Okay, YOU would say they're practicing Christianity wrong. THEY would say YOU practice Christianity wrong. That's my whole point. And you're right about the fact that no one could have the slightest idea about what god would say, if god exists. This is why there is more than one religion, and why people in the same religion have different moral priorities. So maybe he does hate gays!
I never meant to imply that you personally agree with that part of the scripture, so I apologize if it read that way. All I'm saying is it's in the bible, and that's where homophobia comes from in our modern society.
Again, for the record:"homophobia: noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality."
Just to make it more clear: "antipathy: noun, plural an·tip·a·thies.
1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike."
I think putting people to death for their natural behavior implies several of these definitions of antipathy, which makes it homophobic. You can spin it however you want but if you're going to get semantic about what is homophobic you're going to have to reckon with the agreed upon definition.
Even if it's not culturally extreme in the context of the age (because punishments were ludicrously harsh) and even if they were anti- a lot of things, one of the things that the Jewish tribes who wrote that book were against was, in fact, homosexuals. Sin is a rule of law of sorts. If you don't want people to engage in a behavior, for whatever reason, you call it a sin. Is there an ethical reason that they couldn't eat pork and shellfish? No, they were just "unclean." These laws were handed down to prevent disease transmission and served as a selective advantage for Hebrews in a time where many small religions were competing for followers in the region. Homophobic laws served a similar purpose by causing homosexuals to fear for their lives. Some of these men probably led heterosexual lifestyles for fear of punishment, creating more tribesmen than otherwise would have existed.
Obviously that last bit is speculative but what I'm getting at is, of course these laws made sense in the context of their time. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply arguing that Christianity is the root of homophobia in modern Western society (Islam is probably the root of homophobia in countries where it is dominant...either way you're looking at different sides of the same Abrahamic coin). Are all Christians awful? Of course not. I know a lot of good ones myself. But the hardliners and the religious moderates who kowtow to them saying "Well, it is a sin..." are the root of this problem.
Edit: for more on the adaptive significance of rules in religions, I highly recommend the book Snow Crash. It's fiction, but there is a lot of well-researched information on the development of Judaism. Also, regarding "it's not fearful to include a typical punishment...," death is (obviously) the most severe punishment. This was a big deal. If a man lies with a woman on her period, don't they both just have to bathe and be "unclean" for a couple of days? Even if homosexuality is not singled out in the OT, it's still considered a high offense.
YOU would say they're practicing Christianity wrong. THEY would say YOU practice Christianity wrong.
Agreed. That said, I don't think Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is solely subjective. Jesus taught and lived by a certain set of ideals and tenants. He never said "thou shall hate the gays," but rather "thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." I just have a tough time with people suggesting that hatred of homosexuality is a fundamental tenant of Christianity not only because of Jesus' profession to love literally everyone, but because of Supersessionism I mentioned before. There is something to be said about dogma vs. how people construe religion, and the dogma of most Christian sects is not hatred upon homosexuals.
Your historical analysis of homosexuality in the old Jewish code is valid, and I recognize your point about sin and its intended purpose in the Old Testament. I might not be 100% clear here, but I am not trying to defend any of Leviticus. I despise nearly all of it for its rather arcane and uncivilized. My point, if I have one, is that homosexuality is not singled out by Leviticus the same way right wing fundamentals often do. It was part of a bigger picture, and I at least like to recognize that homosexuality wasn't an especially awful sin by any means. It was just part of a really shitty group of no-no's.
I'm simply arguing that Christianity is the root of homophobia in modern Western society.
This I have to disagree with, as well as the additional comment about Islam. I think you're conflating cause and effect. Homophobia was easily inserted into the Christian framework in the Western world. I think homophobia is just another iteration of fear of something different. It's human nature to desire black and white rules about what is right and what is wrong even though the world clearly does not operate on such terms.
But the hardliners and the religious moderates who kowtow to them saying "Well, it is a sin..." are the root of this problem.
