Which makes more sense? (Bible/Abrahamic debate)

[Balthazzar]

I think it depends on the proportion of homosexuals in a society.

There are various ways a gay man can increase the population. He can (as when so many were in the closet) marry a woman and procreate. He can (and don't underestimate this one) look after other people's children. He can work in the medical field to, say, reduce deaths at birth, deaths of young children and extend the lifespans of women who will bear more children.

If you're wondering how the homosexual "gene" (if that exists) stays in the population, think of gay guys helping to raise children of their siblings.

And, last but by no means least, they are often wonderful entertainers! What would we do without them?

I'm sure this is true, but then I wouldn't know, nor would I pretend to. What I do know is where I stand as a man on the issue. I can't argue your last point...Theatrics are not foreign for that community. I'm less an entertainer and more of a student of the arts. To me, it's a spiritual thing involving emotions and our passions ... All of them. Genetics and lifestyle or ... whatever ... that's foreign to my knowing how it works. I don't care. My lane is my lane. I'm not alone on it. That's good enough unless people like me are discarded, in which case it's aloha. Hello hello/goodbye goodbye. It was real. It was fun, but it wasn't real fun.

 

[Balthazzar]

@Eddi, @Balthazzar ,

A note on homosexuality in the bible, in case it is helpful: In the Bible, No one but Jews are obligated to follow any draconian rules regarding homosexuality. Per the Bible, it's written, those laws were given to Jews and Jews only. This is an example of the harm that is caused by cultural appropriation. Non-Jews preaching against homosexuals have no basis for their campaign in the written Torah.

That's what my Jewish friends always let me in on. I'm not sure I understand it completely, but some Jews obligate themselves to strict obedience to the customary laws as they were handed to them way back when - Levitical stuff, I guess. Beyond the bible, as a branch of, after declaring being grafted into the Jewish type of God knowing, which varies even among the Jews, I have personally branched even from my own church teachings. I can't in my right mind proclaim something to be true that I'm unable to understand, so my faith is truth oriented and requires evidence to be substantiated. Although, I do often enough blindly believe the secular scientific explanations, or at least presume truth in them. It's really not much different than how I approach religious literature. I'm honest about it. If it makes sense, it makes sense. If it doesn't it doesn't. I try to leave room for growth, so my subjective stance and how i relate to objective reality is my only way of navigating faithfully according to who and how I am.

 

[Tomef]

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: 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.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

I think you’re unlikely to convince believers, on this basis, to reconsider their beliefs.

I know some religious people who are genuinely good people, I mean really authentically good, but on this sort of thing there’s a kind of elision in their thinking, they just sort of slide over it with a kind of ok I don’t get it but God knows why sort of idea.

 

[dybmh]

they just sort of slide over it...

... because it's not intellectual. It's either emotive or what I sometime hear as "supra-rational" which is what I referred to in my previous post but labeled it aesthetic.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Which makes more sense?
1: Leviticus 20:13 came from a literal and loving God. This literal and loving God demanded the death of any of his "sacred" tribe members who were gay.
2. Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, not God.

You seem to be completely ignoring that God has forbidden homosexual acts time and time again. Just as parents advise their children again and again, rebuke them, warn them and finally punish them, so God also advises, rebukes, warns and punishes.

You say the Bible calls for your death. No. The bible calls for you to act according to it, and warns you that if you fail and get caught you would face death. It's your choice.

 

[an anarchist]

You seem to be completely ignoring that God has forbidden homosexual acts time and time again.

This is irrelevant. If anything, it just reinforces that the Bible God is homophobic.

Just as parents advise their children again and again, rebuke them, warn them and finally punish them, so God also advises, rebukes, warns and punishes.

You say the Bible calls for your death. No. The bible calls for you to act according to it, and warns you that if you fail and get caught you would face death. It's your choice.

So you're going with "homosexuality is a sin/bad".

That's ok. Different opinions are fine.

With this thought experiment, it forces you to admit homophobia within yourself.

I believe that can be useful for some people who are homophobic because of their religious beliefs. The point is to make them ask the question "Does it make sense that an Omnipotent/Loving God would say/do this?".

With time, perhaps the Christian might come closer to the conclusion that perhaps God would not be a homophobe. I speak from anecdotal experience.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are various ways a gay man can increase the population. He can (as when so many were in the closet) marry a woman and procreate.

Indeed. My best friend who is a Baha'i man married a lesbian woman who is also a Baha'i and they had a child.

 

[Trailblazer]

You say the Bible calls for your death. No. The bible calls for you to act according to it, and warns you that if you fail and get caught you would face death. It's your choice.

You might face death but only in a country that is 4000 years behind the times.
The Laws of God have been updated since the Bible was written.

 

[an anarchist]

You might face death but only in a country that is 4000 years behind the times.
The Laws of God have been updated since the Bible was written.

So, 4000 years ago, the eternal unchanging God was homophobic, yes?

Perhaps He is a fluid God who keeps up with cultural preferences?

