Gender Orientation: An Example of Error in Morality Analysis

[Danmark]

I submit that the problem some Christians have in their insistence that homosexuality is a sin comes from their failure to separate to properly analyze the essence of morality.
The central thesis of this claim is that the point of morality in general and that of Jesus of Nazareth in particular is the focus on the essence of morality: kindness and regard for the welfare and happiness of others. This essential aspect of morality gets obscured by the errant thinking that focuses on particular examples.

[Danmark]

Understanding sin in this light removes this legalistic morality of ‘you need to check all these boxes correctly’ and moves it into a much more intimate realm wherein sin outside of a relationship does not make sense and isn’t really even a thing.

Have your actions created a break in your realtionship with this other person? people generally don't wan't a moralistic grey area where they have to think about these sorts of things, they just want to know the motions so they can check the boxes and confirm they are ok.

Has the actions of this person in some way created a break in your relationship with said person? no? then they have not sinned against you... Has it created a break in their relationship with God? Well, you’re not God so what business is it of yours? By condemning those whom one thinks are in poor relation with God you are casting Judgements not only on this hypothetical person but also on God himself which is even more of a no-no than judging others biblically speaking.
I would even go as far as to say that when you cast judgement on others that you may be just sinning against God as you yourself are now participating in casting Judgement upon God by deciding for him who is not in right relation with him? Jesus even explains what kind of effect this can have on your relationship with God as he delivers the parable of the talents. And here I’m going to use the words of Jacques Ellul because he just explains this one so well.
....
It comes back to the whole idea of ‘Judge not lest ye be Judged’.

[I like to edit posts to what I think may be their core idea. I've tried to do that here, but don't mean to dismiss some of what I've redacted]

I think you are on to something here. I spoke of this as "intent," but agree this should be refined. The essence of morality does indeed deal with relationships. The platitude of "do unto others as you would..." is essentially about relationships.

The essence of love is about relationship. But I fear this effort of yours and Peterson's* is doomed to be dismissed by that segment of Christianity that focuses on rules, not relationships. Perhaps it is too bold of me to say it, but I'll suggest that the faction of Christianity that urges us to the simplicity: same sex intimacy = sin is a faction focused on rules not relationships; law not love.



_________________________
*I'm familiar with Eugene Peterson in part because we graduated from the same college. My mother and other very thoughtful and devout Christians appreciate his insights. Many of these Christians, tho' essentially Bible believing fundamentalist/evangelicals understand in the core of who they are and in the essence of Christ's message that there is something very far amiss is the homophobia rampant in too much of the Christian church.

20 years ago my mother was one of the few in her conservative church who understood this, as she counselled many young women who were rejected by their Christian minister parents. Today, as she told me in a conversation a few days ago, she claimed not to know any Christian who still feels this anti gay prejudice. This 90+ year old Christian woman has been steadfast in her convictions, her love and her outreach to others who have been wounded by the 'christian' message of hate and sin; but the church and much of its membership has come around to the wisdom she has not only felt, but expressed.

As a further anecdotal side note to those who claim gender orientation is a choice rather than predetermined by genetics:
On my father's side of our family I have only 1 distant cousin who is gay. On my mother's side, I have two first cousins and a dozen more distant cousins who are gay or lesbian. To this I add two things:
1. I do not know anyone who claims to have chosen his or her orientation.
2. I cannot conceive of a God who punishes people for things they did not choose.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 19 by Haven]

This is often described as an unusual forum due to its desire to be civil.

We are all very comfortable with our biases in our own lives, our bigotries are often so sub conscious that we don't realise it and it can seep into our posts.

I'll be acting on reports of ad hominems to ensure it stays that way. I urge you to consider people with phobias when you use such misplaced language because I will be.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 15 by Wootah]

Just a quick note here... I understand where you're coming from, no one likes being called something with negative connotations. But just given how you've latched onto the whole Ad Hominem counter towards Haven I think an important thing to note is that, while it may potentially be Ad Hominem... Ad Hominem's are not inherently fallacious. If the character trait is directly related to the topic at hand, it can be a valid point, especially if that character trait directly influences the content of ones argument.

