the category of "morality."
If you believe that sin can be arbitrary, and/or "just because the Bible says so," then so be it, say so. But if that's the case, would you then go out and lie cheat and steal if the Bible said it was ok?
My point is that you haven't established a framework for the nature of sin itself. You just continue to assert that something with no victim is somehow a crime.
Dear me my. can we please stop thinking that god is thinking of us the way we think of each other. I see no evidence of that. Is there any way everyone might just talk from the fountain of their own intelligence? I love being my gay self? Is that the case for everyone else here?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 10:27 PM
Amazing how would this fanatical bunch of socalled christian bigots have interpreted events in Palestine a couple of thousand years ago?
Jesus Christ apparently hung out with a dozen men, NO women, repeat NO women and he wanders off into the mountains now and again to spend quality time with his, uh, favorites (Mark.9:2). He picks up small boys and girls and puts his hands upon them (Mark 10:16). He was even seen in a garden when one of his male friends came up and kissed him (Matthew,26:48). Suspicious, huh?
Ah yes, bigotry is blind and knows no bounds. But if, as these religious bigots and hypocrites claim God considers gays an “abomination”, then why did he or it create them in the first place? To give the bigots and hypocrites a platform for their intolerance? I think not.
Can anyone make ANY sense out of religion? We are glutted with tales of Muslims massacred by Christians, of Christians crucified by Muslims, of Buddhists and Hindus making war – all in the name of God. But smaller stories speak of the evils perpetrated in his name.
Florina Vranceanu is an 11-year-old Romanian girl.
She was raped by her teenage uncle and the resulting pregnancy was ended at 22 weeks in a London hospital.
Why London? Because abortion in Romania is illegal after 14 weeks, although the Romanian government ruled later that Florina could have the abortion because of “exceptional circumstances.”
But predictably, that country’s pro-life brigade insisted that this child should herself have a child so she was brought to London. Luckily, to a hospital not in thrall to religion. Remember, Britain’s top Catholic, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, barred doctors from performing abortions (or giving contraceptive advice) in a London hospital run by his church.
Thankfully, that church is not as powerful in the UK as in Nicaragua where it forced an end to all forms of abortion, even to save a pregnant woman’s life. Or in Poland, where it fought to eliminate rape or incest as grounds for termination. Florina Vranceanu was the victim of rape and incest. Wonder how the Cardinal feels about her and why did the Vatican remain silent? Pedophilia case come to mind?
Yet another story. For 16 years Eleuna Englaro has been in a coma in an Italian hospital. Her father finally won permission to remove the feeding tube that kept his 37-year-old daughter alive. With startling prescience, Eleuna said before the accident that left her a vegetable: “It’s better to die than remain motionless in hospital at the mercy of others, attached to a tube.”
Naturally, the Vatican disagreed, insisting that “the court decision was euthanasia, and no-one can take it upon themselves to put an end to the life of a person.”
Which brings us to George W Bush, certified born-again buffoon. He was at the forefront in the fight to prevent the removal of a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, a 39-year-old woman left in a coma for 13 years.
The usual suspects joined in – the Catholic church, the rampant religious right, the pro-lifers – none of whom, as far as I know, protested when Bush, as Governor of Texas, “took it on himself” (in Vaticanspeak) to end the lives of dozens on his state’s Death Row.
Hypocrisy. Hysteria. Summed up for me by the tale of the Irish bishop who fathered a child. At least, said his parishioners, he was a "good Catholic." He didn’t use a contraceptive.
Emproph, thank you for demonstrating (1) your complete failure to understand basic logic and (2) your inability to come to rational conclusions.
But let me go through the following to demonstrate how bankrupt your argument is. Let's say you make the following true statement: "I have been with my cat since it was born, and it has always been brown." That statement is incapable of being in error. The statement communicates what is objectively true from a person who is in a position to objectively know.
And then you add the following statement (assume your authority to make and carry-out such a statement): "If anyone misrepresents what I've said about my cat, I will throw them in prison."
Now, is the fact that you issued a warning and threat of punishment to those who may misrepresent your first objectively true statement concerning your cat proof that that statement is capable of being in error?
Concerning sin and morality and their justification, I don't recall ever being asked it in this way. But I'll gladly answer.
Your question and objection really concern the nature of goodness. Is an act right or wrong because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right or wrong?
