Whole Reason

One billion, seven hundred eighty-three million, six hundred sixty thousand people-about one out of every three in the world today-claim Christianity as their religion. This makes Christianity by far the world's largest religion. But those people have such vastly different opinions as to its theological content that a single definition of Christianity is just about impossible.

One billion, seven hundred eighty-three million, six hundred sixty thousand people-about one out of every three in the world today-claim Christianity as their religion. This makes Christianity by far the world’s largest religion. But those people have such vastly different opinions as to its theological content that a single definition of Christianity is just about impossible.

One billion, seven hundred eighty-three million, six hundred sixty thousand people-about one out of every three in the world today-claim Christianity as their religion. This makes Christianity by far the world’s largest religion. But those people have such vastly different opinions as to its theological content that a single definition of Christianity is just about impossible.

How does a concerto by Mozart or a symphony by Beethoven have a "Christian Resonance"? Opera was invented as a resurrection of ancient Greek drama with pagan themes.
Your thesis can be summarized as follows: everything good comes from Christianity, everything bad from everything else. Absurd.

I wonder Louis: Have you read the book in question, or just the post above that lists the table of contents but not the supporting arguments behind them?

Well I hope Louis is okay. Normally he posts back very quickly in threads he's involved in. :/
At any rate, I hope he, and anyone else observing this, will find his mistake instructive. To engage in a strawman argument, and then call someone absurd for failing to establish his argument falls squarely into hypocrasy. It is not useful dialogue.
You could have easily engaged in useful dialogue along the same lines and with the same approximate number of words. Try this for an example:
"How does the author establish Christian resonance with Mozart or Beethoven? As I understand it, much of their work was a re-dressing of pagan (especially greek) drama. I may be wrong, but it seems you favor uncritically anything that props up Christianity and denigrates non-Christian sources. Do you really feel that this author has done his homework and established his arguments in sound reasoning?"

James, you make a mistake when you assume that "useful dialogue" with daniel is possible. After years of sad experience, I have come to the conclusion that such an attempt is not only useless but harmful to the concept of useful dialogue. No matter what one says, what evidence is brought forth, or however reasonable you are, it is to no avail. He is a died-in-the-wool fundamentalist and absolutist (as well as an anti-gay bigot and hatemonger). His main thesis when it comes to Christianity is that it can do no wrong (at least the Protestant variety), and any objections (along with examples of it doing wrong) are brushed aside or minimized as temporary aberrations. All other religions and world-views are dismissed as "evil" or, perhaps (if he's feeling uncharacteristically charitable), horribly mistaken – no good, except accidentally, can come of, say, Islam, because it is "evil." Thus, when I encounter the post here, I place it in the context established above. My dismissal is not a "straw man" or ad hominem argument because it is addressed to daniel and not to the author of the book in question.
Certainly, I agree that Christianity has had a vast and important role in the development of western culture. But this doesn't mean that other cultures haven't as well (the ancient world, most obviously). Yes, there is sacred music, and music can even be described as "sacred," but leaving aside explicitly sacred works (motets, masses, requiems, and so on), how is an individual piece of music Christian, specifically? How do the doctrines and dogmas of Christianity create a Mozart piano concerto or a Beethoven symphony or, for that matter, a Beatles tune? This attempt to rope everything good into the sole corral of Christian thinking is just absurd and amounts to special pleading. "Christian, good; everything else, bad." "Two legs good, four legs bad." Bahhh!

James,
As you see, Louis makes excuses regarding dialogue with me, or anyone who disagrees with him. He is under the assumption that his arguments are so compelling that only fanatics disagree.
Keith, on the other hand, is a moderate/liberal who engages very well, if not in an exemplary style which puts the rest of us, including me, to shame.
Louis is intelligent, but his emotional over involvement in the gay issue makes him easy to offend and as unyielding as he accuses others – even though I, for instance, am against sodomy laws, have shown openness to civil unions, am slightly left of the far right on both abortion and ESCR, and am moderate to liberal on immigration issues.
The fact that I contend that homosexuality is against nature and a dysfunction, is sinful according to scripture, and aesthetically and rightly described as disgusting, makes me an unthinking bigot. YMMV.

Hi Dan and James:
Here's all I will ask you: suppose someone considered Christian belief to be a dysfunction, in fact to be disgusting. Suppose that person told you so. Wouldn't you consider that person to be a bigot? Daniel and perhaps you believe Louis' sexual orientation to be disgusting. Now since that is in fact what Daniel believes about homosexuality then, well, it is what it is. But surely you can understand why Louis would react as he does to the accusation. It seems unfair to me to insist Louis to respond in the kind of civil way I am free to since I am not gay.
your friend
Keith

