Why I am doing this series: (1) It helps me to see where I went wrong in the conversation. I'm able to reflect and think "I shouldn't have said that" or "I should have said this more clearly" or "I was wrong about that." I hope it will help you to see the same, learn from it, and avoid it yourself. (2) It is an often sad picture of where a lot of Christians stand on issues and how they tend to think. I've been having these conversations like this for quite a few years now, and these are by no means unique or out of the ordinary examples/representatives. (3) I hope that it will help some, including myself, when dealing with these issues in the future. We can leave behind that which was fruitless and develop that which seemed more productive in pushing the issue forward.
The conversation arose when one person, BB, asked what they should do about their friend who is a Christian struggling with the sin of homosexuality. This conversation became futile for a couple different reasons, some of which are my fault.
BB: I'm really confused on this. I don't know how to help [the person] or what to say, because I always thought you chose to be homosexual but after knowing [the person], I really think that people may be "born gay."
GO: people are not born with sin, BB.
Me (Red Monkey): There may be evidence that people can be genetically wired towards things we consider wrong.... that doesn't mean we say it is no longer wrong or that it is now acceptable. For an analysis of homosexuality and genetics see: Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy.
PR: That is the biggest lie the homosexual communtiy has sold to the common man, or is trying to sell, that it is genetic. Because, if it's genetic, then god screwed up. Right?
GO: Yes, PTR, there is NO evedence of it [being genetic].
PR: You can't say the [way] someone is is sin if you created it.
Me: There is nothing wrong with saying it is genetic (unless it isn't). But I believe there may be some evidence that it is genetic. I don't think that [the reasons you gave] logically follow.
PR: I've been in the homosexual community alot (not engaging [in it], understand, but had friends [who were homosexual]) and i can tell you i've talked to hundreds AND EVERY ONE had some kind of messed up back ground or was sexually abused.
Me: That may be, PR. But your limited experience does not prove that it is not genetic. It may simply be the case that you happen to have [only] met people who are homosexual by choice.
PR: If god created homosexuality and it's sin then is'nt it god's fault?
Me: No, that doesn't make sense.
PR: And [God] wll send you to hell and call you reprobate for something he made you to be... OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. I'm glad i follow a god like that.
GO: Homosexuals are trying to say that they are just born that way to justify their chosen lifestyle.
Me: PR, perhaps we could reason this out via [a more private conversation]?
[At this point, PR remains silent for a while and the person who originally
posed the question, BB, has started talking to other people about different
aspects of the problem. I think PR may have missed my question and so ask
again:]
Me: Could we talk about this more in depth [one on one], PR?
[PR is again silent for a while. Someone, D, enters the conversation:]
PR: Hey, D, what's up, bud?
Me: You could at least say "no," PR, so I don't have to wonder if you saw my question or not.
[Again, PR does not say anything. However, another person
who was watching the conversation decided to take PR's cause:]
SA: No one is born genetically gay.
Me: How do you know that?
SA: Studying A&P for two years.
Me: Two years of anatomy and physiology doesn't prove that there is no genetic factor to homosexuality.
SA: Show me that there is a gene that makes one homesexual and then we can talk about it.
Me: I don't have to do that. You claimed there wasn't. It seems to me the burden of proof is on YOU to show that there isn't or that there can't be.
SA: Actually kind of funny because in the old days when I studied new age metaphysics it was taught that people were born gay because they were once woman (if they were lesbians) or men (if they were gay) funny to see [you defending it] in a Christian chat room. The burden is on the people who choose to use that as an excuse to sin.
Me: Since no one [in this conversation] claimed it as an excuse to sin, then no one shoulders that burden. However, you still made an assertion that should be supported.
SA: Actually I think saying someone was genetically prone to be a homosexual says just that [they are trying to excuse it from being sin].
Me: Then you have another thing to demonstrate: you have to prove that it logically follows that if one is genetically predisposed to something that they are no longer morally culpable for it. I'd be happy to discuss that issue with you more in depth, SA, one on one.
SA: I have seen no proof that anyone is genetically predisposed to do that. So I beleive it's a crock of butter. Which would mean if someone wants to use that as a reason they need to show me proof. Really no point [in discussing it further with you] since my mind isn't going to be changed.
Me: I hope you recognize that is horrible logic. Let's make the statement more general to see the fallacy: "No one proved to me that X is the case. Therefore, I believe X is not the case." Your reason then for not believing that homosexuality is genetic is...well, illogical.
[At this point another person jumps into the foray, but he has other
interests:]
AK: Red Monkey, i believe alot of things that arent logical, dont u?
Me: AK, that depends on what you mean by "not logical." I suspect that you are simply equivocating on what I meant.
SA: It could very well be illogical. My first reason for believing homosexuality is not genetic is because I personally don't believe God would create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over.
[At this point, PR jumps back into the conversation and manages to create a
straw-man of my position and add some chaos and misdirection on the issue:]
PR: Red Monkey, will you, if i take you right, actaully sit in front of god and try to justify a homosexual lifestyle as being somehow correct or unavoidable?
