Sunday, August 16, 2009

Blog Adventures part one

I am perpetually in the middle of a debate on someone's blog these days. I enjoy the exchange. It helps to clarify one's position - and it can definitely make you consider something in a different way. Of course there is definitely a time to "walk" away, which I need to be better at. We have to recognize that everyone is on his/her own journey and ultimately we're all partners in trying to figure out this crazy thing called life.

I'll try to share a few interesting debates either by copying them here, or by providing a link to the other blog.

This is one interesting exchange with a (very) conservative Christian whom I will call "Rick". I had praised a conservative minister on his blog for seeking to include women in the ministry, but I also challenged his view on homosexuality. The minister and I enjoyed a very courteous exchange. We disagree, but he seems like a really nice guy. Then Rick entered the debate. Here's the exchange:

RICK:

Steven Stark,
You may not think this is a “civil” exchange, so you may not think it's very enjoyable.

You said, “Scientific studies tell us [blab blab]…a person is born with this orientation.”

You sound like Adam blaming God for making Eve etc.

Is the Scripture below what you were referring to when you said Paul had a “distaste for homosexuality.”

“God let them go ahead into every sort of sex sin…vile and sinful things with each other’s bodies…THEY DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO BELIEVE LIES…their women indulged in sex sin with each other…and their men burned with lust for each other…” (Romans 1:24-27)

Steven, are you an example of believing lies when you believe “homosexual orientation is genetic”?

What do you do with the warning of Peter?

“He turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into heaps of ashes and blotted them off the face of the earth, making them an example for all the ungodly in the FUTURE to look back upon and FEAR.” (2 Peter 2:6)

Because certain people had more ‘evidence’ and knowledge of the wonders of God, Jesus told them:

“I tell you, even Sodom will be better off on judgment than you.” (Matthew 11:24)

Steven, don’t you have even more information than these certain people had?


STEVEN:

“Steven, are you an example of believing lies when you believe “homosexual orientation is genetic”?”

I suppose if facts obtained through the scientific method are lies, then I am guilty. It’s difficult to think of a god who would disguise “lies” as “facts” to fool people. If we cannot rely on our reason - defined as inference based on observations about the natural world- to make decisions, then we’re in trouble! The dark ages start to make a lot more sense....

“THEY DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO BELIEVE LIES”

Do we not judge what is a lie and what is truth by evidence? Or do we assume that the apostle Paul is right a priori and make deductive arguments based on that? Or do we look at evidence and gradually build our knowledge inductively, therefore seeing the apostle Paul as a product of his time and the more limited knowledge associated with it? I appreciate what Paul did with what he had, but he is not God.


“Steven, don’t you have even more information than these certain people had?”

Perhaps so. Including the knowledge that homosexuality is a preference most likely created by genetic and in utero factors.

Best,

Steven


RICK:

Steven,
You said, “It’s difficult to think of a god who would disguise ‘lies’ as ‘facts’ to fool people.”

Hmmm…let’s see if I understand what you said.
1. First there has to be lies.
2. A false god disguised them as facts.
3. These facts fooled people.

Applying the above to your belief would be.
1. Paul told lies.
2. People, Baptists, or a god disguised these lies as facts.
3. Christians have been fooled.

Continuing your line of though, Peter and Jesus also told lies.

Hey! If God made the people of Sodom and Gomorrah the way they were, you’re calling God a hypocrite or even worse; a murderer.

You said, “If we cannot rely on our reason…then we’re in trouble.”

Trouble is right! “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it is the way of death.” (Proverbs 16: 25)


STEVEN:

“Hey! If God made the people of Sodom and Gomorrah the way they were, you’re calling God a hypocrite or even worse; a murderer.”

Well, we don’t have to assume anything to read in Scripture that God killed (murdered) all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. He also commanded Joshua to commit mass infanticide. He also killed every living thing (men, women, babies, etc.) that he had created with the flood. (assuming a literal interpretation of Scripture, which I don’t BTW, but assuming your position here)

But I don’t think God (however we define that term) is a hypocrite or a murderer. He doesn’t disguise lies as facts. I have a simpler solution. I think the Bible was written by imperfect, finite humans. The Bible is a great work of mankind, of humanity, trying to understand what they deemed to be “divine.”

I don’t think the writers (including Paul) told lies. I have great respect for many of the writers. As I wrote before, they were products of their culture and time, and should be understood that way. I certainly hope that if someone read my words 2,000 years from now, they would afford me that courtesy.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it is the way of death.”