But since I don't want to get in the middle of this thing, I'll just leave it there and let the two of you decide if it's a legitimate point.

On the topic of Homophobia as a term, it can take many forms... but the term homophobia covers them all... while you may be against being labeled as homophobic because what you think of in terms of homophobia is what some might call 'social homophobia', what Haven see's might be better described as 'institutionalized homophobia' which is a phenomena far less tied with mental health.

[Wootah]

You've used some good examples of why I think your focus is wrong.
With the Burka clad woman, it is not her dress or her beliefs that are central, but whether she is happy and feels fulfilled. There's no value and making a judgment based on her clothing.

to me the error in morality analysis is displayed in the assumptions you are making. Imagine if abolitionists went around assuming that slaves were happier. And this is the crux of it for me, toleration does not equal acceptance.

With your friend who is interested in an intimate relationship, the issue is not sex, but whether this is a good relationship for him and the person he is dating. Will being intimate enhance their relationship? Are they good for each other?

Sex is so powerful that it robs us of our ability to discern if we are good for each other. Being intimate can only enhance committed relationships because it is ultimately very hard to prove faithfulness and commitment through sex. All our past sexual life works against our words of love to whomever we are speaking.

Jesus looked to the essential of the law, not its outward manifestation. Love is the essence of Christianity, not the way one dresses or how one is intimate. The judging approach you suggest sounds more like the approach of Pharisees about working on the Sabbath and less like that of Jesus who was more concerned with meeting needs.

Actually your argument in this thread is a request for me to obey cultural norms (the law) and accept what you want me to accept. That is the Pharisee position.

Mine is a desire to do something, which is far more aligned with Jesus who said morality is more important than adherence to the law.

[Danmark]

to me the error in morality analysis is displayed in the assumptions you are making. Imagine if abolitionists went around assuming that slaves were happier. And this is the crux of it for me, toleration does not equal acceptance.

Sex is so powerful that it robs us of our ability to discern if we are good for each other. Being intimate can only enhance committed relationships because it is ultimately very hard to prove faithfulness and commitment through sex. All our past sexual life works against our words of love to whomever we are speaking.

Actually your argument in this thread is a request for me to obey cultural norms (the law) and accept what you want me to accept. That is the Pharisee position.

Mine is a desire to do something, which is far more aligned with Jesus who said morality is more important than adherence to the law.

There would have been no basis for abolitionists to assume slaves in the U.S. were happier, and much evidence to assume they were miserable.
There is much evidence to suggest that people are happier if they are not pressured to act in accordance with majority norms and go against their own nature.

Most people I know have little trouble distinguishing what sexual acts they perform with whom might be harmful for either themselves or their partners. The sexual drive is very powerful, but it is not blinding. Discernment is not the problem, discipline is. I agree that long term committed relationships generally benefit from exclusivity, but this is true of both same sex and opposite sex couples.

No, I do not expect or even want you to conform to cultural norms just because they may be in accord with majority views. But I do request that you not impose your views on others. THAT imposition and judgement onto others is the "Pharisee position."

[cool_name123]

Jesus looked to the essential of the law, not its outward manifestation. Love is the essence of Christianity, not the way one dresses or how one is intimate. The judging approach you suggest sounds more like the approach of Pharisees about working on the Sabbath and less like that of Jesus who was more concerned with meeting needs.

Actually your argument in this thread is a request for me to obey cultural norms (the law) and accept what you want me to accept. That is the Pharisee position.

Mine is a desire to do something, which is far more aligned with Jesus who said morality is more important than adherence to the law.

K, I just have to jump in here cause I've never gotten the impression that Danmark's goal was to request you to obey cultural norms making this seem like a borderline straw man argument. Maybe I misread him, but it seems to me his appeal was a very legitimate one of why we place such a high emphasis on the examples given without placing and equal or even greater emphasis on attempting to understand what the intent behind the example actually is. What is the core value Christ is attempting to reveal to us through his examples? I think these are very legitimate questions to be asking and casting them off as 'appeals to obey cultural norms' instead of looking at it as an 'appeal to think critically about the texts that inform our lives' does a great disservice to the argument.

