Why are homosexual/polygamous marriages illegal in so many countries?

[Mr Rayon]

Why is polygamy illegal in so many countries? What's wrong with polygamy? Do you think it should be illegal?

 

And why is homosexual marriages illegal in so many countries as well? What exactly are their arguments on both sides? Do you think it will ever be legal? I am also aware that there is a lot that we don't currently know about homosexuality, for example, what causes it. If homosexuality is caused by genes would it be legalised? In what cases, do you think it would be legalised?

[Moontanman]

Why is polygamy illegal in so many countries? What's wrong with polygamy? Do you think it should be illegal?

 

And why is homosexual marriages illegal in so many countries as well? What exactly are their arguments on both sides? Do you think it will ever be legal? I am also aware that there is a lot that we don't currently know about homosexuality, for example, what causes it. If homosexuality is caused by genes would it be legalised? In what cases, do you think it would be legalised?

 

Religion drives the need for homosexual marriage to be illegal, homosexuality has already been shown to be genetic but religious hatred of homosexuals is blocking attempts top make it legal in all states, it is already legal in a few states, my son is supposed to marry his partner next fall.

 

Polygamy is illegal in this country due to religious dislike of multiple partner marriage, which is odd considering that in the bible most of these religions use clearly allowed men to have more than one wife. Another odd thing is that polygamy is practiced in the USA by religious people. They think a young girl should marry at about 13 or so and they become a junior wife of usually a much older man who may have as many 14 wifes or even more.

 

Now multiple partner exclusive polyamory is uncommon but it happens I love the idea of it but where to find a woman who feels the same way? lol Unusual multiple marriages, relationships really because they all can't get married are rare but not as uncommon as you would think. I read some statistics once that claimed that multiple partner marriages were often more stable than the more accepted two people marriage.

 

I see nothing wrong with multiple marriage if all the participants are well informed adults, forcing little girls who are brain washed by a religious cult and really cannot have an informed choice seems a little different from adults who want to do it.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Moontanman

[Sisyphus]

Well, I just read these:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

Interesting stuff. It seems that historically, polygamy has been more prevalent than monogamy. ("Of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.") That monogamous cultures now dominate can apparently be traced to medieval Christian theology, and the rest is just tradition.

 

Same-sex marriage has been very rare before modern times, but not entirely unprecedented. It was outlawed in 342 in Rome, again because of Christian theology, which saw the primary purpose of marriage as reproduction. I'm guessing that's probably a common theme even among cultures tolerant of homosexuality - that they just wouldn't use the same word to describe a homosexual partnership.

 

As for the legality question, my answer is the same in both cases. I don't think the state should be needed to grant permission for marriage in the first place. You don't need a "best friend license," and you shouldn't need a "marriage license." I realize this would require substantial changes in the legal system, with things like the right not to have to testify against a spouse, etc.

 

As for what causes homosexuality, I honestly don't know if figuring out exactly what causes it would make a difference to the public. For myself, I don't really care. My condoning it does not depend on what causes it.

[lemur]

Same-sex marriage has been very rare before modern times, but not entirely unprecedented. It was outlawed in 342 in Rome, again because of Christian theology, which saw the primary purpose of marriage as reproduction. I'm guessing that's probably a common theme even among cultures tolerant of homosexuality - that they just wouldn't use the same word to describe a homosexual partnership.

If you read the Christian gospels regarding sexuality, pretty much everything is a forgivable sin. Jesus even recommends total celibacy as the ultimate ideal, but he says that since most people can't achieve this "it is better to marry than to burn." So presumably monogamous marriage is a strategy for channeling inevitable sexual desire in a way that minimizes the temptation to expand one's sexual horizons. I don't see why this logic wouldn't apply to homosexual as well as heterosexual unions, though. The modern logic that heterosexual marriage is more natural than homosexuality seems more resonant with the Roman culture, as is most modern secularism, imo. People are too quick to assume that Christianity is the dominant ideological force behind all modern governance, when in fact I think the old Roman culture(s) were re-produced with Christianity as the flag. But that's diverging to another topic . . .

 

As for the legality question, my answer is the same in both cases. I don't think the state should be needed to grant permission for marriage in the first place. You don't need a "best friend license," and you shouldn't need a "marriage license." I realize this would require substantial changes in the legal system, with things like the right not to have to testify against a spouse, etc.

