As we saw in our last blog post morality is a matter of what God requires: "He has shown you, o man, what is good; / And what does the Lord require of you . . ." (Mic. 6:8; NKJV). But what does God require of us? The text goes on to answer: "But to do justly, / To love mercy, / And to walk humbly with your God."
"To do justly" (literally, "to do justice") strictly speaking has to do with the actions of a judge. Specifically we are to provide each person with his due and condemn no one wrongly. Everyone is to be treated fairly in accordance with the law. In a very broad sense it involves the way all of us treat each other. We should do nothing that would in any way harm our neighbor, whether in his person, his property, or his reputation.
But then we are also "to love mercy." The Hebrew word translated "mercy" involves goodness or kindness, especially to those in need. In other words, we ought to have such a care and concern for our fellow human beings that we would respond readily to their need to the extent of our ability.
And then, finally, our text says that we should "walk humbly with [our] God." "Walk" is a common biblical metaphor for the way we live – we walk down a chosen path in life. Thus, to "walk with God" means to live one's life in communion with God and to conduct oneself in accordance with His will. More specifically, we are to walk "humbly" with God, in full recognition of the tremendous disparity that exists between Him and us. He is God – eternal, self-existent, the Creator of heaven and earth. We, on the other hand, are mere creatures of the dust, finite, mortal, here today and gone tomorrow. How could God, so high and lofty, have communion with lowly creatures such as ourselves? The very suggestion boggles the imagination. And yet God created us for this very purpose.
 |
| Anthony van Dyke, Family Portrait |
But morality is also partly a matter of what God has ordained for us as creatures. The reason that homosexuality is wrong is that it violates God's intention when He created us as sexual beings. We are told in Genesis that God said "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:18). Then God created Eve, and the text adds the explanatory comment: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Adultery, divorce, and a whole list of sexual perversions are condemned in the Bible because they undermine God's purpose for marriage, and are ultimately harmful to society.
Jesus summed it up well when He said that the greatest commandment was to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength" (Dt. 6:5), and that the second greatest is to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18).
Related blog posts:
Jesus and the Torah
The Golden Rule
The reason that homosexuality is wrong is that it violates God's intention when He created us as sexual beings.
ReplyDeleteWhat about people who are intersexed, or hermaphrodites, or basically anything other than the supposed binary "ideal" of sex?
Adultery, divorce, and a whole list of sexual perversions are condemned in the Bible because they undermine God's purpose for marriage, and are ultimately harmful to society.
I couldn't care less about an imaginary beings purposes for a human institution, but I would be interested in support for your claims that these things are "harmful to society".
You may want to take a look at 3 blog posts I published in May, 2012:
ReplyDelete"Adultery" (5/14/12),
"Jesus on Divorce" (5/18/12), and
"The Future of Playboy America" (5/22/12).
There was also a recent op-ed piece in USA Today entitled "Guns don't kill people -- our sons do" (1/7/13) which describes the impact of divorce on adolescent boys. I was going to write a piece of my own in response, but decided against it because many of the recent mass murderers actually seem to have come from apparently stable two-parent homes. But it is, nevertheless, a well documented fact that divorce has a negative impact on kids, especially on boys who have little contact with their fathers.
As for hermaphrodites, that is an anomaly that should be corrected surgically, as even medical science would agree. Which raises the interesting question, how does medical science determine what is "normal"?
Bob: But it is, nevertheless, a well documented fact that divorce has a negative impact on kids, especially on boys who have little contact with their fathers.
DeleteIs the divorce causative of the negative impact?
Are there perhaps societal issues that come into play here (lower incomes from single mothers, or the shame that has, and still is, heaped upon single mothers by society, for example)?
Are there benefits to divorce (happier adults and children who are not stuck in unhappy and/or abusive relationship due to rushing into a marriage)?
What does a cost/benefit analysis show on the whole here, regarding the direct negative and positive consequences (rather than indirect things like shame and lower incomes) show regarding divorce?
Bob: As for hermaphrodites, that is an anomaly that should be corrected surgically, as even medical science would agree.
An "anomoly" that your God obviously chose for those people?
And what about intersexed people Bob?
I don't believe that medical science does actually agree with you here - surgery may be suggested to avoid the obvious negatives from not being "normal", but I don't see any non-social reason for "correction".
Bob: Which raises the interesting question, how does medical science determine what is "normal"?
