God & Gays
“There is...a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.
“The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.
“That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. The tragedy is that church leaders back the wrong side of the conflict, which is happening today from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the current crop of Evangelical leaders. That too will pass and the debate on homosexuality will be just one more embarrassment in Christian history.”
~ John Shelby Spong
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
First of all I don't think this guy understands Christian theism. I wish he would have provided the passages that have been quoted to prove Galileo, Darwin and Freud wrong. Instead he just makes claims with no support.
I would argue my case against homosexuality using nature. Many Christians quote the Bible without thought and understanding. I don't understand why Christians quote the Bible to people who don't think the Bible is authoritative on matters such as these.
Agree or disagree I think one can make a very credible and respectful argument against homosexuality using nature. Please keep in my that I am not addressing the civil liberties issue, just the moral issue.
I do think this is a tough subject, and should be approached with a great deal of sensitivity.
Here are a few points I would make:
1. Human life can't be perpetuated without male and a female. It's a natural impossibility.
2. If everyone in the world became homosexual human existence would end (unless we resorted to ARTIFICIAL means).
3. The whole idea of being born gay means nothing. There are a number of different innate ideas we are born with that we think it not best to foster and perpetuate.
4. Some would say there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. This is a false perception. What is perceived to be "homosexuality" in the animal has mostly to do with dominance.
There are a few points for us to chew on.
I am seeking clarity here. How would you all view polygamy and incest? Moral or immoral? Should civil liberties be granted to consenting incestuous couples and polygamists?
I would simply add to what homesicksooner delineates that homosexuality proves difficult to support from a scientific approach. For instance, biological twins have the exact same DNA. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then both twins should ALWAYS be homosexual. Yet, no studies that I have come across can make such a claim. While there certainly are SOME examples of both twins practicing homosexuality - even as high as 1/3 of homosexual biological twins, it is not 100% of them. If even one person, with the exact same DNA fails to conform to homosexuality, the genetic argument fails - on scientific principles. One example would be: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html
This seems to push the argument toward nurture and environment and not genetics.
This also separates this issue from a civil rights issue by implication.
I think in 2009 it is still hard to believe that people use the bible as the end all document of rightousness.
This is true the bible was used to keep women for decades from having equal rights and shown to cast judgement on someone because they were born a woman.
This is now true with gay people. They are denied equal rights because to many people quote the bible. Still bible or not to deny a man or woman the same rights others have is wrong! Period!
Homesick your comment "If everyone in the world became homomsexual the world would end". That statement is filled with so much homophobia. I live in a city that accepts gays and lesbians.
I can tell you this I have NEVER had a gay person try to hit on me or convert me to being gay. There is so many straight people in this world I don't think if Gay people are given equal rights we all just magically become "Gay" with time.
Almost like back in segregation of the south between blacks and whites. Seperate bathrooms, Diners, Drinking fountains. ETC. ETC. The whites were afraid of catching something from black people. I know because I live in the south Christianity runs deep here and clouds visions very easily.
Also look at Rev. Haggard from Colorado who supported Bush on upholding the laws of marriage between a woman and a man during his presidency. It was brought out he was paying male prostitutes for sex. Now he's saying he is still with his wife and straight, "But fights the attraction he has towards men".
That is the whole meaning of gay. Being attracted sexually to your same sex. I really feel bad for Rev.Haggard because the bible tells him it is wrong he can not live with being who he really is. Also the torment his wife has suffered. A gay person can not be straight.
I think the struggle for gay people to have equal rights is the new fight on hand because every race and ethnicity is prejudice of gay people.
It saddens me when I hear minority people talk bad of gay people. I would think they would understand the struggles for equal rights a little more.
I understand that what I said about the whole world becoming gay is an example that will never happen.
Call me a homophobe if you'd like Brian. It doesn't change the truth of my position. You can't perpetuate human life without a man and a woman unless you do so artificially.
Brian, have you ever heard of a red herring argument?
I understand that Homesick. It takes a man and woman to procreate. I do get that.
I have a great woman in my life I love, But to deny another person equal rights because of their sexuality is wrong.
No, I have not heard of the red herring arguement.
I deliberately didn't say anything about civil rights in my first post. I'm not sure why you brought that up. To me that is a separate issue.
Homesick, You obviously aren’t familiar with the retired Bishop Spong and his numerous books on Christian theism to suggest he doesn’t understand Christian theism.
This whole topic is an example of how the bible can poison thinking and cause suffering. My guess homosexuality would not be near the controversy it is if it had not been condemned in the bible.