This is a great point, but the thing they argue about are the legal/economic privileges afforded between spouses. Theoretically, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to "marry" your business partner if they're the same sex as you if it would help your business, but heterosexuals are claiming that allowing this would undermine their special privileges as childbearing couples. Then there is the argument that same-sex couples can also have/raise children so maybe there should be a general form of partnership called a childbearing-partnership with the same legal rights/privileges as marriage but which isn't dependent on the gender of the parents. Of course, then the question would become if marriage is just an institutionalization of love between two people, why shouldn't same sex lovers be allowed to institutionalize their relationship as a marriage?

 

As for what causes homosexuality, I honestly don't know if figuring out exactly what causes it would make a difference to the public. For myself, I don't really care. My condoning it does not depend on what causes it.

What I have found interesting in studying the bible is that while homosexuality is basically treated as a sin of gratuitous sexuality, so is fornication and masturbation. Yet how many homophobes regard masturbation and heterosexual fornication as equally repulsive or sinful as homosexuality? Few, so this shows that popular aversion to homosexuality is not rooted in religious theology but rather uses theology as a vehicle for expressing something cultural that doesn't ultimately come from theology. In other words, homophobia is appropriating Christianity/religion for legitimation, not the other way around. In fact, I don't think Jesus would have feared or been disgusted by any form of sexuality. I think he would have just counseled people to refocus their energies on spirituality as much as possible, because he preached detachment from "the flesh" similar to buddhism and other religions/philosophies.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Jesus even recommends total celibacy as the ultimate ideal, but he says that since most people can't achieve this "it is better to marry than to burn."

...

What I have found interesting in studying the bible is that ...[masturbation]... is basically treated as a sin of gratuitous sexuality.

 

Sources please! Your first statement I'm pretty sure was Paul's and not Jesus', and your second one I doubt you will find anywhere in the Bible.

[lemur]

Sources please! Your first statement I'm pretty sure was Paul's and not Jesus', and your second one I doubt you will find anywhere in the Bible.

I have to google it but 1 Corinthians 7:9 seems to be the one about better to marry than to burn.

 

Homosexuality seems to be named along with adultery and drunkenness and other sins in I Corinthians 6:9-11.

Masturbation seems to be less directly mentioned and maybe the victorian term, "Onanism," was based on a faulty interpretation.

Maybe I should have been more explicit but it is my general impression that the reason Jesus supposedly prescribed celibacy except for those who couldn't resist and then marriage is that Christians are supposed to devote all their energy to "joining with the body of Christ." In fact, it's explicitly in the rest of 1 Corinthians 7. So generally it seems that sexuality is viewed as a carnal diversion from higher spirituality. Thus, I think any sin that diverts people from spirituality is regarded as bad because of the diversion, but it's not the same kind of sin as killing or stealing, because you're not really harming anyone besides yourself. I mention this because I think people waive around the label "sin" to make things sound grave. In reality, I don't think the term, "sin" was intended to be used for shame-induction as it has been appropriated. I think it was just intended to describe activities that diverge from God's will, however interpreted, and people were just supposed to recognize the harm caused by sin and avoid it.

Christianity seems to have been innovative by promoting forgiveness as an investment in redemption. This seems to me to be a giant innovation in behavioral control since it eliminates the whole conundrum of how to reach people that say, "well, I guess I'm already a sinner and doomed to hell so I might as well sin as much as I want now."

Edited February 16, 2011 by lemur

[A Tripolation]

...but it's not the same kind of sin as killing or stealing, because you're not really harming anyone besides yourself.

 

The Bible is very clear on the fact that all sins carry the same weight, that murder is the same as adultery. Both separate you from God.

[Marat]

Some argue that polygamy or polyandry disrespects whichever gender of partner is permitted to be present in multiple instantiations, since the single male or woman partnered with them cannot devote equal attention to all of them, or as much attention to each of them as he or she receives in return. This implies that one gender or person is worth less than another, which violates the basic equality right accepted as an essential value throughout the free world.