Why do you think medical science get to decide such a thing when it comes to gender, Bob?
On the question of divorce, a number of years ago the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was be no means either a Fundamentalist Protestant or a right-wing Republican, published a book entitled "Family and Nation," which was based on the Godkin Lectures in 1985. He presented a wealth of sociological data that showed that males raised in single parent parent families headed by women were far more likely to be susceptible to crime, drugs, poverty, and poor school performance. While there are many different factors involved, the absence of a positive adult male role model is certainly one of the most important. It creates psychological pressure unique to adolescent males.
DeleteAs for what is "normal," how do we decide? If you are a physician, you would examine the patient and if he displays the symptoms of disease or injury, you would say that he is "abnormal." But why? On what basis? The underlying assumption is that there is a certain way that the human body SHOULD function, and when it doesn't, we take corrective action.
But suppose you are a psychiatrist. A patient displays bizarre and erratic behavior. How do you determine whether or not that is "normal"? The words "bizarre" and "erratic" are, after all, value judgments. Isn't there some kind of value system that lies behind the diagnosis?
But is homosexuality "normal"? At one time it was regarded as a mental illness, but later was removed from the list of diagnosis codes. Why did we think it was "abnormal" before? Why do we think it is "normal" now?
(The answer, I understand, is that psychologists interviewed a variety of gay men and discovered that most of them were not especially conflicted about their sexual orientation. The implication: "normal" is determined by how you feel about yourself.)
In earlier times, "normalcy" presupposed a fixed order of things. The human body was engineered much the same one that an automobile is -- it was designed to function a certain way. Christianity explained this by appealing to a Divine Creator. Essence precedes existence. Darwinism challenged this fundamental assumption of Western culture. We exist, without any divinely ordained essence at all. So then, what is the "norm"? One could argue that natural selection provides a kind of norm. Homosexuality is a regressive tendency that undermines the viability of the species. Sexual reproduction serves to perpetuate the species, and thus homosexuality is an anomaly, which, one would think, would eventually breed itself out of the race.
But I will stick with the intelligent Designer.
Bob: While there are many different factors involved, the absence of a positive adult male role model is certainly one of the most important. It creates psychological pressure unique to adolescent males.
DeletePerhaps this is a societal expectation more than a requirement of adolescent males, in that young boys raised by a mother and no father are seen as being less men, or are told that they need a father?
Bob: If you are a physician, you would examine the patient and if he displays the symptoms of disease or injury, you would say that he is "abnormal."
We're not talking about disease or injury here Bob.
Bob: But why? On what basis? The underlying assumption is that there is a certain way that the human body SHOULD function, and when it doesn't, we take corrective action.
We're talking about gender here - if a person has a functional vagina and penis, why do anything?
Bob: A patient displays bizarre and erratic behavior. How do you determine whether or not that is "normal"? The words "bizarre" and "erratic" are, after all, value judgments. Isn't there some kind of value system that lies behind the diagnosis?
Psych is a pretty fuzzy and young, scientifically field. There's been a lot of pseudo-science involved in it.
Regarding someone behaving in the way you describe, there would be many factors to take into account.
Has this behaviour started recently?
Was it sudden onset, or gradual?
(these could indicate some kind of problem with their brain, like a tumour)
Are they a danger to others (eg. violent)?
Are they a danger to themselves?
(these could indicate that the person should be separated from other people and watched closely, for the safety of all).
Bob: But is homosexuality "normal"?
Homosexual behaviour manifests in numerous species, and has, as far as we can tell, a segment of humanity has always been homosexual.
Bob: Why did we think it was "abnormal" before? Why do we think it is "normal" now?
We thought it was abnormal because people think it is icky, the bible tells us it is "wrong", etc.
We think it is normal now because we understand that our feelings are not a good indicator of truth, that the behaviour isn't actually really icky, and we don't take the bible as seriously as we used to.
Bob: The human body was engineered much the same one that an automobile is -- it was designed to function a certain way.
Your ignorance about how humanity came to be is showing Bob. The human body wasn't designer as far as we can tell, regardless of what your ancient books tell you.
Bob: Christianity explained this by appealing to a Divine Creator.
Christianity explained this away - it's an argument from ignorance or god of the gaps.
Bob: So then, what is the "norm"? One could argue that natural selection provides a kind of norm. Homosexuality is a regressive tendency that undermines the viability of the species. Sexual reproduction serves to perpetuate the species, and thus homosexuality is an anomaly, which, one would think, would eventually breed itself out of the race.
