Homophobia is un-Christian

[Mycroft]

That's all very well, but in discussions like this we regularly see homosexuality, an orientation, bracketed together with bad behaviours ranging from stealing and gluttony right through to rape and paedophilia.

I still haven't seen a coherent explanation of why a sexual orientation is a sin anyway. Surely a "sin" implies a conscious decision to do something bad. Being gay isn't a conscious decision.

It's a sin because the people who wrote the Bible came from a very 'alpha male' culture and society. Israel was, at that time, a very isolated, illiterate and backward part of the world (which makes you wonder why jesus ever went there instead of China or Greece where they could already evaluate evidence and had sciences...). Men were the First Class Citizens and Women the Second Class (this is why god is a 'he'). So for two men to be boffing each other behind the bike sheds was quickly seen to be an affront to that established morality.

Had all of the events of the bible happened in Greece, I very much doubt homosexuality would be regarded as a sin in any way (by nature or by acts thereof) since homosexuality was quite a normal thing to that culture and, even, embraced.


Quite simply much of the bible is now outdated for the times and culture we live in. It was fine when it was written, it conformed to the values of the culture for whom it was written, but is not appropriate or relevant to the values of our modern western culture.

 

[ChristineES]

Regardless, it seems that when you say "hatred of any kind is Unchristian", there are some exceptions.

So...

- hatred of competing religious leaders is okay.
- hatred of people who openly engage in commerce in sacred places is okay.

Any other exceptions?

But who said anger is the same as hatred? I've been angry many, many times but I've absolutely never hated anyone. I've been most angry at the people that mean the most to me.

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to equate harsh words to the pharisees or casting out the money-changers with "hatred". It's obviously a little bit subjective, but it doesn't seem that difficult to reconcile "love your enemies" (as opposed to those who hate their enemies) with those episodes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But who said anger is the same as hatred? I've been angry many, many times but I've absolutely never hated anyone. I've been most angry at the people that mean the most to me.

Okay... let's go with that. Cursing someone and calling them names is a loving act. Whipping someone is a loving act. Burning up a person like chaff is a loving act.

How bad does an act have to be before it's hateful? If whipping and insulting people can be loving acts, how about homophobia?

 

[ChristineES]

Okay... let's go with that. Cursing someone and calling them names is a loving act. Whipping someone is a loving act. Burning up a person like chaff is a loving act.

How bad does an act have to be before it's hateful? If whipping and insulting people can bng acts, how about homophobia?

Anger is not hatred. Saying "get out of here, you defile the Temple" is not a speech about hatred. Chasing animals that people are selling illegally It is still not hatred. Telling people who are delibately deceiving the other people that they are wrong is not hatred.
Does this mean when I get angry at my children and punish them with grounding or whatever, that means I hate them? When a police officer arrests someone who is breaking the law and puts them in jail hatred? No!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to equate harsh words to the pharisees or casting out the money-changers with "hatred". It's obviously a little bit subjective, but it doesn't seem that difficult to reconcile "love your enemies" (as opposed to those who hate their enemies) with those episodes.

I agree. It's about as easy as reconciling "love your enemies" with homophobia.

... which is why I think there's a double standard here. On both sides, I think the Christians are just projecting their own personal morality onto Jesus and assuming that Jesus approves and disapproves of the same things that they do.

Don't get me wrong - I prefer it when Christians think that homophobia is bad. I just recognize that on this issue, the foundation for their position is simple human decency, not the Bible. The Bible is just acting as an echo chamber.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anger is not hatred. Saying "get out of here, you defile the Temple" is not a speech about hatred. Chasing animals that people are selling illegally It is still not hatred. Telling people who are delibately deceiving the other people that they are wrong is not hatred.
Does this mean when I get angry at my children and punish them with grounding or whatever, that means I hate them? When a police officer arrests someone who is breaking the law and puts them in jail hatred? No!

I'm glad you're a good person, because this sort of rationalization could be used by a less moral person to justify all sorts of awful acts.

 

[lovemuffin]

Well, I think it's sort of inevitable that people are going to project a bit of their own personal morality (and all the cultural conditioning that goes along with it) onto a text, to some extent.