 

But I wonder whether the benefits of the extended family group -- which are now being lost in the modern world -- might be replicated in a more rational way by allowing plural marriages, say with three men and three women voluntarily constituting one single unit. This would have numerous advantages, such as making conversations more stimulating, avoiding sexual boredom, ensuring a variety of skills and talents in the group, permitting a more flexible division of labor, better compensating for the disruptive effects of unemployment, illness, or death, and by recreating within the expanded marital unit something more like the rationality of a larger group, where more perspective can be brought to bear on all the issues arising. Folie a deux problems, such a frequently arise in couples who lack objective perspective on issues they are facing, could better be avoided.

[Sisyphus]

I have to google it but 1 Corinthians 7:9 seems to be the one about better to marry than to burn.

 

Corinthians is the words of St. Paul. Not Jesus. Jesus only gets lines in the gospels.

[lemur]

The Bible is very clear on the fact that all sins carry the same weight, that murder is the same as adultery. Both separate you from God.

Maybe or maybe not. The issue is what it means for sins to "carry the same weight" and for them to "separate you from God." Without concrete interpretations of what these words mean, they are just lofty-sounding words.

 

Some argue that polygamy or polyandry disrespects whichever gender of partner is permitted to be present in multiple instantiations, since the single male or woman partnered with them cannot devote equal attention to all of them, or as much attention to each of them as he or she receives in return. This implies that one gender or person is worth less than another, which violates the basic equality right accepted as an essential value throughout the free world.

 

But I wonder whether the benefits of the extended family group -- which are now being lost in the modern world -- might be replicated in a more rational way by allowing plural marriages, say with three men and three women voluntarily constituting one single unit. This would have numerous advantages, such as making conversations more stimulating, avoiding sexual boredom, ensuring a variety of skills and talents in the group, permitting a more flexible division of labor, better compensating for the disruptive effects of unemployment, illness, or death, and by recreating within the expanded marital unit something more like the rationality of a larger group, where more perspective can be brought to bear on all the issues arising. Folie a deux problems, such a frequently arise in couples who lack objective perspective on issues they are facing, could better be avoided.

It's an interesting concept but in practice I think it would lead to coalition-forming to exercise majoritarian or elite power over the others. For instance, if two or three people discovered that they were more popular/desirable than the others, they could form a sort of sub-elite and prefer each other's company over that of the others. Obviously, in any situation where all individuals are perfectly ethical toward all others, nothing like this would ever become a problem. However, my impression is that the reason monogamy is popular in the first place is that the individual gets one other individual who promises to be faithful to them and them alone despite any and all circumstances. Obviously this is nearly lost with the growing popularity of divorce and other conditions put on marital affection and support, but in theory it is possible to be in a monogamous relationship and never having to worry about losing favor to someone else for any reason. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

Corinthians is the words of St. Paul. Not Jesus. Jesus only gets lines in the gospels.

It doesn't really matter if you consider it all part of the same "body of Christ." If you go by the Islamic logic of textual translation resulting in a new text, then the words are really those of King James or whoever translated the version you are reading. I don't see what use there is in debating over whose words are really whose. Even Jesus gives authority to God the father and the Holy Spirit above himself, so everyone's supposed to consult God directly about the spiritual truth of the words. Citing the human author of the words is really just for discussion-sake. They've been translated and copied and interpreted so much before reaching the reader, it's really up to the reader to decide what to do with them. It ends up coming down to critical reason, like everything else, I think.

 

 

[A Tripolation]

Maybe or maybe not. The issue is what it means for sins to "carry the same weight" and for them to "separate you from God." Without concrete interpretations of what these words mean, they are just lofty-sounding words.

 

Umm, not precisely. Any sin you commit makes you impure in the eyes of a perfect and Holy God. Once you have committed a sin, you are fallen, and eternal damnation is your punishment. They separate you from God, every sin. Hitting your father and murdering someone are equal evils in God's view (going by the Bible).

 

 

It doesn't really matter if you consider it all part of the same "body of Christ." If you go by the Islamic logic of textual translation resulting in a new text, then the words are really those of King James or whoever translated the version you are reading. I don't see what use there is in debating over whose words are really whose. Even Jesus gives authority to God the father and the Holy Spirit above himself, so everyone's supposed to consult God directly about the spiritual truth of the words. Citing the human author of the words is really just for discussion-sake. They've been translated and copied and interpreted so much before reaching the reader, it's really up to the reader to decide what to do with them. It ends up coming down to critical reason, like everything else, I think.

