God's Ethic or Man's?

Over at "Bock's Blog" some commentators have been challenging the idea of Biblical ethics in relation to homosexuality. Here is my response:

Steph: "You [Bock,] still use the bible as a textbook yet you fail to see that
the historical Jesus and Paul are poles apart. In fact you do not differentiate
between the Aramaic speaking Jesus with his mission to return Jews to God, and
the Jesus of later tradition - the Greek translators and the evangelists. As far
as the homosexuality debate goes, the Bible got it wrong. They didn't know
everything. Jesus would have thought it was a sin, just as he thought eating
shellfish was. Personally I don't see why homosexuals would want to marry in a
church and belong to a religion that treats them as lesser beings, but I hope
one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be
married by the state in the same way I was."

Steph hopes that "one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state," yet she hasn't provided any *argument* as to why those whith their "ancient prejudice" should adopt her view. I realize she can't do to much via blog comments, but perhaps if she did not spend time making assertions that are irrelevant (Jesus and Paul disagree, Jesus thought eating shellfish was a sin, etc...) she could at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what an argument for homosexual marriage would look like while avoiding straw-men (the church thinks homosexuals are lesser beings).

People will never have a meaningful dialogue or let go of their prejudices as long as they continue to react with such rhetoric. Such people are actually part of the problem.

PF: "Darrell, the fact that there is progression in the opinions of the
biblical authors about polygamy in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament actually
argues for a more logical explanation (although to be precise, the NT does not
say polygamy is a sin).

Did God change his mind about what is right and wrong, like polygamy,
slavery, eating pork and wearing clothes with dual fabrics? If he did, he's a
vacillating creature.

It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as
a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly. The books
assign to God's will their own prejudices. The ancient Israelites killed their
enemies and ascribed their blood lust to God (such as the prescription to take a
"vagina or two" as spoils of war). Jesus had a different idea (and no way to
defeat the Romans in battle even if he wanted to), so his theology was
different."

First, PF states, "It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly." But, like some other commentators, PF fails to provide any evidence or argumentation for such a view. How does one weigh that it is *more logical* that people changed their concept of God over time because their views on polygamy changed (since PF brings up that issue) than what Bock is saying, that polygamy was never condoned in the first place? It seems to me that the first thing you would have to do is find an OT *prescription* that says polygamy is good.

Even if one could find a prescription regarding how polygamy is to be carried out (can you?) this does not logically lead to saying God endorses polygamy. As one Christian apologist has cited G. Wenham, “The law sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction…What legislators and judges tolerate may not be what they approve. Laws generally set a floor for behaviour within society, they do not prescribe an ethical ceiling. Thus a study of the legal codes within the Bible is unlikely to disclose the ideals of the law-givers, but only the limits of their tolerance: if you do such and such, you will be punished. The laws thus tend to express the limits of socially acceptable behaviour: they do not describe ideal behavior,” (Story as Torah, 80).

Even if PF could prove that the Bible presents God as approving polygamy (rather than tolerating it) and then as disapproving it, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that *PF's explanation as to why this is the case* is more logical (probable) than some other explanation. For example, I think PF would agree that some "goods" are only relevant within a certain culture and yet just as morally binding, within that culture, as goods which transcend any particular culture. Thereofre, PF would have to show that the grounds of God's approval/disapproval is not tied to some temporary (like culture) circumstance. Because if my hypothetical "therefore" is the case, then it is not clear why PF's explanation is more logical than an explanation which may ground the command to something relevant only within that culture.

Of course, all of this will be extremely difficult (impossible) with PF's chosen issue of polygamy. I suggest PF try something more obvious like say, a cultic injunction, which Christians no longer follow. But then PF loses some of his rhetorical (emotional) force and then PF will have to deal with Bock's own explanation and show why it is less logical (probable) than PF's. In the end, my guess is that PF will have to push the entire question back as to whether it is more probable than not that the Christian God exists. In which case, we see that PF has really been begging the question to enter the discussion at this level.