I think that "critical realism" is the most reasonable way to begin to read a text. That is a term I'm borrowing from N.T. Wright, who I think borrowed it from sociology, and as applied to hermaneutics basically means trying to understand the text as both the author would have intended it, and as the audience would have received it, using all the tools that we have available to ascertain those things. Which in this case is basically what we know about 1st century Judaism, Palestine, and etc. Clearly that means trying to avoid reading things in that aren't there at all, but in this case it seems reasonable to me that both the authors and readers of the gospels would understand that a person can love someone and still express very strong antipathy to things they do or say. Human relationships are complex. I don't think this is pure rationalization.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm glad you're a good person, because this sort of rationalization could be used by a less moral person to justify all sorts of awful acts.

It could. But Yeshua, in my faith, is beyond good. He wasn't some wimp, if people were doing the wrong thing, He told them so. If they were defiling a Holy Place, He put a stop to it.
The way I've been seeing it, People nowadays only put "Good" on people who stand around and smile and say "Good morning" or whatever. They don't put the term "good" on someone who will punch out someone who might be harming someone else to stop them.

 

[ChristineES]

Anyway, I am going off-topic so I will stop for now. Cya.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It could. But Yeshua, in my faith, is beyond good. He wasn't some wimp, if people were doing the wrong thing, He told them so. If they were defiling a Holy Place, He put a stop to it.

The problem arises when a Christian decides that homosexuality is a "wrong thing".

The way I've been seeing it, People nowadays only put "Good" on people who stand around and smile and say "Good morning" or whatever. They don't put the term "good" on someone who will punch out someone who might be harming someone else to stop them.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a person who used violence to stop someone from being harmed isn't good.

More relevant to this thread, I would say that the fact that he took control of the situation shows that he didn't trust someone else (e.g. God) to take care of things on his own, though. I would also say that it isn't good to punch someone because they were gay... not even if the puncher is sure that God disapproves of homosexuality.

 

[ChristineES]

The problem arises when a Christian decides that homosexuality is a "wrong thing".


I wouldn't necessarily say that a person who used violence to stop someone from being harmed isn't good.

More relevant to this thread, I would say that the fact that he took control of the situation shows that he didn't trust someone else (e.g. God) to take care of things on his own, though. I would also say that it isn't good to punch someone because they were gay... not even if the puncher is sure that God disapproves of homosexuality.

Jesus did not throw stones at prostitutes, he taught them. He did not beat up tax collectors and all the others who were doing things like that, He taught them. He went after the Religious leaders who were misleading people (harming others), he stopped, but did not beat up, stone (as far as I can tell, He only used the whips to chase the animals out of the Temple, not to beat anyone) when chasing them away from defiling the Temple.
I can't make you see the difference nor do I want to try anymore. People see what they want to see. If people use those as an excuse to harm gays and (shame on them), that is not Jesus' fault, He never once taught that. He told us NOT TO CONDEMN and TO SHOW MERCY, and I am pretty sure he meant that for EVERYONE.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus did not throw stones at prostitutes, he taught them. He did not beat up tax collectors and all the others who were doing things like that, He taught them. He went after the Religious leaders who were misleading people (harming others), he stopped, but did not beat up, stone (as far as I can tell, He only used the whips to chase the animals out of the Temple, not to beat anyone) when chasing them away from defiling the Temple.

Most translations I read say that he used the whip to drive out the moneychangers along with the animals. My inference that he used the whip for whipping is an assumption, but a reasonable one, IMO.

Of course, even setting that story aside, the Gospels are filled with his promises of horrible torments that unbelievers and sinners will suffer after they die.

I can't make you see the difference nor do I want to try anymore. People see what they want to see. If people use those as an excuse to harm gays and (shame on them), that is not Jesus' fault, He never once taught that. He told us NOT TO CONDEMN and TO SHOW MERCY, and I am pretty sure he meant that for EVERYONE.

And I'm sure you're sure. You're a good person, so your Jesus is good.

As I said earlier, the Bible has something for everyone. If you seized on the "love your neighbour as yourself" Jesus, that's great - as far as Jesuses go, I think that's a good one to pick. Some other people seize on the "I do not bring peace, but a sword" Jesus, which I can't say is any less authentic than yours.

 

[ChristineES]

Most translations I read say that he used the whip to drive out the moneychangers along with the animals. My inference that he used the whip for whipping is an assumption, but a reasonable one, IMO.

Of course, even setting that story aside, the Gospels are filled with his promises of horrible torments that unbelievers and sinners will suffer after they die.


And I'm sure you're sure. You're a good person, so your Jesus is good.

