UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I haven't read the bible ....but does it really "advocate" bigotry against homosexuality?...maybe Calgaryborn can fill us in??...

No doubt he can provide a much more creative and apologetic take, but I don't see any other way to read the very few, brief, and equally terse treatments of "homosexuality" in the Bible: They are highly polemical.

However, two things of note here: First, the "biblical" position is a normative position in its own cultural and historical context. Second, "homosexuality" in the ancient world was NOTHING like modern day same sex coupling.

First, the Bible has its roots in the Ancient Mesopotamian world in which ritual purity, creational order, and family solidarity were the primary concerns of virtually every people group. I personally think these last two are fundamental to understanding what we perceive to be "anti-homosexual" invectives in biblical literature. The general concept of the world and the cosmos for these people held that the universe consisted of a vast system of careful balance that was constructed by the gods, and which held the powerful and destructive forces of chaos at bay. Virtually everything had a place and a purpose, and things were carefully ordered as a way to explain the nature of "creation". According to this worldview, women and men are opposite and complimentary halfs of a divinely mandated sexual union: To break the created order was to celebrate chaos. It threatened to upset the delicate balance of the cosmos, and to ultimately result in its utter destruction and ruin. Furthermore, sex in the ANE had little or nothing to do with love and romance. It was about power and procreation. It was for the function of producing children, expanding one's family and clan, and ensuring their preservation and success. An utterly non-productive sexual union is both incomprehensible and offensive in a world in which basic survival is so dependent upon the health and well being of the family.

Second, "homosexuality" was not common, and it was not primarily the product (as near as we can tell from the surviving literature) of "sexual orientation". Who even knows if there was such a thing in the ancient world? Not to suggest that there is any biological difference in the modern Western world, but the social constructs that we use to govern and explain sexuality are entirely different. When ancient peoples experienced "same sex attraction", I am fairly convinced that they did not perceive it nor express it in terms of romantic companionship as we do in this day and age. The most developed forms of homosexual practice in the region came from ancient Greek society, and it functioned a strange part of the relationship between a much older teacher and his very young pupil. It was not "love" or "affection" or even any sort of "attraction". It was a convention that was engrained into Hellenistic pedagogy as part of the normal upbringing and education for Greek boys. It much more closely resembled pediastry than modern homosexual companionship. Is it any wonder that the Eastern Semitic cultures were so repulsed by it? The Romans were especially critical of what they viewed as a base and vulgar form of barbarism.

So then, when reading the Bible about "homosexuality"—as with anything—it is always important to try to understand it within its own context. Not to excuse its polemical treatment of minorities and foreigners which is clearly evil by our modern standards, but to attempt to see WHY and HOW these attitudes prevailed.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Furthermore, sex in the ANE had little or nothing to do with love and romance.

I need some clarification on this term. I do not think it means what I thought it did when I first read it.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I need some clarification on this term. I do not think it means what I thought it did when I first read it.

I thought it was French. Now I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Reaper

I need some clarification on this term. I do not think it means what I thought it did when I first read it.

Ancient Near East

Im assuming...

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No doubt he can provide a much more creative and apologetic take, but I don't see any other way to read the very few, brief, and equally terse treatments of "homosexuality" in the Bible: They are highly polemical.

However, two things of note here: First, the "biblical" position is a normative position in its own cultural and historical context. Second, "homosexuality" in the ancient world was NOTHING like modern day same sex coupling.

First, the Bible has its roots in the Ancient Mesopotamian world in which ritual purity, creational order, and family solidarity were the primary concerns of virtually every people group. I personally think these last two are fundamental to understanding what we perceive to be "anti-homosexual" invectives in biblical literature. The general concept of the world and the cosmos for these people held that the universe consisted of a vast system of careful balance that was constructed by the gods, and which held the powerful and destructive forces of chaos at bay. Virtually everything had a place and a purpose, and things were carefully ordered as a way to explain the nature of "creation". According to this worldview, women and men are opposite and complimentary halfs of a divinely mandated sexual union: To break the created order was to celebrate chaos. It threatened to upset the delicate balance of the cosmos, and to ultimately result in its utter destruction and ruin. Furthermore, sex in the ANE had little or nothing to do with love and romance. It was about power and procreation. It was for the function of producing children, expanding one's family and clan, and ensuring their preservation and success. An utterly non-productive sexual union is both incomprehensible and offensive in a world in which basic survival is so dependent upon the health and well being of the family.