It is a simple matter of empathy. Of putting oneself in another’s shoes. A simple matter of what is right. How can one not extend every right one desires for him or herself to another?
The end of the stigma of being a homosexual is coming sooner than I had hoped. Most of our children will look at the issue as a non-issue when they are our age. It will be the church preaching intolerance to an ever smaller group of people and will finally go as Spong says, the way of slavery.
But the anti-homosexual texts—like the anti-woman and pro-slavery ones—will forever remain as embarrassments to believers and challenges for the apologist to explain away.
To your question about polygamy and incest.
Polygamy was certainly not frowned on in the bible often if at all as most all the bible heros had several wives. But that is beside the point.
I see no problem with polygamy from a purely ethical standpoint when it is between consenting adults. The tricky part is adding children to the equation. I would feel more comfortable seeing studies showing no ill effect for children living in such an environment before saying it was fine.
Incest is much the same. What is the harm in a relationship between consenting adults other than uncomfortableness for others at family gatherings or maybe in the community? But adding children to the equation changes everything because of the health risks.
Of course, all relationships are incestuous to a degree since we evolved from a small group in Africa. Obviously, almost all relationships are between people who have enough diversity in their line of ancestory that it is not a health issue.
To your question about polygamy and incest.
Polygamy was certainly not frowned on in the bible often if at all as most all the bible heros had several wives. But that is beside the point.
I see no problem with polygamy from a purely ethical standpoint when it is between consenting adults. The tricky part is adding children to the equation. I would feel more comfortable seeing studies showing no ill effect for children living in such an environment before saying it was fine.
Incest is much the same. What is the harm in a relationship between consenting adults other than uncomfortableness for others at family gatherings or maybe in the community? But adding children to the equation changes everything because of the health risks.
Of course, all relationships are incestuous to a degree since we evolved from a small group in Africa. Obviously, almost all relationships are between people who have enough diversity in their line of ancestory that it is not a health issue.
evans/danzig - Neither of you have addressed the argument, or the scientific evidence against it.
Homosexuality is unnatural. I have several homosexual friends that I have a close friendship with. I've discussed this with them. I'm not trying to be a bigot of homosexuals, rather the point is simply that its unnatural. Its anti-evolutionary, which you'd think would NOT appeal to either of you. But now, simply because the Bible says its wrong, you dismiss everything else that you cling to in other positions (such as attempting to use science to prove that God is a contradiction) in the name of empathy?
So far the only argument you've attempted to make is to condemn the Bible's position on homosexuality. You haven't positively stated anything in support of why its so commendable. And, how do you account for gay Christians? Many homosexuals, practicing or not, still cling to the Christian faith. If the Bible is the problem, how do you explain that?
So Danzig's point that in 2009 people shouldn't use the Bible... No one has done so. No Bible passages have been cited. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite has been sought. The arguments have been from natural law, and you, the naturalist, have no refutation?
Well said order!
It's amazing that we are being "bashed" for being "bible believing gay-bashers" and we haven't even cited the Bible nor have we said gays should not be allowed civil liberties.
Order, Not sure why it matters but male on male and female on female sex in the animal world does happen. Check out the Bonobos for one example. Fascinating social creatures.
Maybe some tendencies toward homosexuality evolved to help keep populations from growing too large-just an idea.
I would never say heterosexuality was “commendable” so never said homosexuality was “commendable.” We should be empathetic to those that, for whatever the reason, feel more comfortable having a relationship with the same sex.
Accounting for Gay Christians is quite easy. There are gay christians for the same reason there are female christians and african american christians. They are either not familiar with the toxic texts that have caused so much suffering or they–like most all christians–want to go to heaven, and think being a christian is their best hope.
I am not sure how to respond to your last statement about refutation. From my perspective, homosexuality is not a matter of refuting anything but a matter of accepting people for who they are.
Homesick and Order,
I appreciate you guys very much and in no way want to discourage you from sharing your perspective, but I must say, you both come off as being very, very small in this particular conversation. I would suggest letting it go and moving on to the next topic tomorrow.
Small?
What do you mean? I think I might be offended by that. : )
One can make a respectable case against human homosexuality using the nature argument.
You think the Christian position and empathy and acceptance are mutually exclusive, but they are not.
Bonobos?
Using the animal kingdom is a slippery slope.
Does observed behavior in the animal kingdom make the same behavior permissible for humans?
sooner- you said “You think the Christian position and empathy and acceptance are mutually exclusive, but they are not.”