As I said earlier, the Bible has something for everyone. If you seized on the "love your neighbour as yourself" Jesus, that's great - as far as Jesuses go, I think that's a good one to pick. Some other people seize on the "I do not bring peace, but a sword" Jesus, which I can't say is any less authentic than yours.

I just don't see it that way. People can take a line out of any book and prove anything they want, just like with the books of the Bible. If you take a verse out of the Bible, away from it's context, it will change the meaning. If you take Jesus speech about the sword and take it away from the rest of His teachings, it will change the meaning of what He was saying.
As for peace, if someone is being attacked physically, it is not immoral to fight back. I am peace-loving, too, but if someone comes to harm my children or innocents, I am not just going to stand there and let them do it, just for the cause of peace. If I see someone beating the hell out of a gay person just for being gay, if I am able, I will stop that, too. It's in context. If Jesus sees money-loving people out to cheat people right in the Temple, that's supposed to be Holy, then that's the same thing. As for the whipping, none of the translations I've read said he whipped the men, just used the whips to chase the animals and men away. What would you do if someone was defiling your own home? If it was my home, I'd do what I could to chase them away, too. It isn't immoral to protect things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just don't see it that way. People can take a line out of any book and prove anything they want, just like with the books of the Bible. If you take a verse out of the Bible, away from it's context, it will change the meaning. If you take Jesus speech about the sword and take it away from the rest of His teachings, it will change the meaning of what He was saying.

Likewise, wouldn't it distort Jesus' message if you only focus on the peace and love parts?

As for peace, if someone is being attacked physically, it is not immoral to fight back.

Immoral? No. Puzzling? Yes. Why would someone who places their trust in God ever have occasion to fight?

I am peace-loving, too, but if someone comes to harm my children or innocents, I am not just going to stand there and let them do it, just for the cause of peace. If I see someone beating the hell out of a gay person just for being gay, if I am able, I will stop that, too. It's in context.

I think that's the right response, too... but I don't see how this can be reconciled with turning the other cheek.

If Jesus sees money-loving people out to cheat people right in the Temple, that's supposed to be Holy, then that's the same thing. As for the whipping, none of the translations I've read said he whipped the men, just used the whips to chase the animals and men away.

So he just used the whip to confuse them with interpretive dance?

I'll grant you that the Bible doesn't explicitly say that his whip ever made contact with anyone (though it also doesn't say that it didn't), but at the very least you acknowledge that there was a threat of violence, don't you?

What would you do if someone was defiling your own home? If it was my home, I'd do what I could to chase them away, too. It isn't immoral to protect things.

It actually can be, IMO. For instance, I think it would be reckless potentially to the point if immorality for a parent to put himself in harm's way - and possibly make his kids orphans - to try to stop someone from taking his TV.

... but that aside, it isn't primarily a question of morality for me. I just don't understand why someone who trusts that all their stuff will be replaced and more would put themselves in harm's way to protect it. If I knew that insurance would replace my stuff, why would I put myself in danger to stop people from taking it? Can't Christ's promises be trusted at least as much as the promises of an insurance company?

 

[ChristineES]

Likewise, wouldn't it distort Jesus' message if you only focus on the peace and love parts?


Immoral? No. Puzzling? Yes. Why would someone who places their trust in God ever have occasion to fight?


I think that's the right response, too... but I don't see how this can be reconciled with turning the other cheek.


So he just used the whip to confuse them with interpretive dance?

I'll grant you that the Bible doesn't explicitly say that his whip ever made contact with anyone (though it also doesn't say that it didn't), but at the very least you acknowledge that there was a threat of violence, don't you?


It actually can be, IMO. For instance, I think it would be reckless potentially to the point if immorality for a parent to put himself in harm's way - and possibly make his kids orphans - to try to stop someone from taking his TV.

... but that aside, it isn't primarily a question of morality for me. I just don't understand why someone who trusts that all their stuff will be replaced and more would put themselves in harm's way to protect it. If I knew that insurance would replace my stuff, why would I put myself in danger to stop people from taking it? Can't Christ's promises be trusted at least as much as the promises of an insurance company?

