Two killed, 40 detained in new gay purge in Chechnya
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Russian republic of Chechnya has launched a new crackdown on gays in which at least two people have died and about 40 people have been detained, LGBTQ activists in Russia charged Monday.
The new allegations come after reports in 2017 of more than 100 gay men arrested and subjected to torture, and some of them killed, in the predominantly Muslim region in southern Russia.
The Associated Press and other media outlets have interviewed some of the victims, who spoke about torture at the hands of Chechen law enforcement officers. Chechen authorities have denied those accusations, and federal authorities conducted a probe into the earlier reports but said they found nothing to support the charges.
Alvi Karimov, a spokesman for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, told the Interfax news agency on Monday that the latest reports are “complete lies and don’t have an ounce of truth in them.” Karimov insisted that no one has been detained in Chechnya on suspicion of being gay.
But the Russian LGBT Network, which has been monitoring the situation in Chechnya and helping victims, said in a statement Monday that about 40 men and women have been detained on suspicion of being gay since December and that at least two of them have died of torture in detention. The detainees are believed held at the same facility that was named in the 2017 reports.
The crackdown was first reported Friday but the activists didn’t release full details at the time.
“Widespread detentions, torture and killings of gay people have resumed in Chechnya,” Igor Kochetkov, program director at the Russian LGBT Network said. “Persecution of men and women suspected of being gay never stopped. It’s only that its scale has been changing.”
Kochetkov said the new wave of anti-gay persecution started at the end of the year when Chechen authorities detained the administrator of a social media group popular with LGBTQ people in the North Caucasus. Kochetkov said the mass detentions began after the authorities got hold of contacts on his phone.
LGBTQ activists in 2017 helped to evacuate around 150 gay men from Chechnya to help them restart their lives elsewhere in Russia. Many of them have sought asylum and resettled abroad.
Russian authorities have strenuously denied that killings and torture took place in the predominantly Muslim region where homosexuality is taboo, even after one man came forward to talk about the time he spent in detention in Chechnya.
Maxim Lapunov said he was detained by unidentified people on a street in the Chechen capital, Grozny, in 2017 and kept in custody for two weeks, where he was repeatedly beaten. He was let go after he signed a statement acknowledging that he was gay and was told he would be killed if he talked about his time in detention.
Lapunov, who is not an ethnic Chechen and is from Siberia, was the first to file a complaint with Russian authorities over the wave of arrests of gay people.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last month called on Russia to investigate the reports and cited Lapunov’s case specifically.
Kadyrov and his government in Chechnya have been accused of widespread human rights abuses against many dissidents, not just gay men.
Tags
Who is online
328 visitors
I wonder if the UN will condemn this as well as the rest of the western world?
I wonder if President Scumbag will.
Trumpp will take his leaders lead
'I wonder if President Scumbag will.'
Of course he won't. tRump is little putin's useful idiot.
The UN won't because the Arab bloc would never allow it. It's not nationality that's the issue, it's religion. That region of Chechnya has the same religious makeup as Iran, where gays are hung from cranes and thrown from roofs. It's not Islamophobic to state a fact - that fact is in the article (bolding is mine to make the point):
Buzz,
You can't blame this on them being Muslim. Russia knows this is going on and they are doing nothing about it. In fact, in Russia proper, gay hate crimes have more than doubled in the last year:
So what excuses the 'Russian authorities' who are denying the events? It's obviously not religion...
Anti-LGBT sentiment is hardly isolated to Chechnya within Russia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-anti-gay-law-casts-a-shadow-over-sochis-2014-olympics/2013/09/29/3646344c-27a6-11e3-9372-92606241ae9c_story.html?utm_term=.7ce25c0ab4e7
How can YOU miss that the entire region is under the political, police and military control of a the Russian Federation? Kadyrov is there because Vlad wants him to be and is allowed to do as he will because Vlad agrees with his actions. Is VLAD a 'Radical Islamic'?
Actually, the seed alludes to Russian officials acquiescing to what Kadyrov is doing. Pointing out like policy helps clarify that.
I know that.. you are still kind of missing my point. Yes this guy is doing it for Islam. What are the Russians doing it for? This homophobia is throughout the region.
So, homophobia is widespread in Russia, but only in Chechnya is said homophobia caused by Islam.
Makes sense.
Russia is complicit since they have the same views.
Speaking of replying to things no one said or alluded too.
Strawman noted.
BTW, if the vagina's you've seen have cat ears, you might want to intervein and suggest a visit to a OBGYN.
Without Putin's condemnation and with Putin's acquiescence.
The leader of Alabama is a radical and is ordering that segregation continue in Alabama. Case closed, no intervention by the Federal government needed, nothing to see here folks. /s
Anti-LGBT sentiment is hardly isolated to Chechnya within Russia.
That is true.
In addition, while we don't often hear about it in the U.S., Russia is one of the most racist countries in Europe.
(Ukraine as well, BTW).
Sure, homophobia is rampant in the world, but what is the primary wrong here? Everyone seems to be focusing on the wrong being ignored, when it is those who COMMIT the wrong that is the causing factor. The difference between simple homophobia whether hatred or fear, and taking it to the extreme of torturing and murdering homosexuals makes it clear where the principal crime lies. I'm talking about cause and everyone here wants to blame ignoring the effect. It figures. [deleted]
Actually, I think you can blame religion because the Russian Orthodox Church is very strong in Russia today
I think that it's more important to be concerned about the cause, and doing something about it, than the lack of reaction to it.
The cause is fundamental religiosity. There it's Muslims, here it's Christians. Same difference.
You know that's contradictory right?
No one is going to cajole fundamentalists, their MO is to force their dogma on others. In the time it takes to analyze them, lot's of people could be tortured and/or murdered. Personally, I could not care less WHY they are doing it, they should be STOPPED and prosecuted.
Agreed
The leader of Chechnya is a radical who is ordering the murders.
FWIW, there's a lot of crazy radicalism in that area.
The horrendous Beslan Schoolhouse Massacre took place in Northern Ossetia. (Anyone remember that one?)
One of the most horrifying terrorist attacks in Russia, the Beslan school siege saw over 300 people, 186 of them children, killed .
(FWIW, The Boston Marathon bombers were originally from the Chechan-Dagestan area).
I wonder why they aren't more open about it. If the government officially believes being gay is evil and homosexuals should be arrested, tortured, and killed, why don't they show some integrity and be honest about it? If they really believe God is calling them to be cruel to these people, why not own it?
All I can think is that it's because they know in their hearts that it's wrong.
They have to do business with the rest of the world and most of the free world doesn't buy into murdering people because of their sexual preferences. Hence they are on the down low.