 

Actually, Christ's lines in the Bible are supposed to be held in a higher regard than those of his disciples, or the apostles. Only Jesus' words are the word of God. The other writers were supposedly, inspired by God. So it's not really the same thing. They were mostly correcting you on the fact that you said, "Jesus says" when in fact, he didn't. And Paul's words [math] \ne [/math] Jesus' words.

Edited February 17, 2011 by A Tripolation

[lemur]

Umm, not precisely. Any sin you commit makes you impure in the eyes of a perfect and Holy God. Once you have committed a sin, you are fallen, and eternal damnation is your punishment. They separate you from God, every sin. Hitting your father and murdering someone are equal evils in God's view (going by the Bible).

The way I'm interpreting what you're writing, it sounds like forgiveness doesn't play any role; but my impression is that Christianity offers forgiveness in exchange for commitment to redeeming oneself through good deeds. People debate how sincerely the sinner has to repent and/or how easily the sinner can go from repenting back to sinning, but "eternal damnation" doesn't necessarily have to mean "damnation without parole." Basically, it seems to come down to the fact that Christianity never views anyone as beyond salvation unless they have "blasphemed the Holy Spirit," which seems to refer to denying the very possibility of faith in God/Christ/redemption. So, in other words, as long as someone believes in salvation and the capacity for forgiveness and redemption, they have a path out of "eternal damnation," but otherwise they are doomed to it.

 

Then, as far as every sin being equal as a sin against God, that may be true but I think it obfuscates in what sense various sins are sins against God. Killing, for example, seems to be a sin against God insofar as God is supposed to have created humans in his image to live in the creation and realize their higher purpose. So when you destroy life, you're destroying the creation and thus part of God. Anyway, this can get into endless philosophizing but I don't think it's helpful to fall into blind authoritarianism by assuming that all sin is equally horrendous and that the punishment for it is horrendous, because that would prevent you from reaching an understanding of what is bad about sins beyond the fact that "they are sins against God." I.e. I don't think that theology is arbitrary authority - I think their is logic behind the mythologies that can be discerned interpretively, as with any other text.

 

Actually, Christ's lines in the Bible are supposed to be held in a higher regard than those of his disciples, or the apostles. Only Jesus' words are the word of God. The other writers were supposedly, inspired by God. So it's not really the same thing. They were mostly correcting you on the fact that you said, "Jesus says" when in fact, he didn't. And Paul's words [math] \ne [/math] Jesus' words.

"Supposed" by whom then?

 

 

[A Tripolation]

The way I'm interpreting what you're writing, it sounds like forgiveness doesn't play any role; but my impression is that Christianity offers forgiveness in exchange for commitment to redeeming oneself through good deeds.

 

No. Your good deeds mean nothing to God. Forgiveness is given by confessing your sins, and asking God to save you. Then, you begin to repent, and as a default route, you do good deeds because you're trying to be a good person and live as much as you can like Jesus.

 

People debate how sincerely the sinner has to repent and/or how easily the sinner can go from repenting back to sinning, but "eternal damnation" doesn't necessarily have to mean "damnation without parole." Basically, it seems to come down to the fact that Christianity never views anyone as beyond salvation unless they have "blasphemed the Holy Spirit," which seems to refer to denying the very possibility of faith in God/Christ/redemption. So, in other words, as long as someone believes in salvation and the capacity for forgiveness and redemption, they have a path out of "eternal damnation," but otherwise they are doomed to it.

 

There is no debate lemur. You have to sincerely mean it, and feel it, for forgiveness to be given. Do you think an omniscient God would be fooled by a human? This is why Pascal's Wager fails as a logical device.

 

Then, as far as every sin being equal as a sin against God, that may be true but I think it obfuscates in what sense various sins are sins against God. Killing, for example, seems to be a sin against God insofar as God is supposed to have created humans in his image to live in the creation and realize their higher purpose. So when you destroy life, you're destroying the creation and thus part of God. Anyway, this can get into endless philosophizing but I don't think it's helpful to fall into blind authoritarianism by assuming that all sin is equally horrendous and that the punishment for it is horrendous, because that would prevent you from reaching an understanding of what is bad about sins beyond the fact that "they are sins against God." I.e. I don't think that theology is arbitrary authority - I think their is logic behind the mythologies that can be discerned interpretively, as with any other text.