As you see, Louis makes excuses regarding dialogue with me, or anyone who disagrees with him. He is under the assumption that his arguments are so compelling that only fanatics disagree.
Yet another example of daniel's inability to separate reality from his evidently psychotic need to impose his rancid viewpoint on the world. I don't make "excuses", I state reasons, grounded in fact. And I don't apply said "excuses" to "anyone" who disagrees with me. Just the irrational and bigoted. Your fanaticism has been well-documented here over the years – most overtly illustrated by your inability to acknowledge the manifold evils perpetrated by Christianity in all its forms – and also by your adherence to discredited theories of human sexuality.
Keith, on the other hand, is a moderate/liberal who engages very well, if not in an exemplary style which puts the rest of us, including me, to shame.
With that I can agree, although I would put his views further left than stated here while his tone is moderate.
Louis is intelligent,
Well, obviously.
…but his emotional over involvement [sic] in the gay issue makes him easy to offend and as unyielding as he accuses others – even though I, for instance, am against sodomy laws, have shown openness to civil unions, am slightly left of the far right on both abortion and ESCR, and am moderate to liberal on immigration issues.
Suddenly, when called on his adamant and extreme views on hx, he claims moderation, when, in fact, he only puts on this mask to avoid the implications of his hyper-radical views (eg, hx is a mental illness, a perversion, and a danger to children, families, and the country. I have seen him make these claims. Any other claims on his part are lies).
The fact that I contend that homosexuality is against nature and a dysfunction, is sinful according to scripture, and aesthetically and rightly described as disgusting, makes me an unthinking bigot. YMMV.
I rest my case.

>> KEITH: Here's all I will ask you: suppose someone considered Christian belief to be a dysfunction, in fact to be disgusting. Wouldn't you consider that person to be a bigot?
Read any Dawkins of Hitchens lately? Heard Louis calling Christians names? There you go. But I would not call the former bigots, since I am not so given to ad hominems and whining as liberals are in intellectual combat.
So yes, I do know what that is like. But when, for instance, anti-theists are talking about Christianity as a delusion, a mental illness, a form of insanity, they are not just being pejorative, they are being descriptive. If I am offended and claim bigotry rather than engaging their arguments, I am missing the point entirely. Sure, their attitude could be improved, but they aren't just trying to be rude, but making an intellectual point.
Reacting with offense in such situations may feel vindicated, but it is not intellectual, mature, or right.
And while I'll grant you the negative emotional impact, when I talk of homosexuality being disgusting, I am not just making pejorative remarks, but referring to the natural reaction to things that are by nature bad for us, like eating rotten meat.
I don't want to get into a long discussion about whether disgust is learned and/or inherent, or how that alone confirms or denies the naturalness of something, but I defend my intellectual classification of homosexuality as against nature and unhealthy, and the fact that many people find such acts disgusting means something.
Additionally, the fact that Paul called sexual sins perverse, esp. in Romans 1 where he refers to homosexuality (not just pederasty as pro-gay theologians misinterpret) with such descriptors as shameful, unnatural, impure, degraded, lustful, indecent, and perverse.
I guess Paul too should have considered how his FACTUAL descriptors would affect those who are caught in such sins.
But let me be even more clear. Disgust with homosexuality may be appropriate, but disdain for gays is not – although, disdain for bad theology and the false teachers that promote it, I think, is proper.
>> KEITH: But surely you can understand why Louis would react as he does to the accusation. It seems unfair to me to insist Louis to respond in the kind of civil way I am free to since I am not gay.
I admit that in discourse, we should not engage in personal insults, and that if we are interested in actually winning friends rather than arguments, such phrases are really not useful (obviously, Dawkins is not interested in friendship with theists).
I hear you, I could be kinder. But if you miss my point about why I use terms like 'disgusting' and 'perverse' as accurate moral and biological truths, then you have fallen into the anti-intellectual sickness of modern day political correct niceness.
I understand why Louis reacts the way he does, but unlike you, I do not excuse his immaturity or lack of ability to address the arguments.

>> LOUIS: most overtly illustrated by your inability to acknowledge the manifold evils perpetrated by Christianity in all its forms – and also by your adherence to discredited theories of human sexuality.
You see, this is Louis' definition of bigotry and irrationality.
(1) Any efforts to correct the anti-Catholic and anti-theist histories that blame the Crusades and the Inquisition on Christian doctrine, or to link the real atrocities of history to the ideologies that influenced them, mainly atheism and Darwinism.
(2) Any disagreement with the unsubstantiated claims of pro-gay apologists who want to defend homosexuality as natural.
If that's bigotry and insanity, then put me down. But really, it's just liberal pro-gay whining. "Ooh ooh, we don't talk to people like THAT, they are all dirty pigs."
I should move on. In fact, to h*ll with the rest of Louis' comment – he is right, engagement is not fruitful, but not for the reasons he suspects. Time to shake the dust off of my feet. But I will not stop supporting the idea that homosexuality is a reversible dysfunction that is unnatural, immoral, disgusting, and an affront to God.

With every word he writes stinker vindicates my position. One thing we agree on: communication between our sides is impossible and better not attempted. It is war, pure and simple (pace Oscar Wilde). We shall see who is stronger.

The truth will win out. When error wins out (temporarily), people die – from disease, famine, war, and their own stupidity.

I agree – such is the history of organized Christianity.
btw: Why don't you go and join your allies in your anti-gay jihad if you dislike it in the free West? Iran, Saudi Arabia, most of Africa, communist countries – any political and religious tyrannies would do. Being a little tyrant yourself, you should fit right in.
btw 2: As I understand it, you have a Hispanic wife. So, you are committing miscegenation. At one time, this was considered a "dysfunction that is unnatural, immoral, disgusting, and an affront to God" and your kids half-breeds, and was even outlawed in much of America. Your most intimate life was held up to ridicule and disgust. In fact, it still is in some quarters. Consider the nature and quality of the people who thought/think this way. Now look at yourself: you're one of them.
Yes, the proper response to the disgusting is disgust. That's how I feel when I read your droolings.

