Framing religious debates

The Daily Princetonian (Princeton U.) ^ | 12/9/03 | Julie Park

[NorCoGOP]

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In the debate over gay marriage, Christians tend to be dismissed by their opponents as fools who live by an ancient book, and they use that only selectively. (Last week's Nicholas Kristof column in The New York Times is an example.) So what if God condemns homosexuality, they say, the Bible also says to stone people for working on the Sabbath and that eating shellfish is wrong! They then congratulate themselves for turning Christians' own book against them, expecting Christians' jaws to drop in awe. "Gee, that never occurred to me!" they would exclaim in this fantasy. "Maybe this God fellow isn't so reasonable after all!"

Arguments like these reduce Christians to caricatures -- Bible-thumping, finger-wagging rednecks too brainwashed to see the obvious "flaws" in their religion, too ignorant to know as much about their own beliefs as even their opponents do. To ridicule Christians, proponents of gay marriage have resorted to a tactic that shows no regard to historical context or how and why the majority of Christians live out their faith.

The tactic is as common as it is cheap. Christians make a statement -- "God forbids premarital sex," "We are required to honor our parents," "The Bible prohibits homosexuality" -- that many feel is outdated and irrelevant. To discredit such beliefs (and perhaps also the entire religion and all its followers), they respond by mocking obscure Jewish civil laws from the Old Testament, and claiming they invalidate all Christian moral teaching.

(These champions of tolerance should note that orthodox Jews do try to obey the commandments literally, all 613 of them, including strict observance of the Sabbath and dietary laws that these freethinkers may find silly and arcane. Although there is no longer a theocracy that imposes civil penalties, this minority keeps the commandments central in their lives. So much for being politically correct.)

Why compare laws regarding a broad area of life such as sexual behavior to trifling civil laws? Why not compare one rule about sexual behavior -- homosexuality -- to others, such as premarital sex, bestiality, rape, and incest (all prohibited by the Bible)?

But that is not the main issue. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't that Christians don't know such "ridiculous" laws exist, and therefore can take the Bible seriously. In order to be made righteous by the law, Christians believe, we would have to obey all the commands perfectly. Since we are unable to do so, making the law ineffective for gaining salvation, Jesus died in our place and his righteousness is accepted by God instead of ours. While the law's requirements do apply to us, it is only by taking on Christ's righteousness through his death that we are able to fulfill the law. Thus, the laws of the Old Testament (before Christ) are not directly applicable to us as Christians. (However, the New Testament, whose moral teaching is directly applicable to Christians, does talk about sexual morality; see Romans 1.) While the law is no longer the means for salvation, it remains a guide for what God's will is.

Certainly, some who profess to be Christians are also known to appropriate Bible verses and use them out of context for their own agendas. But however widespread it may be, this behavior is not a reflection of God, the Bible or Christianity, but rather that of the individuals. There will always be people who hide behind faith, profession, circumstance, love, insanity -- whatever means necessary -- to justify actions and lives that are far from admirable. Besides, "Some Christians misuse the Bible too" is hardly an excuse for others make superficial, inaccurate readings.

Not only is it shortsighted to think all who oppose you do so because they lack intelligence, sense or plain sanity, you won't win people over to your side through condescension. You won't convert those who are pro-death penalty by saying, "Guess what, you're ending a life prematurely," just as pro-lifers won't do much by saying, "Look, a fetus is a potential human being." All you gain through making a contemptuous, obvious argument is a minority of sheep and the hearty backing of those who already agree with you. You haven't neared understanding; you've added fury to the debate.

Christians know there are easy-to-ridicule Old Testament laws that they do not follow, and they have their reasons for not following them. Gleefully pointing it out is not only trivial and fruitless, it also makes you look ignorant -- of your opponents' point of view, of the historical context of the Bible, of the entire basis of Christianity, which is the birth and death of Jesus Christ.

The important issues of our day should be debated with less condescension, more research. Less mockery, more arguments. If you're going to criticize (and be scornful while you're at it), at least take the time to be accurate.

[k2blader]

Great post.

I take the Bible literally as well.

[Belial]

Here's some "context" for you. This is from Matthew 19, King James Bible:

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Jesus is saying that forsaking everything for him is what really counts. Even your family.