Seems cowardly. Or dishonest. Or both, I guess.
It isn't based on 'their sexual preferences', it's about sexual orientation. Preference is a choice, orientation is immutable.
Point taken, but whether it's a choice or you are born that way, you still shouldn't be murdered over it.
My comment solely addresses the use of correct terminology.
Lol since when has any government anywhere ever shown integrity or been honest about anything it does.
Well, other countries are honest about what they believe. America proudly endorses liberty and justice. We proudly endorse freedoms of speech and religion. Other countries actually oppose those things.
I wonder why they aren't more open about it. If the government officially believes being gay is evil and homosexuals should be arrested, tortured, and killed, why don't they show some integrity and be honest about it? If they really believe God is calling them to be cruel to these people, why not own it?
People seem to have forgotten what happened during the Winter Olympics:
Russia’s Anti-Gay Legislation and the Sochi Olympics
Russia recently passed legislation that bans “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations among minors.” What speech and activities constitute propaganda are unclear, and the law has been implemented to ban not only gay pride parades but also any demonstration raising awareness of the plight of LGBT people in Russia.
The law has had the secondary effect of inciting violence against the LGBT community by placing an official stamp of disapproval on it. This state-sanctioned stigma has resulted in job loss, gay baiting, and police indifference to violent hate crimes against LGBT community. The US has seen an increase in LGBT Russians seeking asylum as a result of this worsening situation. (cont'd)
I agree. If they truly felt this was something God condoned, then why would they waffle?
The purge of gay people in Chechnya isn't new..This has been going on since early 2017. Nothing happens in Chechnya without Russian Ok'ing it.
As far as religion goes Chechnya is Muslim and Russia is Orthodox Christian. Gay's in Russia are facing much the same as in Chechnya. Putin is Orthodox Christian and he supports what is happening in Chechnya....It would seem that more than one religion has a problem with gay people.
What Chechnya is doing is totally unacceptable and Russia allowing it is just as unacceptable.
Kathleen there are a number of countries in the world that have better treatment of LGBT people than the US.
The fear of gay people is astonishing.
Makes me wonder what they are so afraid of.
Why do you think it's fear?
There is no other reason for hatred of people one does not know.
Hatred does not require fear as a prerequisite. You're assigning emotions to people you've never met from a culture where you've never lived. How could you possibly know?
Your observable data is behavior, not emotion. The behavior is cruel, but there is no reason to suspect these people are afraid. Bullies are not generally afraid of their targets.
What is hatred if not an emotion?
IMO bullies have a fear of a lot of things, if not life in general.
Of course it's an emotion. That's the point. You can't know somebody's emotion without actually communicating with the people in question.
You know what they did (behavior). You don't know why they did it.
Obviously. But not their victims.
One can witness emotion with communicating with them. One can tell if someone looks angry or sad. One can listen to words spoken to others.
I would never come to the conclusion that some people would start harassing (or worse) gay people, just because. It was not out of love, it was not out of indifference.
I dunno. I see bullies picking on people much smaller and weaker than themselves because they know they can over power them. I think it's because of hate....hatred for themselves.
Incorrect on two counts. First, one's sense of morality is an alternative to fear. Second, one has to define hate as simply disagreeing with another's point of view. Do you hate people who think homosexuality is immoral?
I remember when the neighborhood bully named Goliath started on me...I looked him in the belly button and said, ''Boy, you've about to exceed the limits of my medication''....
He didn't pay attention so I got out the sling and rock and you know how that story ended.
I coached kids for 28 years. I've seen a lot of bullying. There are several reasons people bully each other. Hate almost never one of them, and fear is definitely not one of them.
Usually it comes down to them simply wanting to exercise power. That's generally either an attention getter, showing off for somebody whose approval is important to them....or frustration with some other, unrelated situation (kinda like the stereotype of kicking the dog after a bad day at work).
How can a sexual orientation be immoral if one does not choose that sexual orientation?
Who defines morality? Some define morality as a fear of not conforming.
Morality is subjective.
I would not find intimidation, harassment, assault, even murder as a simple disagreement.
IMO wanting to exercise power is a fear of lack of power. Wanting attention is a fear of not receiving it.
I would say the guy kicking the dog has a hatred of his own life.
That's pretty funny. I'll have to remember that one.
Irrelevant. The point is, fear isn't the only reason to oppose homosexuality.
It's completely relevant. You consider homosexuality to be immoral. I asked a question and it's obvious to me you have no answer.
For me, I believe that is God.
To some extent, this should be feared. To an extent, conformity is the basis of civilization.
If this were true, why do people treat it as if it is not? If morality is subjective, why do we put sexual predators in prison? Why would we even call them predators? If they saw nothing wrong with what they were doing, and morality is truly subjective, upon what basis do we oppose them?
As would I, but I don't think morality is subjective, so I have a basis for opposing such. Since you believe it is subjective, upon what do you oppose such?
Our culture puts sexual predators in prison because in our culture's subjective morality their behavior is immoral (among other things). That may not be true in other cultures (although for this example I am not aware of a modern culture that would deem sexual predators to be moral). But there are other examples where cultures disagree on a fundamental moral issue such as family honor. Some cultures allow for a father to kill his daughter if she disgraces the family honor (e.g. by sleeping with an infidel). To their culture -and its subjective morality- the honor killing is moral (and indeed it is considered the correct course of action).
Subjective morality is almost certainly NOT universally true and is no doubt flawed since subjective morality is the product of fallible human beings. Subjective morality is not nearly as cool as a true objective morality - something that would have to come from a supreme being (e.g. God). But that does not mean subjective morality does not exist.
You're projecting again. Just because your emotions work a certain way doesn't mean other people's emotions work that way. I
That's like saying "wanting to eat" is a "fear of not eating", or "wanting to go to the beach" is a "fear of not going to the beach. That's just not the case for most people.
Or.....he's just had a bad day.
In any case, these guys were certainly not "afraid" of their victims.
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The statement was...
This was in response to...
Which was in response to...
So, your burden is to prove why the reason one may be opposed to homosexuality is relevant to the idea that fear is the only reason to oppose it. Your question is irrelevant because it doesn't address this question. Your question deals with why homosexuality may or may not be immoral. The question being discussed is, is fear the only reason to oppose it.
I expected a reply from you : )
The problem with your argument is that you present your reasoning to mean because humans treat morality subjectively then therefore it means morality is subjective. This does not hold up logically as the only thing we can logically conclude is that humans treat morality as subjective, not that morality is in fact subjective.
That is not my argument. My argument is that subjective morality exists even if there is no objective morality.