>> LOUIS: Why don't you go and join your allies in your anti-gay jihad if you dislike it in the free West?
Ignoring the snarky part of your question, and addressing what could be a serious query in there, I'd answer thus:
1. As a general principle, I might consider working with people I normally do not on issues we agree on – for instance, I worked with Mormons on the Robertson campaign, and I would work with feminists to eliminate female genital mutilation.
On the issue of homosexuality, I am at neither pole, and so must forge my own 'middle' path. I can't work with gays on 'gay rights' because we don't agree, and I can't work with Muslims because even the 'moderate' Muslims of the UK still hold that gays should be executed.
2. There are many more reasons to not work with Muslims, even where we might agree, like on pornography. There is a huge gap, not in what we might consider immoral, but in our MEANS to correcting immoralilty.
In this arena, Christianity and Islam are so different that they can not work together. Islam works by mortal threat, lies, and intimidation. It demands death for adulterers and gays, rather than less severe measures. Even worse, it still holds to uneven standards for men and women, and allows vice to go on in secret (or in the open) for men while holding severe rules and punishments for women. This is not Christian at all, where all are held to the same standards.
3. Islam sees no separation of church and state, and supports a theocracy, which as we've seen from the history of the Catholic and Protestant churches, is dangerous and wrong. Christianity, and Jesus, actually teach a separation, but not the extreme sort that secularists support.
Regarding the free west, I like it a lot. Contrary to liberal fear mongering, I do not want a theocracy. I want freedom, but not libertarian anarchy. Some government is needed, and contrary to common ignorance, most laws are affirming an ethic or moral, and some morals need to be ensconced in law. So I'm fine here.
Perhaps YOU would like to go to the more egalitarian states of Europe, where being gay is even more precarious because their multiculturalism lets Islamic hate for gays create a truly dangerous culture.

Great post Keith, and I want to give it a fair response:
Louis should respond in a civil way, because he is upset that someone treats him uncivilly (in his view). Additionally, he should respond in a civil manor because honey catches more flies. :) The reality of debate and discourse, is that more people are convinced towards the side of the person they find most likable. You can be right, and be an ass, and you will convince very few. You can be wrong, and be very likeable, and convince many. I'm a truth guy… I don't care for that, but I am convinced of the truth of it (so I try to be right AND likable… not always possible). Christopher Hitchen's reputation as a good debator can be attributed to this, IMO. He makes fantastically poor arguments (from a philosphical stance) and flits from unsubstantiated statement to unsubstantiated statement… but he's got that accent that so many around the world find adorable, and he's polite for the most part, and tends to be gracious and at the worst backhanded with his insults.
Louis, I understand your position, and why you feel how you do about Daniel. That said, what do you hope to accomplish here? If it is limited to be annoying to Daniel? Then perhaps you accomplish it, but I suspect not. Is it to be persuasive and convincing? I'd recommend taking the high road every single time. In this very searchable internet blog post world, it doesn't take too many off kilter moments to damage credibility to the point where no one will listen to what you have to say. If this is a war of ideas, then you might be doing more harm to your cause than good.
Daniel, no explaination needed. :) I'm also a seminarian, I enjoy your blog immensely. I have witnessed your attempt at dialogue with Louis for, what, the past year or so now? (I could probably search…), and though there has not always been gentleness, there has always been integrity.
This just occured to me… have the two of you ever met? Face to face? I really really bet (as long as you both came unarmed and in good faith…) that if you guys met, the dialogue would instantly change. It's just too easy to see a villain through words, and much harder to see anything other than a human being in the flesh.
I'm curious what you three, or anyone following the interractions here, would think of a series of posts on Scot McKnight's blog dealing with the topic of evangelical Christian and homosexual community good faith interraction. This search brings up all the relevant posts (it doesn't all look like a series, but it functions well, bottom to top, as one):
http://search.blog.beliefnet.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-se...
It's a tad old, but I found it to be very refreshing.

James, I tried the high road of civility and it got me absolutely nowhere. You have no idea what's it's like to debate absolutist, fundamentalist religionists from the standpoint of someone they oppress. The main enemy to gay rights in this country remains fundamentalist, evangelical christianism (along with its new ally, the deeply homophobic mormon church). After a lifetime of being stepped on by these fanatics I am through being nice. As I said, it's war. But the difference is that I/we gay people are not making war on them, it's entirely their campaign. I would love to live peacefully with them, but it's apparently not to be. How does one live peaceably with one's oppressors? We simply wish to live as full citizens of our country, free of harassment and discrimination. They want to prevent this and keep us in the living coffin known as the closet. They have used the ballot box as well as the pulpit to turn back our legitimate gains and keep us second-class citizens. It is thus entirely a defensive war we are fighting. Plus, their anti-gay rhetoric (used frequently by your buddy daniel) adds to the climate of actual violence against gay people. As far as I am concerned, they do not deserve civility anymore as it makes NO difference how polite or reasonable I am – to them I am, at best, a mentally ill defective and, at worst, a dangerous pervert, an affront to God, and a danger to families and America. How can one live amicably and civilly with such people? You kick someone long enough and hard enough and eventually they kick back!
Of course, you will not agree nor understand. But that's okay. I don't answer to you.
btw: To correct your assertion that daniel has "attempted to dialog" with me: this is false. He has attempted to judge and condemn me at every turn. My attempts to dialog have been met with stonewalling and bigoted attacks.
The reason why I remain here is to provide some balance. After all, bigoted religionists infest gay blogs and websites.