This passage is a very stern rebuke of material posessions, and yet I never hear modern Christians speaking in these terms.

And yet they want me to condemn homos because of a letter Paul wrote. Jesus never even mentioned queers. Now do you understand why some people accuse fundamentalists of cherry-picking and hypocrisy?

[Tempest]

Because animals cannot give consent and there are laws protecting animals from abuse.

[sunryse]

>Why just two? Can't three, four, five, six ad libitum >consent? Why don't we institutionalize Roman orgies?

Why not? We are talking about freedom here. Why is your concern what someone else does in the privacy of thier home/hotel, whatever? Why does it have to be institionalized? Not bashing someone for whom they choose to sleep with isn't institionalizing it.

[Map Kernow]

You didn't answer my first question with a specific Biblical verse. I'll wait for you to Google it or something.

What good would it do to give you a specific "Biblical verse"? What about the word "context" do you not understand, Belly? Read Romans, all of it---say Chapters 6 and 7 in particular. Or if you want to pick cherries, verses 7:12 & 7:16. Better yet, read the whole New Testament.

And do re-read the article. You just didn't get her point, either.

For my second question, you insisted I need context. Jesus didn't really mean it was incredibly difficult for a rich man to get into heaven (although that's exactly what he said). I've also heard it all depends on the meaning of "is", right?

Please. Don't try to make me think you're really interested in Biblical exegesis. Do you really think Jesus was equating being rich with being evil? Well, please do so. I'm sure the other guy you quote would agree with you.

[sunryse]

>Thus proving the author's point. The Bible does contain >valid prohibitions which we still accept. Does our >prohibition of incest unconstitutionally entangle the >Church with the State? Does it force religion down >someone's throat? NO? Then we can discuss the prohibition >of homosexuality without bringing up that stupid nonsense -> which was what she was trying to say.

Rape is illegal because it infringes on someone else's rights. Incest is illegal because of the genetic ramifications of it. Beastialility is illegal because there is not way to gain consent from an animal, same for having sex with a minor. These remain illegal not for biblical reasons, but because they are fundamentally wrong. The only reason people want homosexuality to remain not accepted or illegal is for biblical reasons. I do not want any religion dictating law, simply because I may not agree with the next religious trend. So it has no business in the making laws.

[sunryse]

>Premarital sex and incest can occur between two consenting >adults. Bestiality can occur between a consenting adult >and property - an animal.

Well, I honestly don't see why premarital sex is anyone's business but the consenting partners, but to be honest I read it as sex among teenagers. Or I assumed that was what it meant. I must have read wrong. In beastiality, no consent can be obtained. And a person can be charged with cruelty to animals, even if the property is owned. So your argument still holds no water.

[sunryse]

>pre-marital sex and incest can occur between two >consenting adults too - do you think it's OK to have sex >with your brother or sister or mother or father?

No, but not for moral reasons, for genetic reasons. Not that I agree with it morally. It's heinous. But if the REASON the law is in place is for RELIGIOUS reasons, then I am against it. Not incest perse, but any law.

[Belial]

Do you really think Jesus was equating being rich with being evil? Well, please do so.

I don't know about evil. I merely quoted Jesus as saying it would be real hard for a rich man to enter heaven. Like many modern cherry-picking Christians, you aren't comfortable with that, and all your silly name-calling and Clintonian context parsing doesn't change the obvious, simple meaning of Christ's words.

[Map Kernow]

Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Jesus is saying that forsaking everything for him is what really counts. Even your family.

Uh-hunh. Nothing matters more than God. "And you shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." It's harder to do that if you're focused on material things (like your lover's flesh), but not impossible, right?

This passage is a very stern rebuke of material posessions, and yet I never hear modern Christians speaking in these terms.

Phooey. You don't hang around Christians much, do you? What makes you think Christians don't condemn our materialistic, sybaritic, wealth crazed modern society?

And yet they want me to condemn homos because of a letter Paul wrote. Jesus never even mentioned queers.

Belial, no one on your side ever seems to want to listen to Christians when they say that they "hate the sin but not the sinner." If you really think that Christianity is all about "condemning sinners," or that Jesus would have thought sodomy "no problem," or that Paul had no authority for his doctrinal pronouncements, then, guy, you don't understand Christianity, and you don't want to.