You, in contrast, claim subjective morality does not exist - that the only morality is objective morality:
Yes we treat morality subjectively. And that is what we call subjective morality. It is an entirely different question as to whether objective morality exists. Subjective morality exists - demonstrably. Objective morality might exist. The existence or nonexistence of objective morality has no effect on the existence of subjective morality.
I would argue that murder is illegal, not because of morals, but more so of people wanting to be safe.
There is (was?) an indigenous tribe in Papua New Guinea that removed young boys from the women at an early age and (as sick as it sounds to us) fed the young boys their semen as they thought it would give them their masculine strength.
There are some religious sects that think it is fine to marry off a young girl 12-14 years old and/or have multiple wives.
Do I agree with any of that? No, yet that is their morality.
Some people still believe in arranged marriages.
There are non religious people that have their own morals. I do not steal from others as I think it is wrong to take from others. Some people have no qualms about it and think they are deserved or somehow justified.
Some people swear and some do not. Does that make one person more moral than another?
I call morals subjective as people have different views and ways of life, if not traditions. Morals and views also change over time.
I would argue that we have laws not because of morals but because of safety and the well being of society at large.
If so, it is in the sense that the ancients once thought there were only four elements. Earth, water, air and fire. That they believed this doesn't make it truth.
Logically, it cannot. Subjective math does not exist. Subjective gravity doesn't exist. But apparently, morality is? Yet the very nature of this discussion proves that, although people claim that morality is subjective, they don't treat it as if it is. Here we are, thousands of miles away from Chechnya and we are condemning a society for how they are treating homosexuals. How is that possible if we believe morality is subjective? It is not logically possible to claim morality is subjective and, at the same time, condemn another society for what it does. This is something you consistently ignore. Instead, that societies treat morality irrationally is your evidence that morality is subjective.
And whatever you demonstrate as subjective morality I can use to demonstrate that those who promote those morals do not believe they are subjective by their attempt to impose those moralities on others. Of course, that they do so is not evidence that morals are objective. It is merely evidence that, regardless of what they say, they believe, rightly, that morality is objective. That is, they instinctually know that morality is not relative.
As I stated elsewhere, two opposing propositions about the morality of a thing cannot both be right. For that to be possible, we are no longer talking about morality. We are simply talking about what is acceptable in a given society. One cannot say in this society that what those who persecute homosexuals in Chechnya is wrong morally. One can only say that those in Chechnya are violating the strictures of our society, not that they are morally wrong.
Most people operate generally the same. Of course there are variances. There are even some that have no emotion, although rare.
You are trying to come up with examples that would discount what I am saying yet I could still use them.
Some people may want to eat and have a fear of not eating if they don't know where their next meal is coming from. Some people could have a fear of never seeing the beach again if they are near death and want the possibility.
I never said a bully was afraid of his victims. They are usually picked because they are perceived by the bully to be able to be beaten. What I am calling the bullies fears is why it is being done. Whether it is wanting to feel superior, feel accepted into a group or just a show of strength, to me it is a fear of not having those things.
Just my opinion, but then again yes, some people are just assholes.
Yes. Subjective stuff does exist even if subject gravity does not. Art is subjective (for example).
I am not arguing that morality is subjective (as in morality is exclusively subjective), I am noting that subjective morality exists. Each culture (group, etc.) can have its own subjective morality. And, demonstrably, it does. We see this.
Subjective morality is morality for a group. Objective morality would be the morality that would be equivalent to truth. Objective morality would necessarily come from a source that is superior to all groups (i.e. the supreme entity).
You must be ignoring my responses because I do not ignore this. I have noted repeatedly that the subjective morality of one society almost assuredly will not match that of another. Each society thinks it is correct. Happens all the time. Not only do I not ignore this - I have emphasized this in my prior responses.
Yes, exactly! Clearly you have not followed what I have been stating since you present this as if it rebuts my argument. Each group thinks its morality is right. Obviously. Just like each religion thinks it is the one true religion.
Yes. Again, you state this as if I have stated the opposite. I have not. Reread what I have written in our prior discussion. In fact I am pretty sure I noted that it is likely that no group's subjective morality is right (as in directly matches objective morality - assuming that objective morality exists).
Yes, I am aware of that. Unfortunately, you are arguing on the basis that, because some people think they are Napoleon, therefore they are. That is, because a society thinks it's mores are moral, they therefore are. You will, of course, deny this. You will point out, again, that because different societies have different morals, it proves that there is a thing called subjective morality. You apparently think that this discussion is whether or not there is a "thing" called subjective morality. That isn't what I am addressing. I'm perfectly aware that humans treat morality as if it were subjective. My argument is that because they claim (not treat) it is subjective doesn't make morality subjective.
My issue with you personally is that you claim critical thinking. How can you do that and, at the same time, say that subjective morality exists? For morality to be an actual thing, it cannot be subjective. One cannot claim that raping and murdering a child is subjectively wrong. To do so would mean morality as an actual thing cannot exist. You would only be saying that doing such a thing is against your personal desires. It really is that simple.
I understand that. Really, I do. But you have to ask the question, why do you disagree with it? Why do YOU disagree with it? Is it because you "just do" or do you have reasons for it? If you have reasons that are beyond "I just don't like it" then you are appealing to something you believe is objective.
Nor do I believe that you believe that murder isn't legal simply because people want to be safe. If that were true, then you'd condone murder if it guaranteed that your interests were safe. Say, being an ethnic German without any Jewish blood. Murder would be okay, according to your argument, as long as you weren't included in who was allowed to be murdered.
The problem I see is that you do not recognize subjective morality as a form of morality. To you subjective morality is not really morality - that only objective morality can be morality.
Trouble with that is that you are denying something that demonstrably exists (subjective morality). Hard to accept an argument that demands one ignore that which exists plain as day.
In short, subjective morality is not truth, is clearly errant but no matter how much you wish otherwise, it does exist. Denying even the existence of subjective morality is like denying the existence of religions (each of which is subjective).
That is accurate, except for it being a problem.
Except that morality doesn't demonstrably exist as subjective. You can only demonstrably prove that humans treat it as if it were.
And that treatment is what we call ‘subjective morality’.
Honestly, I would say because of how I was taught. My upbringing. I was taught and shown to live/be a certain way.
Other cultures are brought up with their own traditions and ways.
What I was taught and what others may have been taught in no way diminishes my beliefs or theirs. I may think I am right just as they may think the same thing. Wars have been fought over differences.
My liking or not liking the way people are in no way changes them. People have been trying to do that for centuries as well. They think their way is correct.
