I don't give a damn what the bible says

[cali]

about homosexuality or anything else for that matter. I view it strictly as literature, sometimes lovely, sometimes vicious and horrific, but I don't view it as the word of some anthropomorphized god. I have no quarrel with people who do, unless they bring it into civil discourse as an authority that should hold sway over all of us.

I don't even want to discuss homosexuality in terms of the bible. This is a conversation that needs radical re framing. Get into it on that level and you've immediately lost the argument.

The bible is one religious text among many. Yea, our country has a strong Judeo-Christian heritage, but that's just part of our heritage, not the whole enchilada. I believe society should evolve beyond its roots, not maintain the stagnant status quo.

[indigobusiness]

1. The anthropomorphizing is not done by the text,

but by the interpretation.

The symbolism is played fast and loose with, rather than understood. Largely.

[datasuspect]

2. here here

you said: "I don't even want to discuss homosexuality in terms of the bible. This is a conversation that needs radical re framing. Get into it on that level and you've immediately lost the argument."

i would say any person automatically loses any argument/discussion when they use the bible for support.

i give the bible as much credence as grimm's fairy tales or bullfinch's mythology.

[CatholicEug]

3. Interesting points

Homosexuality is a difficult issue ... the Old Testament discusses it, but Jesus Christ Himself had little to say on it (though He did address marriage and sexual mores). Then the theme was taken up again by Paul (or his disciples).

Anyway, there's very little point, in my mind, of blasting away at homosexuality on religious grounds. I think my particular faith (Catholicism) has realized that ... that's why it takes the rather nuanced position of saying: 1) Homosexual acts disordered (because it can't lead to children and that's how God made us); 2) the homosexual person is not inherently sinful, anymore than the heterosexual person ... but both can commit sins of the flesh.

Etc. etc. etc.

[cali]

4. I don't mean to be rude,

but this is exactly what I meant. I am not interested in a religious interpretation of whether homosexuality is sinful or not. I am not interested in having the bible as an authority on anything regarding the civil rights of Americans.

[jobycom]

10. Problem is, though, that the only argument AGAINST homosexuality

is religious, so those are the people you have to convince. If they believe their religion condemns it, you have to overcome that belief.

You shouldn't have to. We should have courts that uphold the principles of the Declaration and the Constition, that all are created equal, that all have equal rights to the pursuit of happiness, that no one group should be allowed to arbitrate whether some other group gets that right, that the opinions of the 80% of Christians in America is no more valid than the opinion of the 10% or so who don't believe the Bible is anything special, that a majority even of 80% shouldn't be allowed to overrule the rights of a minority. And when we get those kinds of courts, your argument, which was exceptionally well stated, should become the accepted argument.

Until then, the Bible is a part of this argument, even though it is not legally allowed to be.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree. The problem is, the government doesn't.

[CatholicEug]

18. Well, I don't think that's true either

I mean, I'm not trying to put down gay people. Personally, I don't care ... but there are objections rather than religious that I could raise to say "homosexuality is 'wrong.'" The argument that comes to my mind is the natural law argument, but there are other philosophical reasons as well. Of course, it's ironic that I should raise philosophy when the Greek fathers of philosophy were all ... well, you see what I'm saying.

[jobycom]

21. I do and I don't

I see what you are saying about the Greek philosophers. Cute irony.

I don't agree there is any argument that would consider homsexuality as wrong for an individual that isn't based on a religious belief. There is no scientific argument that it is unhealthy or damaging to the individual. There are no psychological arguments that it is wrong or an abheration, although there were some in the beginnings of psychoanalysis that have since been shown to be wrong. There is no evidence that homosexuality in any way harms society, except harming the emotions of some people who are religiously opposed to it.

Philosophically, I guess you could argue that if everyone was gay the population would die out, but there is certainly no evidence that everyone would become gay if it were not condemned, and we are certainly in no danger of not propagating the species. Hetero sex is too damn fun, it won't die out.

There is no such thing as a natural law argument not based on a religion, and there is certainly nothing unnatural about same gender attractions. Every species of animal practices it, as anyone who has ever owned more than one animal of the same species can attest.