 

It's not "blind authoritarianism". All sins are sins against God. God created everything. Hurting anything that exists is essentially hurting God. Even hurting the Earth. The Bible talks about how when people killed innocent people, their blood defiles the land. For example, the Canaanites did many things that had defiled that land. When the Israelites killed the Canaanites, they were carrying out judgement. When the flood happened, God was doing the best He could to let humanity continue to exist while still protecting His creation. A similar thought is expressed in Genesis when Cain kills Abel. The Bible talks about how Abel's blood cried out to God. All sins are sins against God, and they are all equal in their evil.

 

"Supposed" by whom then?

 

Themselves, I would suspect. And they managed to convince other people that they were messengers or prophets. And it's generally agreed upon that they were directed by God.

[lemur]

No. Your good deeds mean nothing to God. Forgiveness is given by confessing your sins, and asking God to save you. Then, you begin to repent, and as a default route, you do good deeds because you're trying to be a good person and live as much as you can like Jesus.

Technically, I think repenting bring forgiveness via Holy Spirit and that forgiveness translates into a sense of goodness of God's will, which translates into receptivity for divine inspiration to good deeds via Holy Spirit. - but again, all my interpretation; though I think it is substantiated by the text.

 

There is no debate lemur. You have to sincerely mean it, and feel it, for forgiveness to be given. Do you think an omniscient God would be fooled by a human? This is why Pascal's Wager fails as a logical device.

Sincerity is a somewhat logical condition for true forgiveness, even if you only view God as an inner-projection of your own subjectivity. If you pretend to repent, you would be aware of your own sincerity and deny yourself forgiveness and this would be psychologically linked to your own fear of unforgiveness (or skepticism of the very possibility of true forgiveness), because that is what causes people to fear confession and seeking forgiveness in the first place. In other words, there is a simple psychology to people either having faith in forgiveness or lacking it. This doesn't even have to involve "God." If you lack faith that someone will forgive you, you would be afraid to confess what you did to harm them. If you continues to live in fear of confessing and apologizing, you would suffer internally from the feeling of being unforgiven and enshrouded in shame. Once you discovered that your "sin" was indeed forgivable, you would no longer be afraid to confess and by confessing, you would no longer be carrying the burden of hiding what you had done in shame. Of course, if you openly confessed your sin publicly and people tried to shame you once again for it, you could lose faith once again in forgiveness and go back to your enshroudment in shame.

 

It's not "blind authoritarianism". All sins are sins against God. God created everything. Hurting anything that exists is essentially hurting God. Even hurting the Earth. The Bible talks about how when people killed innocent people, their blood defiles the land. For example, the Canaanites did many things that had defiled that land. When the Israelites killed the Canaanites, they were carrying out judgement. When the flood happened, God was doing the best He could to let humanity continue to exist while still protecting His creation. A similar thought is expressed in Genesis when Cain kills Abel. The Bible talks about how Abel's blood cried out to God. All sins are sins against God, and they are all equal in their evil.

God actually repented to himself after the flood and made the rainbow as a covenant with humans that he wouldn't destroy them all again like that, according to the story. I think the issue of "equal in evil" is distracting. I think you can understand the logics of good and evil and be mindful of what effect(s) each sin has directly on some specific aspect of "God's creation." Stealing does not directly harm people physically, but it has numerous other material and spiritual/psychological effects. Killing, on the other hand, robs people and other living things of their life and ability to "go forth and multiply." Then there are all the conflicts that come with trying to obey the commandments and failing, and then having to make sacrifices to uphold one by betraying another and always falling further into sin. Anyway, I think we're getting into so many issues that we could start an entire thread.

 

Themselves, I would suspect. And they managed to convince other people that they were messengers or prophets. And it's generally agreed upon that they were directed by God.

As I recall, Jesus held the authority of God via the Holy Spirit in highest regard. In fact, I think he even directly said that blasphemy of him was forgivable but not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. So, you can interpret what you want as "Holy Spirit" but it seems to refer to some possible direct relationship between individuals and God regardless of what other mortals claim in terms of having a monopoly on higher authority. The quote that goes with this, imo, is "before Abraham was, I am." I.e. he seems to be saying that regardless of what citations anyone gives to holy scripture, Jesus himself is elevating his own authority above that, and subsequently the authority of Holy Spirit above his own. There's also the quote about what he said to Mary post-mortem when she thought he was the gardener but it turned out to be Jesus resurrected (according to the story anyway) - i.e. he said something about her going to ascend to her father as he was going to and to take that message to the others (or something to this effect). Anyway, the point is that Jesus was pretty clear about the importance of direct revelation and cautioning with regards to worldly authority. Of course, the paradox in this is that you're free to have an interpretation that differs from mine.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe or maybe not. The issue is what it means for sins to "carry the same weight" and for them to "separate you from God." Without concrete interpretations of what these words mean, they are just lofty-sounding words.

