From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 05:53:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.033824.17377@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.224553.21084@menudo.uh.edu> kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>In such a case, would sex not be regarded as a *positive* act?  That
>>it occurs outside of marriage in that case is at least irrelevent, and
>>You Christians consider your God to be loving and just.  Do you think
>>your God, being loving and just, would hand you a set of rules to follow
>>without arranging things such that the benefit of following those rules
>>would be obvious to everyone, including those who do not agree with your
>>religion, and that the negative consequences of not following those rules
>>would likewise be obvious?  Alternatively, do you think your God would
>>hand you a set of laws to be followed absolutely but that occasionally
>>have negative consequences even if followed?  Then *why* do so many
>>of you treat the rules in the Bible as absolute law when you *know*
>>that the consequences of following them are sometimes detrimental
>>and the consequences of not following them are sometimes beneficial?
>
>Do you claim to be able to see what is "obviously" going to happen to you
>tomorrow, or 10 years from now, or when you die?  

I do not claim to predict the future.  I'm talking about cases where the
consequences have been made known by hindsight.  These cases prove that
in the temporal realm, following the rules in the Bible is not always
beneficial (i.e., does not always yield a temporal benefit).  Do you
dispute this?

>I do not deny that there
>are short term benefits to sexual relationships of many various types.  What
>we as humans perceive to be the "good" is really only a fragment of the 
>picture which is bounded by space and time.  

I already mentioned this, but you seem to have *completely* ignored it:
there is no reason for God to set up rules to be used in the temporal
realm such that they would have effects anywhere *but* the temporal
realm.  I claim that a loving God would not give humans an absolute
set of rules unless they could see *all* the results of following or
not following those rules (to do otherwise it to arrange things such
that humans don't have the best possible chance of making good decisions,
which is *bad* for humans *regardless* of whether or not the effects of
the decision are limited to the temporal realm).

>By trusting in God's larger
>scope of vision Christians are merely adding what will be good for us down
>the road to what is obviously good for us now, which means that sometimes
>they will contradict, in which case God obviously knows what is the absolute
>best.

No, it is *not* obvious *at all*.  If it *were* obvious, then *everyone*
would agree with you on this.

>>Where are the negative consequences of someone with a tendency to
>>be attracted to members of the same sex acting on that tendency in
>>the same way that someone with a tendency to be attracted to members
>>of the opposite sex might act on *their* tendency?  Is it not
>>obvious that the benefit or harm of an action depends on the
>>circumstances?
>
>Precisely.  Benefit or harm is relative from our point of view, so we must
>trust in God's point of view.

Benefit or harm is *always* measured from a point of view, specifically
the point of view of the entity or entities being affected.  Since God
is presumably all-powerful, *he* cannot be affected by *anything* unless
he *chooses* to be.  Since *we* are *not* all-powerful, we *can* be
affected whether we would like to be or not.  That is the *meaning* of
consequence.  *We* don't define consequences.  God does.

The *only* advantage that you can claim God has is the ability to
know the exact outcome of any possible action before that action is
taken.  But don't you see?  If God *were* truly a loving God, he would
either have given man the same ability with respect to the rules in
the Bible (and, I think, all other decisions as well), *or* he would
hand man the rules in the Bible for use as rules of thumb only.  Since
it is obvious that we do *not* have the foresight I refer to, it
follows that the rules in the Bible *are* rules of thumb, *unless* God
is not as loving as you think.

When you make a decision, it may be the case that you are *certain* that
the appropriate rule in the Bible is applicable and will result in the
best results.  But I'm telling you that this is *not* true for all
people and, even worse, the results of some people applying these same
rules is sometimes *detrimental* not only to them, but to all parties
involved.  Just *how* can you justify this state of affairs *without*
some vague reference to the afterlife?  I claim that you can't.  And
that's *exactly* my point.  If you combine that *need* to reference
the afterlife with the *fact* (derived from God's omnipotence) that God
HAS NO NEED to make such rules have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the
afterlife, you *must* conclude that the *combined* state of affairs is
suboptimal for *both* God (if he truly desires the companionship of man)
*and* man.  And this flies in the face of the concept of a "loving" God.

>>The only truly absolute laws that exist are the ones that we have no
>>choice but to follow: the laws governing the operation of the universe
>>itself.  To treat any other rules as absolute law is the height of
>>stupidity, and the justification for the suffering and death of
>>countless millions: "Chust followink orders!".
>
>On the contrary... To restrict your views to "what is good for me based on
>what _I_ see" is the height of stupidity.  

Ah, but I'm not doing that.  I'm restricting my views to what is observable
in this universe.  That's an entirely different thing altogether.

>The laws we are given to follow
>do not end in death or suffering for _any_ individual - rather new life and
>inner joy and peace.  

If this were the case, there would *be* no debate about the "sin" of
homosexuality.

HOW can you ignore the repeated statements made by so many people here
on the net that they were *miserable* when they attempted to suppress
their homosexuality (i.e., sexual attraction towards members of the
same sex, in exactly the same way that most people are attracted towards
members of the opposite sex) in an attempt to follow a rule that may or
may not exist in the Bible, *without* making the claim that they would
have been happier as a result *only* after they had died?  How can you
ignore the *fact* that some people are very happily married in part
*because* they had sex before marriage and found themselves to be very
compatible and comfortable with each other?  Do you *really* think that
God would *frown* on an act that helps those he cares about lead happier
and healthier lives?

Yet it seems to me that you think God *would* frown on such a thing, and
all because of some arbitrary effect it might have on the person's
afterlife.  An effect that God has *defined*, and may change at will.
Such an attitude on the part of God flies in the face of *every* definition
of "love" I know of.  To call it "love" is to make a mockery of the word.

>Any other end was not arrived at by following the
>absolutes which you refute.

How do *you* know?  Have you died yet?  Have you seen people in heaven
happier because of something that made them *unhappy*, without making
someone else happier, here on earth? Or people unhappy in hell because
of something that made them *happy*, without making someone else unhappy,
here on earth?

You haven't, have you?

Then you *must* address the objections I raise above in a logical manner,
or know that your belief system is internally inconsistent.

>John M.


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc