As always, this is about careful thinking and proper analysis of the Bible and not about picking on homosexuals. We are all sinners in need of a Savior.
—
Many liberal theologians, skeptics and pro-gay lobbyists use the “shellfish” argument to undermine and/or dismiss parts of the Bible they disagree with, often mocking about how they love shrimp and such. They use the same reasoning with other Old Testament restrictions such as not eating pork or mixing fibers in garments. This video by Jack Black is a recent example.
Their argument goes like this:
- Yes, Leviticus 18:22 says Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
- But Leviticus 11:10 says, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you
- Therefore, the Bible cannot be the word of God and homosexual behavior must be moral because the Bible is an undependable, contradictory book that equates shrimp eating with sexual immorality. And people who teach that homosexual behavior is a sin are bigoted hypocrites who only follow the parts of the Bible they like.
Search for Leviticus shellfish or see sites like God Hates Shrimp for more examples.
The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.
After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don’t hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?
Actually, I find those questions to be ironic, because I think the facts will show which side is most likely to pre-judge, selectively quote the Bible and take it too literally. I hope they take this analysis seriously and reconsider whether their premises and conclusions were sound.
On the one hand, their argument is effective because it is catchy and very few people know how to respond to it. Many people claiming the name of Christ can’t even articulate the simple Gospel. When was the last time anyone read Leviticus?
On the other hand, their argument is ineffective because the facts do not support it. Also, it deliberately and unnecessarily undermines confidence in the word of God. I expect that from skeptics and non-believers, but I am always disappointed that those claiming to be Christians use it to attack the word of God.
The argument appeals to those who take passages literally when it suits them. Both passages say abomination (or detestable, depending on what translation you read), don’t they? And if eating shellfish is obviously a morally neutral act, then homosexual behavior must be as well, right?
However, if you follow the basic principle of reading things in context and you attempt to understand the original languages better on difficult or controversial passages, then you’ll realize that the shellfish argument is not supported by the facts.
The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament. And the claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they couldn’t complain about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, etc.
The longer version
1. The words translated abomination in the original Hebrew are different. In Lev. 11:10, it means detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation. This word is typically used in the Bible to describe unclean animals.
In Lev. 18:22 the Hebrew term תּוֹעֵבָה (to’evah, rendered “detestable act”) refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners. As noted below, the word is also used used to describe bestiality, child sacrifice and incest.
Therefore, the “same word!” argument self-destructs immediately.
2. Even a plain reading of the passages shows that the homosexual behavior is considered detestable to God, whereas the shellfish are to be detestable to the Israelites because it made them ceremonially unclean. Those are key differences. Being detestable to God is different than being detestable to a person.
3. The broader contexts show completely different types of regulations. Read Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 yourself and note the contexts. I’ll wait here.
The beginning and end of chapter 11 make it clear that this passage is about dietary rules just for the Israelites:
Leviticus 11:1-2 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:
Leviticus 11:46-47 These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.
Now consider the beginning and end of chapter 18, where the Israelites are told not to be like the pagan Canaanites. God expected the Canaanites to follow these moral laws and was about to vomit them out of the land for failing to do so. Therefore, they obviously weren’t Jewish ceremonial laws.
Leviticus 18:1-3 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
Leviticus 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.”
4. The punishments for eating shellfish and homosexual behavior were radically different. There were about 15 things in the Israelite theocracy that could result in capital punishment, and homosexual behavior was one of them (And no, I’m not suggesting that should be the punishment today. The punishments were for the Israelite theocracy, which is clear when you read the context of those passages.) But eating shellfish just made one ceremonially unclean for a period of time.
Again, note how the moral laws with their steep punishments are tied to offenses God held the pagans responsible for, yet the unclean animal passages were for the Israelites only and were brief (It could have been for health reasons and/or symbolic reasons. Animals on the ground were like the serpent and thus symbolized sin and pagan religions often sacrificed pigs).
Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:22-26 Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
5. The ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned in the New Testament, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not. Also see Acts 15:28-29 (It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.)
6. The claim that Christians are inconsistent if they say homosexual behavior is a sin if they don’t also avoid shellfish, mixed fibers, etc. would mean that they couldn’t complain about bestiality, child sacrifice, adultery, etc. After all, those things are also considered to be wrong in Leviticus 18 and elsewhere. That is a transparently false argument.
—
And if someone tries to play the “Leviticus is outdated” card, remind them of this verse and ask if it still counts: Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”
Remember, anyone calling themselves a Christian should be seeking to hold the same views as Jesus. And Jesus fully supported the Old Testament — every last letter and mark.
—
Here’s another answer from Tektonics, a terrific apologetics website:
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
The point of this question – aside from the matter of not knowing what ritual purity is all about – is lost; if there is a sincere interest in knowing if there are “degrees” of abomination, just ask this simple question: Are there degrees to which things may be found “abominable”? Are the works of a robber baron not less abominable than those of a murderous dictator? In any event, if shellfish is a matter of ritual purity only, and homosexuality is a matter of higher morals as argued, then indeed, eating shellfish would have been a lesser abomination. (Indeed, the fact that the words used for “abomination” in both passages are different suggests that by itself.The word used for the shellfish is used only a few times in the OT, always of unclean animals, whereas the word used for homosexuality is used for things like bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice!)
—
So if anyone uses the shellfish argument with you, ask a few questions to see if they have really thought it through. Everyone I have ever seen use it was either unaware of these responses or deliberately ignoring them.
And as always, remember that the Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:
– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.
* The three general types of pro-gay theology people:
1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians
2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)
Also see Problems with Pro-Gay Theology and Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.
Eternity Matters 
Neil,
Have you seen this ridiculous piece of Junk?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653?gt1=43002
I thought about writing a response, but realized several of your blog posts do a much better job. Send them to Newsweek and dare them to publish it. Then I can start my campaign accusing them of self censorship when they don’t., as in “Why hasn’t Newsweek published Neil Simpson’s response to Lisa Miller’s article. His article sets out what the Bible actually says about gay marriage. Why? Because they’re not interested in the truth, but an agenda “
LikeLike
Hi Ivan,
Funny you should ask! I’m working on a piece right now that refers to it.
My theme for authentic believers is, “Don’t get mad, get educated. Or get mad and educated. But don’t sit this one out. People will be talking about this and the Jack Black video, so we should be able to respond.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for the response, however I’m not sure what your point is. If the only examples of marriage in the Bible are hetrosexual, then your point is simply semantic.
LikeLike
Hi Craig,
I can see where you’re coming from completely, but I think you are, perhaps innocently, confusing ‘definition’ with ‘example.’ i think you and Neil have both mistaken my argument to mean that I believe the Bible endorses same-sex marriage; I am not claiming this. Again, my argument has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.
I don’t know how to state this any simpler, but in one last attempt (I think we can all agree the argument is becoming old at this point), I want to clarify that my argument is stating that something is SPECIFICALLY in the Bible, when it is not.
I am against claiming anything to be in the Bible when it is, in fact, not – this is the danger one encounters when trying to twist versus – even slightly and perhaps innocently – to say what they want them to say.
Neil and the Christian community claims at large that the Bible specifically “defines marriage as one man and one women.”
This claim is, at its core, claiming that a definition exist in the Bible. Only examples are found of UNIONS (not even the word “marriage” in this case) between a man and a women. Again, examples are not definitions.
Even if you don’t agree with me (which I’m not asking you to do) can you at least understand and appreciate where I’m coming from?
When verses are used against my community, I want them to be specific. Quote Romans, if you must. Quote Leviticus, if you must – even these are streches, since the word “homosexual” was not in Hebrew, and as Christians, we should not be living by any Levitical law (be it moral, ceremonial, or else). However, there is danger in claiming IMPLICATIONS as DEFINITIONS when they merely exist as EXAMPLES.
If you want to use the Bible against homosexuals, either on moral or cultural grounds, then for your own sake – you need to make sure you are using it correctly and without loopholes.
If you are still confused, Craig, I invite you to my blog at sharoute.com and examine my post where I describe the difference (using Webster’s) between ‘definition’ and ‘example.’
Thanks, and be well!
LikeLike
By the way Neil, would you please be kind enough to forward me a copy of the Jack Black/Newsweek article that you end up writing? I would like to read it, for curiosity’s sake. You have my word that I will not initiate anything about it on your blog, for or against.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff – the Jack Black post is up now.
I am only partly joking when I say that your literalism regarding the Bible would make a fundie blush.
The fact that the word “homosexual” doesn’t appear in the Bible is irrelevant. The behavior is described quite clearly. God may have done that so people wouldn’t quibble over the definition.
Christians should seek to follow the moral laws wherever they are found in the Bible. Context is the key, as always. That is, unless you think child sacrifice and bestiality are fair game since Jesus didn’t mention those specifically.
LikeLike
Jeff,
If the only examples of “unions” ( and what is marriage but a union, the whole two becoming one thing) in the Bible are “hetrosexual”, then it is reasonable to conclude that the only unions the Bible regards favorably are hetrosexual. I will grant that the Bible is not a dictionaly, and therefore doesn’t define anything in that sense. It is reasonable to deduce that the Biblical ideal for unions is one man/one woman. So, split hairs if you will, but it seems pretty clear.
I agree with Neil as to what seems to be this almost wooden literalism regarding the Bible. It really isn’t effective at anything but diverting the subject.
I’ve been to your blog, and your post seems to be more of the same.
LikeLike
Whew! Neil, you sure take on some controversial issues and generate spirited dialogue. It seems to me that you try to be fair and respectful, even when the positions you take are not popular with some people. It is clear, at least to me, that you take the Bible seriously and make every attempt to view it honestly. If that is the case, and if the points you make are truly Biblical, then any correspondent’s counter view or argument is with Scripture. Not with you. That fact may not be well received by some, but it is true. Perhaps this “storm that got stirred up” will let you know again why my approach has been and will remain devotional in nature. A friend, brother, and fellow student, ~don
LikeLike
Hello again Neil,
This web-blog has the best exegesis I’ve heard regarding the question “Is Homosexuality a Sin”?
http://www.layhands.com/IsHomosexualityASin.htm
It is thorough and objective.
LikeLike
Hi SRF – I scanned it and that looks like a good site. Thanks!
LikeLike
Neil,
Sir, you’re probably tired of this post and want to move on; I can definitely understand that. I mean, you posted this originally back in November 2007!
However, I have a few questions about some things if you wouldn’t mind, sir.
I am not writing this to offend you; that’s not my intent. I’m just stating an opinion and asking for clarity. I could be wrong, I’m not sure at all and I’m confused. By the way, I am an agnostic.