Here's a quick little video about this kind of argument so you can understand what I'm seeing (pay careful attention to his final thought).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 26 by cool_name123]

I loved that video. I believe I know a strawman when I create one

I loved the end as well - I feel, in general, that most attacks on Christianity are ultimately strawmen.

Now this is the situation.

Danmark believes that the problem Jesus has with the Pharisees is that the Pharisees were trying to impose the beliefs on others

Danmark said: No, I do not expect or even want you to conform to cultural norms just because they may be in accord with majority views. But I do request that you not impose your views on others. THAT imposition and judgement onto others is the "Pharisee position."

I contended that Danmark was incorrect in Jesus's view of the Pharisee's.

As further evidence of this, here is Jesus talking about the Pharisee's

Matthew 23:1-4 (NIV): 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Jesus says to do everything the Pharisees tell you but not act as they do.

This is my evidence that my understanding of Jesus is stronger in this thread.

The Pharisee's were not condemned for their words but their actions.

[Danmark]

Danmark believes that the problem Jesus has with the Pharisees is that the Pharisees were trying to impose the beliefs on others

Danmark said: No, I do not expect or even want you to conform to cultural norms just because they may be in accord with majority views. But I do request that you not impose your views on others. THAT imposition and judgement onto others is the "Pharisee position."

I contended that Danmark was incorrect in Jesus's view of the Pharisee's....
Jesus says to do everything the Pharisees tell you but not act as they do.

This is my evidence that my understanding of Jesus is stronger in this thread.

The Pharisee's were not condemned for their words but their actions.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees and other hypocrites, for their words as well as their actions and failures to act. Yes, the Pharisees sometimes preached correctly, tho' they did not do what they preached, but they also preached false doctrines. Jesus called them liars:
"But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you...."
_John 8:55

Luke 18:11,
"The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector."

Matthew 6:5,
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others."

Jesus taught that the words of the Pharisees were wrong in and of themselves:

"You teach that it doesn’t matter if a person swears by the temple. But you say that it does matter if someone swears by the gold in the temple. You blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
You also teach that it doesn’t matter if a person swears by the altar. But you say that it does matter if someone swears by the gift on the altar. Are you blind? Which is more important, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?"
_ Matthew 23:16-19

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 27 by Wootah]

[Replying to post 26 by cool_name123]

I loved that video. I believe I know a strawman when I create one

I loved the end as well - I feel, in general, that most attacks on Christianity are ultimately strawmen.

Oh, I always say the same thing too, sometimes it's just nice to have someone to point out when things may be heading in that direction cause those type of arguments are the easiest kind to accidentally create and as such I'm always fond of people letting me know when I'm at risk.

Now this is the situation.

Danmark believes that the problem Jesus has with the Pharisees is that the Pharisees were trying to impose the beliefs on others

Danmark said: No, I do not expect or even want you to conform to cultural norms just because they may be in accord with majority views. But I do request that you not impose your views on others. THAT imposition and judgement onto others is the "Pharisee position."

This is where I think this is happening... While that all may be well and true, I don't feel that is the point this thread is attempting to address. Hence my leaning towards this as a strawman argument. Again, if I have completely misread this thread please stop me... But I get the impression that the theme here is supposed to be one of comprehending the intent of the text, and not so much school yard style debates of who's position is more akin to that of the pharisees or who better understands Jesus. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this question seems to go deeper than that.

This is my evidence that my understanding of Jesus is stronger in this thread.

Again, whether or not it is stronger I feel is not the point. The point is what Jesus's intent was... If you feel your understanding is stronger, Great! Now utilize that stronger understanding to offer up examples of what intent you see to be influencing these texts. If there is in fact no intent influencing these examples of morality that Christ presents us then show why you think that.


And again, if I have mis-read the thread and 'intent' is in no way a central theme here, just let me know so I don't start steering this thread in a direction that only I care about.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 27 by Wootah]

Alright, so since you were such a fan of this guys video the last time I posted him... Here's another (though this time I'm kinda directing it back at myself, as I think this one may have been on me as I re-read things out of boredom).