The only thing that seems unnatural about it is that religion has built up a mystical idea that sex has some sacred element and therefore should only be used under the right sacred arrangements. Once past that religious argument, sex, of either type, is no different morally than, as Pope Boniface VIII was supposed to have said, rubbing your two hands together. It's a physical activity, not a moral activity. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of moral aspects to sex, especially hetero sex, since children can be produced and therefore many laws and rules have to be formed to be sure those children are cared for (that's why we have marriage-- which was originally a secular and not a religious institution, contrary to popular misrepresentation), that people aren't allowed to abuse others to get it, etc. But those prohibitions aren't about the specific act of sex, they are about the consequences of sex. And in some of those cases, such as child production, homosexual sex isn't even an issue.

So I don't agree. There is no non-religious reason that homosexuality is anything other than a normal, healthy way of life.

[CatholicEug]

16. My bad n/t

[jobycom]

5. Well said, but I think it's important for Christians to realize that the

Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as strongly as they claim it does, and that the strongest condemnation of it-- only for males, btw-- is embedded in a list that even Fundies consider as applying only to Jews. This same list condemns eating shellfish in the same language it condemns men lying down with other men, and it calls for women who have been raped to be stoned to death.

Christians who condemn homosexuality because "The Bible condemns it" need to be made aware that their only true objection is the bigotry they've been taught. They routinely break the commandments of the Bible when it suits them, and only use the Bible to justify their own hatred. The Bible for instance condemns interest rates, and it authorizes slavery.

So I agree, the Bible should not be used as part of the public discourse, but that does not free Christians from having to act like decent people just because they believe in a horrendous book full of bloodshed, hatred, bigotry, adultery, and mysogenist actions. (I get a kick out of Christians who complain about the violence of the Qur'an, as though they've never read their own book.)

[cali]

8. Leviticus. Yeah, agree.

You can't make people who want to hate think rationally about the bible or anything else. All we can do, is over time whittle down their numbers. And we will. Young people are far more tolerant of homosexuality than older people.

[Alpharetta]

6. You can't dismiss the Bible

We have to have respect for religion. Religion is not going away.

Our country is founded on freedom of religion, not dismissal of it. Our constitution's framers were careful to protect religion from government and government from religion.

To dismiss the Bible as only literature is to deny its role as a sacred text for a large portion of our population. In terms of political and social discussions, it's counter-productive.

Christian Liberals are capable of finding plenty of support in the Bible for an inclusive church and a liberal view. We contend the Bible is being misused by warmongers and hatemongers who profit by division.

[cali]

11. Sure I can dismiss the bible as only literature.

I acknowledged that it's a sacred text to many, but to me, it's merely literature. And as I said there are lots of other sacred texts. The bible may have been more influential over the course of history than some others, but that doesn't automatically grant it greater authority. I'm sick of everything having to be discussed in terms of Christianity and the bible.

Oh yeah, I don't have to respect religion, and I have every right, under our constitution, to be as dismissive of it as I want to be.

[Alpharetta]

20. Liberal Christians do not want to be lumped with the rightwingnuts

If you're speaking for a group, say.... atheist or agnostic Democrats .... then you place that group at a disadvantage when your statements are dismissive of religions.

So I hope you can see how a Democratic candidate would have to show more respect for religions.

[jobycom]

22. Like paying respect to the local crime syndicate?

You might thing it's the wrong thing to do, but you have to do it to keep from getting killed? That's not respect, that's fear.

[cali]

26. I understand that liberal Christians

don't want to be lumped together with wingnuts, and I sympathize. Still, I'm not terribly interested in liberal interpretations, vis a vis civil rights than I am in the literalist point of view. I'm not speaking for a group with my original post, merely for myself. Having said that, I really dislike religion looming over the civil discourse in such a large way. One can scarcely discuss any topic without having religion brought into it. That doesn't make me particularly happy. Last night Richard Dawkins was on NOW. One of the things he discussed was religion and politics in the U.S. He pointed out how different it is here as compared to Europe.

[indigobusiness]

12. Dismissing the Bible is like dismissing Quantum Mechanics,

because of the difficulty in divining the meaning.

[jobycom]

15. You have to dismiss the Bible, or you have to dismiss the Constitution

The Constitution forbids government from taking a religious point of view. To the Constitution, and therefore to the government, the Bible is exactly equal to Romeo and Juliet in terms of the effect it has on decision making. It is literature.

Our country's government was not founded on freedom of religion. It was founded on freedom from oppressive governments of all forms-- church and state. Our Founders were far more interested inprotecting the people from both religion and government than in protecting religion from government. The framers of the Constitution were all proud of the fact that, as George Washington boasted, God was not in it, that, as Madison, the Father of the Constitution said it, religion and government were completely separated, or as Jefferson said it, that an insurmountable wall had been built between religion and government.