I grew up in an extremely religious (Nazarene) family. As a matter of fact my grandfather built our church and was the pastor. My grandmother played the piano, and my father led the music. I was turned off from the church (you may say unfortunately so) due to hypocrisy. I was only a kid at the time and we had two very nice and very competent Sunday school teachers. They lived together as partners and were lesbians so they were kicked out of the church. However, even at my young age (10-11) I saw a great many people in the church were also committing sins equally as grievous, yet they weren’t kicked out. I have always wondered why that is. As a matter of fact, my father and stepmother were divorced from their original spouses. There were quite a few people in the church who were divorced.
According to Matthew 19:
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Now this was Jesus himself saying this. It is not Old Testament. It’s not Paul or any other apostle saying this; it was Jesus.
Now why is it that a great many Christians seem to look the other way at things that Jesus himself said were bad, yet they vociferously condemn homosexuality? I have seen in the bible where there is some confusion and some may even say contradictions. That’s why I always used to look at what Jesus himself said, instead of looking at the Old Testament or to what Paul might have said. In other words, go directly to the source, God. Now He (Jesus) never mentioned homosexuality at all. As a matter of fact, He didn’t mention a great many things.
The problem I’m having is that the things he did mention, such as not judging others, the Golden Rule, love your neighbor, speaking out against divorce….well, in a nutshell, it seems that Christians nowadays are ignoring these things in large part and focusing on things he didn’t even actually say.
Now Christians aren’t bound by the old covenant but by the new one, from Jesus. Yes, Paul speaks out about homosexuality, but Jesus does not. And of course Christians are following Christ, not necessarily Paul, otherwise they’d be called ….I don’t know, maybe Paulians??? (Haha, sorry bad joke) It is just my opinion (and again I could be wrong) but maybe Jesus thought divorce was worse than homosexuality since he specifically mentioned the former as bad but not the latter at all. So again, why is it that so many Christians these days seem to have no problems at all with divorce but are so extremely worried about (and sometimes violently opposed to) homosexuality?
Additionally, (again, I do not mean to offend you, so if I do, I apologize in advance) this entire thread of yours seemed to not really convince me at all about the whole shellfish thing and it seemed that your overall debate against your opponents in this thread were kind of weak. It appeared to me that some of your arguments were ineffective, to say the least.
There were leaps of interpretation with the “abomination” thing. It appears to raise a lot more questions than it answers. For instance if that one little word could be interpreted differently like you said, how many other (thousands?) of words in the bible could be interpreted differently? If a great many of them could be interpreted differently, might that open up a whole can of worms as to interpreting The Bible in a multitude of ways?
Early on in your thread, you mentioned something to the effect that you were deleting some of the postings. Now I do not by any means claim to be the smartest girl in the world but when you said that, it appeared to me the entire thread was then suspect in that a less than scrupulous person could have very easily just deleted some of the harder rebuttals without even bothering to try to answer them. I’m not saying you did that but others might think that way and therefore completely discount your entire post as being untrustworthy and unreliable.
Also, you repeatedly warned people to stay on track or on message, yet you allowed quite a few ‘cheerleaders’ if you will, who had nothing really more important to say than ‘Attaboy’ and give you a pat on the back. If your intent was to have a little moral support while getting harassed by all those other people, that is quite understandable. The only problem with that is if I (again I’m not that intelligent) looked at this as a bit of ‘selective editing’ to suit your purposes, then I can imagine others much more intelligent and discerning than I would see that as a complete invalidation to your entire post.
There was a general overall tone of evasion and avoidance on your part as far as answering questions forthrightly. It gave me the overall impression of what a politician does to avoid answering difficult questions. Case in point, there were so many times you just referred the person to another blog instead of just answering the simple question yourself. There were times you just summarily dismissed some questions as not being serious or for a variety of reasons.
As far as the assumptions or interpretations of some laws that were meant just for the Israelites and some for all of us, could you point out these verses or explain how you arrived at those conclusions? You may have done so already but I’m a little dense and sometimes need things in black and white, sorry.
Sir, thank you for your time.
Jessie 🙂
LikeLike
Jessie, thanks for your comment and your tone.
First, I agree that hypocrisy is a big problem. Jesus spoke against hypocrisy in strong terms. But that is bad on the part of those who are hypocrites (all of us, really), but it doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t die for our sins and rise from the dead.
Regarding what Jesus did and didn’t say, please remember that according to the Bible, Jesus is God, so the whole Bible is his word (not just the “red letters.”). So He agrees with all of it. He himself said that He agreed with the Old Testament, and the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament as well.
You might also want to read this about what Jesus supposedly didn’t say — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/what-jesus-didnt-say/
Should Christians be more concerned about divorce? Absolutely. They should fight all false teachings in the church. It just happens that false teachers are now claiming that the Bible doesn’t say homosexual behavior is a sin, or that God changed his mind, or that the Bible is wrong in teaching that it is a sin. We are simply responding to that.
With all due respect, it took you a long time to get to that point and as I’m about to explain, I disagree with it.
I don’t see your objection. The original writings used one word in one place and a different word in another place. The words both mean something along the lines of “bad thing” and were translated into one English word, but the fact is the original words were different.
How can the definition of the original words not be relevant to the discussion?
I also explained how the context was different, in that one was an abomination to the person who couldn’t participate in religious ceremonies and another was an abomination to God.
As you noted it has been a couple years so I have no idea what the deleted comments said. I assure you they weren’t relevant to the text or I would have gladly responded to them. I apply my comment policy in a pretty liberal fashion and give people a lot of rope. You have to work hard to get banned here. Stick around and see!
If you want to discount my reliability I can’t help that, though I encourage you to consider that any newspaper may or may not publish your letters, either.
Let’s see: In this extremely long comment of yours you brought up only one specific point, and that was about the definitions. I responded to that. I did the same to anyone else who came.
That is a good question. I’ll point you back to item 3 in the original post. Read the whole chapter for the verses in question, not just the individual verses (then expand more as necessary). You’ll find that the shellfish passage is for the Israelites only, to set them apart from other people’s. But the homosexual behavior passage is part of a series of issues God is judging the Caananites for. Hope that helps. If not, let me know.
Thanks again for visiting and commenting. Hope you come back!
LikeLike
NOTE:
I reckon since you had a long essay explaining your viewpoint and have had ample opportunity to say a great many things, then you should have no heartburn with my long epic saga below. 🙂 Fair is fair, right? I hope you will include this in its entirety, but if not, no big deal. At least read it all the way through though, please.
o “First, I agree that hypocrisy is a big problem. Jesus spoke against hypocrisy in strong terms. But that is bad on the part of those who are hypocrites (all of us, really), but it doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t die for our sins and rise from the dead.”
Yes sir; I’ve been to quite a few churches, yet I’ve never found a church where they aren’t hypocritical, overly judgmental, and practice ‘selective enforcement’ of sins. I have been completely and permanently turned off from organized religion because of that.
Hypocrisy is unfortunately a big problem to the victims of that hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree? Say for instance when a governor strongly and continuously denounces homosexuality but then prances off to South America to commit adultery. And of course, there are many, many other examples of this same thing going on lately (evangelists, government officials, etc.), I’m sure you would agree with me there also. I admit I am not perfect by any means but I leave people alone if they leave me and my friends alone.
Unfortunately that’s not happening; people, good people, are denied basic rights and privileges that others take for granted: the right to marry the person they love, the right to be hired and retained in their jobs based solely on their performance, to not be harassed, threatened, assaulted, or murdered for being different. To be seen as a person regardless of race, religion, nationality, sex, sexual preference, or gender identity, etc. It seems throughout history, religion (mainly Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism) has been used countless times to deny others their rights: Native Americans, people who practice other religions, blacks, women, homosexuals, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
“Regarding what Jesus did and didn’t say, please remember that according to the Bible, Jesus is God, so the whole Bible is his word (not just the “red letters.”). So He agrees with all of it. He himself said that He agreed with the Old Testament, and the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament as well.”
I originally had a longer paragraph to say something but since you seem to be averse to long-windedness to the point of sounding demeaning, e.g. “In this extremely long comment of yours” (Yeah, I agree I’m long-winded. I’ve got a lot to say, so sue me. 🙂 ) I will just say that I think the bible is a book written by man, not God. I could give you examples and why I feel this way but again, you may think I’m taking “a long time to get to that point”. 🙂 I will, however, ask you your opinion on the new covenant and Supersessionism. Some people think this means the Old Testament laws are null and void and superseded, totally replaced by the New Testament. There have been many theological discussions on this matter for hundreds and hundreds of years (by a great many highly respected and knowledgeable religious scholars, both for and against the theory.)
“don’t see your objection. The original writings used one word in one place and a different word in another place. The words both mean something along the lines of “bad thing” and were translated into one English word, but the fact is the original words were different. “
I didn’t have an objection, just an observation: if there is that one word ‘abomination’ which can be interpreted more than one way, are there other words in the bible which also can be interpreted more than one way? I ‘m implying that I think some people interpret the bible differently to suit their purposes. Christians do it, non-Christians do it. You’re doing it, I’m doing it. We all interpret the bible, God’s supposedly perfect word, differently. If it was perfect, there would be no room for misinterpretation, I think. I’ve read the Quran also; it’s the same thing there.
Funny story as an example. I hope this is not too long winded for you. 🙂
I work in Afghanistan right now. As part of my job interviewing Afghans, I came across a young Afghan religious law (Shariah) student a couple of years ago. I asked him why a man (named Abdul Rahman) who converted from Islam to Christianity should be executed. I pointed out to him that his Quran states “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” He said “That only applies to Islam. As long as you are a Muslim and stay a Muslim, you can worship how you choose.”
That’s exactly what he said, can you believe that? hahaha That is the biggest crock of bull I’ve heard in a while. Don’t you agree? Hahahahaha
That’s an example of one of those people who make wild assumptions and incredible leaps of reasoning using convoluted logic, take things out of context, find a verse or verses which might conform to their thinking but ignore other verses, etc. just to ‘prove’ their point of view.
That’s what some Christians do, that’s what I’m doing right now……..that’s what I think you’ve been doing.
Another example:
Cultural mores or religious law?
Over here, Afghan women in most parts of the country are not allowed to work or go to school; many Mullahs say it is against Islam. The problem is, Mohammad’s first wife was highly educated and a successful businesswoman, so it is obviously NOT against Islam, it is just Pashtun Afghan cultural mores.
Marriage between two men or two women is evil, many Christians say it is against Christianity……But marriage is not ever specifically defined in the bible, examples of unions are given, but not an actual definition of marriage. As a matter of fact, until relatively recently, many common people never actually got married, they were just common law or living together, not sanctioned by the church. Maybe it was too expensive. Official marriage was for the wealthy and royals. What we see as marriage today is a relatively recent invention.