Now do you understand why some people accuse fundamentalists of cherry-picking and hypocrisy?

I will be accommodating and assure you that I have never believed, do not now believe, and will never believe that "fundamentalists" are incapable of "cherry-picking and hypocrisy"---they're sinners too, don't you get that?

If my first response to you was "emotional," I apologize. But if you please, recognize that you have been somewhat emotional too. Matthew 7:3 (and yes, that verse applies with even greater force to me).

[Map Kernow]

Why not? We are talking about freedom here. Why is your concern what someone else does in the privacy of thier home/hotel, whatever? Why does it have to be institionalized? Not bashing someone for whom they choose to sleep with isn't institionalizing it.

Because sexual freedom, even being two "consenting adults," cannot be unlimited. Unrestricted sex has adverse societal consequences, aside and apart from what the Bible says, like AIDS, like abortion, like divorce, like unsupported children, like STDs, that can and should be averted.

[Map Kernow]

I don't know about evil.

Fer shurrr.

I merely quoted Jesus as saying it would be real hard for a rich man to enter heaven.

I see. And we Christians just should "take that on faith," without asking why a rich man shouldn't be able to get into heaven (like the apostles did)?

Like many modern cherry-picking Christians, you aren't comfortable with that, and all your silly name-calling and Clintonian context parsing doesn't change the obvious, simple meaning of Christ's words.

OOOOOO! That hurt!! (:-(

[Kyrie]

Because animals cannot give consent and there are laws protecting animals from abuse.

The whole issue of "consenting adults" is always played as a "trump card" to cut off discussion. But consider:

• If someone wants to get their jollies from a melon or a cucumber, no one wonders if the vegetable is capable of "giving consent." Consent isn't an issue. Even if the vegetable dies from the procedure.
• When I take my cat to the vet, I don't concern myself about whether or not the cat can "give consent." I doubt that the cat would consent to getting his shots. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.
• The cat has been confined to our house for nearly a year, even though he has shown clear indications of wanting to go outside. The issue of "consent" never arises. Why is that different?
• If a dog starts to "mount" someone's leg, and they don't stop the dog, but both enjoy the experience (yes, I have heard of people like this), would this be "abuse"? Does "consent" matter here? What if the contact is more "intimate" but the experience is still mutually enjoyable?
• A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?

Granted, the last couple of examples are...utterly revolting. But from a utilitarian viewpoint you have no particular reason to make laws against any of these. If you were going to outlaw dealings with animals based on "lack of consent" and "abuse" you would probably, like PETA, start with nonconsensual confinement, treatment of food animals, ownership, etc. and sexual contact that the animal does not enjoy. But why should we single out only the last of those? And why should we care what a pervert would do with a corpse he had acquired legitimately?

I would suggest that there are acts--such as some of these--that are generally detrimental to society as a whole. And that it is good if there are laws to punish some of them. And finally, that "consenting adults" should not be considered to be a magic bullet for killing all morality arguments.

[Map Kernow]

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

If you don't mind me turning this discussion from the polemical to the scholarly, while I approve of your use of the KJV, are you at all curious what the text was in the ancient languages, like Greek and Latin, that this passage was transmitted in originally?

Well, I was. And I grabbed my Greek Testament and Vulgate to look it up.

The word translated "hardly" in verse 23 is dyskolos in the Greek and difficile according to Jerome. That is, the sense is not "a rich man can hardly get into heaven," but more like "a rich man will get into (Gr. eiseleusetai, Latin intrabit) the kingdom of heaven with difficulty".

Similarly, the term "eye of the needle" (Gr. dia trematos raphidos, Latin per foramen acus) according to the exegeses I've read, does not mean what we think of as the five square millimeter hole in a needle, but the kind of traditional Middle Eastern entranceway into a home or a street that require entrants to stoop before they could pass it, so that, for example, some bad guy couldn't come in like gangbusters.

Again, not to say that Jesus was remarking that it would be easy for a rich man to get into heaven---of course he was saying just the opposite. But he also said "Apud Deum autem omnia possibilia sunt." With God all things are possible, even a rich man getting into heaven.

[panther33]

Thanks for the ping.