And yet it has always been with us, exists in many different species, and shows no sign of "breeding itself out".
hence, your argument here is flawed - homosexuality must not be a regressive tendency, must not undermine the viability of the species.
Bob: But I will stick with the intelligent Designer.
Well, if you like to remain in ignorance, make unevidenced claims as if they were true, and basically show yourself to be foolish, then by all means go ahead :-)
The reason that homosexuality is wrong is that it violates God's intention when He created us as sexual beings.
ReplyDeleteThis is bigotry. You are using your religious beliefs to malign and attack people. Gays are not "wrong". They are not straight people choosing to be gay just to make you angry.
Whenever you try to justify your bigotry with secular reasoning, you end up with handwaving.
Adultery, divorce, and a whole list of sexual perversions are condemned in the Bible because they undermine God's purpose for marriage, and are ultimately harmful to society.
No. Divorce is not harmful to society in and of itself.
People do not get divorced just to make you feel bad.
Taking away people's right to get divorced would be a fantastically horrible thing to do.
There are couples out there that never should have gotten married in the first place.
There are partners that change for the worse...or simply change.
"...a well documented fact that divorce has a negative impact on kids, especially on boys who have little contact with their fathers."
Even if this is true, it does not equate divorce with "perversion" or it being harmful to society.
If you had a daughter who married a violent scumbag of a man, would you not insist she get away from him and find a good man more worthy of her? Or would you preach at her endlessly that no matter how many times he broke her teeth she should not make your magical invisible friend angry?
Or what if you had a son who married a frigid shrew? (it happens)
His wife is not going to change. She is who she is.
Your son is a healthy, normal man with normal sexual needs.
Should he kiss a happy sex life goodbye forever?
Seems a tad harsh especially if there's a good chance that there's a woman out there that's much better suited to him and could make them both happy.
Some marriages have no magic fixes and can be best described as cruel and unusual punishment. Such marriages are poisonous.
Obviously even a saint has to live in a fallen society, and finds himself faced with difficult choices. But the ideal standard is determined by God, and our goal is to conform to it. This is why we fight for social justice and human rights, and for a safe environment. In a word, we believe in redemption.
DeleteI think I can tell you that in actual practice one of the biggest problems facing Christian pastors today is what to do about the myriad of people who have already been divorced. Believe me, there are no easy answers, but we must continue to try. And as a single father of three daughters, I worry about it all the time. (I am a widower).
Or would you preach at her endlessly that no matter how many times he broke her teeth she should not make your magical invisible friend angry?
Delete"Obviously even a saint has to live in a fallen society, and finds himself faced with difficult choices. But the ideal standard is determined by God, and our goal is to conform to it."
That's a really horrible thing to say to your daughter in such a situation on the matter of her getting a divorce.
Gross.
If I had children, I'd love and protect them better than that.
If there is physical violence in the home, obviously you would want to remove the victims from the home, and a separation would be in order. But if people had an incentive to preserve the marriage, many of them could be fixed with appropriate counseling.
DeleteIf you had grandchildren, wouldn't you love and protect them better than allowing their home to be broken up?
If there is physical violence in the home, obviously you would want to remove the victims from the home, and a separation would be in order.
DeleteFollowed by a divorce, yes?
Go on Bob. Say it.
Say the D word.
It won't kill you.
Embrace the 21st century.
"If you had grandchildren, wouldn't you love and protect them better than allowing their home to be broken up?"
Is that what you are going to say to your daughter when she comes to you with broken teeth?
Are you really comfortable with that?
Eww.
How many times does it have to happen until you give her protection and give your blessing for her to get a divorce?
Once?
Twice?
Three times?
How many times are you going to wring your hands and babble about councelling as your daughter is bashed by the sick, cowardly scum of a husband that she had the sheer bad fortune to marry?
Why would you allow your grandchildren to grow up in a household where they could witness their mother being beaten like an animal at the dinner table?
It happens.
What if your daughter tells you the times she's been raped by her spouse? Tortured?
How about "mere" mental abuse? Does that count in your eyes or is that just a silly little thing that you are prepared to ignore for the sake of keeping up appearances?
This is not a noble moment for you Bob.
It's ugly.
