Difference between revisions of "God condemns homosexuality"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Christianity: Romans 1:26 and the naturalistic fallacy)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
+
<hide>
[[category:claims]]It is often claimed, especially by [[religious extremist]]s, that [[God]] condemns [[homosexuality]].
+
[[page type::article]]
==Reference==
+
[[thing type::claim]]
* Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:The Bible and homosexuality|The Bible and homosexuality]]
+
[[category:claims]]
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl1.htm information on homosexuality and the Bible]
+
[[category:religion]]
 +
[[category:God]]
 +
</hide>
 +
[[File:404142 519155091435269 390706744 n.jpg|300px|right]]
 +
==About==
 +
It is often claimed, especially by [[religious extremist]]s, that [[God]] condemns [[homosexuality]].
 +
===Conclusions===
 +
In order to establish that God actually does condemn homosexuality ''and'' that we, as humans, should similarly condemn it, there are a number of hurdles to overcome and missing pieces of information to fill in; see [[/counterpoints]].
 +
 
 +
Even examining the question purely within a [[Bible/canon/homosexuality|scriptural framework]], it is far from clear that God views homosexuality with disfavor.
 +
 
 +
It does seem clear, from both of these points, that those who claim that God unequivocally condemns homosexuality are either engaging in [[fearmongery]] or have themselves been deceived by such.
 +
 
 
==Specific Religions==
 
==Specific Religions==
 
===Christianity===
 
===Christianity===
 
Christians who oppose homosexuality usually support this argument with various passages in the [[Bible]]:
 
Christians who oppose homosexuality usually support this argument with various passages in the [[Bible]]:
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22&version=31 Leviticus 18:22]: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (This of course says nothing regarding lesbianism.) All of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018;&version=31; Leviticus 18] seems to concern laws regarding sexual relationships. ''I have been told, however, that the Levitican laws are not to be taken as current law as they are "unfulfilled". Obviously not everyone agrees with that... --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)''
+
* '''Leviticus''':
 +
** [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22&version=31 Leviticus 18:22]: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All of [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018&version=NIV Leviticus 18] seems to concern laws regarding sexual relationships.
 +
** [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&version=NIV Leviticus 20:13]: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
 +
**  Neither of these quotes say anything regarding [[lesbianism]], however.
 +
** ''I have been told, however, that the Levitican laws are not to be taken as current law as they are "unfulfilled". Obviously not everyone agrees with that... --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)''
 
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&version=9 1 Corinthians 6]:9,10: "...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men... will inherit God's kingdom."
 
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&version=9 1 Corinthians 6]:9,10: "...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men... will inherit God's kingdom."
 
* Romans 1:26 - ''For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural.'' This can arguably be interpreted as condemning lesbianism, in much the same way that a cloud can be interpreted as a bunny-rabbit. To me, it sounds more like a condemnation of artificial insemination or uterine replicators (which, as of this writing, have not yet been developed -- but presumably God knew we would get around to it eventually, and wanted to make sure that we knew well in advance that it was wicked). Either way, it doesn't explain what the problem is; the [[naturalistic fallacy|equivalence of "unnatural=bad"]] is assumed, and opens up the question of whether the many other unnatural things we do (e.g. modern health care, driving cars, wearing clothes) are also bad (and if so, why aren't they condemned as well?).
 
* Romans 1:26 - ''For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural.'' This can arguably be interpreted as condemning lesbianism, in much the same way that a cloud can be interpreted as a bunny-rabbit. To me, it sounds more like a condemnation of artificial insemination or uterine replicators (which, as of this writing, have not yet been developed -- but presumably God knew we would get around to it eventually, and wanted to make sure that we knew well in advance that it was wicked). Either way, it doesn't explain what the problem is; the [[naturalistic fallacy|equivalence of "unnatural=bad"]] is assumed, and opens up the question of whether the many other unnatural things we do (e.g. modern health care, driving cars, wearing clothes) are also bad (and if so, why aren't they condemned as well?).
 +
* [[Westboro Baptist Church]] quotes "[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=9; Romans 1]:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have in them that do them." apparently as justification for killing homosexuals, presumably in reference to verse 27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
  
==Counterpoints==
+
===Islam===
===[[Rational]] Counterpoints===
+
[[Islam]] is particularly harsh against homosexuality, which carries the [[death penalty]] under [[Islamic law]].
These are the hurdles which any scriptural argument against homosexuality must clear. It must establish:
 
* That "[[God]]" is an actual being, rather than a mythical/fictional/metaphorical entity
 
* That God's opinions are accurately represented in one or more of the works in which those opinions appear
 
** ...and for which specific works this is true
 
* That those writings unambiguously show that God does in fact advise against practicing or tolerating homosexuality
 
** ...and ''why'' God advises this (so we can determine how best to handle the situation)
 
* That those opinions have not changed since they were set down (e.g. prior to 722 BC, when the [[wikipedia:Priestly source|sources for the relevant books of the Bible]] were first distributed, or prior to the death of [[Mohammed]] in 632 AD if the [[Qur'an]] is found to be a reliable source), in spite of the lack of any new ''and unambiguous'' condemnations in the intervening time
 
** ...and ''why'' those opinions have not changed (since homosexuality has not been shown to be any more harmful than many other condoned activities)
 
* That God's negative opinion of homosexuality is in humanity's best interests (which is not necessarily the case if God is not omnipotent).
 