Things also change with time. Centuries ago people got married at an early age. Say 14 or 15 years old. if I remember correctly, even (although fictional) Romeo and Juliet were about 14. Now it is not considered the moral thing to do.
The moral outlook has changed.
Not what I am saying at all. People want the right to be able to walk outside their home and have themselves and their family be safe. That would include most people, therefore for the public good. If it were so much a moral imperative, people wouldn't celebrate the death penalty. Though I really don't want to go there and derail.
if morality is objective - where does everyone get the rules for this objective morality ? why hasn't everyone on the planet gotten the rules for objective morality and started following them ?
A good and honest answer. Even so, it isn't sufficient. Not if you consider yourself something more than simply programming. The moment you question why behaving a particular way is moral, you become responsible for the answer.
Simply on the basis of having been taught, you are correct. If you were taught that man never landed on the moon isn't indicative of the truth of it. We either did or didn't and your belief isn't relevant to the truth.
Whether you like it or not isn't what's really relevant. What is relevant is that although many think morality is relevant almost no one behaves as if it is. Those who do are usually considered the worst element of civilization.
Somewhat of an oversimplification. Centuries ago people got married at an early age because it was necessary. Due to war, famine, disease, in short, life expectancy, people didn't have the luxury of waiting that we have today. I would expect that the 14 year old of centuries ago would slap the snot out of today's 14 year old for being impossibly stupid.
Yes, it has. I suspect, though, that you don't realize as to why.
I didn't think you were, yet it is a logical extrapolation of what you said.
A good question. Specifically...
My answer? The God depicted in the Bible.
old testament or new ? are you stating that slavery and killing are now moral since they are in the Bible ? Why was the Bible not written clearly enough so as not to be able to be interpreted differently most people who have read it ?
Both.
No, and suggesting that they are is superficial at best.
A good question. To answer, let me ask you this. Is the basic premise of communism bad? By basic, I mean mankind working toward the benefit of all. That is, when you get up in the morning, you go to work for the benefit of all rather than the benefit of yourself. In such a system you may find yourself a garbage collector. Are you dissatisfied because of your supposedly low position or are you satisfied that you are contributing to the welfare of society as a whole? Mankind is such that we find the garbage collector of less value than, say, the CEO of Amazon or the latest favorite of pop culture (place your favorite here). But imagine if there were no garbage collectors. What do you think our civilization would be like?
The Bible is not clear because it presents a gestalt different from what is natural to human beings. It presents a gestalt that every single one of us is precious in a manner we can scarcely imagine to God. It presents a gestalt that God is central to our lives rather than ourselves and what we think or desire.
Further, the Bible isn't clear to the natural human for the same reason that, in a war, communication is encrypted so that the enemy cannot understand it.
I am confident you believe this. Nonetheless, how one can come to such an assessment of the whole in direct contradiction of its parts is entirely unexplained.
You and Cal should chat about slavery in the Bible.
Then in at least this much you are correct.
Because I don't see the contradiction that you do. That you see it as a contradiction doesn't mean that it is one.
But consider this-- perhaps they are afraid they aren't strong enough-- or masculine enough.
Or perhaps they're afraid that other people won't recognize them as being strong and/or powerful . . . ? IDK.
What other reasons DO YOU HAVE to oppose homosexuality?
What reasons COULD YOU POSSIBLY HAVE to oppose homosexuality?
How does homosexuality affect you in any way, shape or form?
What point????
ussually a sign of insecurity about ones sexuality desres
You asked this question. In turn, I asked my question. I just want to know how you can think homosexuality can be immoral if one does not choose their sexual orientation.
Never mind. I think I know the answer to that question.
That doesn't work for all of us.
My morality is anything is good as long as it does not harm others. That's really all that's important, IMO
To not see contradiction in the Bible requires serious determination to rationalize.
This seed deals with the killing of homosexuals so lets use that as an example of a biblical contradiction (one of many). In the Bible, a loving God calls for the killing of men who engage in homosexual acts. To not see the contradiction one must either:
There are many ways for one to kid oneself.
You and Cal should chat about homosexual acts in the Bible.
God either considers slavery to be moral or allows his creations to engage in immoral acts and never, not once, does God instruct them that the owning of another human being as property is immoral.
The following is 'superficial':
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
... on and on in the Bible ...
1 Corinthians 7:21
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
1 Peter 2:18
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Timothy 1:10
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
1 Timothy 6:1
1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
Colossians 3:22
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Colossians 4:1
1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Deuteronomy 23:15
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.
Deuteronomy 24:7
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
Ephesians 6:5
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Ephesians 6:9
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Exodus 21:2
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.
Exodus 21:7
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
Exodus 21:32
32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Exodus 21:16
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
Leviticus 25:39
39 “ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.
Luke 4:18
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,to set the oppressed free,
Philemon 1:16
16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
Titus 2:9-10
9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Luke 12:47-48
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
Exodus 21:26-27
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
Deuteronomy 23:15-16
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
1 Timothy 6:1-2
1 All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. These are the things you are to teach and insist on.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Exodus 21:7-11
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Exodus 21:2-6
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
Ephesians 6:5-9
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Deuteronomy 15:12-18
12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. 16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant. 18 Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because their service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do.
Then it would follow that your argument infers that morality is objective, which it empirically is NOT.
Have you come to that logical conclusion?
You've evolved from 2 hours before this statement because way back then you said:
Which is it?
So you subjectively choose what to recognize.
I wasn't attempting to provide an answer for "all of us". That is why I specifically prefaced what I said with "My answer?" I did so because I already knew before I said it that, for some, my answer doesn't work for them.
Your desire not to harm others is commendable. Consider, though, what constitutes harm? I'm not asking you to believe in the God I do, but for the sake of the discussion, imagine that He actually exists. If you can do that, imagine that this God created us for His purposes and that He has His own ideas about what constitutes morality. Imagine that, whether we understand or not, He gives us laws and commands because they are what is best for us. Also imagine that one day we will have to give an accounting for the way we lived our lives and what we put our faith in. And His judgement will be inescapable. In short, imagine that you are not the best judge of what constitutes harm to another.
I don't mean that in a judgmental, accusatory way. What I mean is, if God exists, what you might think of as harmless may not be. Especially since, if my God exists, He will be the ultimate judge of what harms and what benefits. It is my belief, and I doubt you'd disagree, is that man is fallible. If you have been following my conversation with TiG, I would hope that you would recognize that because people believe in the existence of subjective morality, it should be apparent to anyone that we humans are demonstrably poor judges of what is moral. We confuse what we desire to be moral with what is actually moral.
Because the God I believe in does.
Uh, is this supposed to be a different question from the first one?