NEVER would I suggest such a thing. It becomes quite tiresome refuting things that I never suggest.
Please, JUST SHOOT ME NOW. The MENTION OF bonobos was in response to the claim made by your pal that same sex sexual acts where not found in nature outside of humans and therefore not natural. How can you possibly make the leap that I would therefore believe that because praying mantises eat the heads off their mates we should as well?
I am done for the day. I am going to have an extra beer or two in your honor. :)
Have a great evening.
Wow So much debating while I was gone. Order/Peace I don't think this is a debate of if gay people is evolutionary or not. It is a debate that gay people should be treated as equals today.
What is the first thing that happens when they talk about giving gay people the right to get married. There's a preacher on the news telling how immoral and wrong it is.
I'm just saying it's wrong to allow most people equal rights and a group of people do not get them same rights because of their sexual preference.
I welcome your opinions Order and Homesick, But people with visions like yourselves are slowly becoming a dying breed. We must move forward and offer everyone the same opportunities in this world in order to grow and become one.
I agree John, I'm going to have a beer tonight also after this debate!!
Have a good evening everyone.
John,
You said, "NEVER would I suggest such a thing. It becomes quite tiresome refuting things that I never suggest."
My comments had to do more with past threads. You're take on Rick Warren not being able to purely love homosexuals was the basis for my comments here.
Those comments about Mr. Warren lead me to believe that you think the Christian position on homosexuality is mutually exclusive to the idea of Christian love, acceptance or empathy.
On the issue of what my pal said . . . I think his statement still stands. Homosexuality can't be found in the animal kingdom. What you think is homosexuality is really just an assertion of dominance. But, even if you could find such a thing in the animal kingdom it really wouldn't matter.
It's interesting how neither one of you want to address my argument. Red herrings (a staple of the new atheism) are plentiful in this thread.
Brian,
I have an equal rights question for you. Should polygamists and consenting incestuous couples be allowed civil liberties.
When you think of civil liberty, what comes to mind?
Hi Homesick – I would like to respond to your initial comment. First of all, John Shelby Spong understands Christian theism very, very well. He has been a bishop in the church for decades, and has been fighting against irrational religious dogma that he encountered for most of his career. And I don’t think he meant to say that Galileo, Darwin and Freud were wrong. He said that the CHURCH claimed that they were wrong because they appeared to go against biblical teachings. The point is that we cannot go to the bible for moral authority on issues such as women’s rights, slavery etc. because the bible either does not provide such guidance, or because the “guidance” the bible teaches is immoral to most people today. That said, is there really a dispute that the church fought against these three? It’s pretty common knowledge. I would think if you googled any of these names you would come up with the proof you are looking for.
I appreciate your comment that Christians cannot use the bible for an argument with people who do not believe in the authority of the bible. I have to say that you are lightyears ahead of many of your Christian colleages in this respect!
Here are my responses to your numbered comments:
1. No, human life cannot be perpetuated without a male and a female. This is obvious. And approximately 90% of the human race is heterosexual; also, we have a problem with overpopulation. I don’t think this should be a concern.
2. Yes, if everyone became gay human existence would end. If heterosexual couples became sterile, this would also be the case. This does not mean that the “barren” hetero couple should not have sex, or should not have the same rights as a couple who can bear children! Sex is not only for procreation; it is for intimacy and enjoyment. And no worries – being gay is not contagious! If the percentage appears to be going up, it is because more and more people are comfortable “coming out” (and FINALLY living with integrity to who they really are). So there is no way “everyone will turn gay”.
3. I agree that we are born with some traits that are not desirable. But I would suggest to you that being gay is not a “trait”. Gender identity and sexual orientation are a very, very deep part of our identities. It cannot be separated from ourselves. It is not like the tendency to want to steal or cheat. It is not a “character” issue; it is a SOUL issue. And gay people who cannot accept themselves are not whole. If you ask any gay person about when they first knew that they were gay, they would say in childhood.
4. How do you know that homosexuality in the animal kingdom has only to do with dominance? Can’t dominance be part of sexual attraction? I’m not sure where you get this from, but I’ll share an anecdote with you. I had a gay cat. He was contantly humping my other male cat. And I mean constantly. And it looked pretty sexual to me. I had to separate them at night if I was going to get any sleep at all. In an effort to “fix” his gayness (I was naïve at the time), we borrowed a female cat in heat from a friend. We thought this would turn him. He made one half-hearted attempt to “git with” the female; then he was back to the male cat again. It may have had to do with dominance, but there was clearly a preference for same sex relations.