  
As of this writing, none of these have been established with any credibility, so the claim that God condemns homosexuality is currently unsupportable.
+
It is ironic that the [[religious right]] is so harsh on Islam, which shares their views on homosexuality much more than do other varieties of Christianity.
  
A popular variant of the scriptural argument claims that we, as humans, are somehow ''obligated'' to follow God's instructions on the matter regardless of whether we understand them to be in our best interests. This claim supposes that offspring can be held liable for any contracts made by their ancestors, an idea rooted in [[feudalism]] and rejected by all [[enlighten]]ed societies.
+
==Counterpoints==
 
+
* [[/counterpoints|rational]]
Another way to look at the scriptural argument is basically this: although the Bible does clearly condemn homosexuality in a few places, this does not explain why we should also do so. Any scripturally-based argument against homosexuality must address this question with a specific chain of reasoning.
+
* [[Bible/canon/homosexuality|doctrinal]]
 
+
==Links==
===Doctrinal Counterpoints===
+
===Reference===
It is widely believed that "[http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/sin-of-sodom.html The Sin of Sodom]" was homosexuality; this is not the case. Sodom's sin was actually being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2016:49&version=31 Ezekiel 16:49, NIV translation])
+
* Wikipedia: [[wikipedia:The Bible and homosexuality|The Bible and homosexuality]]
 
+
* [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl1.htm information on homosexuality and the Bible]
See [[wikipedia:The Bible and homosexuality|The Bible and homosexuality]] for many more points to consider.
+
===Filed Links===
 
+
{{links/news}}
====to be investigated====
 
From [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/more_crazy_from_that_homeschoo.php#comment-1171764 here], comment #52:
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>I Samuel 18:1, in the Authorized King James Version, tells us that: "... the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him [David] as his own soul."</p>
 
<p>...I Samuel 18:3,4, in the Byington Translation, says that they: "pledged themselves to each other, in the love that he had for him ..." and "Jonathan stripped off the robe he had on and gave it to David..." This ritualistically represented the establishment of a love covenant relationship between the two men: What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine. From this point on there is no question about their relationship being platonic. This sharing of garments, covering the other, shows it was more than that in context of their culture.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 

Latest revision as of 14:39, 13 April 2015

404142 519155091435269 390706744 n.jpg

About

It is often claimed, especially by religious extremists, that God condemns homosexuality.

Conclusions

In order to establish that God actually does condemn homosexuality and that we, as humans, should similarly condemn it, there are a number of hurdles to overcome and missing pieces of information to fill in; see /counterpoints.

Even examining the question purely within a scriptural framework, it is far from clear that God views homosexuality with disfavor.

It does seem clear, from both of these points, that those who claim that God unequivocally condemns homosexuality are either engaging in fearmongery or have themselves been deceived by such.

Specific Religions

Christianity

Christians who oppose homosexuality usually support this argument with various passages in the Bible:

  • Leviticus:
    • Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." All of Leviticus 18 seems to concern laws regarding sexual relationships.
    • Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
    • Neither of these quotes say anything regarding lesbianism, however.
    • I have been told, however, that the Levitican laws are not to be taken as current law as they are "unfulfilled". Obviously not everyone agrees with that... --Woozle 16:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • 1 Corinthians 6:9,10: "...Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men... will inherit God's kingdom."
  • Romans 1:26 - For this reason, God delivered them to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural sexual function for one that is unnatural. This can arguably be interpreted as condemning lesbianism, in much the same way that a cloud can be interpreted as a bunny-rabbit. To me, it sounds more like a condemnation of artificial insemination or uterine replicators (which, as of this writing, have not yet been developed -- but presumably God knew we would get around to it eventually, and wanted to make sure that we knew well in advance that it was wicked). Either way, it doesn't explain what the problem is; the equivalence of "unnatural=bad" is assumed, and opens up the question of whether the many other unnatural things we do (e.g. modern health care, driving cars, wearing clothes) are also bad (and if so, why aren't they condemned as well?).
  • Westboro Baptist Church quotes "Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have in them that do them." apparently as justification for killing homosexuals, presumably in reference to verse 27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Islam

Islam is particularly harsh against homosexuality, which carries the death penalty under Islamic law.

It is ironic that the religious right is so harsh on Islam, which shares their views on homosexuality much more than do other varieties of Christianity.

Counterpoints

Links

Reference

Filed Links