Second, "homosexuality" was not common, and it was not primarily the product (as near as we can tell from the surviving literature) of "sexual orientation". Who even knows if there was such a thing in the ancient world? Not to suggest that there is any biological difference in the modern Western world, but the social constructs that we use to govern and explain sexuality are entirely different. When ancient peoples experienced "same sex attraction", I am fairly convinced that they did not perceive it nor express it in terms of romantic companionship as we do in this day and age. The most developed forms of homosexual practice in the region came from ancient Greek society, and it functioned a strange part of the relationship between a much older teacher and his very young pupil. It was not "love" or "affection" or even any sort of "attraction". It was a convention that was engrained into Hellenistic pedagogy as part of the normal upbringing and education for Greek boys. It much more closely resembled pediastry than modern homosexual companionship. Is it any wonder that the Eastern Semitic cultures were so repulsed by it? The Romans were especially critical of what they viewed as a base and vulgar form of barbarism.

So then, when reading the Bible about "homosexuality"—as with anything—it is always important to try to understand it within its own context. Not to excuse its polemical treatment of minorities and foreigners which is clearly evil by our modern standards, but to attempt to see WHY and HOW these attitudes prevailed.

Well written. Of course we must remember that most writers were also secular in nature not to mention society was generally if not totally patriarchal. Certainly secular writers would have been "careful" in their elaboration of these types of lifestyles in order to save their neck....so to speak.
There is common knowledge that lesbian relationships existed during these periods, there has been "strap on" apparatus found from that period. Of course that patriarchal society may have viewed that type of relationship as today's society might, while finding repulsion in the opposite. I would assume the religious tomes of the day reflect this patriarchal tone.
I'm sure there were relations of all types during this period even if they were not covenant? Certainly slaves were treated to this type of behavior on a regular basis.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Ancient Near East

Im assuming...

You are correct.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

At risk of straying off topic...You mean their largely anti-male attitudes, support for sexist legislation, etc.?

Modern feminism is hardly about what the original spirit of the movement was (that is, equality), similar to how MADD went from being about reducing drunk driving to being neo-prohibitionist. Women's suffrage was a massive achievement and something that was absolutely needed for us to move forward as a society. I'm down with equality. But today's feminists are not about equality, the goal is to secure for women a place in society with special privileges. They're like any other special interest group. We want what we want and screw everyone else. That's where I take issue with it.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

JetsFan is that you?

Remember the guy who would create a "men are discriminated against" thread like twice a month?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

A slightly different take....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...ristians_N.htm

"But some scholars and family activists are questioning the oft-cited statistics, saying Christians who attend church regularly are more likely to remain wed.
"It's a useful myth," said Bradley Wright, a University of Connecticut sociologist.."


"Wright combed through the General Social Survey, a vast demographic study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that Christians, like adherents of other religions, have a divorce rate of about 42%. The rate among religiously unaffiliated Americans is 50%.
When Wright examined the statistics on evangelicals, he found worship attendance has a big influence on the numbers. Six in 10 evangelicals who never attend had been divorced or separated, compared to just 38% of weekly attendees."

"David Kinnaman, Barna's president, said the statistical differences reflect varied approaches, with Wright looking more at attendance and his research firm dwelling on theological commitments."

There are many factors at play (economics, marriage rates, age etc.) but I'll stand by my observation that on average, families that actually attend church instead of identifying themselves as christian without participating have lower divorce rates.

I would think that is quite reasonable. I don't think it really has much to do with a person's belief or disbelief in god, but community is very important to the choices we make and being an active part of a community which opposes divorce ought to make a person less likely to divorce.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I would think that is quite reasonable. I don't think it really has much to do with a person's belief or disbelief in god, but community is very important to the choices we make and being an active part of a community which opposes divorce ought to make a person less likely to divorce.

Unfortunately, the church has had to soften it's stance on divorce the last few decades because of the increase. Gotta keep attendance up without alienating a sector of the congregation you know?

I think we need to get back to public shaming tactics for divorcees (and other sinners)





^^ That last part was a joke in case anyone's freakin' out.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I haven't read the bible ....but does it really "advocate" bigotry against homosexuality?...maybe Calgaryborn can fill us in??

From my own day to day observations, I find religious families (not necessarily christian) seem to have a better overall morale and cohesiveness, better family life, their kids tend not to get caught up in drugs, and they're generally more respectful/polite toward others. Aside from crazy Fred Phelps I don't see christians going around hating on homo's....

Right on. I agree with all of it, except for the misuse of the apostrophe.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The general concept of the world and the cosmos for these people held that the universe consisted of a vast system of careful balance that was constructed by the gods, and which held the powerful and destructive forces of chaos at bay. Virtually everything had a place and a purpose, and things were carefully ordered as a way to explain the nature of "creation". According to this worldview, women and men are opposite and complimentary halfs of a divinely mandated sexual union: To break the created order was to celebrate chaos. It threatened to upset the delicate balance of the cosmos, and to ultimately result in its utter destruction and ruin.