My interpretation is that maybe this Christian ban on marriage between two women or two men is more of a cultural more than a religious law. Or maybe it’s just that some laws were made in the Old Testament that are now outdated, the bans on shellfish, pork, etc. Maybe the ban on homosexuality is also outdated? What’s your opinion of that theory? Maybe back then we needed to be fruitful and multiply but now we don’t. Maybe in the NT God was condemning all types of sexual debauchery and sodomy, but since anything but the missionary position could be considered sodomy, I think it’s a safe bet a whole lot of us are in great trouble. 🙂 I’m just throwing out theories because again, I don’t know for sure.
Add to this that since I am an American citizen and Americans are by law not forced to be Christians or any other religion, then even if Christian law states Christians can’t do something, it does not mean non-Christians are bound by that same law.
Additionally, Christians can not force their religious laws on non-Christians; not in the United States, anyway. Would you like it if Muslims came over here and forced all women to wear burqas? I sure as heck wouldn’t, burqas are waaay too hot and you can’t see crap through those little slots that they have over the face. You continually bump into stuff, haha. If Christians don’t want to do something and it is against their law, then they shouldn’t do it. However, if you as a Christian try to get the US Government to make a law that is enforcing a religious law; I think that is wrong.
That is similar to the argument: A particular guy doesn’t like to read articles in the newspaper that are against his beliefs, therefore he writes to the paper telling them they should take those articles out so that NO ONE can read them. That is censorship and it is wrong. He’s forcing his beliefs and values on others. If he doesn’t want to read it then he shouldn’t read it.
You as a Christian are free to do as you please in accordance with your religious laws. I am free to do as I please in accordance with my values. So why, I ask you, are Christians trying to ban ‘Gay Marriage’? That is against everything America stands for. Since conservatives like to use the old ‘slippery slope’ argument, here is a similar argument: If the government starts enforcing religious laws, eventually they’ll make every citizen be that religion. If it was Christianity, YOU wouldn’t have a problem, but what if it was Islam? I bet you’d have a problem with that.
“Let’s see: In this extremely long comment of yours you brought up only one specific point, and that was about the definitions. I responded to that. I did the same to anyone else who came. “
Okay, more to the point, (and with all due respect) you are evasive. You sound like a used car salesman. I don’t trust used car salesmen. Is that clear enough? I was trying to be subtle but I guess direct is best. I was hoping that I could find some Christian scholar to actually give me a logical explanation for these things. All I’ve gotten so far from all the Christian ‘scholars’ I’ve asked is dissimilation, evasion, avoidance, condescension, “It all boils down to faith”, “the Lord moves in mysterious ways”, and still no answers. All I’ve really got was just excuses for what I perceive to be bigotry, hatred, and intolerance.
“That is a good question. I’ll point you back to item 3 in the original post. Read the whole chapter for the verses in question, not just the individual verses (then expand more as necessary). You’ll find that the shellfish passage is for the Israelites only, to set them apart from other people’s. But the homosexual behavior passage is part of a series of issues God is judging the Caananites for. Hope that helps. If not, let me know.”
No it doesn’t help. I’ve read and reread all of that and I think it is waaay too great a leap of interpretation on your part. I think maybe the entire Old Testament was written solely for the Israelites. There are a multitude of examples to support this theory. I’m sure you can find them.
“Should Christians be more concerned about divorce? Absolutely “
Then why aren’t they?
“They should fight all false teachings in the church. “
Then why don’t they?
Why do they focus on homosexuality and not divorce? Have you written any articles speaking out against divorce? What about “judge not, lest ye be judged”? Or “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? If so, can you provide me a link to those essays of yours? I’d sure like to read them.
“It just happens that false teachers are now claiming that the Bible doesn’t say homosexual behavior is a sin, or that God changed his mind, or that the Bible is wrong in teaching that it is a sin. We are simply responding to that.”
Yes, I see where it says lying with a man as a woman is an abomination but using your argument of interpreting things the way you want to see them; I could say that if I were a man, I could still have sex with another man just not in missionary position.
I think there are quite a few ‘false teachers’ who are teaching hate and intolerance instead of what Jesus himself actually said. I like what Jesus said; clear cut, to the point, no room for misinterpretation. There are so many contradictions in other parts of the bible (James vs Paul, Genesis vs Genesis, etc, etc); ergo, when in doubt I go straight to the source: Jesus. Maybe the OT is for Israelites, the NT is for Christians. That is how I interpret the bible (or at least one of my theories). Is my interpretation wrong just because you don’t interpret it that way? Who’s right? If I live by my interpretation and it doesn’t violate your rights; you live by your interpretation and it doesn’t violate mine, then maybe all would be hunky dory. But that ain’t happenin’ here.
There are so many Christians who focus just on homosexuality and not a whit on divorce, nada on “Cast the first stone”, nil on the “Golden Rule”, zip on “Love your neighbor”. If a policeman only enforces certain laws, he’s not doing his job and therefore he’s incompetent, hence I’d fire him.
I figure maybe I’ll selectively enforce too. Though, instead of harping on homosexuality (which in my opinion is not hurting anyone); instead of denying basic human rights to a gay person or lesbian or transgendered person and treating them with disdain, violence, etc; I think I’ll focus on judging other sins. What’s wrong with that? If Christians only speak out against their pet peeves, why can’t I?
My opinion is that laws should only be made against actions and behaviors that infringe on the rights of others (stealing, assault, murder, etc.). I don’t think homosexuals and transsexuals hurt anyone. Why are Christians so opposed to them marrying each other? Does that harm Christians in any way? Does that take something away from them? No, I think not. Why are Christians so opposed to hate crime legislation? Were they opposed to the hate crime law in 1969; how about the one in 1994? If not, why not? If not, why are they opposed to it only now? Why are Christians so opposed to equal rights for ‘gays’? Why are Christians so opposed to teaching tolerance for others? Why? Maybe many Christians think that if something is good for ‘gays’ all Christians should automatically be against it, period, no matter what it is.
Christians and Muslims have become synonymous with hate and intolerance to many people. Throughout history, Christianity and Islam have done a heck of a lot of evil. More murder, bigotry, hate, violence, and downright evil has been done in the name of God or Allah than for any other reason. THAT is the true “Taking the Lord’s name in vain” to me: doing evil in His name. Maybe that’s why so many people I know have left the church. That is why I left the church.
This is my suggestion: Christians need to heed Matthew 7:3
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
This is my point in my INCREDIBLY long winded way of writing (sorry). 🙂 This is the whole point behind the shellfish argument; this is the whole point to what a great many people have tried to point out. The bottom line can be summed up very briefly:
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S JUST ‘CERTAIN’ SINS THEY ARE CONDEMNING, TO DO SO IS HYPOCRITICAL AND WRONG.
Additinally, we are fighting against religious intolerance as we speak, against Muslims extremists who are trying to force their views and interpretations of the Quran on others. Some of these terrorists, when confronted with verses in their own Quran that say killing innocent people is evil, counter that by very loose interpretations claiming that in ‘certain instances’ it is permissible. We see the evils of intolerance everyday over here in Afghanistan. Some ‘Christians’ are doing the same thing in the States (though luckily MOST of them aren’t violent).
I ask you one simple question: Do you see the dangers of religious intolerance?
I’ve read so much hate from ‘Christians’ lately. Things like “Fags disgust me”, “They’re perverts, they should put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger.” “They should all be sent away like lepers and wiped out completely from the earth.”
Oh my God!!! Doesn’t that sound horrible to you???
There are gays, lesbians, and transsexuals who are being denied work, fired, assaulted, and murdered. As a Christian, can you not speak out against violence? Can you not speak out for tolerance? Can’t you spend a bit of your time posting something on the internet in reference to what the Bible says about violence and love and tolerance? I’m not asking you to say that homosexuality is ok. I know you say it is a sin and I respect your right to your opinion, but does that mean people should kill sinners? It is obvious (to me) that the Bible does in fact denounce homosexuality, but does that mean a homosexual is any less of a person? Does that mean that Christians should band together to deny them the right to earn an honest living, to be free from hatred and violence, or to have a family and to raise their families in peace and security?
Neil, I ask you, is it any wonder that some homosexuals are now greatly offended, hurt, mad, and defensive? They have to hear hatred spewed at them all the time. Are you surprised that some of them are fighting back? I’m not. I would too. I realize you’re just defending your views and Christianity from people who are misinterpreting the scriptures (intentionally or not), and that was the whole purpose of your post. All I ask though, is for you and other people to have empathy and compassion, put yourself in the other’s shoes for a second.
Jesus said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” No where did He say “(except the fags and people who are different from you.)”
Goodbye and thank you.
Peace.
Jessie 🙂
LikeLike
I’m quite familiar with the “I’m better than all those hypocrites in church argument.” So are you not a sinner in any way? In our brief encounter here you seem to selectively enforce the sin of hypocrisy and are very judgmental about it.
I’d focus on the big picture if I were you. If Jesus really lived, died and rose from the dead then He is your only hope of eternal salvation. When you face God and have to account for your sins, it won’t be a winning strategy to say there were some hypocrites in the churches you went to.
You also might want to keep visiting other churches, though without such a critical eye. As the saying goes, if you find a perfect church it will cease to be perfect once you step in.
You created a straw man argument by saying that oxymoronic “gay marriage” is a basic right. It isn’t. No one is stopping gays from being together and committing to each other. But the gov’t has no reason to recognize those unions. They do not meet the definition of marriage, among other things.
That is your opinion. It is not what the Bible claims and it is not what the evidence demonstrates.
I think you have it backwards. It isn’t that the word was the same in both places in Leviticus and got interpreted two ways. It was two different words in Hebrew. How can that not matter?
I also think it is perfectly reasonable to read things in context and not so literally. What is wrong with synonyms? Do you really not see the contextual differences in those passages?
I also think you over play that card. Think about it: How can I understand anything you say? Perhaps your post was all sarcasm and you really agree with me on everything.
Yes, that is pitifully ironic.
Right. Sort of like how people do the same things to deny the existence of God and rationalize abnormal homosexual behavior.
Go back to Genesis 1 and 2. It has been around for a long time.
Sex between people of the same gender is clearly defined as sin in the Bible. “Gay marriage” isn’t addressed because it is an oxymoron.
I encourage you to re-read the post. I can’t tell if you don’t understand or are ignoring things on purpose. The dietary laws were for the Israelites only for a period of time. There was great clarity about when they went away. The moral laws did not go away.
Are you suggesting that moral laws against murder and stealing are outdated, or will be outdated some day?
I see. So since Christians are against murder, stealing and gay-bashing then non-Christians shouldn’t be bound by those laws?
That’s a straw man argument. No one is forcing you to do any Christian customs or sacrements like baptism or communion.
