Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic 31-Aug-2010 At 8:10:57 PM dave h.

Message

On 29/08/2010 Wendy wrote:
>I appreciate your ability to be calm and polite! I realise Dave is trying
>as nicely as possible to explain his position and apologise for those who
>take he church's positions to extremes, and I'm glad he is able to separate
>from and criticise those positions,

Thanks for saying so Wendy :)

> but I'm still disturbed that he can
>say he cannot morally condone homosexuality. That's still a pretty big
>statement! ... It's still telling people that their sexuality is somehow wrong.

Yes it is a big statement. This is one of the reasons Christianity practised as the New Testament teaches it should be practised is offensive - there's a claim to absolute morality (IE not a consequentialist morality, which is a moral system in which the rightness of actions depends upon their consequences). Mind you, the brand of Christianity I subscribe to teaches that everyone is corrupt and falls short of the standard God expects of us. That said, I take your point, which is that sexuality is one of the cornerstones of an individual's identity, and so to be told your desires are wrong is at best confronting and at worst shattering.

I'm not sure "morally condone" exactly captures what I mean. Hopefully it'll become clear.

>...but there
>still hasn't been any reasoning about why homosexuality is morally uncondonable
>other than the bible says so. Why does the bible say so? ....

Ultimately I think this comes down to the Bible and you having a different understanding of morality. It seems like you are, to some extent, a consequentialist - you evaluate the morality of an action based on its consequences. Utilitarianism, alluded to by TonyB, is a sub-species of consequentialism. (I don't mean to imply any criticism of this position, I'm just saying that's where I think you're coming from based on your posts).

The point I want to make is that this is not how the Bible treats morality or ethics. To try and generalise massively (yet accurately and truthfully), "the good life", to the extent that it's taught by the Bible is to live your life with God as your ruler/first priority/king/you get the idea. This means that I should be trying to submit every aspect of my life to God, and to let His will be done in it (I suck at it, btw). Human rebellion against this ideal is sin (contrary to what some suggested on page 10, IE that sin is 'naughty stuff we do').

So to reason about "why the Bible says homosexuality is wrong" doesn't really make sense to me. If you are happy for me to rephrase the question as "Why is homosexual sex contrary to God's will?" then that makes more sense. (Apologies if this feels like mere semantics, it probably is.) If you're happy with this rephrasing of your question I'll take a shot at answering it.

Sarah suggested
>(offline) it was becasue sex is for reproduction and gay sex can't repoduce,
>but that would write off most sex and I can't imagine outside of some traditional
>Catholics, recreational sex, sex as bonding, sex as an expression of love
>etc is abandonned as morally uncondonable.

I don't agree with Sarah's view. The moral value of homosexual sex is not determined on a consequentialist basis. Similarly, I don't agree with evaluating the morality of sexual conduct by referring to natural law. The teaching of the Bible is the basis on which I try to make moral judgements. And Song of Songs / Song of Solomon makes it clear that sex is a gift from God, and that it's to be enjoyed without shame in marriage - IE just for fun, bonding, expression of love etc. My understanding of the Catholic teaching on sex is that it's based on the story of Onan, and I think their teaching stems from a failure to read the story properly - but I could be wrong on both of those points.

>That quote from Corintians listed a few things which i can't be bothered
>looking up now, but memory tells me that homsexuality and fornication were
>the only things on the list that were basically personal choices with no
>harm to others.

Here is 1 Corinthians 6. Could quibble over whether drunkenness is another choice which only affects the individual, but that's beside the point. I'd say that assessing morality on the basis of "harm to others" is consequentialism. Sin is not dependent on the consequences of actions, but is (almost definitionally) rejecting God's will or replacing God with something else.

It's also interesting to read 1 Corinthians 5. For those who don't read it, Paul talks about not associating with sexually immoral people. BUT, he then goes on to make it very clear that he's talking about sexually immoral CHRISTIANS. (This is done as a rebuke - to make sexually immoral Christians 'wake up to themselves' and turn back from their sin.) Paul is NOT saying that Christians are to segregate themselves from non-believers who might be considered sexually immoral. Christians are elsewhere commanded "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." There's more that could be said along these lines, but I think this starts to show that no matter how we Christians regard homosexuality morally, we are acting unbiblically if we fail to show love and kindness to homosexual people.

>It appears to me that many modern christians have relaxed
>their position of fornication and some have relaxed their position on homosexuality
>and surely this suggests that the word of the bible is not always final.

You are correct in that some denominations take a more relaxed view on extramarital sex and homosexuality. My conclusion (as a 'theologically conservative, socially progressive' Christian - feel free to take issue with the label and say I'm not progressive if you like) is the opposite: the contemporary practise of churches is weighed against the standard established for the church in the New Testament. Not that contemporary practice indicates that the standards in the Bible no longer apply.

Of course, if churches relax some standards set out for the New Testament church while strictly maintaining others, then their position is hardly consistent.

On 31/8/10 Egosan wrote:

>The Egyptians and the Chinese where tossing around the golden
>rule a thousand years before Mary had a twinkle in her eye. It is
>a common thread in most religions and cultures.

Fortunately Christianity does not stand or fall on whether Jesus' utterance of the rule was original or not.

>Grim. In my self-delight as I revel in my cynicism, I often forget
>that I am just one man. No match for the combined cynicism of
>an institution as venerable as the church. In the end I like people
> too much as a humanist to join you in worshiping Christ on a cross.

>Of course, I do not think you view your belief as grim.

I'm confused as to why you think it is grim. Could you elaborate?

>Is there in your view any moral sanction preventing two gay people
>from having a party and calling themselves married, getting a tax
> break, being the next of kin under the law, and raising a nice boy
> or girl in this rough world?

Well I don't think I'm called on to impose Christian morality on the world via legislation. So while I might personally regard it as sinful, I am not convinced that it is an appropriate Christian response to deny recognition to civil unions and all the corresponding rights re succession, tax, etc. Re adoption/IVF/AI - I'm still trying to think it through. If it was a choice between heterosexual parents who were going to be abusive and homosexual parents who were going to be loving I know who I'd choose.

>The "treating others" bit is handy in that it is pretty universal, no
>authority can claim it is their's, and it is hard to argue against.

I think