[sunryse]

>Because sexual freedom, even being two "consenting >adults," cannot be unlimited. Unrestricted sex has adverse >societal consequences, aside and apart from what the Bible >says, like AIDS, like abortion, like divorce, like >unsupported children, like STDs, that can and should be >averted.

In a free society, we should be able to make choices. Even unwise ones. And accept responsibility for those choices, including AIDS, STD's, etc... Sexual freedom has not much to do with divorce. People are going to get divorced, even with your social policing of thier behaviors. Unsupported children has not much to do with sexual freedom, but alot to do with the lack of responsibility that is not taught at home. These are social issues, yes. But have nothing to with sexual freedom, but personal irresponibility. If you want to avoid AIDS and STD's, then YOU personally avoid nonmarital sex. But don't police someone else's actions "for thier own good". That is a government we DON'T want.

[sunryse]

>How else is one supposed to take the Bible? It's not >really worth much if you can just pick and choose what >parts you will accept for yourself.

The problem is that the Bible is full of contradictions, so the question is which part to choose to accept? The example of the "selling your daughter into slavery" and "not associate with a woman menstruating", etc... So if you take every law written, then you are not going to make it very far in this society. I personally follow my heart and let myself be guided by Jesus. I screw up, but still, I cannot reasonably accept every word written and commanded in the Bible.

[Tempest]

"If someone wants to get their jollies from a melon or a cucumber, no one wonders if the vegetable is capable of "giving consent." Consent isn't an issue. Even if the vegetable dies from the procedure."

Forgive my insensitivity, but I don't really give a flying F%$@ if produce dies because some whacko wants to hump it. Heck I don't even care if someone needs to go the produce aisle to get there jollies. Where as it may be wierd I don't see it as posing a health risk to anyone except for the individual participating in it.

"When I take my cat to the vet, I don't concern myself about whether or not the cat can "give consent." I doubt that the cat would consent to getting his shots. Nobody seems to have a problem with that."

Actually most normal people would find the fact that you care enough to take your cat to the vet as very caring. I'm sure most kids don't want to take cough syrup when their sick but loving parents will make sure their kids do the right thing.

What that has to do with two consenting adults who participate in "deviant" private behaviour that may or may not be harmful to THEMSELVES is beyond me.

So why is it that a freedom loving society ought to regulate the actions of willing participants in private acts that do not infringe upon the rights of others?

"A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?"

If a dog did this to someone I knew and they started enjoying it. I'd tell them to go get a room or to go get help. But then again I find it rather silly to assume that a dog acting on instincts and hormones to actually be willing to give conscious consent on the same level that humans do. Do you think that homosexuals don't act like humans or are in human and are incapable of courting one another and interacting and giving sexual consent in the same manner as hetero sexual couples. Or do you honestly believe that homosexuals run around humping each others legs to incite mating??? Awwwhhh hell I know a bunch of straight kids that act that way during spring break.

"A person can stipulate in their will that their body is to be used for scientific research. Inasmuch as consent is an issue, the will constitutes consent. I believe that parents can give consent in this fashion for the body of their child. What if parents determined to sell the body of their child to a pedo-necrophile? Is anyone getting hurt here? Is any "force or fraud" involved? Is anyone being abused?"

This is a rather absurd scenario. I must wonder is a dead person actually capable of giving consent? Is a childs consent legally binding? No!

Parents giving consent to sell a dead corpse to private individuals for their own sexual gratification?!?!?

How on earth you managed to extrapolate such a scenario from two active, living, adult members of society who may wish to enagae in sex with each other is beyond me?!?!

Can we try a more reasonable discussion???

[xzins]

I've often wondered if these people who claim to oppose a "literal" interpretation would say, "I oppose a literal reading of 'Robinson Crusoe?'"

Just what other kind of reading is there? Speculative? Creative? Mathematical?

Thanks for standing up for a common sense approach to interpreting writing.

[Map Kernow]

But don't police someone else's actions "for thier own good". That is a government we DON'T want.

Not for "their own good," fellow, for the general societal good. People don't have the "freedom" to transmit deadly STDs, they don't have the right to father children they won't support, they don't have the right to clog up the courts with their failed marriages. See, regardless of what I believe is moral, I'm asked to pay for the consequences of all those "free choices." And I don't want to. I'd rather say you don't have the right to "choose" to saddle me with the social costs of your "choices."