Hmmmm . . . so if someone is pro-“gay marriage” then they shouldn’t go around criticizing people on blogs who feel differently? Why are you here forcing your beliefs on us? Seems kinda hypocritical to me. 😉
So if your values say you can beat up gays then that’s OK? Is it un-American of me to oppose that?
We aren’t trying to ban gay marriage. That is a clever twist of the facts. You are trying to change the definition of a word by pretending that it has already been changed.
You ignore the obvious facts that only heterosexual unions produce children and that gays can never provide a mother and a father to a child.
You are confusing slippery slopes with cliffs. If gov’t says that marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman then it opens it up to anything, not just “gay marriage.” Why are you so bigoted against polygamists, incestuous couples and those who want to marry animals? Seems kinda hypocritical to me.
Now you are just making things up. If you can’t argue my points, don’t leave essays like this.
Ha! I ask for specific arguments, and what do I get? One bad argument saying that the original words in question aren’t relevant. How ridiculous is that?
Then you come back with straw man arguments about how it “all boils down to faith.” Really now, where did I use that?
Then you play the liberal trick of accusing me of being a bigoted, intolerant hater. You are the lying hypocrite, Jessie. You pretend to want facts then ignore the most obvious facts: The words in question in the verses! What could be more relevant.
Then when you are exposed for having no arguments other than personal attacks, you generate more personal attacks.
Now I’m wondering if you can’t read or are just being evasive. Please read the opening and closing portions of Leviticus 18 and tell me why you think these only apply to the Israelites. God is going to wipe out these people for 400 years of despicable sins. Show me in the text where it implies that He is judging the Caananites for not obeying Israelite-specific laws that they never heard of:
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think you’re being serious here at all. You can’t see the most obvious points and are just here to call names.
Listen to Focus on the Family and Family Life Today Podcasts and see how much effort is spent on marriages and preventing divorces. You have another straw man argument there. See the Catholic Church. They aren’t too keen on divorce.
The churches who are the easiest on divorce tend to be the ones who are the most pro-gay. You should like them.
Because they love their sins.
Here’s one — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/biblical-literalists/ “The favorite verse of some Christians (and non-Christians) appears to be Matthew 7:1, where Jesus says, “Do not judge.” They use this as an excuse for any and all behavior and to deflect criticism. If they would keep reading they would see that Jesus meant not to judge hypocritically. He even says it is OK to judge once you’ve removed the plank from your eye!
Also, there are plenty of verses teaching that we need to make sound judgments, such as John 7:24 (“Stop judging on mere appearances and make a right judgment.”)
In an additional irony, they use this verse to judge those who make judgments. If anyone ever throws that verse at you out of context, then just reply by asking, “If it is wrong to judge, why are you judging me right now?””
Or read this — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/dalmatian-theology-2/
Yes, you could be a hypocrite and miss the obvious meaning of the passage.
More straw.
Thanks for visiting from stereotype land. Ironically, the liberals are the most judgmental and intolerant people I come across.
You miss the irony of your hypocrisy. You are doing that right now.
Here’s my suggestion. Christians and non-Christians should read the whole Bible, and not just pull verses out of context. They should read two more verses past what you quoted so they’d see the context: It is acceptable to judge, just not hypocritically.
Matthew 7:4-5 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
You have got to be kidding me. Do you not see the hypocritical irony in your statement? Your whole post is judging those who judge! You’ve picked a certain sin and left the church over it. That’s a great excuse, eh? You are so much better than those Christians, right? You are above them, eh?
That is a lame approach and a lousy idea for eternity.
Yes, in the sense of people being forced to convert a la Islam.
That’s odd, I subscribe to dozens of Christian blogs and know countless numbers of Christians and I’ve never heard those words once. Oh, I’m sure some people say them, but you present a straw man in implying that they are mainstream in any way.
Uh, yeah, like the love you are spewing here.
Look, you mock God and teach the opposite of what He does and then tell yourself how swell you are.
Another out of context quote.
LikeLike
That took too long. If you want to post again, please pick one thing and focus on that. Perhaps you could explain why the definition and context of the actual words that are being conflated by the gay groups isn’t relevant, or why Lev. 18 isn’t clear about addressing sins of non-Israelites.
LikeLike
Neil, your rebuttals are starting to sound downright nasty and like you’re getting angry. I noticed that before in earlier responses to others. You can be very snide, condescending and nasty sounding. Wow!
You said:
“I’m quite familiar with the “I’m better than all those hypocrites in church argument.” So are you not a sinner in any way? “
Nope, I’m a sinner and a hypocrite, I freely admit it, but then I don’t make it a habit to go posting all over the internet with blogs and telling everyone that they’re sinners and homos are evil and yadda, yadda. As a matter of fact I think I just started posting rebuttals like this about 5 days ago. It’s getting old already because I have yet to find anyone who will actually really answer questions I ask. I keep getting things like “oxymoron, straw man, and inanities such as that.
Also, I haven’t assaulted or killed a Christian because my god wants me to. I haven’t said that Christians should not have jobs, should not marry the ones they love, I haven’t tried to repeal the 1969 and 1994 hate crime laws which protect people based on …religion among other things.
Neil, it sounds to me like you are an extremist, very intense, and radically anti-gay. Why is that? It’s actually kind of scary in a way.
Please answer this one question for me, okay? Do you believe that people should beat up or kill homosexuals?
You said:
“You created a straw man argument by saying that oxymoronic “gay marriage” is a basic right.”
Neil, you may want to look up the word oxymoronic before using it in a sentence. It kind of makes you sound a bit foolish. Let me help you out here a bit, okay.
oxymoron
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.
In other words, two opposites or antonyms
The antonym of homosexual is heterosexual.
The antonym of marriage is single, or it could be divorce, depending on how you look at it.
So if I were to say that I had a homosexually heterosexual relationship; that would bean oxymoron.
You said:
I will just say that I think the bible is a book written by man, not God.
That is your opinion. It is not what the Bible claims and it is not what the evidence demonstrates.
But that’s exactly what I’m trying to tell you. That is MY opinion. I am entitled to MY opinion. (as long as I don’t break the secular laws.) You are entitled to YOUR opinion (as long as you don’t break the secular laws.)
You said:
That’s an example of one of those people who make wild assumptions and incredible leaps of reasoning using convoluted logic, take things out of context, find a verse or verses which might conform to their thinking but ignore other verses, etc. just to ‘prove’ their point of view.
Neil, I guess you didn’t get my subtle comment. I guess I have to spell it out for you. I was talking about you. And before you go and say that is what I have been doing, I admit that this is exactly what I’ve been doing. Do you not get it? Can you not grasp this simple concept that I am telling you I am twisting the bible’s words to suit my purposes just as you and everyone else does. I am telling you that I am a sinner; I am telling you that I have been and I still am a hypocrite. Do you have the honor to admit that you are also twisting the bible’s words to suit your purposes? Do you have the intestinal fortitude to admit that you are a hypocrite and maybe should focus more on love instead of hate? do you have the honor to include all of your debating opponent’s words in your post instead of what you have been doing? Do you have the integrity to actually answer the questions posed to you?
You said:
“If it is wrong to judge, why are you judging me right now?””
Hehe, sounds like the old “I know you are but what am I?” or “Same to you but more of it.” Too first grade for my taste.
Neil, that tactic must be your favorite, you’ve used it over and over.
You said:
I see. So since Christians are against murder, stealing and gay-bashing then non-Christians shouldn’t be bound by those laws?
Aha, Neil you are totally discounting secular laws: federal, state, etc. Where’ve you been for the past hundreds of years?
That’s a straw man argument. No one is forcing you to do any Christian customs or sacrements like baptism or communion.
Again with the “Straw man” thing. Dude get another defense. Answer the question. It is a simple question or are you afraid to answer it?
Christians are saying non-Christians should obey their Christian law. By saying that a man can’t marry a man, because it says so in your bible is like a Muslim telling you that you must follow the Five Pillars of Islam. You are NOT bound by Muslim law anymore than I am bound by Christian law. If I am in a State that allows Gay marriage (there are currently 6 of them, last I checked), are you going to tell me that I can’t marry the woman I love. I’m not talking about rites like baptism, etc. so please don’t try misdirection yet again.
That is similar to the argument: A particular guy doesn’t like to read articles in the newspaper that are against his beliefs, therefore he writes to the paper telling them they should take those articles out so that NO ONE can read them. That is censorship and it is wrong. He’s forcing his beliefs and values on others. If he doesn’t want to read it then he shouldn’t read it.
You said:
Hmmmm . . . so if someone is pro-”gay marriage” then they shouldn’t go around criticizing people on blogs who feel differently? Why are you here forcing your beliefs on us? Seems kinda hypocritical to me.
You can’t possibly be that incredibly dense! OMG. Hahaha. Please, Neil read the paragraph again. Dude, I’m not forcing my beliefs on you anymore than you’re forcing yours on me. We are debating difference of opinion. If I don’t want to read anymore of your convoluted logic, I will just stop, same thing goes for you. Let me try to make it very easy for you to understand, okay? If I were to tell you that you must take this blog down so that no one could read this, I would be trying to censor you. I would be a hypocrite. Refer back to when I said “them they should take those articles out so that NO ONE can read them. That is censorship and it is wrong.” Another example: I hate mushrooms, it is against my religion, so I try to get a law passed that bans anyone from eating mushrooms. That is very stupid do you not agree? Take that to another level now Neil, if you can. You do not like homosexual marriage, it is against your religion, therefore you try to ensure Congress does not ever allow gay marriage.
If I don’t like mushroom, then I won’t eat them. Similarly If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t practice it.
Now, I hope Neil, that you can understand what hypothetical means and allegory, and parables. Do you understand innuendoes, similes, metaphors? If not, I’m wasting my time with you.
So if your values say you can beat up gays then that’s OK? Is it un-American of me to oppose that?
So again, Neil, have you never heard of Federal, State, and local laws? Now I ask you Neil, is homosexuality against the law right now? Look it up. I’ll be here………………………..elevator music…………………………intermission……………………..hotdog dancing……………….
So, did you look it up? It used to be against the law, now is it? Where is it legal and where is it not? I seriously doubt you’ll answer that anyway. Oh well.
Hopefully, Neil you get humor, but I doubt you do. So I suspect much of what I’m writing will get trashed as usual. That is why I don’t trust you and I think you are slimy. (no offense of course, hehe) I figure you attack me I attack you. Oh by the way, in case you haven’t noticed it yet, my Golden Rule is: Do unto others what they do unto you. Haha. You show hypocrisy, I mirror that. You twist verses, I do the same. Does that make this whole thing clearer or not?
We aren’t trying to ban gay marriage. That is a clever twist of the facts. You are trying to change the definition of a word by pretending that it has already been changed.