Secondly, how does it logically follow that if God says at t1 under condition X that eating pork is bad and at t2 under condition Y that eating pork is not bad that God is therefore a "vacillating creature"? For the most part, what I've said above applies equally here. Does PF not believe that some moral imperatives are only culturally relevant? Does PF think that every law we have in 21st century American society is legitimately transferable to a culture in the 2nd century BC? PF has to demonstrate that God said whatever law or "good" which PF has in mind is transcendent of all cultures and all times and then, at some later point, went back on that.

PF responds,

"These things have everything to do with gay marriage. The point is that
the Bible is a book that reflects the ideas of its authors, not some divine
instruction. And thus arguing against gay marriage because the Bible says it
is a sin is to side with a primitive culture which had an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice.

To buttress this point, I note that many of the writers of the Bible had no
problems with slavery, polygamy and genocide and did have problems with so many
things that seem bizarre today.

And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as
"administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre.
What, God rolled out the new Coke? Either eating pork was a sin or it wasn't.
Why did God ever care what people ate? Either homosexuality is deserving of
death or it isn't."

I. As I thought, PF simply has to say the Bible is not God's Word. But of course, when he/she goes on to say it is "an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice" he/she begs the question. To butress the point (I assume that the Biblical ethic is "unreasonable and barbaric"), he/she cites the fact that the Bible authors had no problem with slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Of course, he/she only continues to reason in a circle when he/she cites slavery and genocide (it's promotion of polygamy is an unfounded assertion, as we have seen).

II. To say, "And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as "administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre." is to work with a very narrow view of ethics which apparently either ignores or disregards the possibility of the moral value of thing being contingent on the situation (I'm not promoting anything like Fletcher's situational ethics).

III. I'm not sure I agree with Bock that, "Eating pork was a matter of clean and uncleanness for Israel. This is not the same as being sin or not. It was to be avoided but it did not mean one had sinned. It did prevent one entering the temple-- that is what cultic impurity was about. It is a distinct category from sin."

It certainly seems from the text that a person who disobeyed the dietary laws was guilty of sin: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Le 11:43-45). Even though the passage doesn't specifically say that the person who eats the unclean food is sinning, it seems reasonable to arrive at that conclusion because God's people were supposed to be sanctified. In other words, the text does make clear that they had a moral obligation to sanctify themselves and be holy. It wasn't optional. According to this text, it would seem that keeping the dietary laws was one of they ways that they maintained this sanctity. A person's failure to observe the dietary laws would result in a loss of sanctity and, therefore, would also fail to keep their moral obligation.

No doubt, Bock is probably more qualified than me in this issue. Perhaps he has something in mind that I've missed.

Conversations with Christians: An excercise in futility - Homosexuality, Genetics, and Logic

This series has the subtitle "an exercise in futility. There may be several reasons as to why the exercise or dialogue is futile. It may be the case that it is futile because I'm a dense idiot. (If you think so, feel free to comment and let me know. I only ask that you provide some reasons.) Or it may be the case, and often is, that the exercise is futile because the other person and/or myself has let pride get in the way. It may be an exercise in futility because we get side tracked on an issue that is insignificant in the face of what started the converstaion etc... Whatever it is, if I add to or am the sole factor in this futility feel free to let me know. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong if I'm wrong (though convincing me of it may be another matter). I often let my sin nature get the best of me and for that I apologize.

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

Responses to Newsweek's Defense of Homosexuality

There have been many responses to the recent Newsweek article defending homosexuality and many blogs have linked to these articles. However, I haven't seen a single blog post linking to all of the best responses. Here it is:

(1) Albert Mohler: Turning the Bible on its Head, The Real Issues in the Newsweek Debat (NPR Interview with Lisa Miller!)

(2) Darrell Bock: The seriese of posts is still ongoing, I will update this to the complete seriese when it is finished: (a) Haircuts, Public Homilies, News Magazines, and Gay Marriage, (b) Journalistic Integrity, the Bible, and Marriage in Newsweek's Gay Marriage Piece, (c) Newsweek and Gay Marriage (Check out his comment section too for interaction.)

(3) Robert Gagnon: More than "Mutal Joy" (probably the best response.)