Bob: How could God, so high and lofty, have communion with lowly creatures such as ourselves? The very suggestion boggles the imagination. And yet God created us for this very purpose.
ReplyDeleteWhy would your god do such a thing? Surely a being has no need of such communion? Such a being would know that if he created creatures like us, in a universe like this, that there would be untold suffering, that only a small fraction would accept the conditions for this communion and the rest would suffer in vain. Surely a being such as god is supposed to be would not have created in the first place? :-)
It is interesting that you should raise the question. This was, in fact, the very point that was raised in ancient times, and led to a fierce debate over just exactly who Christ was. Influenced by Greek and Persian thinking many in the ancient world questioned how God could be touched by anything earthly or temporal, and specifically how Christ could be both God and man at the same time (it seemed like a contradiction.) This led to the rise of Gnosticism and a variety of heresies within the Christian church. The ultimate orthodox answer is that it is a mystery that defies comprehension, but that without human salvation is impossible -- there would be no way to bridge the infinite gap between the temporal and eternal, the human and the divine.
DeleteYou didn't address my question Bob.
DeleteWhy would your god have created anything like what we see around us, when it would have known how much misery and evil would come of it, it would have had no need to actually create anything, and is apparently capable of creating something far superior (heaven, or the coming kingdom, depending on your beliefs).
So, given that, there is no reason for a god such as the one you believe in to create a universe such as the one we live in. Hence there is good reason to think that a god such as the one you believe in doesn't exist, since we do fins ourselves in this universe, and not heaven.
Bob: This led to the rise of Gnosticism and a variety of heresies within the Christian church.
And these heresies seem to be as old as (or perhaps older) than the orthodox view - Christianity seems to have begun in riotous diversity, rather than as a unified movement.
Bob: The ultimate orthodox answer is that it is a mystery that defies comprehension, but that without human salvation is impossible -- there would be no way to bridge the infinite gap between the temporal and eternal, the human and the divine.
If it's beyond comprehension, then how can you claim to know that bridging the gap would be impossible?
How do you even know that it is true but defies all comprehension (rather than simply being irrational, illogical or just plain ridiculous)?
It is interesting that you should raise the question.
DeleteWhat's even more interesting is your total lack of a good answer.
The question of theodicy is one of the thorniest in theology. God hasn't told us "why."
ReplyDeleteThe world is like the ruins of a Greek temple. A Christian and an atheist both stand looking at it. The atheist exclaims: "This could not have been created by an intelligent being. Why would a skilled architect design it with columns broken off and lying on the ground?" The Christian responds, "How did the columns get there in the first place?"
The universe shows pervasive evidence of design -- it is just too complex and structured to have come into existence through an random, unguided natural process. Yet evil, both physical and moral, are undeniably present. While we cannot explain the juxtaposition of these two facts, their existence is undeniable. The question is, how do we live in light of it?
Bob: God hasn't told us "why."
DeleteYet a being such as the Christian god is supposed to be, would surely have done so, correct?
your God supposedly cares about us, wants us to know him, wants to avoid suffering.
And yet we have no clear communications from this being, what we do have claimed as being from this being is an ambiguous mess (where it isn't incoherent, contradictory or just plain wrong) written in dead languages and open to a myriad of interpretations.
Your god, if it exists, has done an absolutely terrible job of communicating with us - and since such a being ought to have absolutely no difficulty communicating with us, this is yet more reason to think that the god you believe in doesn't exist.
Bob: The atheist exclaims: "This could not have been created by an intelligent being. Why would a skilled architect design it with columns broken off and lying on the ground?" The Christian responds, "How did the columns get there in the first place?"
That's a ridiculous analogy Bob.
The reason I don't believe that the world was created by an intelligent being is that there is no successful positive case for one. They're all negative cases which privilege the beliefs of the proponent rather than simply admitting we don't know.
Bob: The universe shows pervasive evidence of design
And yet arguments purporting to show this fail.
Bob: it is just too complex and structured to have come into existence through an random, unguided natural process.
Unguided, sure, but random - not sure why that must be the only alternative.
And, since we see natural processes all of the time which are determinate (gravity, for instance), this assertion of yours, like other arguments for design, fails.
Bob: Yet evil, both physical and moral, are undeniably present.
I deny them Bob. I see no reason to invoke anything like the Christian concept of evil (whether privation of good as in Thomism, or something actually existing) to explain anything either physical or moral.