 

No, it's just a different way of looking at things. Being a sinner is like being pregnant. Yes, you can get "more pregnant" as you progress or commit "worse sins", but you are either pregnant or not, sinner or not. Committing a little sin makes you a sinner as surely as committing a grave sin. I don't think it's quite that sins are considered equally bad but they equally make you a sinner and there is just one possible punishment.

 

The way I'm interpreting what you're writing, it sounds like forgiveness doesn't play any role; but my impression is that Christianity offers forgiveness in exchange for commitment to redeeming oneself through good deeds.

 

You can do good deeds, and that is a good thing. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that your good deeds can ever justify a sin. How many good deeds must you do before you are justified in murdering someone you don't like? No, it doesn't work like that. Good deeds can be seen as a sign of true repentance, but they will never justify a sin. Never can you say "look at all the good I've done, you must forgive me". It's always by grace. It's always "please forgive me", at which point you might point out past good deeds or offer to do additional good deeds, but it is never up to you to forgive yourself on behalf of another person. (Forgiving yourself is of course a different story)

 

But this is all off-topic. I think we can all agree that sin is bad, regardless of the details. Whether or not God treats all sin as the same, we people do not and that is what would be relevant to the thread about legality.

[lemur]

No, it's just a different way of looking at things. Being a sinner is like being pregnant. Yes, you can get "more pregnant" as you progress or commit "worse sins", but you are either pregnant or not, sinner or not. Committing a little sin makes you a sinner as surely as committing a grave sin. I don't think it's quite that sins are considered equally bad but they equally make you a sinner and there is just one possible punishment.

And everyone is a sinner, which is why supposedly everyone dropped their stones when Jesus said, "let the one without sin cast the first stone."

 

You can do good deeds, and that is a good thing. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that your good deeds can ever justify a sin. How many good deeds must you do before you are justified in murdering someone you don't like? No, it doesn't work like that. Good deeds can be seen as a sign of true repentance, but they will never justify a sin.

No, I don't think it's that good deeds justify sin. That would be like buying indulgences. I think it's more like what I explained in the last post: you recognize a sin and are truly sorry (repentant, to use the big word). Then, because you sincerely seek forgiveness, you get it but as a result you become inspired to do good deeds (out of gratitude for the forgiveness you experience). It's like when little kids pray to themselves, "please let me get away with this just this one time and I SWEAR I'll never do it again." This is not exactly a confessional/repentant prayer because there's no expression of true sorrow, but the fact is that once they feel like they got away with it (i.e. were forgiven), they feel inspired to make it up to God in some way (i.e. "if you let me get away with this, I'll always eat all my vegetables"). And, technically, what else CAN someone do after they've repented and accepted forgiveness EXCEPT begin living by God's will (i.e. living a good life). If they mess up and sin again, does Christianity say there's some limit to the number of times they can be forgiven? No, unless you take the "77 X 7" quote literally. So Christianity is just about being in a perpetual cycle of sinning, repentance, and the grace of God to inspire you not to fall back into sin this time around. Do you think I'm oversimplifying the logic of this religion?

Edited February 17, 2011 by lemur

[A Tripolation]

So Christianity is just about being in a perpetual cycle of sinning, repentance, and the grace of God to inspire you not to fall back into sin this time around. Do you think I'm oversimplifying the logic of this religion?

 

Yes.

 

As I recall, Jesus held the authority of God via the Holy Spirit in highest regard. In fact, I think he even directly said that blasphemy of him was forgivable but not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. So, you can interpret what you want as "Holy Spirit" but it seems to refer to some possible direct relationship between individuals and God regardless of what other mortals claim in terms of having a monopoly on higher authority. The quote that goes with this, imo, is "before Abraham was, I am." I.e. he seems to be saying that regardless of what citations anyone gives to holy scripture, Jesus himself is elevating his own authority above that, and subsequently the authority of Holy Spirit above his own. There's also the quote about what he said to Mary post-mortem when she thought he was the gardener but it turned out to be Jesus resurrected (according to the story anyway) - i.e. he said something about her going to ascend to her father as he was going to and to take that message to the others (or something to this effect). Anyway, the point is that Jesus was pretty clear about the importance of direct revelation and cautioning with regards to worldly authority. Of course, the paradox in this is that you're free to have an interpretation that differs from mine.