I think we need to agree to disagree with this one. For one thing, I've never said that Jesus was some hippie dude handing out flowers. He stood up to people and good for Him, even if I wasn't a Christians I'd say "Good for Him". And so what if he used a whip to chase people out of a Holy place? The men doing it knew better than to defile a Holy place. This whole discussion is turning into "Jesus was some peaceful dude", when we both know what Jesus taught: With authority. He was not passive. Was he a violent person? No, I don't see that.
I believe in peace but I don't believe in being passive. We need to protect ourselves and our loved ones sometimes. We need to protect our property, as well. Jesus was protecting the Temple: It was called "G-d's House" with people defiling it. I am not going to go as far as to say that Jesus proved he was a violent so-and-so because what He was doing was protecting a Holy Place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think we need to agree to disagree with this one. For one thing, I've never said that Jesus was some hippie dude handing out flowers. He stood up to people and good for Him, even if I wasn't a Christians I'd say "Good for Him". And so what if he used a whip to chase people out of a Holy place? The men doing it knew better than to defile a Holy place. This whole discussion is turning into "Jesus was some peaceful dude", when we both know what Jesus taught: With authority. He was not passive. Was he a violent person? No, I don't see that.
I believe in peace but I don't believe in being passive. We need to protect ourselves and our loved ones sometimes.

Why? If you really do trust in God as Jesus preached in the Gospels, what possible reason would you ever have to be violent? I've asked you this a few times in different ways, but I haven't gotten a straight answer.

It's not even about pacifism. You can still think that violence is wonderful while realizing that your powerful ally is better at fighting than you are.

Imagine that your house is on fire, but the fire department is already on scene. You see that a team of firefighters is pulling one of your family members out of the fire to safety. Would you rush in, push them out of the way, and do the job yourself? I wouldn't... and not because I don't care about the well-being of my family member; it would be because I recognize that the family member's well-being is already being served better than I could ever do myself.

Don't Christians believe that God is already on scene in every crisis, and infinitely more capable than a team of firefighters? Forget violent intervention; why ever intervene at all? Do you think you'll do a better job than God? Do you not trust God to do what needs doing?

We need to protect our property, as well. Jesus was protecting the Temple: It was called "G-d's House" with people defiling it. I am not going to go as far as to say that Jesus proved he was a violent so-and-so because what He was doing was protecting a Holy Place.

Add into this the premise that homosexuality is a sin and you have a ready-made recipe for homophobia:

- "same-sex marriage in our church would defile a holy place! We need to drive those gays out!"

- "gay rights groups are leading people astray just like the Pharisees did! We can rubuke them just as harshly! Jesus wasn't wishy-washy; we shouldn't be either!"

 

[sojourner]

Of course, going by Jesus' own example (at least as presented in the Bible), the sort of love he was describing allowed him to call people he disagreed with "a brood of vipers" and to attack his enemies with a bullwhip.

The Bible has something for everyone.

"As presented in the bible," though, means not projecting our cultural and sociological standards onto the texts and then judging the validity of the morals presented on those standards. You're failing to put your own bias aside and crawl into the minds of the writers and intended audiences. Additionally, you're failing to recognize a couple of things: 1) the gospel accounts aren't unbiased, factual accounts. They're stories, written 40, 50, 80 years after the fact by people with theological agendas, 2) stories use a variety of devices (such as hyperbole) to get their points across. "Brood of vipers" could very possibly be such a device. Using the whip in the temple could, likewise, be hyperbole, or it could point to a cultural fact of the time of writing, wherein social stratification was considered "normal," thus, a whip could be used on people of "lower rank" without violating some moral code. By our standards, these things don't make much sense. But taken "as they are," sense can be made of them.

 

[sojourner]

Regardless, it seems that when you say "hatred of any kind is Unchristian", there are some exceptions.

So...

- hatred of competing religious leaders is okay.
- hatred of people who openly engage in commerce in sacred places is okay.

Any other exceptions?

In what way do the examples provided point to hatred? This statement seems a trifle provocative -- that may be a conscious choice on your part? You're also misrepresenting the texts here. The religious authorities weren't "competition." The money-changers weren't simply "engaging in open commerce." They were breaking sacred law. And there's no indication that Jesus "hated" them.

 

[sojourner]

Add into this the premise that homosexuality is a sin and you have a ready-made recipe for homophobia:

- "same-sex marriage in our church would defile a holy place! We need to drive those gays out!"

- "gay rights groups are leading people astray just like the Pharisees did! We can rubuke them just as harshly! Jesus wasn't wishy-washy; we shouldn't be either!"

The law regarding commerce such as was going on in the temple was pretty cut-and-dried. Issues as regards homosexuality are blurry, at best.