"The reason why I remain here is to provide some balance. After all, bigoted religionists infest gay blogs and websites."
Now there's some integrity! That's all too true.
It still makes me wonder… to what end? You say you're not trying to convince Daniel. Are you trying to convince the odd random reader? Is your effort truly to annoy, or in some way, is it to inform? With Daniel out of view, how do you hope to impact non-Daniels? I still suggest that you'll help yourself to non-Daniels by being nice to Daniels where others can see it.
I'll be the first to admit, that some people who claim Christ as Lord and Savior act like right turds to gay men and women. I suggest that Jesus would not be. Can I like you, love you, hold you in the highest esteem, and be liked by you in return, even if I think that homosexual acts are sinful? Based on your past posting history, the answer is a flat, "no". I'm very open to correction on that if I have gotten the wrong of that.
In crossing that particular line, you're not demanding equal rights, you're demanding greater rights. You're demanding that people not hold beliefs in opposition to yours. You are in fact, claiming to be a maker of moral standards. I think it also causes you to think people hate you who do not. :/
Does any of Daniel's posting prevent you from being gainfully employed? Voting? Life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?
At the very least, I hope that you will consider how you can best gain sway over those you hope to affect or convince, because I genuinely think you're working against yourself.

>> LOUIS: But the difference is that I/we gay people are not making war on them, it's entirely their campaign.
Untrue from my perspective. If gays were not pushing for government sanction through the redefinition of marriage, seeking adoption rights, and the re-education of the sexual mores of children (Heather has two mommies), most of this fracas would disappear overnight, and Christians would go back to focusing on abortion, limited government, educational freedom, and maybe porno.
In fact, what ARE Christians doing to you besides trying to keep you from changing the marriage laws, and perhaps adopting children? We aren't trying to close down gay churches that will do a ceremonial marriage for you, we aren't trying to keep you from getting powers of attorney or getting medical rights, and we certainly aren't trying to kill you or make sodomy illegal.
In our minds, you have got all the rights that any one else has, except these questionable legal advances you want to make, which have huge impact and implication on children in our country, which you don't seem to care about, except to give 'gay children' the same approval you seek.
Also, by pushing hate speech laws (a.k.a. blasphemy laws) and hate crime laws (give lighter sentences to people who attack non-minorities), we see you as pushing for injustices WORSE than the reverse discrimination of affirmative action.
So we see our work as holding the line against your advances. We certainly are not trying to TAKE AWAY what you already have.

>> LOUIS: Plus, their anti-gay rhetoric (used frequently by your buddy daniel) adds to the climate of actual violence against gay people.
This is a fear-mongering attack used by liberals to squelch moral criticism. How come you don't blame the media when Muslims kill Americans? They keep harping on how evil our actions are. If someone kills a Christian, can I blame it on you for your moral outrage?
The real issue is, do derogatory and/or negative moral pronouncements lead to violence? And if so, does that mean we should just be more careful, or stop making such pronouncements all together?
Perhaps we should be kind and dispassionate rather than angry, but at what point is righteous outrage and passion proper? And how do you express it without 'promoting violence'?
The problem with your thesis is, you are guilty of the same, so you have no room to tell others to stop. I think that moral outrage and condemnation are proper in the public arena, but perhaps only with clear declaration of the non-violent actions that people should take.
My friend put a pro-life sticker on his car, and someone keyed his car. Is that a hate crime? Are those who rant against pro-lifers responsible for the 'atmosphere of hate' against pro-lifers?

pointless
believe what you want i wont bother your absolute certainty anymore
i'm glad you can claim to know the mind of god absolutely enough to enable you to judge and condemn others

btw: Here's what I believe realChristianity is about (my church, I'm proud to say).

>> WHATEVER: i'm glad you can claim to know the mind of god absolutely enough to enable you to judge and condemn others
I'm sorry that you have abandoned reasoned debate on what the scriptures say and mean, and would rather say 'we know nothing for sure except what pleases our ears.'
Perhaps we are wrong on what the bible says, and what God thinks of homosexuality – not to mention every other sin, both sexual and otherwise. But at the very least, I know that jesus saves, heals, and changes some homosexuals whose homosexuality was based on dysfunction.
Perhaps some are not really changed. Perhaps some people can't change, won't change, or should not change. Heck, my body would love to have sex with every good looking woman I see. But I won't do it, God help me.
The lusts of the flesh and of fallen nature are not condoned by God, and churches that say so are humanist social clubs, not churches with penitent and growing sinners saved by grace and truth.

thank you for your input, mr. pharisee! but since you are not God (although you seem to think you are) i'll just follow Him and not you
judge the tree by its fruit, and yours is a poisonous and fetid evil

Whatever: Does the bible not plainly condemn homosexual acts? Does the bible not come from God?
I'm a little curious at a Christian throwing a silly moral-relativistic accusation at another Christian.
If the bible is not from God, and therefore does not contain His moral authority, by what moral authority do you judge another person's judging?