 

It's really hard to follow your stream of consciousness sometimes... Anyways. Jesus was God in human form. He was a servant, voluntarily chained by earthly desires. Otherwise, what's the point of sacrificing yourself when you've nothing at all to fear? When Jesus says that, "The Father is greater than I.", he is saying that his mortal side must submit to the conditions of the deity-God. At no point in time is Jesus not divine, nor is he ever "below" the Holy Spirit or God in terms of power.

[Mr Rayon]

If atheism becomes the major world belief, will homosexuality and polygamy be likely to be embraced?

(i.e. more than it currently is today)

If atheism dominates will gay marriage be endorsed by society?

 

What does everyone think?

Edited February 22, 2011 by Voltman

[imatfaal]

Your question seems to rely on the claim that homosexuality and gay marriage are not endorsed by society. Perhaps this is true in some countries, but it is a long way away from reality in others

[Marat]

In British Columbia, Canada, there is now a case before the courts examining whether Canada's Criminal Code provisions forbidding polygamy (section 219) are unconstitutional as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of freedom of religion. Opposing that claim are arguments that polygamy would violate women's equality rights protection, though if both polyandry and polygamy were allowed, that would seem to resolve that problem.

 

Since constitutional rights protections are extremely weak in Canada and can very easily be defeated by the Charter's section 1 provision which allows all sorts of purely pragmatic state interests to overturn human rights on even the most trivial grounds, I would guess that the polygamists' claims will be defeated. The courts also pretend to be seriously applying classical liberal rights of individual freedom, but in fact they nearly always rule according to whatever the latest dictates of Political Correctness require, which usually means supporting the feminist, statist, law-and-order, affirmative action interests against classical liberalism's defense of individual liberty.

[Ladeira]

Religious argument is always based on their belief that homossexuality is a state of mind, not a condition. That's how they try to say that it was chosen by the sinner.

 

Really really disgusting, I hope I can marry someday soon. In my country.

[lemur]

Religious argument is always based on their belief that homossexuality is a state of mind, not a condition. That's how they try to say that it was chosen by the sinner.

 

Really really disgusting, I hope I can marry someday soon. In my country.

I guess that is somewhat accurate. But my reading of the bible suggested to me that homosexuality is regarded along the same lines of all other sexual practices that aren't directly reproductive, including heterosexual fornication. I.e. Jesus says it's better to abstain completely (eunich is the ideal state according to him), but then he says that not everyone can and so marriage is the best. I think this would apply to homosexuality as well as heterosexuality, personally. My point, though, is that I don't see the bible itself (regardless of how people apply/interpret it) as regarding sexuality as natural or unnatural and therefore good or bad. It's more that all sexuality is natural, but it is advisable to resist it as much as possible for spiritual purposes. I think the idea that homosexuality is bad because it's 'unnatural' comes from a secular culture of homophobia.

 

I think true Christianity would not want to "convert" people to heterosexuality. It would probably just tell people to attempt to resist sexual desire in favor of higher spirituality, and if that's not possible to marry and be faithful and attempt to cultivate a marital relationship focused as much as possible on "higher love" and "higher spiritual pursuits" than carnal pleasure. In other words, I don't think carnal pleasure is viewed as any more legitimate within heterosexual relationships; it's just an inevitable evil to be minimized. If you think carnal pleasure is the purpose of life and should never be resisted or sublimated in any way, probably some form of hedonism would suit you better than Christianity, I think.

Edited March 30, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

But how are impotent old men with low testosterone levels to become more spiritual by resisting their non-existent sex drive? Perhaps the Bible would recommend that they try to resist defecating as long as they possibly can in order to transcend their physical needs and rise to the superior realm of the ideal.