Sounds about right for some of the beliefs that are still around.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

JetsFan is that you?

Remember the guy who would create a "men are discriminated against" thread like twice a month?

I don't know if that was before my time or not, but no, I'm not "some other guy". And I'm not claiming men are being discriminated against, I'm saying their agenda doesn't seek equality.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Well written. Of course we must remember that most writers were also secular in nature not to mention society was generally if not totally patriarchal. Certainly secular writers would have been "careful" in their elaboration of these types of lifestyles in order to save their neck....so to speak.

Thanks for the response, Cheese. It is good to hear from you.
First, I have to take some issue with this suggestion that most writers in the Greco-Roman world were "secular". I am afraid that you will need to provide some clarification on exactly what you mean by this, and furthermore how you feel we can know this about them in the first place. If by "secular" you mean "non-religious", then I am afraid I must disagree. The sacred / secular categories are inventions of the much later and thoroughly Christianized medieval world. Maybe part of the problem here is in a common misunderstanding of the meaning and function of "religion" in the Ancient Near East (sorry. Industry short-hand is a difficult habit to break!) We tend to construe religion as a system of beliefs or a "worldview"; a subscription to a creed and a code of ethics that is altogether governed by metaphysical ideas. This is really quite different from the idea that religion is a performance of rituals and favours explicitly for the placation of deities. Religion primarily functioned to promote community, family and individual well being; it permeated society to such a degree that it is difficult to enter a discussion about Mediterranean culture without it. As far as I know, only the Epicureans rejected a belief in the gods, but they were very much a minority position, and absolutely did not account for the majority of Greek literature of the period. I can see as how it is easy to confuse philosophical writing as "secular", given that most of it is about knowledge and morality, but these things really do not infringe upon nor affect religious performance. The emergence of Christianity would eventually and dramatically shift the meaning and function of religion, but for the purposes of my discussion, this is irrelevant and anachronistic, as most of the relevant Classical writers were pre-Christian in the first place.

Originally Posted by Cheese

There is common knowledge that lesbian relationships existed during these periods, there has been "strap on" apparatus found from that period. Of course that patriarchal society may have viewed that type of relationship as today's society might, while finding repulsion in the opposite. I would assume the religious tomes of the day reflect this patriarchal tone.

Agreed. However, we must be careful once again in our interpretation of the literature and the archaeological data. The writings of Saphos are fragmentary and represent only a minute cross-section of society—it is highly improbable that she represented something that was even remotely common, especially against the weight of literary and archaeological evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, "religious tomes" is also anachronistic in your perception of them here. Religion was assumed, and it was a matter of practice and NOT belief. Christianity is really the source of any sort of religious apologetics, and this emerged from their own highly unusual sense of exclusivism, which in turn produced an explosion of "religious" writing. In short, the revulsion for same-sex relations was not really religious—it was social, philosophical, and moral. I would imagine that in the minds of most Greek polytheists, the gods were as unconcerned about people's sexual activities and preferences as they were about practically everything else: all the god's cared about was devotion. So long as they received it, they were content (usually) to leave devotees alone.

Originally Posted by Cheese

I'm sure there were relations of all types during this period even if they were not covenant? Certainly slaves were treated to this type of behavior on a regular basis.

Certainly people in the ancient world were very adept at gratifying their own sexual impulses. Part of the point I am making—and this is very important—is that such activities were less likely the result of or the producer of affection. No doubt there were instances in which people fell in love and had sex, or who had sex and fell in love, but the instance was not even nearly as dominant as it is today.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SebC

Sounds about right for some of the beliefs that are still around.

Yes and no. I suspect that you are taking a jab at creationists, and while they do hold to a firm belief in design and purpose, there is not the same sense of catastrophism that is attached to it. Creationists do not tend to fear the threat of the chaos monster who will engage in a wholesale "uncreation" upon its release. Yes, there is a strong sense of divine judgment, but this is retribution, not collapse.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes and no. I suspect that you are taking a jab at creationists, and while they do hold to a firm belief in design and purpose, there is not the same sense of catastrophism that is attached to it. Creationists do not tend to fear the threat of the chaos monster who will engage in a wholesale "uncreation" upon its release. Yes, there is a strong sense of divine judgment, but this is retribution, not collapse.