I don't answer to you! Who do you think you are, anyway? You don't own God, nor do you own the sole interpretation of the Bible! The Bible also demands the death penalty for gays – it's right there in plain language. Why aren't you demanding that as well?
I know evil when I see it, and you people are it!
end (shaking the dust from his sandals)!

btw, this is the true expression of your form of Christianity.
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites all!

You're right, you don't answer to me. You answer to God, just like everyone.
That said, you clearly think I'm in the wrong. The WAAAY wrong. Why don't you want to provide any evidence to why I'm wrong? Do you hate me? Want to see me burn in hell? You're making an absolute truth claim, so why don't you want me to be able to move from right to wrong? Your position confuses me.
You can help me by pointing me to where the Bible says that I need to kill gay people.
Also, can I take it that you *don't* think that the bible clearly indicates that homosexual sex is a sin? A clear answer would be helpful.

I claim it's debatable whether or not the biblical comments about homosexuality are generally applicable to all homosexual behavior. Specifically I question whether or not it even ADDRESSES gay sex within what would be a gay marriage. But I am interested in a different matter in this post. Your comment presupposes that (a) the Bible gives us moral knowledge we'd otherwise not have and (b) that ONLY the Bible gives us this knowledge. I claim a Christian can properly deny each of those. Taken one at a time:
A. I challenge the notion that the Bible gives us moral knowledge that we don't already possess. I'd claim that what the Bible's moral teaching does is force particular moral issues to our attention, but unless our consciences agree then we do not KNOW the moral status of the issue. I'd say that's quite consistent with Jesus' approach to the Bible. For example, Jesus didn't just say "love your enemies", he ARGUED that even the Pharisees loved their friends, he presupposed that pointing this out would be persuasive to some people.
Paul made a similar argument. He argued that in Christ nothing was condemned, but that this doesn't mean that everything is worthy of doing. As Christians we have the right to do all kinds of things (ignore dietary laws) but in love we ought to give up those rights if that helps our brother's avoid stumbling.
Even the 10 Commandments implicitly apply the same principle. The 6th commandment, "Thou Shalt not kill". Christians often point out that this is better translated as "thou shalt not MURDER". But the word "murder" just means "illegal killing". So the 6th commandment can be paraphrased "it is illegal to illegally kill". That's a content free tautology unless we already KNOW what counts as illegal killing. This commandment only makes sense if read it as God reminding us about something our consciences already know but that we sinful people manage to deliberately hide from ourselves.
B. In order to believe the Bible to be reliable at ALL we have to assume we can know stuff without depending on the Bible. Otherwise we could not COME TO KNOW the Bible is reliable unless already knew it was reliable even before we encountered it. Thus our knowledge would have to exist prior to our even reading anything in the Bible. But if that kind of knowledge is possible, it would also be possible to know that judging others is wrong.
My personal take on the judging thing is this: since we do not know what's going on inside other people's minds we have no reason to think that WE'D be any better than them if we were facing the exact situation they are, having lived the same life they lived prior. Given that, we are not in a position to judge them–the very measure we use against them would likely as not show US to be worse than they. Now I might never have thought of this had I not read Jesus' words about judging, but upon reflection I KNOW this is true, not BECAUSE Jesus said it but because the truth of that is as plain as the nose on my face.
your friend
Keith

Keith,
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response. I hope you won't think the shortness of mine is thoughtlessness.
You've got epistimological problems.
You claim that your subjective experience gives a greater know than an objective standard.
If there is an objective standard, then that objective standard comes from God. If the bible is from God, then it is His expression of His standard, and no experience you or I have, no feeling you have, can override that.
Your statment that one cannot come to know the bible is reliable without foreknowing that is flatly false. :) I'm a former atheist, thank you very much!
I think you start to get into the place where an honest discussion can be had, the homiletical question of what do the statements in the bible dealing with homosexual acts have to do with us today. There is an amazing amount of room for honest, open, and varied discussion here. If it's an exegetical problem, which many present here, and where I think Mr. Whatever greatly conflates "that's your interpretation" (and further goes on to demand that I must "interpret" things according to his rules that he's thrusting on me… absurdity if I've ever seen it).
The first homiletical/exegetical problem you'd have to address in your statement, is how to deal with what the bible has to say about gay people in marriage. Don't take that to mean that you can't address it, just that it should be ventured with the greatest of care and support to be taken seriously at all.
Finally, you're very judging in your statement about judging. :) What a very silly thing. And you've charicatured me. If you can show me where anything you said in that final paragraph connects to anything I've said, it might be helpful. I've never said anyone was any worse than anyone else. I've never said that homosexual sex is worse than telling the tiniest of white lies. I'd challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

In a secular society what the Bible has to say about gay people is only relevant to Christians. Gay people are not bound by its pronouncements and opinions on our lives. Further, we also have the right to be free of its pronouncements and opinions (particularly when xians try to make them the law of the land). I, personally, think the Bible has much good in it as well as much that is evil, and I reserve the right to myself to discern for myself what I want to take from it. Also, I reserve the right to myself to decide whose opinions I will take seriously. From some fifty years of experience, I have learned that what other people think of me or gay people in general or, for that matter, God, must be questioned savagely, and taken with a grain of salt. Argument from authority (which is basically what those who appeal to the Bible do) doesn't go very far if you don't recognize the authority in question. It also allows such people to force a hidden (or not so hidden) personal agenda on the rest of us under the guise of God's or the Bible's authority. They can be dismissed. Ultimately, it's just their opinion and nothing else.

