[extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge...

[Samantha Atkins]

On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Darin Sunley wrote:

>> *what* precisely is the Biblical basis for objecting to  
>> homosexuals?  (If it
>> isn't too much trouble.)
>
> As one of the very very few people in North America familiar with both
> transhumanism, extropianism, and Christian Evangelicalism, I may be
> able to help with this question. :)
>
> There are three main areas in the Bible that build a case against
> homosexuality. The first and arguably most important area is the
> specific commands in the Old Testament, which are, per hypothesis, the
> direct commands of an SI, which say that there is something seriously
> wrong with homosexuality. It doesn't say exactly what, but it makes it
> very clear that there is a problem with this sort of behavior. [As a
> side note, other seemingly arbitrary command of God from this portion
> of Scripture, like the Jewish dietary laws, have been found by modern
> science to be, by and large, really good advice. So they might be
> worth looking into.]
>

Hmm.  So what do you think of those laws commanding killing  
adulterers, witches, and even children who are too sassy to their  
parents, to name only a few of the horrors that Sharia cannot outdo?

> The second is, of course, the Apostle Paul. Now it's important to
> remember that the homosexuals Paul was writing about are very
> different from modern homosexuality. The homosexuals Paul was
> referring to were, by and large, male temple prostitutes in the local
> non-Christian religions. Temple prostitution: the use of sex
> [homosexual and hetero] as an element of the actual act of worship was
> very VERY common in the ancient world, and was diametrically opposed
> from the Jewish and early-Christian understanding of the role of sex
> in the universe. The Old Testament speaks extensively on the bad
> consequences that can come from worshipping in this manner.

Hell, Christianity took all the fun out of religion.  :-)

>
> The best argument against homosexuality in it's modern form is no more
> and no less than the same argument that exists against any kind of sex
> occurring outside of marriage. Even secular sociologists will tell you
> that when casual sex exists as a social institution, the stability of
> families goes way down, and you get a whole host of social ills
> accompanying that [STDs, victimization of prostitutes, associated
> crime and narcotic use thereof, etc].
>

Huh?  Homosexuals form long term relationships just like straight  
people do although there is a lot more societal pressure against them  
doing that.   Casual sex happens just as much in heterosexual world  
if not more.   If this is the "best argument"  then there is no  
case.   A best argument that is not even specific to homosexuality is  
about as weak as it gets.

> Many religions believe that something cosmically significant occurs
> between people's [souls / consciousnesses / qualia] when they have
> sex. A link is formed between those two people. When people have a
> large number of sexual [hetero or homo] partners serially [or
> simultaneously, it doesn't matter] , what they are doing is repeatedly
> forming and dissolving this link. This invariably damages the ability
> of the person to form intimate relationships down the road.
>

Whatever.  About every person who has had more than one partner knows  
this is a pile of hooey.    This notion is not even Christian so I  
don't see how it explains some (not all in the least) Christian's  
problem with homosexuality.

> Now Christians take this one step further and argue that there is a
> genuine qualitative difference between the way this link occurs in a
> heterosexual coupling or a homosexual coupling. Christians would argue
> that, because the souls in a homosexual relationship are of the same
> gender, the link does not form properly, if it can form at all, and
> that this will also cause damage to the person's ability to form and
> maintain intimate relationships down the road.

Christians argue no such thing as Christians.  There is no biblical  
or canonical basis for such.  if you are going to make stuff up I  
wonder why you bother.

>
> At this point it's important to make two things clear.
>
> First: Fred Phelps is a whackjob of the highest order. He operates his
> "church" as a tightly bound, highly authoritarian cult consisting
> mostly of his extended family. His views have been disowned by even
> the most conservative Christian denominations in North America. The
> man protested the funeral of those miners who died in the mine
> explosion in West Virginia for no other apparent reason then that they
> were West Virginians [there may be some kind of unspoken steroetype
> regarding West Virginians and homosexuality, but this was not made
> clear in any of his materials]. I honestly wish I was making this up!
> He brings shame and disgrace to the name of the God he claims to
> worship. By his behavior he turns countless people away from the
> Gospel message that might otherwise be at least willing to listen, and
> he will have to give an account of his behavior on Judgement Day.
>

He will be brought to account now, not on some mythological  
"Judgement Day".

> Second: As regards the eternal destinty of homosexuals, their
> homosexuality is literally the least of their sins. All of us,
> including Christians, every day, break all ten of the Ten
> Commandments. We fail to put the God who made us first in our lives
> [breaking the First Commandment] , we tell white lies [breaking the
> Ninth Commandment], we look with lust at others [committing adultery
> in our hearts according to Jesus, therefore breaking the seventh
> Commandment.] Christians believe that God's standard, when He judges
> us on Judgement Day is not going to be "Were you an OK person?" or
> "Were you better then most people?". It's going to be "Were you
> morally perfect." None of us can say that, so we're all in deep
> trouble.

OK.  I have had enough of your psychotic religion.  I outgrew these  
beliefs about how God, which I very much believed in, might be and  
act toward us by the time I was 10.

- samantha