Well, I guess the answer depends on what you think is true about reality. For me, I believe God exists and has definite opinions, enforceable opinions, about what we should be doing. How we should behave. What's right and what's wrong. If these things are true, and I believe they are, then love requires me to oppose what is opposed to God's design.
I'm sorry but I quit reading after you said "imagine God exists". The rest sounded like proselytizing so I zoned out.
Do you recognize that I posit this very point?
Absolutely. Just as we confuse truth with what we want to religiously believe to be truth.
Trouble is, nobody knows what is actually moral. Deliver objective morality and that problem will be solved.
Unfortunately I think you are spot on Dulay. Sorry Drakk, but I do not see how anyone could possibly not recognize the contradictions in the Bible except by kidding oneself.
Yes, according to some's interpretation of Biblical morality, homosexual people should be killed, so Chechnya is in the right, here.
That, or a complete misunderstanding of what the Bible says. Funny how you consistently discount that possibility. As if that isn't possible for someone of your vast intellect.
Okay.
Mischaracterization. This puts the focus on the act itself as the reason for death. This is not the case. The actual reason for the sentence is disobedience to God's will. This is a crucial distinction. The idea here is not about deciding whether homosexuality is wrong or right. The idea is that God has the authority to decide such things. More, that there are consequences for going against Him.
Uh, okay, but I don't recall anyone saying God didn't literally mean kill. Probably someone makes such an argument but I haven't run into it. About the closest I can come to this, thinking about it, is Jesus confronted by the Pharisees with the adulterous woman. I suppose that some might consider that as "it didn't really mean kill". If so, they don't understand what happened there.
Translate? If you have a child and that child screams and cries because you take them to the doctor's office to get their vaccination, does it not rend your heart? Yet you still do it because you love the child and are looking out for their welfare despite the child's lack of understanding.
Another mischaracterization. It presents the idea that God acts solely because of love. This is incorrect. He also acts because His sense of Justice demands it. As the Bible says, it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of God. The reason it is so is because God doesn't equivocate. What truly good God would?
Really? That's considered an argument by you?
Hi Drak,
I would like to take this a little bit away from homosexuality to the actual texts that it comes from. There are many things in the Torah that are considered abominations, like eating pig, or wool and linen blends. Why are some Christian movements so fixated on homosexuality, and not the other commandments? There are 613 of them and most are ignored.
No. First, because Chechnya isn't doing what it is doing because of the Bible. They are doing it because of the Koran.
Second, although the Bible declares death for the homosexual, Jesus points out that the sentence isn't the point. When the Pharisees bring the woman accused of adultery to Jesus for stoning, he, of all people has the right to carry out the sentence. Yet he doesn't. Why? The answer is in his reply. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The point was, we are all sinners. We all deserve the sentence. The sentence was God saying there are consequences for sin. Jesus' mercy was saying that God provided a way to escape the sentence through him.
Same God, same "objective" morality.
Can you debate without getting personal?
I do not discount the possibility that people (including me) misunderstand a biblical passage. But when a passage is so specific and you offer no convincing explanation of how a direct read is wrong, then I am going with the direct read.
Uh huh. Then every disobedience of God's will has a death sentence? If not (and we know that is not true) then this sentence does indeed correlate with the act.
What? The passage is about homosexual acts. God is clearly stating disapproval. No way to deny that.
One need not enumerate countless rules to establish that. That takes one sentence: God has ultimate authority. There, done. This passage clearly is much more specific than that. I see you ignoring everything other than what you wish to be true. That is not much of an argument.
Again, that is established with one sentence: God will punish you if you disobey.
Do you not understand that I provided a list of possibilities? I did not claim you argued this.
Others in this forum have argued this.
So God killing a homosexual is an act of love?
Okay, use this instead:
"Deem anything God does to be loving or an act of justice and thus any contradiction is just the failings of the human mind to comprehend that of God"
That you don't see a contradiction doesn't mean that there isn't one, or more correctly a multitude of them.
You stated that we all should garner 'objective morality' from:
Yet when confronted with the fact that the God in the Bible embraces slavery, you claim it's superficial to suggest that slavery is moral.
It seems that you are being subjective about what you choose to be objective about.
Hello, Perrie.
Good question. Difficult to answer. That is, I can easily send electrons to your screen that says things, but I think it would be difficult to transmit the gestalt. I will try though.
To my mind, there are two different ways that Christians deal with the issue of homosexuality. There are those who look at the act itself. As if not being homosexual somehow makes one more acceptable to God. Then, there are those who don't think homosexuality is the thing itself, but rather, whether one obeys God or not.
How this relates to whether one eats pork or blends of fabric is this. If one thinks that not eating pork or shellfish or wearing different fabrics at the same time makes one acceptable to God are seriously in error. One can do those things and, at the same time, have the most vile heart. My understanding is that God established such rules not because they make one acceptable to Him but, rather, to distinguish His followers from other belief systems in existence at that time. That is, specifically not eating shellfish didn't make one holy, it identified the practitioner as a follower of the One True God.
Now comes the hard part. From this point forward, I'd ask you to try to imagine things from God's perspective. And not the God you have in your imagination right now. Instead, assume the following. God creates man perfectly. God's enemy, Satan, corrupts man. God is determined to salvage man and enacts a plan to do so.
I know that will generate a lot of, "if that's true, then why..." questions. I am asking you to ignore that for now. I'm asking you to assume that God created man perfectly and that Satan corrupted man. If you can do that, my answer will make much more sense.
If we assume that the essential nature of reality is the battle between God and Satan, then such things as not eating pork and not mixing fabrics make much more sense. It isn't that not eating pork and not mixing fabrics is, in and of themselves, right or wrong. What it actually relates to is whether one chooses to obey God or not.
Unfortunately, many Christians don't realize this. They think that homosexuals are condemned for being homosexuals. This isn't the case. They are neither more or less condemned than anyone else. I am not a homosexual, yet I am as worthy of condemnation as if I were. They, and I, are condemned because I do not measure up to God's standard of righteousness.
But saying this is itself an oversimplification. It still focuses on the act of homosexuality. This is wrong because it doesn't really answer your question. The answer is, will one choose to accept God's view of things rather than their own? God didn't enact laws such as not eating pigs or wearing different fabrics simultaneously because, in and of themselves, they were moral. He did so because as God, He has the right to demand such of His creations. He was telling us that there are consequences for disobedience.
Again, God's establishment of rules such as you mention isn't in themselves what makes a person holy. Those things don't justify a person. It is the belief in God, and through that belief, obedience, that makes a person holy in God's sight. It isn't the actions of the individual, but rather, the belief that God is who He says He is. Trust not in themselves, trust in God.