Hi James:
I wouldn't agree with the two opinions you attribute to me. I guess that's how unclear I can be. You said:
You've got epistemological problems.
You claim that your subjective experience gives a greater know than an objective standard.
I don't claim that. I claim something different. Let me explain. Imagine that unbeknownst to you there is a book in your hand that is inerrant, everything contained in the book is absolutely true. I claim that since you don't KNOW the book is inerrant the book BEING inerrant is useless to you, the inerrancy of the book doesn't cause you to know the book is inerrant, thus it doesn't cause you to know X is true (where X is a claim from the book). So how could you come to know the book is inerrant? Imagine it's some spiritual process (guidance from the holy Spirit, maybe) that brings you to know the book is inerrant. This means that the Holy Spirit COULD let you know the truth even without the book, which means knowledge doesn't necessarily depend on the authority of the book.
Your statement that one cannot come to know the bible is reliable without foreknowing that is flatly false. :) I'm a former atheist, thank you very much!
I don't claim that either. I agree that you could come to know the Bible to be inerrant (I don't think the Bible IS inerrant, but's not the point here) but you'd have to have a reliable non-biblical source of knowledge to do so. The Holy Spirit is reasonable suugestion, but we Christian non-biblical inerrantists can cite the same source for our religious knowledge. But we can be wrong, you might say, our subjective experiences are not particularly reliable. True but you could be wrong when you claim some particular book is the inerrant word of God too. People claim to have God's word all the time.
your friend
Keith

Well said friend Louis

Agreed on Louis, well said!
One exception is this: "Ultimately, it's just their opinion and nothing else."
In that, you claim to know for absolute certainty that the bible is not authoritative, which I posit you cannot know for absolute certainty.
You can believe that with intellectual integrity. You can defend it rigorously. You can disagree with it vehemently and with things that you think prove it. But… unless you are God, you cannot know it.
Therefore it remains a very valid question. Is the bible authoritative? If so, it has great meaning and consequence. If it is not, then it sure is a waste of a whole lot of paper. I will grant you this all day long. Nor would I expect that one who finds it to not be authoritative to be expected to live as if it is. That's silly, and yes I know that many people make that mistake. It saddens me.
Another slight thing: You actually don't have a right to be free from anyone's pronouncements or opinions. The 1st amendment guarantees that. There are some restrictions on that, including the famous "fighting words" rulings, which I think can certainly come into play in this sort of discussion. (I'd happily contribute to the defense fund of anyone who punched a Westboro Baptist Church hate monger in the face and gets charged.) People have a right to say things you will take offense to, and you likewise have a right to disagree and even say things that will offend them.
Keith, there are extra-biblical sources that add to the total body of evidence to show that the bible is reliable (your original wording, which you have now changed to inerrant, a different and more difficult standard). Then the external and internal evidence, including authorship, archaeology, witness, consistency, multiple attestation, coherence, cohesion… It's an astoundingly reliable ancient document, far and away above anything else we have that is from antiquity.
The Holy Spirit certainly is a valid place to argue from, and has indeed taken me from, call it 85% certain to 100% certain that this is the word of God. Quite frankly, I didn't want to find it true, but I could not look at the evidence I had presented, both for and against, and come to any other conclusion. It had consequences in my life I was not prepared to face, but that I now know for certain were part of God's best plan for me. It may be that some people have their eyes miraculously opened purely by opening up a handy NIV. I'm not one. The fair and rigorous examination of the bible with consistent standards to everything else shows it to be an amazingly reliable document (or many documents, as is the case).
For a low level primer, I believe that there's some good tasty bits in Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. For a more meaty reading, I'd suggest J. Harold Greenlee's Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: Revised Edition (1995). Perhaps Daniel can suggest another book that he's encountered.
Finally, since you failed to address the charicature of me, I'll come out and flatly state it: I can do no other than to call out a lie when it is applied to the same wording of scripture. If someone claims that the bible does not call greed a sin, I will speak against it. If someone claims that the bible does not call ignoring social injustice a sin, I will speak against it. If someone claims that the bible does not call lieing a sin, I will speak against it. If someone claims that the bible does not call fantasies about adultery a sin, I will speak against it. The plain language is undeniable.
If someone claims that the bible does not call homosexual acts a sin, I will speak against it. Which is what was done here.
That may have given you the false impression that this is a pet peeve of mine, or that I think somehow it is a greater sin than the rest. This would be a false impression, and one imposed without cause. I am directly reacting to misstatements about what is written in the bible.
I am firmly convinced that the plain reading of the bible says that all sin, any one sin, has ultimate, final and completely devastating consequence.
(let me say this: "the plain reading of the bible" is a $%!* poor standard… If you really feel like that's an invalid stance, proper exegetical and word study work can be provided, no charge…)