[I decide it's best to ignore PR and AK so I don't get side
tracked and lose the point with SA:]
Me: SA, the reason you gave previously, which is not the reason you are now giving [that God wouldn't create a genetic reason for a sin he sought to destroy a city over], was illogical. The reason you are currently given is simply a different assertion that you would have to demonstrate... but I already asked you to do that and you said you wouldn't because you won't change your mind.
SA: I think a lot of people will be sitting in front of God explaining why they choose to do some of the things against his Word. To you it may seem illogical, to me it makes perfect sense.
Me: There is only one logic. To say [as you first said that] "No one has proven to me that X is the case. Ergo, I believe X is not the case" is clearly a fallacious line of thought. If that seems logical to you or makes perfect sense, then you have yet to substantiate this.
SA: I have my own brand of logic and it serves me well.
Me: Great. So what if the homosexual has HIS OWN brand of logic too that proves HIM right? Now what? Now you're kind of screwed... there are not "brands of logic"
SA: God will reveal the truth then won't he... for one of us. I have my own special brand of logic you don't have to agree.
Me: Oh? Too bad God didn't give us a unified logic or something like that to discern truth. I guess everyone just has to have God directly reveal to him the truth, right?
SA: God does give me my logic.
Me: Oh yeah? Well God gave the homosexual his logic too. So you're back at square one.
SA: Lol, I'm still at the same place I was at the beginning.
Me: So does it really not bother you, SA, to be stuck on an irrational position?
SA: Does it really not bother you that I don't care what you think about my logic?
AK: Red Monkey, I just dont think SA thinks it is a big deal.
SA: ....Basically.
Me: But you continue to make the same mistake. There are not different kinds of logic. Otherwise, we are all screwed. If that were the case, SA, let me ask you this: do you believe logic constrains us to conform to its conclusions?
SA: Red Monkey, as a Christian I love ya...
Me: Could you answer the question? How would you like it if a homosexual or an atheist treated you the same way? You refuse to answer my questions or adhere to any shared standard of reason. Instead, you have created your own private standard of "logic." So how can you possibly object to the homosexual who wants to create his own standard of ethics? If you can have your own logic, then why he can't he have his own ethic?
SA: Because you're trying to change my mind you can't. Sorry but I just don't want to continue going down the same path. And I have talked to many atheist, agnostics, homosexuals
Me: I didn't ask how many atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals you talked to... so I don't know why you made that statement. But I'm not surprised that I'm not changing your mind either. How could I expect to when you won't even interact with what I've said. You have simply put your foot down and said you have your own logic. When you do this, you can't go around telling homosexuals that they are sinning... or telling anyone that anything is a sin for that matter.
HH: Homosexuals are sinning.
SA: I will point them to scripture and I'm hoping that's what anyone else would do.
HH: What's your point, Red Monkey?
Me: But you would do that because you want them to conform to your logic and to your ethic. [But if your logic is a private affair,] what right do you have to tell someone that they should conform to your standard?
SA: It's called sharing the Gospel, Red Monkey.
Me: Call it whatever you want, that doesn't answer my question.
SA: I tell them what Scripture says, if they don't want to hear that then they can tell me.
Me: In other words, it isn't really YOUR OWN standard, it is a transcedent standard that applies to all men and women?
HH: I guess Red Monkey is not debating....just attacking
AK: It almost sounds like that, HH.
SA: I think we've resolved this, Red Monkey. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me.
Me: In other words, you don't have an answer... thanks.
LD: From an outsiders view here you seem to be mocking people, Red Monkey. If you really want a debate I'll be over here in my corner.
Me: How was I mocking anyone, LD?
LD: Red Monkey, [it was just] implied. That's my view of what I read.
Me: So, in other words, you can't or won't offer any proof or reasons as to why you think I was mocking someone... you just want to make the observation? Great...
LD: I said that is my view. I did not elaborate. I cannot change how you view things. If you wish to debate me I am here.
Me: A debate is the provision of premises for a conclusion. You concluded I was mocking Shell. I asked you to provide premises for that conclusion and you refused to do so. Instead, you simply said you made an observation... and now you act like you are open for debate? Why should I believe you?
[End of discussion]
Interestingly, in the recent Newsweek article they did ground the case for pro-homosexual marriage in their "makeup." - "Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color." Newsweek, Our Mutual Joy
I have been in these kinds of conversations in chat rooms before. It can be one of the most mentally disturbing exercises. You wonder: "How do people go through life with such irrational thoughts?", and then, "why are there so many of them?". I stopped engaging in "Christian" chat rooms years ago. It is, as you say, futile. The blog format, while not a perfect forum for thoughtful engagement with others, far exceeds something like a chat room. Ditch the chat rooms and save yourself the frustration.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it makes any difference (it should) but the chatroom was specifically designated as a debate room. Thus, you would think the participants would be more ready to, you know, debate.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll continue to go simply because I have had some very fruitful discussions in the debate rooms with atheists and I'm in the process of having one with an atheist right now.
It seems that the atheists I meet in the debate rooms are always more willing to be logical and debate than the Christians in the debate rooms. Why? I think because they recognize that's their only chance. The Christians on the other hand will always throw off the "shackles of logic" at the first sign of defeat because he or she thinks they have a safety net in the mysterion (which they define as illogical).
A very sad state of Christianity, but one that is widespread.