Actually it did change….remember California? It’s a large state in the west. Remember that little ol proposition they had a while back? Take a trip down memory lane if you will.
You ignore the obvious facts that only heterosexual unions produce children and that gays can never provide a mother and a father to a child.
So I am happily married (yes hetero) but no kids, we don’t want any and we can’t have any anyway. Does that mean we are living in sin? Or does that mean that we don’t have a real marriage? Hmmmmm? So why am I even married you ask? Because we love each other. Can two men or two women not love each other the same way? In my opinion I think they can. Who am I to deny their happiness. Plus, marriage has a great many social benefits, national, state, etc. meaning tax benefits, inheritance, etc, etc. The list is extremely long. There are actually practical reason for getting married…imagine that!!! Gasp!!!
You are confusing slippery slopes with cliffs. If gov’t says that marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman then it opens it up to anything, not just “gay marriage.” Why are you so bigoted against polygamists,
Well the bible did have numerous polygamists, you tell me.
incestuous couples
In Genesis, who did Adam and Eve’s kids marry? Their sisters?????? I’ve always wondered about that.
and those who want to marry animals?
Neil if you want to marry your horse or your dog, I am all for it, if it makes you happy. It doesn’t take any money out of my pocket and it doesn’t bruise me or hurt my feelings. It has no effect on me so I really don’t care what you have sex with. Have fun.
I was trying to be subtle but I guess direct is best. I was hoping that I could find some Christian scholar to actually give me a logical explanation for these things. All I’ve gotten so far from all the Christian ‘scholars’ I’ve asked is dissimilation, evasion, avoidance, condescension, “It all boils down to faith”, “the Lord moves in mysterious ways”, and still no answers. All I’ve really got was just excuses for what I perceive to be bigotry, hatred, and intolerance.
Ha! I ask for specific arguments, and what do I get? One bad argument saying that the original words in question aren’t relevant. How ridiculous is that?
Then you come back with straw man arguments about how it “all boils down to faith.” Really now, where did I use that?
Actually you didn’t. I never said you did. Hence the “Christian ‘scholars’”. You notice the ‘s’ at the end of scholars? That means I have talked to more than one. Please, Neil, focus, read and try to comprehend words and sentences. Try not to jump to conclusions. Maybe that is the whole problem there!!! I just had an epiphany!!! I bet that’s what you’ve done with the bible, you failed to read it all the way through and you missed one letter or one word, or you missed similes or metaphors. You have built your whole case on a “Straw house” I guess so that your Straw man” that you keep talking about can have a place to live. Haha.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think you’re being serious here at all. You can’t see the most obvious points and are just here to call names.
Actually you are getting very warm. I think your assumptions, your condescension, your extremely loose interpretations of the bible, your convoluted logic, and your closed mindedness to any possibility but your own, and you r overall lack of debating skills is a joke. That is why I am really having fun.
“Should Christians be more concerned about divorce? Absolutely “
Then why aren’t they?
Listen to Focus on the Family
OMG, aren’t they considered a hate group?
You have another straw man argument there. See the Catholic Church. They aren’t too keen on divorce.
So you’re a Catholic now? So do you believe in Supersessionism? I asked you that before but …yep, you failed to answer it.
The churches who are the easiest on divorce tend to be the ones who are the most pro-gay. You should like them.
Nope, I rule out all organized religion. I think there all bad.
“They should fight all false teachings in the church. “
Then why don’t they?
Because they love their sins.
So which sins do you love, Neil?
Here’s one — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/biblical-literalists/ “The favorite verse of some Christians (and non-Christians) appears to be Matthew 7:1, where Jesus says, “Do not judge.” They use this as an excuse for any and all behavior and to deflect criticism. If they would keep reading they would see that Jesus meant not to judge hypocritically. He even says it is OK to judge once you’ve removed the plank from your eye!
Cool, Neil. I’m proud of you. Of course, I’m confused, are you saying you’ve removed the plank from your eye? I take that to mean that you are now sinless. Wow. I thought God is the only one who is without sin. Are you trying to say that you are…..? naaaah.
In an additional irony, they use this verse to judge those who make judgments. If anyone ever throws that verse at you out of context, then just reply by asking, “If it is wrong to judge, why are you judging me right now?””
So there is the famous “Same to you but more of it.” defense. woooow
Yes, you could be a hypocrite and miss the obvious meaning of the passage.
I guess you missed that one too, Neil. I was trying to point out (I guess it was too subtle for you again, sorry) that I was twisting the verse to suit my purposes just as you have done. Do you understand the mirror concept? Maybe not.
I think there are quite a few ‘false teachers’ who are teaching hate and intolerance instead of what Jesus himself actually said. I like what Jesus said; clear cut, to the point, no room for misinterpretation. There are so many contradictions in other parts of the bible (James vs Paul, Genesis vs Genesis, etc, etc); ergo, when in doubt I go straight to the source: Jesus. Maybe the OT is for Israelites, the NT is for Christians. That is how I interpret the bible (or at least one of my theories). Is my interpretation wrong just because you don’t interpret it that way? Who’s right? If I live by my interpretation and it doesn’t violate your rights; you live by your interpretation and it doesn’t violate mine, then maybe all would be hunky dory. But that ain’t happenin’ here.
More straw.
So you’re saying that what Jesus said is just Straw???? Are you saying that Jesus’ actual words are not important???? Well, I have GOT to disagree with you there Neal. (hint, hint: mirror again)
There are so many Christians who focus just on homosexuality and not a whit on divorce, nada on “Cast the first stone”, nil on the “Golden Rule”, zip on “Love your neighbor”. If a policeman only enforces certain laws, he’s not doing his job and therefore he’s incompetent, hence I’d fire him.
Thanks for visiting from stereotype land. Ironically, the liberals are the most judgmental and intolerant people I come across.
Haha. I’ve been an extremely straight and by the book conservative for a great many years. In all that time, I’ve had quite a few friends who were liberal and not one of them judged me. I did however have quite few conservative friends who did judge me. so no, I’ve got to say that maybe in YOUR experience liberal are judgmental but in my experience they are not. So again, what may be true for you may not be true for me. Do you understand that subtlety?
I figure maybe I’ll selectively enforce too. Though, instead of harping on homosexuality (which in my opinion is not hurting anyone); instead of denying basic human rights to a gay person or lesbian or transgendered person and treating them with disdain, violence, etc; I think I’ll focus on judging other sins. What’s wrong with that? If Christians only speak out against their pet peeves, why can’t I?
You miss the irony of your hypocrisy. You are doing that right now.
Neil, again, you’re being dense here. Please wake up. I said “I figure maybe I’ll selectively enforce too” So yes, I say I am doing something and you leap at me accusing me of something I already admitted I’m doing. Dude, are you even paying attention?
This is my suggestion: Christians need to heed Matthew 7:3
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Here’s my suggestion. Christians and non-Christians should read the whole Bible, and not just pull verses out of context. They should read two more verses past what you quoted so they’d see the context: It is acceptable to judge, just not hypocritically.
Matthew 7:4-5 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
So Neil, are you saying you’ve taken the log out of your eye? Are you sinless? You will never sin again???? Again, WoW.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S JUST ‘CERTAIN’ SINS THEY ARE CONDEMNING, TO DO SO IS HYPOCRITICAL AND WRONG.
You have got to be kidding me. Do you not see the hypocritical irony in your statement? Your whole post is judging those who judge!
Exactly!!!! You finally got it! Gooood job, Neil!
I’ve been “Doing to others, what they do to me.” You judge me, I judge you right back in defense. Of course, I take it a step further, someone judges my friends, I judge them. It’s self-defense and defense of others.
You’ve picked a certain sin and left the church over it. That’s a great excuse, eh? You are so much better than those Christians, right? You are above them, eh?
I left the church because I couldn’t stand the hatred anymore. And my family and I are tons happier. Last time I heard about that church, the same stuff was going on and people were miserable. It wasn’t just my opinion either. I heard from quite a few others who left that church and others like it about their experiences with hypocrisy in the church.
And nope, I ain’t above ‘em. I’ve sinned like you wouldn’t believe. Ooh boy, have I sinned. The difference is this:
I have not opened my mouth one bit against all this until the past week. For over 30 years now, I have seen this happening. I’ve seen and heard ‘Christians’ condemning others and they turn right around and do the same thing. What about the recent governor, have you forgotten him? He was so loud in his opposition to gays. Look what he did. Went down to South America and had a wild time.
I have stood silently by while supposed good people bashed supposed bad people. I heard supposed Christians bashing black people, Asians, Muslims (not all Muslims are bad), gays, on and on. Anyone different from them. Christians have been the most intolerant and bigoted people I have ever seen…second only to Muslim extremists. Now I am tired of it and I’m fighting back. I’m over here in Afghanistan trying to do a tiny bit to help fight against one religion’s (Militant Islam) intolerance only to have another religion (‘Militant’ Christianity) being full of hate back home. By the way, I don’t think all Christians are hypocrites either. When I get into a church though…ugh! Something about strength in numbers or the mob mentality or pack of dogs syndrome, I don’t know.
“That is a lame approach and a lousy idea for eternity.”
I don’t believe in your definition of religion though Neil so I have my own idea for eternity that might be different from yours. Can you understand that?
I ask you one simple question: Do you see the dangers of religious intolerance?
“Yes, in the sense of people being forced to convert a la Islam.”
OMG, Neil!! Do you deny that there is Christian intolerance?
Do you deny there are any Christian extremists?
You are so blind dude.
I’ve read so much hate from ‘Christians’ lately. Things like “Fags disgust me”, “They’re perverts, they should put a gun to their heads and pull the trigger.” “They should all be sent away like lepers and wiped out completely from the earth.”
Oh my God!!! Doesn’t that sound horrible to you???
That’s odd, I subscribe to dozens of Christian blogs and know countless numbers of Christians and I’ve never heard those words once. Oh, I’m sure some people say them, but you present a straw man in implying that they are mainstream in any way.
Then get out from behind your little ‘blog world’ little Neil. Go out into the world and see the violence. See the hate. Stop sitting behind your computer all the time and mingle with people. You will definitely see hate. You’ll definitely see violence. Don’t just subscribe to your little tiny world, open up your horizons and see the world for what it is, not what you want it to be Neil. Quit being in denial. Christians have done terrible damage in the name of God for hundreds of years as have Muslims. Or are you in denial about history as well?
And how is it a ‘straw man’ when a whacko kills a homosexual because fags are evil? Sounds like that ‘straw man’ of yours is pretty dangerous, Neil.
Neil, I ask you, is it any wonder that some homosexuals are now greatly offended, hurt, mad, and defensive? They have to hear hatred spewed at them all the time.