 

As soon as a primitive society becomes sufficiently advanced to generate a surplus population beyond those required to do real agricultural work, that surplus group comes to be invested in the newly possible knowledge part of the economy, which has to master writing skills to keep track of grain storage and sales. But soon they see an opportunity to increase their social power by inventing a mythological truth of which they are the guardians. A standard psychological trick to induce people to believe in your mastery over them, which this priesthood needs, is to assert power over the basic biological needs of the population and to allow satisfaction of those needs only when the empowered group allows it. This is why so many religions obsess over dietary restrictions, fasting, performance of rituals, rules about bathing, artificial irritations regarding how to trim the hair and fingernails, and, of course, limitations on sex. You have to endure the frustration of your needs until you pay the priesthood to perform its rituals so that you can proceed to satisfy your biological drives without accumulating more of that fantasy negative 'currency' cooked up by the priesthood, more commonly known as 'sin.'

[lemur]

But how are impotent old men with low testosterone levels to become more spiritual by resisting their non-existent sex drive? Perhaps the Bible would recommend that they try to resist defecating as long as they possibly can in order to transcend their physical needs and rise to the superior realm of the ideal.

 

As soon as a primitive society becomes sufficiently advanced to generate a surplus population beyond those required to do real agricultural work, that surplus group comes to be invested in the newly possible knowledge part of the economy, which has to master writing skills to keep track of grain storage and sales. But soon they see an opportunity to increase their social power by inventing a mythological truth of which they are the guardians. A standard psychological trick to induce people to believe in your mastery over them, which this priesthood needs, is to assert power over the basic biological needs of the population and to allow satisfaction of those needs only when the empowered group allows it. This is why so many religions obsess over dietary restrictions, fasting, performance of rituals, rules about bathing, artificial irritations regarding how to trim the hair and fingernails, and, of course, limitations on sex. You have to endure the frustration of your needs until you pay the priesthood to perform its rituals so that you can proceed to satisfy your biological drives without accumulating more of that fantasy negative 'currency' cooked up by the priesthood, more commonly known as 'sin.'

That's a great Marxist analysis of religion. The first part about resisting defecating really made me lol! All the things you mention at the end, though, like dietary restrictions, fasting, rituals, bathing, and resisting sex (sexual fasting) are all geared toward heightening spiritual experience. When people are feeling hungry, or sexually frustrated, etc. it can be hard for them to concentrate and experience clarity of consciousness. They keep getting distracted by their bodily drives/urges. You could say, if you're hungry just eat or if you're sexually frustrated just have sex or masturbate, which is what some theologians have suggested. But fasting and celibacy are popular because there is a point where you can somewhat overcome the immediacy of hunger and/or sexual desire, which gives a sense of peace and clarity because you're not caught up and distracted with your next meal or sexual release. My favorite quote about this in the bible is where Jesus meets a woman at a well and tells her that when she drinks the water from the well she'll get thirsty again but when she drinks his (spiritual) water, she'll be satisfied. So, it's just this idea of being liberated from desire, for at least a while. Supposedly there are people who fast for many years by meditating on a mountain or in a cave but most people fast for short periods for either health, spiritual clarity, or both and then go back to eating. The same is probably true about sexual fasting/resistance, though people don't talk about this with me as openly as they do about food-fasting. I do think celibacy is relative, though. I.e. when people say that anything other than total celibacy is not celibacy (e.g. masturbation), I think they're ignoring the fact that someone who reduces the frequency of masturbation and by doing so also reduces the desire to do so as frequently still experiences positive effects in the time when sexual desire is quieted. So the point isn't achieving objective standards of behavior but rather subjective effects of inner-calm, detachment, etc.

[Marat]

Couldn't you more plausibly argue that there is more scope for transcendental reflection after basic needs are fully satisfied, since then they don't distract you? If you are really thirsty, hungry, or sleepy, you will have a hard time concentrating on your work or attaining any truly deep insights into anything because you are profoundly distracted by trivial things. So if you remove those petty distractions by satisfying them, you should become a much deeper thinker.

 

Arguably, religion directs us away from deeper reflection by making us obsess over all the basic drives which religion insists on frustrating. If I have free access to water I never think of anything so mundane as water or thirst, but if my water supply is severely restricted, I can think of nothing else but the petty servicing of my thirst.

 

If this is true, then we are thrown back on the 'Marxist' argument to explain religion's fixation on denying those it seeks to subject to its power the satisfaction of their basic urges other than in accordance with the power of the priesthood to prescribe rules.