James wrote:
One exception is this: "Ultimately, it's just their opinion and nothing else."
In that, you claim to know for absolute certainty that the bible is not authoritative, which I posit you cannot know for absolute certainty.
I call you on this because you have taken it out of context (a besetting sin in our culture as the Sotomayor hearing have proven). Let's place it in its original context:
I wrote: Argument from authority (which is basically what those who appeal to the Bible do) doesn't go very far if you don't recognize the authority in question. It also allows such people to force a hidden (or not so hidden) personal agenda on the rest of us under the guise of God's or the Bible's authority. They can be dismissed. Ultimately, it's just their opinion and nothing else.
I am talking here about the kind of person who uses this idea that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and God's absolute word to pursue an outside agenda (here, an anti-gay social and political agenda). I made my ultimate statement in that narrow context. Certainly, I don't claim, like so many evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative Christians to have absolute certainty regarding questions surrounding the Bible and/or God's will. It may be that their position is true, though I seriously doubt it. Many Christians seem to regard the Bible in the same way as the Muslims, who apparently think the Koran exists in Paradise and was dictated to Mohammad. I regard this is highly unlikely (although I suppose anything, no matter how absurd or unlikely may be true – such as the Sun rising in the west one morning). My own view is that the Bible is the record of a certain culture's encounter with God at a certain time and place in history. Thus, it has much that is true and valuable along with much that is merely the cultural artifacts of its time. It is up to us to separate the two, using the reason and experience God has given us.
You further write, Is the bible authoritative? If so, it has great meaning and consequence. If it is not, then it sure is a waste of a whole lot of paper. This is an extreme and unwarranted view and, to my mind, typical of the absolutist mindset I find in the evangelical/conservative religious. Everything seems to be either/or. Just because I don't believe that the Bible is the absolute and inerrant Word of God and thus authoritative in a way no other book is doesn't mean that it has no value or isn't, in some way, a path to knowledge of God. However, like all other texts, its ideas have been filtered through the minds of the men who wrote it and translated it and copied it throughout its history – with all their agendas and biases and ignorances. It is a cultural artifact. We must take this into account when we approach it. To raise it to the level of the unique word of God which must be obeyed in toto is merely an assertion without evidence, and, as Hitchens has observed, an assertion made without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence.
You also accused me of something else: Another slight thing: You actually don't have a right to be free from anyone's pronouncements or opinions. The 1st amendment guarantees that. I never asserted this. Go back and read my statement carefully. I merely stated that I have the right to be free from other people's placing their opinions into law, from being subject to their opinions. They can pontificate and bloviate to their hearts' content. I also have the right to ridicule their more absurd assertions and ignore them if I want. And I do.

I certainly didn't mean to take your words out of context, but based on what you say right now, I completely agree.
I don't think that litigating morality helps the person or the soul. I say this in defference to our Judeo-Christian morality based legal system, which can be discerned examining the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se (basically misdemeanor vs. felony… but not always because of the ever changing nature of our legal code).
That said, what need be done has been done, and I personally don't think anything is to be gained by pursuing any further political or legal agenda on the sake of Christ. He doesn't need the help. :) In fact, I think a great deal of damage has been done to the reputation of the church by pursuing political solutions to immorality.
Thanks for your response, and sorry for misunderstanding your intent with those statements. I really and truly agree.
Did you, by any chance, take a look at the blog series I posted earlier? I would love everyone's comment on them, but I especially would love to hear what you think (I have no ownership of those, I just find great agreement with them).

Hi James:
Thanks for your response. My response to yours is not necessarily chronological. You wrote:
Finally, since you failed to address the charicature of me, I'll come out and flatly state it: I can do no other than to call out a lie when it is applied to the same wording of scripture. If someone claims that the bible does not call greed a sin, I will speak against it. If someone claims that the bible does not call ignoring social injustice a sin, I will speak against it. If someone claims that the bible does not call lieing a sin, I will speak against it. If someone claims that the bible does not call fantasies about adultery a sin, I will speak against it. The plain language is undeniable.
I didn't comment on any caricature of you because I didn't think I DID what you said my last paragraph did. I didn't accuse you of judging anyone, I merely stated my take ON judging, explaining how I don't depend on the AUTHORITY of scripture to recognize that Jesus was right when he said we shouldn't do it.
Keith, there are extra-biblical sources that add to the total body of evidence to show that the bible is reliable (your original wording, which you have now changed to inerrant, a different and more difficult standard).
I'd say calling the Bible reliable is too vague: how reliable and reliable about what, one could ask. You continue…
Then the external and internal evidence, including authorship, archaeology, witness, consistency, multiple attestation, coherence, cohesion… It's an astoundingly reliable ancient document, far and away above anything else we have that is from antiquity.
But how does any of that imply we should rely on the Bible as an authority for moral claims? The issue we were talking about (I thought) was our statement that without the authority of the Bible a Christian could not justifiably see being judgmental as wrong?
The Holy Spirit certainly is a valid place to argue from, and has indeed taken me from, call it 85% certain to 100% certain that this is the word of God.
How do you get from the historical facts you cited above to an 85% confidence that the Bible is the word of God, as opposed to a human produced record of the experiences a particular people had with God. If the Bible is human produced it CAN contain errors, if it CAN contain errors then it seems to me improper to say "the Bible says X about homosexuality, therefore X is true". That is not to say what the Bible says is wrong, I am just questioning using the Bible like a moral reference book.
Quite frankly, I didn't want to find it true, but I could not look at the evidence I had presented, both for and against, and come to any other conclusion. It had consequences in my life I was not prepared to face, but that I now know for certain were part of God's best plan for me. It may be that some people have their eyes miraculously opened purely by opening up a handy NIV. I'm not one. The fair and rigorous examination of the bible with consistent standards to everything else shows it to be an amazingly reliable document (or many documents, as is the case).
But like I asked before, how do you get from all that to "the word of God"?
For a low level primer, I believe that there's some good tasty bits in Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. For a more meaty reading, I'd suggest J. Harold Greenlee's Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: Revised Edition (1995). Perhaps Daniel can suggest another book that he's encountered.
I think the issue I brought up isn't related to textual Criticism, but thanks for the reference.
If someone claims that the bible does not call homosexual acts a sin, I will speak against it. Which is what was done here.
That may have given you the false impression that this is a pet peeve of mine, or that I think somehow it is a greater sin than the rest. This would be a false impression, and one imposed without cause. I am directly reacting to misstatements about what is written in the bible.
I don't think I said anything in MY post to indicate where you ranked homosexuality in the spectrum of sin. My comments were directed to what I thought (and think) is a presupposition in exegesis, one I think is logically problematic Now I DO think you might be wrong that the Bible says anything about what would be called gay marriage, and I suppose we can discuss that sometime if you like. I also wonder if you consistently apply the standard of "if the Bible says its wrong then I don't do it", but that's not what I was addressing in my posts so far.
your friend
Keith
your friend
Keith