Re polygamy and incest: These are COMPLETELY different. I would have thought that is obvious. Incest is sick; if it is with a child, it is not really sex it’s rape. A child cannot consent to sex. This has nothing to do with sex between two consenting adults. And if there is incest between two adults, the children could be born with 7 toes on each foot. With respect to polygamy, notwithstanding that the bible seems to encourage it, I feel it is immoral. This is because it is not an EQUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOVING ADULTS. It is a very hierarchical, patriarchal setup. You don’t see women with three husbands; it is always a man with several wives. It is not equal at all. A woman who is sharing her husband with other women is not being treated as an equal.
On the contrary, a loving relationship between 2 same-sex individuals has none of these issues; there are no inbreeding issues; no consent issues; and no power imbalance. There should be absolutely no difference with respect to loving and equal relationships whether homo or hetero.
despite possibly appearing as small, which I'm not sure what that means, I'm still confused and left curious. the only responses I've really heard are:
1. Maybe there are gay animals (like cats or bobos)
2. Christianity is archaic
My initial appeal to you (evans) to refute was in regard to scientific proof. No response was given to the scientific data that biological twins with the same DNA are not ALWAYS simultaneously homosexual.
Second, I'd like to hear how homosexuality and evolution can coincide together. From what I understand of macro-evolution, it takes place over millions of years. Yet, any given generation can halt such progress through homosexual practices. In other words, homosexuality cannot further progress, it seems to stifle or eliminate it by restricting procreation. Help me out here.
The real appeal is rather for social progress. There seems to only be a purely cultural argument, and a very small one at that.
First of all you misunderstand evolution by linking it to the idea of “progress”. It is simply random gene mutation combined with natural selection.
And your argument is non-sensical. Any number of things from being born sterile to still-born could be said to stifle progress. Would you also have us not embrace the mentally or physically challenged?
OK - granted, progress was poor wording. Yet, I'm still perplexed at how random gene mutation combined with natural selection coincides with homosexuality.
Natural selection has to do with what Darwin himself refers to as "survival of the fittest"? Correct? Again, how does survival of the fittest relate to non-survival with homosexuality? In other words, it seems that you're being very inconsistent here
Furthermore, you've never addressed the scientific data. The question really can be asked: is being born mentally handicapped the same as practicing homosexuality?
The scientific data links one to genetics (mental disability) and not the other (sexual preference).
Let’s refocus. If I am following you correctly it seems your argument is that homosexuality is not natural—not found in nature, and makes no sense in relation to Darwinian evolution. Therefore the bible is justified in condemning homosexuals as depraved and it was a good and godly thing to have stoned them to death back in “bible times” and modern society is justified in not extending the same rights and respect that heterosexuals enjoy. Is that about right?
Sympathy for the Devil
by Michael Shermer, Feb 02 2009
Why we should show some compassion for Ted Haggard
“I just watched the HBO documentary film, The Trials of Ted Haggard, produced by Alexandra Pelosi (which the media seem curiously intent on identifying not as a filmmaker but as the daughter of Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House). The film is a follow-up to her 2007 film Friends of God, in which Haggard was prominently featured just before his downfall from revelations that he had homosexual relations with a male prostitute, with whom he also did methamphetamine. And all this happened right in the middle of the political debate about gay marriage, in which Haggard condemned homosexuality as an abomination and gay marriage as a sin that should never be legalized.
Now, I enjoy roasting a hypocrite as much as the next person, and I sat down to watch Pelosi’s film sharpening my typing fingers in preparation for slicing this evangelical hypocrite to pieces, especially after just watching him on Larry King Live, in which he failed to apologize to gays for condemning the very “lifestyle choice” he also presumably made. (In his Christian worldview homosexuality is a choice — a bad choice, a sinful choice, but a choice nonetheless). But I came away feeling some compassion for Ted Haggard, sympathy for the devil as it were. I don’t know if Pelosi intended her film to have this effect — I suspect not from her off-camera comments in the film as she follows the fallen preacher around Phoenix selling insurance door-to-door and bumming rooms off friends at which his family can live. But given what we know about the power of belief, and the fact that this man devoted his entire life and essence to being an Evangelical Christian and all that stands for — which is a lot when you are the titular head of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals — what a striking conflict his life has been (and by all accounts still is).