I'm not sure you will understand the distinction, but it isn't the opposition to homosexuality itself that Christians should be concerned with. It is the obedience to God's will.
As I said. A lot of electrons squirted your way. I hope that it makes some sort of sense to you.
If the words do not suit your liking, change the meaning entirely.
God created Satan. God is omniscient. God is omnipotent. Seems to be a logical disconnect here.
In my experience with kids, it's usually a frustration borne out of not having control over their own lives. Sometimes it's just boredom. It's not fear.
Gay men are more frequently the targets of this kind of violence because of the perception that gay men are weak, and the fact that as a small percentage of the population they are almost always outnumbered. Nobody's afraid of them.
I'm afraid you've lost me, here. How has the meaning changed?
I suppose, if you start with the premise that God didn't know it would happen. Not so much if He did.
Pedophilia is hard wired in the brain. Is pedophilia immoral?
very interesting since the God of the old testament is quite different from the God of the new testament - maybe God reflected inwardly and had a change of heart ?
i'm sorry, you'll need to explain further, especially because it is outlined specifically in the Bible how to treat and not treat your slaves. (as just one example)
so far this has no relevance to miscommunication of the Bible - but let's continue.
so what is "natural" to human beings ? i have found many human beings who have no problem whatsoever with God being central to their lives and they have held such a belief since they were old enough to learn to do so - yet you are stating that is not their "natural" state ? what is the "natural" state of human beings and how do you know this for a fact ? maybe our "natural" state is to believe in God or maybe our "natural" state is to believe pumpkins hide video games inside themselves.
so now we, as natural humans, are the enemy ? communication may be encrypted during war but it's quite 100% clear to allies - it's just misinterpreted by the enemy until they can figure out how to decipher the code. So far, we have a lot of natural humans that have misinterpreted the Bible and you are stating they are the enemy ?
wait you oppose homosexuality due to the God you BELIEVE in ? so the God you believe in might not actually be God but could be Satan or just a myth in general and you are basing your entire "logic" not on fact but on blind belief ?
that goes 2 ways - you could have a complete misunderstanding of the Bible and what it says as well, correct ? now, again, why isn't the Bible crystal clear in it's communications ? could you be one of the enemies that the Bible is encrypted against ?
well this seems odd... Many people disobey God daily by violating his commands, they cheat on their spouses, they dishonor their parents - yet none of them are slated to die nor commanded to die as per the Bible.. yet homosexuals are.... this seems to poke lots of holes in your theory..
oh.. so (this for illustrative purposes only)
i guess that means if your child disobeys you then you must lovingly have him killed... i'm sure it's for the best and beyond that child's understanding, right ? as long as you know that child must die to satisfy your God - then you must be a loving parent in the end and will get your reward in Heaven, right ?
and how do you know this ? how do you know about God's "sense of Justice" ? where did God acquire such a human trait as a "sense of Justice" ? I thought God was beyond humans and not subjected to trivial human traits such as these ?
wait.. YOUR understanding ? that means you could be incorrect and basing your entire life on a faulty premise since you could easily be misunderstanding the unclear Bible - yet you are here trying to "teach" others about what the Bible says and about your God... a God you aren't even sure exists, at least your version of it... you don't find this odd ?
Well if there is a god, he created homosexuals, so why then would he be opposed to his own creation?
That's crazy!
You use a lot of words to say nothing
Note this:
Now let's apply this to probably the most infamous biblical quote on homosexuality (or rather, the act):
You note that Christians can, in effect, interpret this (and similar passages) as dealing with [1] God's position on the homosexual act or [2] to interpret this in the abstract as a directive by God simply to obey Him.
In other words, it reads like: 'pay no attention to the actual words, this really just means to obey God'.
Pretty much every rule made by God has a punishment and certainly God is established as He who passes judgment. In other words, obey God or else is quite well established in the Bible (in gestalt). If the message was simply [2] there would be no point enumerating hundreds of different ways of disobeying God (and the punishments thereof). The directive: 'Obey God' accomplishes that without introducing hundreds of pointless details that, per you, are not really 'the thing' (as in not the point).
When you read a rule such as Leviticus 20:13 where God states with specificity that gay sex is an abomination upon penalty of death, it is beyond curious that you would argue that here the morality of homosexuality is not the 'thing itself'. Abstracting Leviticus 20:13 (and other passages) to 'obey God' with a near dismissal of the actual content of the scripture is what I mean by changing the meaning. You changed the meaning of 20:13 to 'obey God'.
Now, since that should be clear, let's finish with this:
We have a passage demanding death for a homosexual act and you (astonishingly) call it a 'mischaracterization' to hold that God is deeming the homosexual act to be an abomination upon penalty of death. As if it is a gross misread on my part to paraphrase what the scripture actually states.
If one is willing to literally ignore what is written:
... pay no attention to the actual words of the scripture ...
and simply insert whatever meaning one wishes:
... this passage is telling you to obey God ...
then one can interpret any passage of the Bible anyway one wishes.
I would not take issue with a claim that Leviticus 20:13 (for example) was a statement by God on the morality of homosexual acts AND a reinforcement of the well-established idea that one should obey God. But to downplay the actual content and move the focus to simply 'obey God' is to change the meaning of the passage.
It seems a weak attempt at taking the focus off of the fact that in the bible, some sins are judged to be capital crimes, while others are not. In our society, and in modern fundamental circles, MORE culling has occurred and those sins deemed capital crimes have been reduced to a very few.
As an example, most of Leviticus 20 is multiple forms of adultery = death. That hasn't happened in MANY hundreds of years in the vast majority of 'Christendom'.
Ditto for disobeying your parents, no worries.
The only RECENT Levitical death law that HAS been followed is putting 'witches' to death, but today WICCA and Paganism are recognized religions in the majority of Christendom.
Yet if you're homosexual, there are still people right here in the good old USA who are more than willing to line up with rocks in their hands.
I've posted a seed that argued that it's easy for the majority of other 'sinners' to cite the bludgeon verses on homosexuality because they aren't 'tempted' to commit that 'sin' themselves.
Of all the 'capital sins' it's a lay up for heterosexual to decide that homosexuality must be the one that they REALLY have to stand firm on...
So it seems obvious, to me at least, that the choices that the western world has made to stand up for over time are inherently SUBJECTIVE.
Obvious to me too Dulay. While I do not dismiss the possibility of objective morality, I have yet to see any evidence that it exists. However subjective (relative) morality is obviously in effect.
Drakk's big issue, pretty sure, is that he cannot bring himself to consider subjective morality a form of morality. To him morality is truth and that means that morality is necessarily objective.