They weren't trying to protect either-- they hated both. They were trying to protect the people from both.

They failed. Their laws were good, but people could not obey them.

Christians can and should believe what they believe, as should all people. But our government is forbidden from favoring them.

[idealista]

25. the tenacious hold of the religious paradigm

The religious paradigm used to be the only one that tried to explain the origins of the human being and the world we live in. It also has features to help people accept the inevitable pain and suffering of life and death, and has functioned as a key control mechanism in society thru the promulgation of moral laws and the power vested in a society's/communities religious leaders, whether they be the Pope or the village shaman.

With the rise of science a new paradigm has been in ascendance, which explains our origins and the reality around us differently. This paradigm has fostered all the advances of technology, among other things, and holds great promise for the future. Unfortunately, technology has also been used to create devastating weaponry and big brother control mechanisms.

Secular morality, and the rule of law, is the new paradigm's answer as to how to control the individual's behaviour so that it does not overly damage the interests of society as a whole.

Some people have crossed the bridge from the old (religion) to the new (science and rational thought). Most have adopted some of the new paradigm while retaining what they feel is the best of religion - the idea of a God who watches over them in a perilous world, the idea that we need religious morality because if the individual can chose his moral laws, he will do so self-servingly.

The rise of fundamentalism seems to be a sign that a great number of people are rejecting the new paradigm and running away from rationality as fast as their legs can carry them.

This is very hard for me to understand and deal with, because the religious paradigm in pure form will admit no rational analysis of its origin or function in society, or any suggestion that humans can rightly decide what they will believe in. Reasoning directly with such people is pointless.

I think it is up to the "rationals" to find a way to turn the tide and get thru, not necessary by face-to-face confrontation. Instead, we need to understand what role religion plays in these people's lives, making sure the rational paradigm can satisfy those needs, and figuring out a way that people can be drawn over the bridge.

Me, I get so pissed off at the stupidity of what I see around me, it is sure is hard. Sometimes I want to take all the people who reject evolution and science, and tell them fine, you go live without all the products that science has produced - give up your TV, computer, cell phone, radio, refrigerator, SUV. Walk everywhere or ride a horse. The intellectual hyprocracy of these people outrages me, although in actual fact they are probably so poorly informed and poorly educated in analytical thought process, they have no idea where any of their modern convenciences came from.

The Bible is a major exhibit in the study of the evolution of human social history. Some selected contents no doubt contain immense wisdom purely as the thoughts of human beings, not the word of "God". Even enlightened believers among us would have to agree that if God oversaw the writing of the Bible, he was a pretty poor editor. When conversations about the Bible occur between a person who thinks it is devinely inspired, and another person who does not, they are really speaking in two different languages. And without that being acknowledged, the conversation is utterly pointless.

[TahitiNut]

7. Morally bankrupt bigots have often used the bible as cover for oppression.

They used it as cover to persecute women (as witches), to murder Native Americans, to enslave people of color, to perpetuate segregation, and to deny women the vote.

"Even the Devil quotes Scripture" says it all.

[charlie]

9. Yep

Decide what you're gonna do, then scour for quotes to justify it. Bass-ackwards. Cargo-cultism, all ritual and no depth.

[TahitiNut]

14. It's called "proof-texting" and has been practiced for millennia.

[Pegleg Thd]

19. You have to remember

that the freedom of religion that this country was founded upon was not the religion as preached by the psychos Graham, robertson, falwell and rove!!! As a theologian I find that what they are teaching has no basis in Biblical fact. They have taken a few scriptures and adulterated them to suit their own purposes. This is a typical fundie tactic.
Theirs is the same method used to condemn people to death in the Salem Witch Trials!!

[TahitiNut]

23. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[Perky]

17. No doubt that is true....but

that does not mean the Bible is not valid...only misinterpeted.

[ooglymoogly]

13. well said cali n/t

[carnie_sf]

24. It's interesting to me

that the people who run around quoting the bible endlessly almost completely ig nore the book of Matthew. Maybe it's because they don't want to be held accountable for their works?

[ixat]

27. Wweeeeelll, if someone wants to use the Bible as their

guide to "life, the universe, and everything," who am I to tell them not to...

However, not having to split hairs and bend over backwards to accomodate an archaic ideology, and not having my life depend on interpreting EXACTLY what was some Middle-Eastern guy's attitude on homosexuality 3000 years ago - to me, just that is already worth giving up religion for.