"But like I asked before, how do you get from all that to "the word of God"?"
Because it claims it for itself. I find the evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of it being a reliable document. Textual criticism is necessarily a part of that. If you read those books, you would find that it does in fact directly speak to your statement.
"I am just questioning using the Bible like a moral reference book."
God is the source of absolute morality (as opposed to relative). If you posit that there is absolute right and wrong, then there is a source for that. That source is God.
You may not agree that the bible is from God, but you must clearly understand that I think it is His clear and direct revelation to all mankind. You should not be confused why I would use it as a moral reference book.
But your claims still contain the same epistomological problems.
By what authority do you make your claims? I understand that you say not-Bible. But then what? What is the source of your authority on judging others judging?
And finally more charicature: "I also wonder if you consistently apply the standard of "if the Bible says its wrong then I don't do it", but that's not what I was addressing in my posts so far."
When did I say that thing that you put in quoatation marks?
Finally, in a rather humorous twist… read your post 7/15 @ 2:04p. Read the first paragraph especially… In the following response, my penultimate paragraph replies to that… and now in your final paragraph, you make my point. :p

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to go over everything.
btw: It's caricature (said the former English TA).

Hah thanks! I should have caught that. Mispellings make me look st00pid. :)

Hi James:
Where does any particular book in the Bible declare that all the documents that would later be included in the Bible are the word of God?
You wrote in your post:
God is the source of absolute morality (as opposed to relative). If you posit that there is absolute right and wrong, then there is a source for that. That source is God.
It seems to me you are equivocating between God being the ontological source of morality and the Bible being the epistemological source of morality. I expect I agree with you that if God didn't exist there'd be no such thing as moral truth, but this is a separate issue from how one comes to KNOW right and wrong. You suggested that the historical evidence gave you a good reason to believe that every moral pronouncement in the bible is true. I would suggest that the exact same evidence is consistent with the view that the Bible is NOT the word of God. A book can contain all kinds of accurate history without being the word of God.
I do not believe the Bible is properly read as a reference book for moral questions, that is, as a source for moral knowledge. I'd say it is a pointer toward God, but that our consciences tell us right from wrong. If our consciences really don't tell us the moral value of something then that something has no moral significance.
You may not agree that the bible is from God, but you must clearly understand that I think it is His clear and direct revelation to all mankind. You should not be confused why I would use it as a moral reference book.
I do understand your opinion, but I don't think you understand mine. I believe the Bible was INSPIRED by God, but his inspiration was filtered through fallible humanity and consequently might contain some errors. It is NOT, I don't believe, the WORD of God. Jesus is the Word.
But your claims still contain the same epistomological problems.
By what authority do you make your claims? I understand that you say not-Bible. But then what? What is the source of your authority on judging others judging?
It seems to me you have not addressed my objections to your bible epistemology, but I will try to answer your question. It's not a question of authority, I'd say. When you think about it we obviously are not in a position to judge other people because we have no reason to think that we'd do better than they if we were them.
And finally more charicature: "I also wonder if you consistently apply the standard of "if the Bible says its wrong then I don't do it", but that's not what I was addressing in my posts so far."
When did I say that thing that you put in quoatation marks?</i.
I sure didn't mean to suggest you said those words, I was trying to paraphrase what I took to be your view. It seemed to me you were saying that this is a sound moral argument: the Bible says X is immoral, therefore X is indeed immoral. If that is not your view then I misunderstood. And I didn't intend my comments to be an attack on your position, not ridicule nor anything else of the sort.
Finally, in a rather humorous twist… read your post 7/15 @ 2:04p. Read the first paragraph especially… In the following response, my penultimate paragraph replies to that… and now in your final paragraph, you make my point. :p
I re-read my post, I read your responses, and I re-read my final paragraph. I don't get your point, really I don't. In my last paragraph, did you take my comment to be an insult of sorts, a hostile judgmental accusation that you are a hypocrite? I didn't mean that at all and if it came off like that I apologize. "Hypocrisy" has a connotation that I totally am NOT saying, that's not my point at all.
your friend
Keith