This is a false dilemma - a logical fallacy. There are not two options, but three. I reject the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God's power. And I reject the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.
The third option is that an objective standard exists. However, the standard is not external to God, but internal.
Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not anterior to God - logically prior to Him - but rooted in His nature. Morality is not grounded ultimately in God's commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. In other words, whatever a good God commands (either positively or negatively) will always be good.
I would ask you about how you justify your "morality," but I would argue - based on first principles - that it would be more proper to have a debate concerning God's existence. What say you?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/21/2008 3:16 PM
Re: Emproph:"If the Bible is incapable of error, why is there a warning on the last page not to change it, even if it does only relate to the Book of Revelation? In other words, WHY IS THERE A WARNING NOT TO CAUSE ERROR TO SOMETHING THAT IS INCAPABLE OF HAVING ERROR CAUSED TO IT?"
...aaand, begin scene:
Theo:"But let me go through the following to demonstrate how bankrupt your argument is. Let's say you make the following true statement: "I have been with my cat since it was born, and it has always been brown." That statement is incapable of being in error."
It's an unfair analogy. A fair analogy would be one in which I said that not only that "I have been with my cat since it was born, and it has always been brown," but also that it's impossible for anyone to repeat that statement incorrectly. As in with your contention of Biblical inerrancy, which the analogy is supposed to represent.
Secondly, it's circular reasoning. no one has objectively proven that my statement about my cat is true to begin with. All you did was say that the statement was true to begin with, and then concluded that it was without error. Same difference.
Joe is not a liar. How do I know Joe is not a liar? Joe told me he is not a liar.
The Bible is inerrant. How do I know the Bible is inerrant? Because the Bible says it is inerrant.
None of which even attempts to prove that the Bible is inerrant. As with the following:
"The statement communicates what is objectively true from a person who is in a position to objectively know."
Yes, and therefore can only be known to be objectively true, by the person who made the original statement.
To then warn people not to misrepresent or change my statement when retelling it is a moot point because it hasn't even been demonstrated that my original statement was true, let alone demonstrated that the statement itself was incapable of -- whether written or spoken -- corruption in the retelling of it, as is what you contend to be true of the Bible.
Which brings us back to my original point, how can you know something is without error unless you too are without error? You claim that this is possible, yet you haven't explained how.
The same principle applies to the analogy you gave, you couldn't know that my statement was true in the first place unless you had the exact same understanding that I did. Meaning that you'd pretty much have to have been me, or somehow experienced what I experienced, in order to truly know that my statement was true.
To claim something is true, without such certitude, is to lie.
So both of my contentions continue to stand:
1) It is an ERROR, for something incapable of ERROR, to explicate that it is capable of having ERROR caused to it. 2) In order for you to know that something is free of error, you too would also need to be free of error.
Care to go for round three?
Moving on.
"Your question and objection really concern the nature of goodness. […] In other words, whatever a good God commands (either positively or negatively) will always be good."
In other other words, whatever a "good God" commands (either good or bad) will always be good.
Which confirms my point that you are indeed amoral, and thus, worship an amoral god - which as I've stated, is decidedly immoral.
So your answer is yes, that you would be willing to lie, cheat, steal, rape, rob and murder if "good 'God'" told you to, because that would then make those things good.
"I would ask you about how you justify your "morality," but I would argue - based on first principles - that it would be more proper to have a debate concerning God's existence. What say you?"
How do I justify my "morality?" The Golden Rule. That is my god, so to speak, because it's what I "worship," as a rule. I too-often don't adhere to it as best as I should, but at least I know that it's the goal. From what I've been able to determine -- via assessment of importance -- is that this course of outlook is the most efficient means of maximizing the most amount of freedom (happiness (love)), for the most amount of people.
In my universe, any "good god" that tells you bad can be good, is a BAD god!
Tell me Theo, how can some-thing with a beginning and an end, be a flawless representation of Someone who has no beginning and no ending?
The logic of that question is truth.
Verifiable truth that is accessible to anyone who believes in the availability of truth itself. No belief in an unseen god is required. And if God truly is truth itself, then such questions and their answers are from that God, and are not confined to a hopelessly flawed book, written and rewritten, interpreted and reinterpreted, compiled and recompiled, etc., by flawed men.
I'm not saying that there aren't profound truths in the Bible, but I am saying that those truths aren't in any way unique to the Bible. Point being, your appeals to the authority of the Bible, and the "God" of the Bible, does not give you a stranglehold on the truth of truth itself.