Bob: While we cannot explain the juxtaposition of these two facts, their existence is undeniable.
Well, since I just denied them, they don't seem to be undeniable.
Perhaps you care to make a case for their existence (in the sense that you require them).
Bob: The question is, how do we live in light of it?
But you haven't shown that we live in the light of anything as yet - you're prematurely jumping to your preferred conclusion rather than working out the details and seeing if they actually obtain in reality.
And yet you criticise scientists for making unjustified claims.
The world is like the ruins of a Greek temple.
DeleteBad analogy. You have to demonstrate that the world really is like the ruins of a Greek temple.
Greek temples were built by people.
Atheists know this.
(Well, to be fair...pretty much everybody would know this.)
Atheists are also familiar with ruins and how they are formed.
It's wierd that you consider this to be an apt analogy and that you can't see the inbuild assumptions.
"Your god, if it exists, has done an absolutely terrible job of communicating with us - and since such a being ought to have absolutely no difficulty communicating with us, this is yet more reason to think that the god you believe in doesn't exist."
DeleteWhat is involved here is the inherent difficulty of the infinite communicating with the finite. There are some things God could never make us understand, and, not surprisingly, some of what He has told us if difficult to understand.
But the biblical writers consistently maintained that God communicated to them in verbal propositions, and they in turn wrote down what was communicated. And while there are obscure passages, for the most part the Bible is not as hard to understand as you maintain. Words have meanings, sentences have syntax, and books have historical context. When all of these are taken into consideration, the meaning of the text is reasonably clear.
I continue to maintain that the Greek temple analogy is apt. When you see order and logical structure, you naturally assume an architect. When you see crumbling ruins, you assume a subsequent disaster. And so it is with the world at large. The appearance of design is evidence of design. And yet at the same time the world is obviously dysfunctional. There is no easy explanation for this. One could argue that the world simply exists, warts and all, and we need to learn to accept it. (Human society is about power, not some abstract concept of "justice"). Or we could accept the biblical account, that God created everything "good" and that it was subsequently ruined by human depravity.
DeleteI continue to maintain that the Greek temple analogy is apt.
DeleteYou have not taken into account that we already know that people built the temples. Your analogy fails because it has built-in assumptions.
Atheists know that people built Greek temples.
They are not going to say "This could not have been created by an intelligent being." since the Greeks were intelligent.
When you see order and logical structure, you naturally assume an architect.
Yes but when you see lightning you naturally assume a lightning thrower.
(see what I did there?)
Or we could accept the biblical account...
based on your local geography.
(shrug)
The Muslim will accept his account and the Hindu will accept her account and the Scientologist will accept their account etc.
All of it based on geography.
Your arguments are not specific to your brand name.
They can be neatly hijacked by other rival religions with a simple label change.
Bob: What is involved here is the inherent difficulty of the infinite communicating with the finite. There are some things God could never make us understand, and, not surprisingly, some of what He has told us if difficult to understand.
DeleteBob, nothing could possibly be difficult for your god - it's definitional.
Also, do you truly think that things are as clear as they could possibly be?
Do you think, perhaps, that your god could have been a little more forthcoming on, say, the moral wrongness of slavery (rather than allowing it to be presented as morally acceptable)?
Bob: But the biblical writers consistently maintained that God communicated to them in verbal propositions, and they in turn wrote down what was communicated.
Good for the authors of the biblical texts. Of course, there is little to no reason to take these claims seriously (neither the communication in verbal propositions, nor the accurate writing down of said propositions).
Bob: And while there are obscure passages, for the most part the Bible is not as hard to understand as you maintain.
Really?
The riotous diversity that has existed in Christianity basically since it's inception, based upon different understandings of various passages, undermines this point entirely.
Bob: Words have meanings, sentences have syntax, and books have historical context. When all of these are taken into consideration, the meaning of the text is reasonably clear.
And yet the languages are dead, the sentences and syntax ambiguous, and the historical context shrouded in the mists of time. When these things are taken into account, especially when combined with the numerous and often contradictory interpretations of the text, we can see that your claims are unfounded.
And, we can also see that an omniscient being, as your god is supposed to be, would know how to communicate more effectively, and an omnipotent being would be able to carry out this effective communication.
This is yet more reason to think that the god you believe in does not actually exist.
I won't bother with your flawed analogy related to intelligent design,since I've dealt with it in previous comments, and Cedric deals with it effectively above.