Uh, yeah, like the love you are spewing here.
Again, I believe in an eye for an eye. Someone hates on me, I ain’t just going to lie down and take it. I’m hating right back at ‘em. I’m fighting! Hate for hate, judgment for judgment, And yep, I know, it is against YOUR bible. By the way, I don’t have a bible, I am an agnostic, like I admitted to within the first few lines of my original post.
“Look, you mock God…..”
Nope, just you.
“…and teach the opposite of what He does and then tell yourself how swell you are.
Nope, I already admitted that I sin, that I’m a hypocrite, and that I don’t have all the answers. Look up the definition to Agnostic, Neil.
Jesus said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” No where did He say “(except the fags and people who are different from you.)”
Another out of context quote.
Oh, Neil, Neil, Neil. Are you honestly saying that the Golden Rule….THE Golden Rule….is ‘taken out of context’????? You are the silliest most foolish person I have come across in …..well since that Muslim Shariah student I told you about. You sound exactly like him.
Neil, I dare you to read about the violence that happens to gays and transsexuals.
I dare you to get off your butt and out from your little ‘blogworld’ you’ve created for yourself. Go out and see what I’m talking about. Open up your eyes. Quit being such an idiot. I now realize why those others haven’t responded back to you in quite a while. They gave up trying to debate with a fool.
Do you even care about the fact that people (whether they’re gay or not shouldn’t matter) are assaulted and killed just because they’re different? No, I think you are too wrapped up in your own little hate and your own little ‘Blogworld’ to give a damn about anyone but yourself and your little pitiful blogs you have there. You can control the entire argument there can’t you? You can (and do) edit out some things people say, then answer only the things you feel comfortable answering.
Neil, you are welcome to stay in your own little world of blogs and denials. I don’t think I want to visit with you again, though. It smells of moldy pizza crusts, dirty socks, an unwashed, sweaty, smelly body, the sickly sweet smell of stale semen on the sheets, and looks like a room of darkness, despair, hatred, and bigotry.
I know there is no way in hell you’re going to post all of the above. Of course, you’ll probably pick and choose a few items so that you will yet again look like you have ‘prevailed over evil’ in your own little make believe ‘blog world’. So since it will be utterly useless for me to win in your delusional world, I am not going to come back even to read your pathetic non-response. It’s like arguing with a politician turned used car salesmen who has an IQ of 90 and never made it out of puberty.
Maybe someday you will get over this irrational hatred of all things different and just let people be themselves without you butting in to everyone else’s’ blogs with your hate and BS.
I pity you, Neil.
LikeLike
TL;DR
Did see the last line “Maybe someday you will get over this irrational hatred of all things different and just let people be themselves without you butting in to everyone else’s’ blogs with your hate and BS.”
Aren’t you the one who came here?
Seems the irrational one, sir, is you.
LikeLike
Um, shouldn’t that be “madam”?
By the way, if anyone wants a good tutorial on blockquoting, italics, bold, embedding links etc, this is a good one.
Sorry to send you to Dawkins’ site, but it is a good resource for learning these HTML thingies.
Also, I only learnt this recently myself so I’m showing off.
LikeLike
Wow. I guess this means that today, I’ll be “the nice one”, or even “the reasonable one”
LikeLike
LOL. Ryan, I wouldn’t insult you by saying you were in the same category as Jessie. “Liberal” isn’t a big enough word to encompass you both. There is Liberal and Conservative then off the chart nuttiness on both ends that need completely different words (e.g., Jessie, Fred Phelps, etc.).
LikeLike
Jessie, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You commit one logical fallacy after another and ignore the topic at hand.
Re-read your own comments. It is just one judgment after another.
“Also, I haven’t assaulted or killed a Christian because my god wants me to.”
There’s another straw man. You imply that I’ve done that to others. Stop with the silliness or don’t comment here. Yes, I use the term “straw man” with you a lot. I’d also say you were bad at math if you kept saying 2+2=5. You are the poster child for bigoted, stereotypical straw man arguments.
“Please answer this one question for me, okay? Do you believe that people should beat up or kill homosexuals?”
No, they should not.
Re. oxymoron: The definition of marriage is a union of a man and a woman. The definition of same-sex marriage would then be: The same sex union of a man and a woman.
That’s an oxymoron.
“Do you have the honor to admit that you are also twisting the bible’s words to suit your purposes?”
That question is akin to, “Have you stopped beating your wife.” How about if you demonstrate where I’ve twisted the words of the Bible. You keep changing the subject with personal attacks and never get around to what you are claiming.
“Do you have the intestinal fortitude to admit that you are a hypocrite and maybe should focus more on love instead of hate?”
Ha. Have you stopped beating gays? Gee, asking illogical questions is fun, isn’t it? Of course, it proves nothing.
“Neil, that tactic must be your favorite, you’ve used it over and over.”
Yes, my tactic of pointing out how hypocritical you are for judging me for judging. Did you notice that you didn’t respond to my argument and just changed the subject? If judging is always wrong, why do you come here, uninvited, and never go three sentences without passing judgment?
“Aha, Neil you are totally discounting secular laws: federal, state, etc. Where’ve you been for the past hundreds of years?”
That’s interesting. You want to use that excuse to ignore my point about how you only object to my religious views when they disagree with your secular views. How fair of you. Yet using your logic, you’d oppose “same sex marriage” because the laws don’t define marriage as such. Where have you been the last few thousand years?
“Again with the “Straw man” thing. Dude get another defense. Answer the question.”
Dude, stop committing the same logical fallacy of projecting things onto people.
“Christians are saying non-Christians should obey their Christian law.”
The Christian laws against murder, theft, perjury, etc.?
“By saying that a man can’t marry a man, because it says so in your bible is like a Muslim telling you that you must follow the Five Pillars of Islam. ”
Another straw man argument. Seriously, you can’t stop it, can you? You keep putting words in my mouth that I never said. I use secular reasoning to oppose gay marriage when speaking with pagans. This post is for people who are disagreeing with my Biblical interpretation. Since you don’t care what the Bible says at all then why are you here?
“That is similar to the argument: A particular guy doesn’t like to read articles in the newspaper that are against his beliefs, therefore he writes to the paper telling them they should take those articles out so that NO ONE can read them. That is censorship and it is wrong. He’s forcing his beliefs and values on others. If he doesn’t want to read it then he shouldn’t read it.”
Seems to me you are trying to force your beliefs on all those who oppose changing the definition of marriage.
“Dude, I’m not forcing my beliefs on you anymore than you’re forcing yours on me.”
That’s odd, you just accused me of censorship and forcing my beliefs.
“If I don’t like mushroom, then I won’t eat them. Similarly If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t practice it.”
Yeah, and if you don’t like slaves then don’t have one, but don’t object to others having them. Pretty stupid, eh?
Once again you are making up arguments to ignore the fact that the gov’t has no need to recognize same sex unions. No one is stopping them from marrying in some apostate church or from living together.
“That is why I don’t trust you and I think you are slimy. (no offense of course, hehe)”
Typical passive aggressive liberal. Why not just go away?
“You show hypocrisy, I mirror that. You twist verses, I do the same.”
The only thing is that you haven’t ever demonstrated hypocrisy or verse twisting on my part. Great excuse for you to be a hypocrite though, right?
“Actually it did change….remember California? It’s a large state in the west. Remember that little ol proposition they had a while back? Take a trip down memory lane if you will.”
Right, and who changed that? The people? No, judges.
“So I am happily married (yes hetero) but no kids, we don’t want any and we can’t have any anyway. Does that mean we are living in sin? Or does that mean that we don’t have a real marriage? Hmmmmm? So why am I even married you ask? Because we love each other. Can two men or two women not love each other the same way? ”
More fake arguments. I never said gays couldn’t love each other. I said the Bible teaches that it is a sin for them to have sex. And I’m right, and you have nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
I offered secular arguments as to why gov’t shouldn’t recognize the unions, and you can’t rebut that. You tried the “we don’t have kids” argument, but my claim wasn’t that all married couples must have kids, was it? My claim was that heterosexual unions produce children and gay couples can never provide a mother and a father.
Instead of responding to my claims you made up claims and attributed them to me. More straw.
“Who am I to deny their happiness.”
More straw. Who said I want to deny their happiness? I am just voting against gov’t recognition of their unions. If the gov’t didn’t recognize my marriage it wouldn’t make me unhappy.
“I was trying to be subtle but I guess direct is best. I was hoping that I could find some Christian scholar to actually give me a logical explanation for these things.”
Yeah, I can tell you are in a sincere search for the truth. [end sarcasm]
“Cool, Neil. I’m proud of you. Of course, I’m confused, are you saying you’ve removed the plank from your eye? I take that to mean that you are now sinless. Wow. ”
More straw. I never claimed to be sinless, but then again that isn’t what the passage says, does it? If I said, “Don’t have homosexual sex” but did so, that would be hypocritical.
When you say, “Don’t judge,” then you are being hypocritical.
“I left the church because I couldn’t stand the hatred anymore. And my family and I are tons happier.”
Yeah, I can really feel the love from you.
“I don’t believe in your definition of religion though Neil so I have my own idea for eternity that might be different from yours. Can you understand that?”
Yes. I also understand that if your made-up idea doesn’t conform to reality then it will do you no good.
“Then get out from behind your little ‘blog world’ little Neil. Go out into the world and see the violence. See the hate. Stop sitting behind your computer all the time and mingle with people. You will definitely see hate.”
Oh, I see lots of hate, right now it is coming from you.
Oh, and more straw: I do get out into the world.
Wow, you are a piece of work. I know there are a lot of bizarre liberals out there but you are beyond any stereotype.
I have a post coming up dedicate to you:
LikeLike
Any rational argument should begin with what is known for certain, and then proceed. But it is absolutely certain that there is no plausible evidence for the existence of supernatural beings, now or in the past. Thus arguments based on the “word of god” are void of any meaning.
LikeLike
Uh, sure, we don’t have any plausible evidence other than the teleological, cosmological, moral, logical, historical, etc. categories. “Absolutely certain?” Heh.
And once again, a reader ignored the point of the post. Go ahead and try to refute it if you like, but don’t make silly claims like that and expect to be taken seriously here.
LikeLike
All of those arguments are quite weak. And they all are far far weaker than the evidence we have that shows the Bible is incorrect.
LikeLike
Don’t be so silly. Pick an argument and tell me why it it weak.
Or just quit embarrassing yourself and stop making comments like that.
LikeLike
Well, I’ll give you a couple. The teleological argument says basically that complexity implies design, which is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Since you can’t understand how something could become complex through natural processes, you claim that your hypothesis must be true.