There is a indeed a way that seems right to man, among MANY ways that seem right to many different people. All of them end in death, BTW ;) - Ecclesiastes tells us that.

But the argument against using human reason in interpretation of Scripture is interesting. It usually goes something like this:

1. I value the Bible based on my reason and feelings.
2. There are aspects of the Bible which offend my reason and feelings
3. I cannot trust my reason and feelings.

This is non-sequitur thinking, of course, but it shows us that reason is involved no matter what.

thanks for the exchange,

Steven


RICK:

Steven,
I agree with you that God is not a murderer. He has executed a lot of people in dealing out justice.

That’s what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah, and that’s what He will do at judgment day.

I doubt any will argue that science made them sin as they’ll be too busy crying for the rocks and mountains to fall on them.

The most non-sequitur thinking is your explanation of Proverbs 16:25.

You mentioned 2000 years. Where will you be then and for what reason?

Steven, do you think anyone has ever wanted their body cremated and scattered to the four winds in the belief God can’t find them?

How many times through eternity will they wish they’d never been born?

God wants us to reason or he would have made us robots.

It’s much smarter to reason that God’s Word is true and be on the safe side than to depend on science that contradicts God’s Word and take a chance.


STEVEN:

"Steven, do you think anyone has ever wanted their body cremated and scattered to the four winds in the belief God can’t find them?

How many times through eternity will they wish they’d never been born?"

We'll have to hope and pray that God is better than that. Especially since Jesus said to "love your enemies". Why? So we can be perfect "as our father in heaven is perfect."


"God wants us to reason or he would have made us robots.

It’s much smarter to reason that God’s Word is true and be on the safe side than to depend on science that contradicts God’s Word and take a chance."

These two ideas are at odds. The first says to reason, the second says to suppress reason out of fear.

I think we have to do our best to find truth and trust that God will correct us if we need it. We cannot ignore facts and evidence in this process.

best,

Steven

END OF EXCHANGE (so far)

6 comments:

  1. Ooh. It's really better not to get involved in things like this. More for your own sanity than anything. Not that I haven't argued to the point of belligerence (a truth of which I'm often ashamed). I can already tell you what "Rick's" reply will be, because I know.

    It would be good to note here a morsel from a different religious tradition: "[The] truth is to be lived, it is not to be merely pronounced with the mouth.... There is really nothing to argue about in this teaching; any arguing is sure to go against the intent of it." - Hui Neng

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, you are doing a great job talking to Rick. I think you need to write a book. A book that perhaps has its target market as people like Rick. Maybe a book that is part 1 of a series. And, part 1 is something that Rick could read and feel ok with (nothing too difficult for him to deal with emotionally, just a good opener) and then as the series goes on the books become more challenging to his line of thought. This was you could reach a lot of people like Rick, but without as much personal exchange that might keep you up at night trying to think of ways to deal with it. If you could get it all written down on paper then you could have all that information out of your head and on paper in a way that you might find very fulfilling and relaxing. Sort of like when I have a list of things to do the next day in my head, it helps a lot to simply jot it down on paper. Then I don't worry about missing something. Anyway, maybe if you wrote a book or series of books you could get it all out. Wait 10 years, and then do it all over again after you get a build up of more stuff you need to get out of your head. I hate to think that you are only reaching Rick. You need to be talking to lots of people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John~ While I agree that Steven's doing a fine job, there's just one bit of trouble with your plan... people like "Rick" wouldn't read his book. They prefer not to challenge their assumptions. Trust me - I wish they would.

    ReplyDelete
  4. nuclear.kelly,

    Thanks so much for your comments and the all important reminder that tangible, "lived" life trumps rhetoric and "thinking mind belief" any day. Of course, they can be connected causally, but still.

    I have briefly checked in on your blog and have really enjoyed it so far. I found myself smiling, reading a few things you have written that......sound exactly how I would have TRIED to put them.

    John,

    Great idea concerning organization and focus......maybe someday! But yes, I'm sure "Rick" wouldn't read it........but who knows? Thanks, man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. you are right that Rick probably wouldn't read it. I was more meaning that it would be good for Steve. If he could leave this world having all his thoughts printed as a legacy to the world, I think he would leave the world pretty satisfied. I really meant it more as a way to get your thoughts put down on paper in a way that is organized, and able to be shared.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks John. I always appreciate someone having an interest in me getting my thoughts more organized! That would be nice!........... :)

    ReplyDelete