 

[Trailblazer]

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

To me as a straight woman, it makes sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a man.

None of the Bible was written by any God.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, 4000 years ago, the eternal unchanging God was homophobic, yes?

Perhaps He is a fluid God who keeps up with cultural preferences?

No, He is a God who keeps up with the times people live in, God does not care about human preferences.

 

[GoodAttention]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

For the OP, I will provide an example of this.

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: 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.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

I don't even have to think hard about this one.

To conclude... Christians in America cannot kill homosexuals. However, in times not so distant past, Muslims killed homosexuals on the basis of Islam. Currently, homosexuality is outlawed in various Islamic countries.

That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

So why does Israel protect the rights of homosexuals?

 

[GoodAttention]

Indeed. My best friend who is a Baha'i man married a lesbian woman who is also a Baha'i and they had a child.

I have to ask if you know how the child was conceived.

 

[an anarchist]

I have to ask if you know how the child was conceived.

You don't have to ask that...

 

[GoodAttention]

You don't have to ask that...

Of course I do, you're welcome.

 

[an anarchist]

So why does Israel protect the rights of homosexuals?

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the modern nation state called "Israel"? If so, it is irrelevant to the OP.

If you cannot reply with a meaningful response to the OP, I am not up to giving you more conversation.

 

[GoodAttention]

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the modern nation state called "Israel"? If so, it is irrelevant to the OP.

How is it? You are calling to push back against religion because the "Bible openly calls for my death", yet when I bring up how Israel protects the rights of homosexuals regardless of what is written in Leviticus you say that is irrelevant?

If you cannot reply with a meaningful response to the OP, I am not up to giving you more conversation.

Who are the "believers" you are talking about? Jewish people?

If so then you are generating fear for no reason except that you want to.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have to ask if you know how the child was conceived.

By sexual intercourse.

 

[an anarchist]

How is it? You are calling to push back against religion because the "Bible openly calls for my death", yet when I bring up how Israel protects the rights of homosexuals regardless of what is written in Leviticus you say that is irrelevant?

I outlined what specific religion I pose my line of argumentation against.
Specifically Biblical Literalism. Perhaps generally Abrahamic religion.
The modern nation state of "Israel" is modern. No other country would support it if it enforced Biblical law in full on the Jewish population. Imagine if the modern nation state of Israel was to execute gays for being gay. It's international allies and populace in general would not be ok with that.
Bringing up the fact that the modern nation state of Israel does not execute homosexuals is irrelevant. The Bible still literally says homosexuals are to be put to death. People telling me that isn't applicable to me, but it was at least at one point applicable to Hebrew homosexuals. So I think you guys are presenting merely a small hurdle for me to explain around. I can keep on this point but I wanna move on.

Who are the "believers" you are talking about? Jewish people?

I think I outlined it pretty clearly in the OP. Forgive me for not quoting the OP.

If so then you are generating fear for no reason except that you want to.

How am I generating fear? Perhaps by exposing people to the words of the Bible?

The Bible generates much more fear than I can ever. Let's use the example of a Christian burning a witch. The Christian is fearful of the witch, as well as God's wrath if they do not execute the witch, while the witch is fearful because they are about to be killed. Thanks Holy Bible!

 

[GoodAttention]

I outlined what specific religion I pose my line of argumentation against.
Specifically Biblical Literalism. Perhaps generally Abrahamic religion.
The modern nation state of "Israel" is modern. No other country would support it if it enforced Biblical law in full on the Jewish population. Imagine if the modern nation state of Israel was to execute gays for being gay. It's international allies and populace in general would not be ok with that.
Bringing up the fact that the modern nation state of Israel does not execute homosexuals is irrelevant. The Bible still literally says homosexuals are to be put to death. People telling me that isn't applicable to me, but it was at least at one point applicable to Hebrew homosexuals. So I think you guys are presenting merely a small hurdle for me to explain around. I can keep on this point but I wanna move on.

The reason I mention Israel is, it would make it much harder for a "Christian literalist" to be condemning homosexuals to death if Israel is not only NOT enforcing Leviticus as law, but also supporting homosexuals with rights.

I think I outlined it pretty clearly in the OP. Forgive me for not quoting the OP.

How am I generating fear? Perhaps by exposing people to the words of the Bible?

The Bible generates much more fear than I can ever. Let's use the example of a Christian burning a witch. The Christian is fearful of the witch, as well as God's wrath if they do not execute the witch, while the witch is fearful because they are about to be killed. Thanks Holy Bible!

My apologies, I should have read your post more diligently.

Regarding Leviticus and Christian literalists specifically, I don't think any would be able to call for the killing of homosexuals and ignore the other acts punishable by death such as violating the Sabbath, adultery, or striking a parent. I also don't think Christian literalists get past Exodus but I understand where you are coming from.

Personally, I think the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge homosexuality and God purposefully condemns the act but not the identity. In this way I see it as a way to preserve life in addition to being a personal direction from God to men who had same-sex attraction during a time where people's understanding of the world around them was limited, and survival of the community was imperative.