If the Bible is truly true, then objective truth will verify it, and NOT the other way around.
Further, If you can't decide for yourself what is truly right and what is truly wrong, based on merit alone, and not skewed by promise of eternal heaven or threat of an eternal hell, then what's the point of free will and judgment?
You wanna debate the existence of your version of God (truth) with me, you're going to have to bump it up a notch.
Oh, and P.S.
"Emproph, thank you for demonstrating (1) your complete failure to understand basic logic and (2) your inability to come to rational conclusions."
"When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings [about themselves], they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target."
posted by Unknown, at
7/22/2008 12:08 AM
oh - I wonder if that could also be gay people onto christians???
posted by Anonymous, at
7/22/2008 1:37 AM
Emproph...."When a person has uncomfortable thoughts or feelings [about themselves], they may project these onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they need to repress to a convenient alternative target."
Projecting onto other people in this context comes not from an ex-gay but from the self-loathing gay. There is no such thing as ex-gay just as there is no such thing as ex-straight. They are delusional and in denial and religion enables denial.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/22/2008 6:12 AM
Emproph, please find me a definition of "Biblical inerrancy" in a standard Bible or Theological Dictionary which defines "inerrancy" as the "impossibility for a person to repeat a Biblical verse or teaching incorrectly."
And you missed the point. We assumed that your statement was objectively true for the sake of argument. Your objection didn't concern the provability of whether the Bible is divine in origin, but whether a human has to be inerrant to recognize the Bible's inerrancy.
Your labeling of my statements and analogy as circular reasoning is a straw-man fallacy. I read through my past posts, and never made that argument about inerrancy once. Never. Never did, and never would.
Furthermore, I never attempted to prove Biblical inerrancy, because that was beyond the scope of your question and my response. Stick to your point and my response and please stop shifting the debate.
You wrote: "It is an ERROR, for something incapable of ERROR, to explicate that it is capable of having ERROR caused to it."
How is that at all logical? That you think that somehow follows is inexplicable. The error is not being caused to the original or by the original. The error warned against is in the adding to or misrepresentation of what the original states!
You wrote:
"In order for you to know that something is free of error, you too would also need to be free of error."
I'm gonna write the following and please tell me if what is between the quote marks is free of error: "2 + 2 = 4" It obviously is free of error, so does that mean that you are free of all error?
"Care to go for round three?" I'd love to Emproph, but I don't think you're ready!
For example, my use of "positively" and "negatively" in reference to God's commands was not, and is not, analogous to "good" and "bad" as you paraphrased it. Check the context.
So, your inaccurate paraphrasing of me and your point that follows holds no weight. A positive command is a command to do something. A negative command is a command NOT to do something. Please try again with that portion because your confusion in that area led to some irrelevant material.
You wrote: "How do I justify my 'morality?' The Golden Rule."
First off, that's stating a morality, not justifying a morality.
Second, that statement only leads to the obvious question, how do you justify the "Golden Rule"? Is that moral precept self-evident to everybody? Is that basic morality self-evident? Do all human societies have a grasp of basic morality?
You went on to flirt a little with utilitarianism (demonstrating further confusion - the "Golden Rule" is not utilitarianism). One of the many problems with the utilitarian view relates to deciding how "good" should be understood (e.g., quantitatively or qualitatively).
Moreover, utilitarianism begs the question to say that moral right is what brings the greatest good. For then we must ask what is "good"? Either right and good are defined in terms of each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according to some standard beyond the utilitarian process.
Further, no one can accurately predict what will happen in the long run. Hence, for all practical purposes, a utilitarian definition of good is useless. We must still fall back on something else to determine what is good NOW, in the short run.
Your call of where to go from here Emproph. You can either try again at the above topics and try to stay on point, or offer a statement to the question, "Does God Exist?" Or both. Here or on your blog.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/22/2008 4:28 PM
Theo,
I am a christian and ex gay. I have to wonder - why do you come here and argue with people?
If they don't hear the message why don't you wipe the dust off your sandals and move on?
Arguing only serves to divide people. You know that many gay people will not agree with you nor interpret the bible in the same way as you. And I have to wonder, have you looked in your sin closet today?
What purpose do you intend when you argue ?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/29/2008 12:34 AM