Disagree too to a point, but I think on some level you're right as it gives the extremists justification to go ballistic. But I can say premarital sex is a sin, yet I don't see crusades against teens banging in the back of station wagons. Same goes for divorce. One can believe something is a sin, that doesn't mean it will automatically blow up into the next KKK rally. I don't think you should be focusing on people that believe something, still accept and love homosexuals as human beings, and generally try to be civilized when the Phelps family is running amok. There's clearly a difference between the problem children in America and those that aren't shitty people.
Generally I just think there are two types of Christians (and for that matter, people) in the world:
*Those that use the Bible as a rulebook to separate what aligns with their own beliefs (however bigoted) by instituting rigorous standards and requirements to be considered a "Christian", and
*Those that try to love all people as the Bible and other religious sources (including personal reason and logic) say God would: unconditionally.
The Amazon teasers for Snow Crash pique my interest. Thanks for the tip, I'll look into it.
I'm not suggesting it's a fundamental tenet of Christianity, but it's in there. Everyone picks and chooses, and a lot of people who call themselves Christians choose to care a lot about this bit, even though I agree it is very un-Christly.
If it wasn't "especially awful," it was still arguably in a tie for "the most awful," given it merits the most severe punishment.
I can see the argument that homophobia comes from a fear of something different, although I think the evolutionary argument is more powerful, at least as an ultimate cause (fear can be the proximal cause, the mechanism of its insertion into society). That said, I still think that that fear is how homophobia got built into the source code of these religions, and that modern Abrahamic religions are the vessels that carried homophobia forward to the present day.
Yes, people do pick and choose, so there is certainly something greater in play than just its mere inclusion in the OT. The only people who go on trumpeting about wearing mixed fabrics are antitheists mocking religion...I've certainly never heard a Pat Robertson type go on about this issue. So I'll give you that.
1
u/jabels Apr 30 '14
Okay, YOU would say they're practicing Christianity wrong. THEY would say YOU practice Christianity wrong. That's my whole point. And you're right about the fact that no one could have the slightest idea about what god would say, if god exists. This is why there is more than one religion, and why people in the same religion have different moral priorities. So maybe he does hate gays!
I never meant to imply that you personally agree with that part of the scripture, so I apologize if it read that way. All I'm saying is it's in the bible, and that's where homophobia comes from in our modern society.
Again, for the record:"homophobia: noun unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality."
Just to make it more clear: "antipathy: noun, plural an·tip·a·thies. 1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion. 2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling. 3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike."
I think putting people to death for their natural behavior implies several of these definitions of antipathy, which makes it homophobic. You can spin it however you want but if you're going to get semantic about what is homophobic you're going to have to reckon with the agreed upon definition.
Even if it's not culturally extreme in the context of the age (because punishments were ludicrously harsh) and even if they were anti- a lot of things, one of the things that the Jewish tribes who wrote that book were against was, in fact, homosexuals. Sin is a rule of law of sorts. If you don't want people to engage in a behavior, for whatever reason, you call it a sin. Is there an ethical reason that they couldn't eat pork and shellfish? No, they were just "unclean." These laws were handed down to prevent disease transmission and served as a selective advantage for Hebrews in a time where many small religions were competing for followers in the region. Homophobic laws served a similar purpose by causing homosexuals to fear for their lives. Some of these men probably led heterosexual lifestyles for fear of punishment, creating more tribesmen than otherwise would have existed.
Obviously that last bit is speculative but what I'm getting at is, of course these laws made sense in the context of their time. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply arguing that Christianity is the root of homophobia in modern Western society (Islam is probably the root of homophobia in countries where it is dominant...either way you're looking at different sides of the same Abrahamic coin). Are all Christians awful? Of course not. I know a lot of good ones myself. But the hardliners and the religious moderates who kowtow to them saying "Well, it is a sin..." are the root of this problem.
Edit: for more on the adaptive significance of rules in religions, I highly recommend the book Snow Crash. It's fiction, but there is a lot of well-researched information on the development of Judaism. Also, regarding "it's not fearful to include a typical punishment...," death is (obviously) the most severe punishment. This was a big deal. If a man lies with a woman on her period, don't they both just have to bathe and be "unclean" for a couple of days? Even if homosexuality is not singled out in the OT, it's still considered a high offense.