I can see that as an idealized position, but to try to eliminate by mere declaration a well established concept (which empirically exists) such as subjective morality is not going to work.
Good point. It is also easy to pick on a small minority - especially in a highly religious nation where one can (unfortunately) argue that the supreme entity considers all members of this minority to be immoral by their very nature. Disappointing that we are still dealing with this in 2019.
I'm disgusted by it and even more disgusted the Trump is trying to roll back the advances our society has made.
Same here. Our government is likely to remain in gridlock until Trump is gone. That may be a good thing actually. But nothing seems to be able to shut down Trump's mouth. It is very difficult for a PotUS to make things good with mere words, but a PotUS can sure as hell screw things up with words.
Especially with a president who doesn't care WTF he says or to whom or how.
He seems to have no filter Steve. What goes through the mind comes out the mouth (or fingers). Too bad his mind is nowhere near the IQ level he thinks it has.
A) Because we are a vindictive society. That's what prisons are, a vindictive payback.
B) Because we have the money for punishment, but not treatment.
Of course it is. If you had been paying attention I said anything that causes harm to another is immoral.
Pedophilia is immoral. I don't care if it's hardwired into the brain. Homosexuality harms no one
It is only downplayed in your mind, not in mine. Saying that the rule itself isn't the thing, but rather, obedience to God is doesn't diminish the rule. It is a focus on why you follow the rule. Is that so hard to understand? Christ called the Pharisees, who were fanatical about following the rules, whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones. He did so not because they weren't following the rules. They definitely were. The problem was that they followed them with the wrong motive in their hearts and so, distorted the rule's true purpose. This is a pretty clear indication that the rule itself isn't the thing. That is, the rule itself isn't sufficient in God's eyes. The homosexual in that place and time wasn't to be stoned to death simply because he was a homosexual. It was because he had rejected God's authority over his life by committing the act. God's rule on homosexuality wasn't simply a statement on what He thought about homosexuality. It was a statement that He had the authority to establish the rule in the first place. By committing the act, the homosexual was rejecting that authority.
Then why focus only on obedience to God? It is not as if that is an obscure notion that was drawn out by this particular rule. By re-framing this as a lesson to obey God, you are downplaying the content of the rule. You are not addressing the fact that God is deeming a male homosexual act to be an abomination which carries the death penalty. And certainly anyone can see why you would not want God to be seen as deeming homosexual acts to be punishable by death so moving the focus away from that makes sense. But that does not make it right.
Actually it was the act, not the sexual orientation, that was punishable by death. Further, if the act was not performed there would be no death penalty. So your comment makes no sense. Of course this rule was devised to dissuade ancient homosexual acts. And the rule against bestiality was devised to dissuade ancient sex with animals. No reason to enumerate hundreds of specific rules if the only intent is to communicate: 'obey God - do not reject God's authority'.
Well of course God had the authority to establish the rule. Any rule. God is (per the Bible) the grandest possible entity. Again, there is no reason to enumerate rules if the only allowed interpretation is 'do what God tells you'.
Yes, in a very specific way and with a specific punishment. And God's position on the matter of homosexual acts is also made quite clear.
Homosexual acts (by males) comes with a death penalty. Having sex during a woman's period comes with a penalty of banishment from the tribe. Sleep with your aunt or sister-in-law and you will be childless. All sorts of special rules with special punishments. Quite a bit of work if the takeaway is simply 'do what God tells you'.
Yet you consistently ignore the fact that the rule in Leviticus 20:13 is NOT carried out be homosexuals. It is carried out by the community who meets out the penalty.
So unless YOU support AND participate in putting homosexuals to death, YOU are the one refusing to follow the rule.
What is there to address??? Are you confused about what it means? It's really simple. If you were a Covenant Jew and you committed a homosexual act then you were sentenced to death. I mean, seriously, if there's something you feel that leaves out, why not just spit it out?
Why would I wish to not want God to be seen as deeming homosexual acts within the theocracy He ruled over as being punishable by death? Do you think I find that uncomfortable or something?
Well, according to you, morality is subjective so you really have no basis for this claim.
Hence my stating:
And the immediate sentence after that:
I can only assume you misread what I said. I can think of no other reason why you would repeat what I had just said.
Logically, there's no point in saying one should obey God unless God gives us what He wants us to obey, don't you think? There's not much use in telling someone they should obey God and the person says, "Okay. What does He want me to do?" and you've got nothing to tell him.
It isn't an interpretation. There isn't much to interpret concerning death for homosexual acts. I am not suggesting in any way that God did not mean exactly what He said or that the Israelites weren't actually supposed to carry the sentence out.
What I am saying is that the reason for carrying out the law is much more important than the actual carrying out of the law. Christ gave an illustration of this in the parable about the Pharisee and the tax collector praying in the Temple. They were there praying, just as God commanded His people do, yet one was rejected. Why? Because obeying the law to pray wasn't enough by itself. The motive for the prayer was more important than actually praying. For the Pharisee, the motive was self aggrandizement and so God rejected his prayer.
It is the same with the penalty for homosexual acts. The point is much bigger than simply that God doesn't like homosexual acts. In carrying out the sentence the reason that should be born in mind is less about the breaking of a law by a person. That puts the focus on the person. Instead, the focus should be on God. At the execution, what should be in the mind of the people is something like...
This is very different than someone who executes the man and, afterword, is asked why he executed the man and his answer is simply that he broke the law. There's a lot less "why" there. No real understanding of why God said what he did. There is a reason with no actual though behind it.
This is why I say the reason for carrying out the law is much more important than the actual carrying out of the law. Saying so doesn't change the law at all. It doesn't in some way mean that the law should not be carried out (within that theocracy of that time). But if one carries out the law for the wrong reasons, there's no point in having followed the law in the first place. The "why" matters to God. It matters a lot.
The part in blue is the point of the rule. My point was to focus you on that reality.
Per the Bible, God commands people to kill any male who engages in a homosexual act. You might find this to be perfectly acceptable and not bat an eye. Others, however, do indeed feel uncomfortable about such an interpretation. It suggests that maybe the Bible is not divine given the mores and values imparted by the grandest possible entity match those of ancient men.
I am not arguing that morality is exclusively subjective. I am arguing that there is a subjective morality and (possibly) an objective morality.
This is ironic; you suggest I misread you while demonstrating that you misread me. Here is what you wrote:
In the above you labeled the man as a homosexual. But this passage is not about homosexuality, it is about two males engaging in a homosexual act. Your comment presumes the men involved are homosexuals. That is incorrect. I pointed that out here:
Leviticus 20:13 does not condemn a man to death for being homosexual. The sexual orientation is not the issue (ancient men likely did not even know about sexual orientation). The passage instead focuses on the act.