By now, most of us know that homosexuality is not a “choice,” any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Asking a gay person “When did you choose to become gay?” makes about as much sense as asking a straight person “When did you choose to become straight?” The answer is the same: “Uh? I didn’t choose. I’ve always felt this way.” Right, and all the evidence from biology, psychology, and behavior genetics (twin studies) points to the fact that most people are born straight, some people are born gay, and some are even born bisexual, and that’s just the way it is. In a large population (and six billion members of a large mammalian species certainly counts) with considerable variation in most characteristics, it is inevitable that even something as seemingly straightforward (if you’ll pardon the pun) as sexuality will likely show variations on that central theme.
To find peace and happiness in life you have to be true to yourself, and herein lies Pastor Ted’s conflict: Being true to himself meant being in absolute conflict with his religion, which was, at the time, not just his faith but his livelihood and the only means he had of supporting his family. As Upton Sinclair observed: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
The only resolution for Haggard was to live a secret life, and when that secret was revealed there was no way for him to peacefully resolve his conflict. And from what was shown in the film and in his public interviews of late, that conflict is still not resolved for the simple reason that if you are gay or bi you cannot simply choose to feel differently, even if you are given such bizarre diagnoses as these suggested by his Christian counselors: “heterosexual with homosexual attachments” and “heterosexual with complications.” Haggard’s response was refreshingly honest: “I wasn’t sure what that meant.”
Me neither Ted, because it’s a bullshit diagnosis by people who don’t understand the psychology of sexuality because their religion is driving the science, and that’s a recipe for quackery. Yes, you can choose (or at least try to choose) not to act on your feelings (don’t go to gay bars, don’t watch gay porn, etc.), but short of a Clockwork Orange scenario of extreme behavior modification protocols (and even this is unlikely to do the trick), Ted Haggard cannot and never will be able to square the circle of his sexual essence with his religion. Something has to go, and that something is his religion, or at least his religion’s attitudes about homosexuality.
Christianity needs to change its beliefs about homosexuality and to quit condemning those — even those in its own flock — to a life of guilt, self-loathing, and conflict. Not only does Ted Haggard need to publicly apologize to the gay and lesbian community for condemning them, his Colorado Springs New Life Church — and Christianity in general — needs to apologize to Ted Haggard for ruining his life, not only by exiling him from his home, community and friends, but by forcing him to live a lie. The data are in: homosexuality is not a choice. Christianity needs to follow the data instead of forcing the data to fit its religious dogmas.
In the film you can hear the guilt in Ted Haggard’s voice and see the self-loathing in his face. Ted Haggard is a broken man, broken not by his biology but by his religion. You cannot “fix” people’s biology, but you can change their religion, and it’s time for Ted Haggard to give up on his religion — and perhaps religion altogether. Short of that, perhaps one of the most charismatic religious movers and shakers of our time can change his religion from within by standing up to his fellow Evangelical leaders and saying to them (and to everyone else) something like this:
Ladies and gentlemen, I was wrong. When I preached that homosexuality is a sin, I was wrong. When I proclaimed from the pulpit that being gay is an abomination, I was wrong. When I dissembled and pronounced that I ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’, I was wrong. I say this not because I was a hypocrite in denouncing the acts that I myself was committing, but because our beliefs about and actions toward homosexuals is un-Christian. I make no excuses for my actions or pronouncements, but I will remind you that I was mirroring what was taught to me by my Evangelical mentors, whose beliefs about gays led them to comb the scriptures for passages that best suit their prejudices — much like the slave-owning Christians of centuries past justified with holy writ their abominable beliefs and actions toward their fellow humans by treating them as chattel. My mentors were wrong. My teachers were wrong. The church is wrong and I am wrong. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is a choice. People are born with their sexuality, and so to condemn a person to a life of guilt and shame over something they have no control, is to do violence to the very nature of human nature and to contradict truth and deny reality. So, in the words of the great Anglican defender of the faith and champion of religious tolerance, Oliver Cromwell: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.’”
That was incredibly well-said, John! It is getting harder and harder to hide truth from people because of the internt. Could this be the death knell of ignorance??? The only ones who reject obvious truth, I supposed, are those who will not see. I am trying not to be one of those people; I am trying to be open to the evidence. On every issue. To me, homosexuality being natural and in-born is a given. I look forward to the day when we laugh at ourselves for our past bigotry. I think it might be a while before gays think it is funny. (Oh, by the way, I heard that Haggard still has a house worth millions of dollars that he forgot to mention...if this is true, my sympathy for him is pretty much exhausted now.)
Hi Janet, Just wanted to make it clear that that was incredibly well said because it was said by Michael Shermer, not me! He is credited at the top of the article. Thanks though. :)
Post a Comment