There are different kinds of creationists. There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, feel that science threatens their beliefs and blindly follow others, their Sunday school teachings, church teachings, etc. Another group (including me) believes that religion and science are not at odds, that the Big Bang and evolution are God's tools (that God did all of it). Many creationists (maybe the marjority) are in the middle somewhere.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

There are different kinds of creationists. There are those who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, feel that science threatens their beliefs and blindly follow others, their Sunday school teachings, church teachings, etc. Another group (including me) believes that religion and science are not at odds, that the Big Bang and evolution are God's tools (that God did all of it). Many creationists (maybe the marjority) are in the middle somewhere.

Those people are not "creationists". I believe much the same, and would never want to be associated with "creationism". That's like saying anyone who is not a Republican is different shades of Marxist.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Those people are not "creationists". I believe much the same, and would never want to be associated with "creationism". That's like saying anyone who is not a Republican is different shades of Marxist.

Isn't he talking about ID?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No doubt he can provide a much more creative and apologetic take, but I don't see any other way to read the very few, brief, and equally terse treatments of "homosexuality" in the Bible: They are highly polemical.

However, two things of note here: First, the "biblical" position is a normative position in its own cultural and historical context. Second, "homosexuality" in the ancient world was NOTHING like modern day same sex coupling.

First, the Bible has its roots in the Ancient Mesopotamian world in which ritual purity, creational order, and family solidarity were the primary concerns of virtually every people group. I personally think these last two are fundamental to understanding what we perceive to be "anti-homosexual" invectives in biblical literature. The general concept of the world and the cosmos for these people held that the universe consisted of a vast system of careful balance that was constructed by the gods, and which held the powerful and destructive forces of chaos at bay. Virtually everything had a place and a purpose, and things were carefully ordered as a way to explain the nature of "creation". According to this worldview, women and men are opposite and complimentary halfs of a divinely mandated sexual union: To break the created order was to celebrate chaos. It threatened to upset the delicate balance of the cosmos, and to ultimately result in its utter destruction and ruin. Furthermore, sex in the ANE had little or nothing to do with love and romance. It was about power and procreation. It was for the function of producing children, expanding one's family and clan, and ensuring their preservation and success. An utterly non-productive sexual union is both incomprehensible and offensive in a world in which basic survival is so dependent upon the health and well being of the family.

Second, "homosexuality" was not common, and it was not primarily the product (as near as we can tell from the surviving literature) of "sexual orientation". Who even knows if there was such a thing in the ancient world? Not to suggest that there is any biological difference in the modern Western world, but the social constructs that we use to govern and explain sexuality are entirely different. When ancient peoples experienced "same sex attraction", I am fairly convinced that they did not perceive it nor express it in terms of romantic companionship as we do in this day and age. The most developed forms of homosexual practice in the region came from ancient Greek society, and it functioned a strange part of the relationship between a much older teacher and his very young pupil. It was not "love" or "affection" or even any sort of "attraction". It was a convention that was engrained into Hellenistic pedagogy as part of the normal upbringing and education for Greek boys. It much more closely resembled pediastry than modern homosexual companionship. Is it any wonder that the Eastern Semitic cultures were so repulsed by it? The Romans were especially critical of what they viewed as a base and vulgar form of barbarism.

So then, when reading the Bible about "homosexuality"—as with anything—it is always important to try to understand it within its own context. Not to excuse its polemical treatment of minorities and foreigners which is clearly evil by our modern standards, but to attempt to see WHY and HOW these attitudes prevailed.

Spoken like a true unbeliever. The bible is clear in both Testaments that the act of homosexuality is sinful and depraved. That should be the end of the story.

The culture surrounding what is God's opinion doesn't change that opinion. Unless of course the bible is uninspired and then you can make the christian God whatever you want to imagine him to be.

It should be noted that God condemns the practice not the persons involved. What I mean is that God never refers to "homosexuals" as a segment of humanity. The act is what is condemned and seen as sin. The modern homosexual political movement attempts to marry certain acts with what a person is. They demand that we embrace the act or else accuse us of rejecting the person.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes and no. I suspect that you are taking a jab at creationists, and while they do hold to a firm belief in design and purpose, there is not the same sense of catastrophism that is attached to it. Creationists do not tend to fear the threat of the chaos monster who will engage in a wholesale "uncreation" upon its release. Yes, there is a strong sense of divine judgment, but this is retribution, not collapse.

More directed towards homophobes actually. Some of them seem to think that allowing gay marriage would have devastating consequences.

[peakoil]

Most of the Christians polled probably believe other things that are out of wack with society at large - global warming is god's plan, abortion is wrong, gays are wrong, yadda yadda yadda

Some physics-based evidence for "global warming" and any genetic-based evidence for homosexual impulses, please Flashpoint. And no myths or fairy-tales, just science. Thanks.