The cosmological argument is just an endless loop. You can’t claim that the universe must have had a first cause without admitting that God must have had a first cause. Christians get around this by claiming that God gets his own version of space and time, and the only evidence anyone has for that is that some guys who believe in God dreamed it up.
And I don’t feel the slightest bit embarrassed
LikeLike
1. Stay on this topic or don’t comment again.
2. Design is strong evidence for a designer. Or do you seriously think there is the remotest chance that this comment just happened to appear without anyone writing it? (that’s rhetorical – back to the topic or don’t comment).
3. Gee, we never considered that response to the First Cause argument. Oh, wait, countless people have and have pre-responded to your straw man. We don’t “get around” your argument, our argument is far more logical than your “quantum physics of the gaps” fantasy.
LikeLike
I. “Any rational argument should begin with what is known for certain, and then proceed.”
II. Reason can not be known for certain.
III. By your own definition, rational arguments can never begin
I’d deal with the rest of your post too, but when the first sentence is so bad, I tend to just stop there.
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
LikeLike
LCB, your “proofs” are getting more suspect. Are you saying that when making an argument, we don’t begin with what we know for sure? His statement was dead on.
LikeLike
You throw around this accusations of “this argument is weak” “that argument is weak” but you always fail to mention *why*.
I have demonstrated, using a clear logical syllogism, that his starting statement was in error, which invalidates the conclusions drawn from it.
Just because you *like* his conclusions doesn’t mean they are true. It means you simply like wrong conclusions.
If you were being intellectual honest (which you stopped being when you started calling for certain babies to be killed based on your subjective judgments and solidified when you demanded that I stop using logic because you didn’t like the conclusions) you would admit that the person made a terrible argument as an excuse to try and kick faith out of the public square.
His argument is so terrible that the first sentence doesn’t hold up to the most basic levels of intellectual scrutiny.
If you started agreeing with arguments because they were good and true, and not because you like the conclusion they give, you would find your thinking much more clear.
LikeLike
I have told you on many occasions that you have put forth good arguments. I have praised much of your reasoning, even though I have disagreed with it. I have been more than far with you. All do can do is call me dishonest because I disagree with you?
Is it your position that one can use things that are not known for sure as parts of a proof? That’s what you are saying, and you’re wrong.
I’m far more open-minded than you think. But one must not be so open-minded that one’s brain falls out.
LikeLike
“Is it your position that one can use things that are not known for sure as parts of a proof? That’s what you are saying, and you’re wrong.”
Prove, using reason alone, the existence of reason.
Q.E.D.
LikeLike
I have no idea if you’re being genuine, or just trying to make me look stupid. Could you please just say what you want to say, instead of asking me more questions?
The fact that one uses reason alone can prove that it exists. That means that reason can be known for certain.
LikeLike
The fact that one believes in God alone can prove that He exists.
Doesn’t work out so much when you substitute one thing that you plce faith in (reason) with something else that someone else places faith in (God).
The hard truth is that believing in the functioning of reason reqires an act of faith. Pure reason collapses in the face of any level of skepticism, and becomes just a war of your reason vs. other’s reason
LikeLike
I. “Any rational argument should begin with what is known for certain, and then proceed.”
II. Reason can not be known for certain.
III. By your own definition, rational arguments can never begin.
I disagree with the original premise; but since your own argument is based on reason, and therefore you’ve implicitly accepted that reason is a reliable tool, why should we accept your premise II?
LikeLike
Reason being a reliable tool is different from knowing for certain that reason exists and works.
If the requirement is knowing something for certain, it is almost impossible for us to have any rational argument since almost nothing is known for certain (such as your own existence– go ahead, prove you exist. I’m waiting.)
LikeLike
Since I’m fundamentally sceptical, I don’t really feel the need to prove that I exist …
LikeLike
If one can not know for certain that one exists, and reasonable argument should proceed from what we know for certain… well, I think you should obviously join me in recognizing that my debunking of the statement above was correct.
LikeLike
As I said, I disagree with the original premise, but you’re missing my point. If reason cannot be known for certain, then your own argument is self-defeating, since it relies on reason – and thus we have no basis on which to accept your premise II.
LikeLike
Merkur,
I’m not missing your original point, I’m demonstrating using reason that the original premise is incorrect. If the requirement is knowing things for certain, then we can’t even use reason. Clearly the requirement is something other than certitude.
My use of reason to demonstrate this is acceptable b/c the original poster clearly has the assumption that reason falls under this, and so I am using his own criteria so the argument is internally consistent.
LikeLike
If we accept your premise that reason cannot be known for certain, then the conclusions from any argument based on reason cannot be known for certain. Since your argument is based on reason, we cannot know if your conclusion – that rational arguments may not begin – is certain.
Therefore your argument is in fact self-defeating, since you have used reason to prove that reason cannot be used. If you want to show that the original premise was wrong, you’ll need to use a different argument, I think.
LikeLike
Let’s slow down.
“If we accept your premise that reason cannot be known for certain”
Can reason be known for certain? No, it can not. This isn’t a premise, this is actually a self-evident truth (they are very rare, but they do exist. This is, infact, the foundational self-evident truth). To prove reason one must use reason. But that begs the questions of reason’s existence. Thus reason can not be proven. We are forced to accept reason’s existence on faith
“then the conclusions from any argument based on reason cannot be known for certain”
That is correct. That is why we must accept, as a matter of faith, that reason works, functions, and is real. This is also why we would say the role of reason is to recognize what is true, as opposed to deciding what is true.
“Since your argument is based on reason, we cannot know if your conclusion – that rational arguments may not begin – is certain.”
This is where you are misunderstanding me. I am working within the framework provided by the original poster, and showing that the provided framework is self contradictory. Why is it self-contradictory? Because it goes against reason by assuming reason is known for certain. To make that point I am assuming the existence of reason, since the original poster is also doing that.
“Therefore your argument is in fact self-defeating, since you have used reason to prove that reason cannot be used.”
Firstly, that is not correct. What I have done is demonstrate the logical inconsistency of a position that I do not hold. You are mistaking my showing the self-contradiction of someone else’s position as an articulation of my own position.
Secondly, If you deem my argument as self defeating, it still ends up being a disproving of the statement in question.
“If you want to show that the original premise was wrong, you’ll need to use a different argument, I think.”
You are incorrect, since (by your own logic) even if my argument is incorrect it disproves the statement in question is false.
Consider this: You have made an act of faith in, you believe in, something you can not prove to be true.
Is this different from religious faith in type, or is it different in kind? I would argue it is different only in kind. You have religious faith, it’s just in something that isn’t God.
LikeLike
Now this starts to make more sense. I have to step out, but will respond as soon as I can.
LikeLike
No worries, looking forward to your reply.
Recall this: we can’t prove anything 100%, there is always that micro-slim chance that this entire world is an illusion, that we are merely brains in a jar of a mad scientist (or “the matrix”), etc. There comes a point where we have to accept certain things on a sort of faith… like that reason works, that we do infact exist, that the world around us is more-or-less real (though there are obvious debates about what type of reality we live in, etc).
The scientific method faces the same problems. The scientific method clearly can’t be the ‘thing’ that decides what is true or false, since the scientific method 1) Can’t prove itself 2) Can’t overcome the skepticism of the ‘matrix’ argument, etc.
LikeLike
LCB, I do get what you are saying here, but I don’t view the acceptance of certain unproven things as “faith”. I don’t take it on “faith” that I exist, because that would require that I believe we exist. I don’t have any basis to believe that other than my own consciousness, which does exist, since even an illusion would require a mind to be fooled. If I don’t exist, then all arguments I make are moot anyway, since I did not actually make them.
I accept that reason works because to prove, or even consider that it does not work would also require reason. The scientific method is the same thing – it’s just a standard application of reason.
LikeLike
“Firstly, that is not correct. What I have done is demonstrate the logical inconsistency of a position that I do not hold.”
You haven’t demonstrated the self-contradiction of their position (premise 1) because nowhere did they assert premise 2. You introduced premise 2 into the argument, and premise 2 does not form part of their premise 1.
“Secondly, If you deem my argument as self defeating, it still ends up being a disproving of the statement in question.”
No, because premise 2 was not part of their original statement, so they have no reason to accept your conclusion.
“Consider this: You have made an act of faith in, you believe in, something you can not prove to be true.”
If you do not believe that anything can be proven true, then absolutely everything is an act of faith. If that’s your definition of faith – and it isn’t my definition of faith – then the word is meaningless.
“Is this different from religious faith in type, or is it different in kind? I would argue it is different only in kind. You have religious faith, it’s just in something that isn’t God.”
I may have faith – it depends how you define faith – but I clearly don’t have religious faith, since no religion is involved.
LikeLike
“Is this different from religious faith in type, or is it different in kind? I would argue it is different only in kind. You have religious faith, it’s just in something that isn’t God.”
I’m not sure what you mean by different in type vs in kind – there doesn’t seem to be an obvious distinction. Under this argument, religious faith is a third-order faith, because it relies on the individual already believing things such as (first) their own existence and (second) the reliability of their senses, the consistency of the universe and so on. So I would argue that it is different to those first- and second-order beliefs.
LikeLike
“there doesn’t seem to be an obvious distinction.”
The difference between type and kind is one of the most critical differences made in intellectual debates.
I highly advise you to research it. I’m not trying to be rude, but again, you’re using nice prose that doesn’t really have a lot of content at all.
LikeLike
A cursory search via Google leads to very little material on the distinction between kind and type – which seems strange considering that it is so critical – so perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to a reference through which I can educate myself?
I should also point out that just because I am unaware of a particular concept does not mean that my prose “doesn’t really have a lot of content”. Throwing this accusation at me is an interesting dodge, particularly since you
fail to identify exactly why my questions lack “content”.
I’m fairly confident that my comments do not in fact lack “content”. That being the case, perhaps you could respond to the actual points that I’ve made above? You are free not to respond, of course, and I’m happy for the record to reflect your disinclination to do so.
LikeLike
Premise II. is a self evident truth, it is infact the foundational self-evident truth.
Reason can not be known for certain (certain meaning with certitude, 100%, etc), because to prove reason you must use reason, which would be begging the question, yet by the definition of the terms the statement is true. It’s like saying “A part is always lesser than the whole, and a whole is always greater than the part” the mere definition of the terms makes the statement true, and the opposite is always and everywhere false and a contradiction in terms.
You’re now at the point of trying to play word games because you are in over your head. Instead of trying to play word games to justify a position that can’t hold, I would advise you to consider changing your position since it’s been clearly demonstrated to be wrong.
I highly suggest reading these two books:
10 Philosopher Mistakes, by Mortimer Adler
and
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl
Both books are easy to read and understand (Adler will take a bit of time to get into, his massively distributed essay “How to Read a Book” my be a helpful foundation).
LikeLike
I fail to see where I am playing “word games”. Perhaps you could give me an example.
“Premise II is a self evident truth, it is infact the foundational self-evident truth.”
Firstly, I would dispute that this is the “foundational self-evident truth”. I would assume that one must do a little cogito ergo sum before one addresses the question of whether reason is reliable.
Secondly, you can’t just insert what you consider to be a self-evident truth into somebody else’s argument. It’s bad form, and it creates a straw man; you may believe your premise II is a self-evident truth but your respondent may not share that belief. For example, I agree with your premise II, but I disagree with your assertion that it is a self-evident truth, and therefore I object to you automatically attributing it to others – including me, despite the fact that I agree with it.
“Reason can not be known for certain (certain meaning with certitude, 100%, etc), because to prove reason you must use reason, which would be begging the question, yet by the definition of the terms the statement is true.”
Again, I must dispute this. You are claiming that the statement “reason cannot be known for certain” is true by definition, but there is nothing in the definitions of the words in that statement that makes it self-evidently true. One can demonstrate that the logical problem of induction renders inductive reasoning uncertain; but that is not an instance of self-evident truth, and inductive reasoning is not the sum of reason (there’s deductive reasoning, for one), and reason is not the only path to knowledge (I might be an idealist and hold that the concept of reason can be known with certainty without having to use the tool of reason).
LikeLike
My apologies – I posted my response while you were posting your second response.
LikeLike
No worries.
LikeLike
LCB
What are you smoking?
Reason cannot be proven because it would require reason to do so. ?!?
So it is perfectly reasonable I guess to believe the world is flat, the Sun revolves around the earth, humans can breath water (we just don’t know how), and you are an idiot, because neither you nor anyone else can reasonably prove otherwise.
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
LikeLike
Mark – LCB is at least partially correct when he says that reason cannot be known for certain without using reason. As I said above, the statement is poorly phrased (not entirely his fault – the original comment was also poorly phrased), but the problem of induction is a common and valid philosophical complaint.
LikeLike
“Reason cannot be proven because it would require reason to do so”
That statement is true. Prove it false.
You are attempting to disprove it by… citing situations that involve using reason? How does that prove reason without using reason?
All you’re doing is saying “There are facts about things unrelated to this, therefore I am right.”
Which is about as close to as a concession speech as you can get.
LikeLike
Mark, please take a little more time to follow what LCB has said. He is clearly not an idiot and you do him and yourself and yourself a disservice by making such comments.
LikeLike
I’m trying to point out that this conversation has gotten very rediculous.
You might as well say that the color blue cannot be proven to exist because it requires the color blue to exist.
While it may be a true statement, we can still agree that blue (reason) exists. Otherwise, how could we be having this conversation?
Where oh where has common sense gone?
LikeLike
You’re missing the point. I believe LCB was just demonstrating that some things have to be assumed or you end up with a circular reference (e.g., not being able to use reason to prove reason exists). Your examples don’t fall into that category.
LikeLike
Neil, although LCB has obviously read a lot of philosophy, I don’t think anyone here wants to hash out the existence of something we all agree exists. i have made many points here only to be asked to prove the existence of morals/rights/reason/logic. It seems it’s just to avoid the more detailed question.
Of course some things need to be assumed, but the only things we’re assuming here are things that are not disputed by anyone, and all all but self evident.
LikeLike
Ryan,
This little debate started over someone asserting that the only things we should start arguments with are those which are known for certain, and me pointing out that we really don’t know anything at all for certain, so that requirement can’t possibly be true.
Further, you write, “It seems it’s just to avoid the more detailed question.”
That isn’t the case at all. How can we possibly discuss the application of principles if we do not agree on what the principles are? The foundational issues are everything, because once the authentic foundations are established, the proper conclusions naturally flow from them.
LikeLike
Where do we disagree on the principles? I didn’t hear anyone say that reason does not exist.
LikeLike
I mean in general.
For example, we use the term “morality” in very different ways.
LikeLike
No we don’t. Almost everybody uses the word morality in almost exactly the same way.
I came here for a discussion on current issues with people who have a different perspective, but you turn every thread into some kind of dissertation, where every last part of each sentence is analyzed to death, and the definition of words is what ends up being argued. As humans, we have a very unique ability to understand a person’s ideas and perspectives regardless of the words used, and I think you understand pretty much everything I’ve said. Look beyond the individual words, and just speak your mind.
LikeLike
Ryan
You nailed it! That’s it exactly.
LCB – It seems that, and I’ve read a few of your latest active threads, having a discussion with you is nearly impossible. It’s as though we’re trying to talk to Einstein and he’s always engaged in the very minute details of some subatomic theory. All we want to know is what he wants for lunch!
If having a discussion with you is always this difficult then you must be quite the bor. Try to lighten up a little. Have some fun. We all know you’re smart. You don’t have to show us every time you open your mouth. As Ryan just noted, just speak your mind.
LikeLike
Those are interesting perspectives.
Here’s another one: LCB is being unfailingly polite and giving you respect by taking your ideas seriously. Many of your ideas are spectacularly ridiculous and inconsistent with your own worldview, but instead of saying, “You’re an idiot,” he seeks to carefully understand your thinking.
The problem for you is that when someone takes your ideas to their logical conclusions to point out their errors (a technique known as reductio ad absurdum), then you typically get defensive and revert to doing one or more of the following: Anti-religious bigotry and stereotyping, name-calling, subject-changing or more bad arguments.
LCB doesn’t put words in your mouth and doesn’t commit the fallacies you use against him. You should thank him.
LikeLike
Neil
I should thank him for telling me that nothing can be known for certain and then following that up with this gem: “Prove, using reason alone, the existence of reason.”
???
Thank him?? No – He took the thread way off track with those two arguments.
Now it’s time for me to get back to work. I think… I can’t be certain of anything. …not certain what time it is – or even what work is anymore.
LikeLike
Thank you Neil.
I think it’s terribly funny that the crowd that chants “Just think for yourself” gets so upset and hateful when I try to clarify what their words mean, so I can understand what they’re saying, and then take their own thoughts to the logical conclusion. At that point it’s no longer about “thinking for yourself” but is instead about “just expressing opinions” and “stop using logic” and “stop trying to understand what words mean.” They get especially angry when I point out that they have religious faith in reason, something they can not prove exists but live their entire life as if it exists.
I don’t think it’s that out of line to simply ask people to be logically consistant in what they say. They are certainly holding Christianity to higher standards of proof and evidence than that.
LikeLike
I’ve thanks LCB on many occasions for interesting responses, but lately, he is just trying to drown us in philosophy. Am I so incoherent that he really does not know what I’m saying?
LikeLike
I think we all know what you are saying. It is just that when what you are saying is foolish or inconsistent, one way to demonstrate it is to use questions.
LikeLike
The wife and I are waiting for trick or treaters here and this question came up. I sort of gave her the 20 second summary but then I remember – Hey – I know where to find the indepth answer… thanks 🙂
LikeLike
Hope it helps! Let me know if you have any suggestions on how to improve it.
LikeLike
Hi Neil!
I just put a link to this post over on the Manhattan Declaration Facebook page. IJust wanted to give you a heads up that it might generate some additional comments here.
I still think that your post on this topic is THE BEST that I have ever read to counter the silly “shellfish” arguments that pro-homosexual behavior affirming people like to use to try and discredit the Bible’s condemnation against homosexual behavior.
LikeLike
Hi Christine,
Thanks for the link and your comments on that thread. I really appreciate that. This piece is one of my favorites. It shows how those using the argument are almost always just parroting a sound bite and don’t have a clue about the Bible — and don’t really care to.
LikeLike
I wanted to thank you for your excellent post.
I used parts of your reasoning in crafting a response to a friend of mine. I’ve uploaded our discussion to my blog.
If you had time I would be interested in having you read it sometime:
http://stevescrosstraining.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing, and good responses on your part. Just left a comment at your place. Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Your first argument, that “the same word argument” self-destructs, presents a paradox. You cannot use this argument unless you also claim that the King James Bible is not an accurate translation. If it is not an accurate translation, then it cannot be the literal word of God. Because of that, your argument self-destructs.
LikeLike
Hi,
Thanks for visiting and commenting. I’m not sure I follow. For starters, I don’t use the KJV (although it is a good translation). Even if I did, our claim is that the original writings of the Bible turned out exactly the way that God and the original writers wanted them to. The translations may be very, very accurate but aren’t claimed to be inspired.
Translations pose all sorts of challenges as language evolves, so it is possible that the translators felt like “abomination” (or whatever) was the best word to use for two different Hebrew words. That doesn’t mean the original Hebrew words weren’t different.
If you are referring to “KJV only” people who insist that their translation is inspired, then I disagree with them.
Hope that helps!
LikeLike
You chastise sceptics for cherry-picking quotes from the bible, but ALL of the bible meant to be truth? And if that’s not the case, who picks which bits are truth or not?
LikeLike
Hi Gary,
All of the Bible turned out exactly as God and the human writers wanted in the original writings and they have been accurately communicated to us. But it must be read in context. You can’t just take part of a verse, such as Psalm 14:1, and say, “the Bible says ‘there is no God,'” when the rest of the text says, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.”
So we don’t get to vote on what is true, we use the same guidelines for reading that elementary schools teach: Read in context, know the literary genre (history, poetry, etc.), etc.
Hope that helps, and whatever you do I encourage you to read it for yourself!
LikeLike
P.S. I’m not chastising cherry-picking, but “rotten cherry-picking,” that is, misstating what the verse meant in context.
LikeLike
I was looking over Leviticus Chapter 18, and it begins with
18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
18:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
So all the instructions in this chapter, including the verse about homosexuality, are for Israelites only, just like the instructions against eating shellfish.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Is there a reason you didn’t read just one more verse?
3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes.
Hmmmm . . . apparently God had an issue with what the Egyptians and Canaanites did, too — homosexuality, bestiality, child sacrifice, etc.
Now I see why you didn’t quote the additional verse . . . or Romans 1:26-28: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Thanks for the softball 😉 .
LikeLike
You still haven’t shown that these instructions are for anyone but Israelites.
LikeLike
?? I showed that God was punishing the Canannites for doing those things — as in, the Canaanites knew they shouldn’t do them and did them anyway, so God was punishing them. If you can’t see that I can’t help you.
LikeLike
Also, Romans was written by Paul, as it says in the beginning of the chapter.
LikeLike
I know! It was written by Paul. And Paul’s words turned out exactly as God wanted them to. The Bible is consistent. I encourage you to read it all carefully. Don’t worship your pet sins and miss out on forgiveness, eternal life and a relationship with God.
LikeLike
Timeless post
LikeLiked by 1 person