Now, on the act, we agree that the punishment of death is for the homosexual act. However, you then immediately re-frame that and state that the real reason is rejecting God's authority. As noted, that extremely general concept applies to the Bible as a whole. That does not change the fact that this is God demanding his people kill two men because they had homosexual sex. This rules focuses on this act.
The reason was the homosexual act. God said no, the men said yes and now God wants them killed because they disobeyed. You want to focus only on the disobey part and ignore the immorality of the rule itself.
social engineers tend to be overly sensitive when their design flaws are exploited
The part in blue is simply stating the rule. It is an if/then statement. By itself, it contains no point. If I were to ask you what the point of the rule was, you wouldn't simply quote the rule to me. The point would be why the rule was created, not the rule itself. "Do not jaywalk" is not the point of not jaywalking. The point is that jaywalking is unsafe and disrupts traffic flow.
I assume you mean any Israelite male. It didn't apply to anyone else.
If you are referring acceptable to mean God's right to make such a command, no, I wouldn't bat an eye. If you mean the thought of having to kill someone for homosexual acts, that would bother me. It would not be something I would enjoy doing. Fortunately, we are not called to that.
They are free to think so. Not sure what else there is to say about that.
Uh, no. I simply pointed out that homosexuality (orientation, not act) isn't what triggers the penalty.
Is that statement true or false? Does it not clearly state that homosexuality (orientation) wasn't the trigger for the penalty?
No, again. I didn't presume that they were homosexuals. I was specifically talking about homosexuals. How do you make the point that being a homosexual isn't sufficient to trigger the penalty of the law without actually talking about homosexuals? And since I state it is the act, not the orientation that triggers the law, how have you said anything different from what I've already said?
So, apparently "The homosexual in that place and time wasn't to be stoned to death simply because he was a homosexual. " doesn't say the exact same thing to you? If not, what do you think it says? If being a homosexual (orientation) is not sufficient grounds to trigger the law, does that not suggest that being one isn't what the law is about?
And doesn't "It was because he had rejected God's authority over his life by committing the act." state this? If not, what do you think it says?
I'm trying to understand why you think I'm "re-framing" something here. It is as if you wish to isolate the command to the words themselves and disallow all context and reason. The man is to be put to death because he committed a homosexual act and that's it? How does that answer the question, "why is he to be put to death?" Are you just going to say that's off limits and expect me to agree? The "why" of it is the focus and point of the law. Without it, there's no point to the law. It's just some arbitrary thing with no actual meaning.
Nor have I stated anything to say otherwise. But you leave it at that and go no further. You do not consider the larger context and how this law fits within it. You do not want to consider the "why" of the law. I think you do so because what you really want to talk about is that you consider this rule to be immoral, thus proving the Bible is not trustworthy or believable as being from God. That's a lot harder to do if you have to examine the why. That is, God may have an actual moral reason for the law.
By your own example you illustrate that our laws are specific for a reason. We do not have a general purpose law such as 'do not do unsafe things'. We have specific laws such as your example. The specificity is there for a reason.
In other words, the takeway from 'do not jaywalk' is not simply 'do not do unsafe things', it is specifically to not jaywalk.
Similarly, in 20:13, the takeaway is not simply 'do not disobey God', it is specifically 'do not engage in homosexual acts'.
There are hundreds of biblical laws like this. These laws each have a specific meaning. All of them (given they have consequences for disobeying) are generically 'do not disobey God''. As noted, there is no need to write hundreds of specific laws if the takeaway is simply 'do not disobey God'.
No point in me responding to the balance of your post until we are clear about this.
By the way, just to ensure we are clear on why we are even discussing this. Remember your opening reply to Perrie:
It is both. Now consider the next paragraph:
That logic, when applied to homosexual acts, suggests that God demands the murder of men who have engaged in a homosexual act so as to distinguish His followers from other belief systems in existence at that time.
Can you clear this up?
20:13 demands that 'followers of the one True God' murder men who engage in a homosexual act. The rule isn't to be followed by the men who committed the act, but for 'His' believers to follow.
Logically, if believers in 'the one True God' follow 20:13, they should follow ALL of Leviticus and we all KNOW that they do NOT. Not just by committing the prohibited acts themselves but by failing to meet out the punishment mandated by it themselves.
When the Levitical prohibitions from the OT are cited by Christians, I can't help but wonder how they measure that against the contradiction in Romans 14.
Sorry, TiG. I've given this a lot of thought over the past few days and I just can't make sense of your view. Laws are not made for the sake of the law itself. There is something behind it that gives the law meaning. Jaywalking doesn't exist for it's own sake. It exists for public safety and public order. It is the same with all laws.
Yes. The point wasn't that all the laws are intended to do the same thing. The point was that what is more important is what is behind the law. What gives the law its meaning. All the laws have that in common.
I agree.
So if we apply this to Leviticus 20:13 the law exists because someone (in your view that someone is God) decided that it is a bad thing for two men to engage in a homosexual act. The reason might be disease, waste of sexual energy that could be used for reproductive purposes, or that the law-maker simply finds the act to be distasteful. The latter, by the way, is stated in the scripture ('abomination' in many translations). There are all sorts of reasons why this law might exist.
You made this point a while back regarding Leviticus 20:13:
The rule Leviticus 20:13 exists for a reason. We seem to agree on that but then apparently not. But then you use language such as 'the rule itself isn't the thing' and 'focus on why you follow the rule'. I understand, clearly, that you hold that people follow the rule because one should not disobey God. That is the ultimate reason why anyone would follow any rule made by God. But there is also a specific reason(s) why God (ostensibly) made the rule (as you have just noted in your recent comment).
To wit, there are three things at play here:
All three of these are significant. I do not understand why accepting #2 (along with #1 and #3) is so difficult? As I have noted, if you dismiss the immediate purpose of a rule and argue that the focus is #3 then why even have specific rules? Just have one rule "obey God".
See this reads just fine. You are noting that each law has a purpose and that ultimately it is important to obey God. All the laws come from God. But each law has its unique purpose.
Nobody would, from a biblical sense presuming divinity, etc. take issue with that.
Yes, we both agree that it exists for a reason. That was never in dispute.
I'm not sure that you do understand. Honestly, I'm not certain you can, without knowing God. It isn't wrong to say one should not disobey God, but it is much more right to say one should obey God. What I am trying to get across is that I am not talking about a deistic God. I am talking about a personal, theistic God that desires the closest personal relationship with His creation. A life lived for the purpose of knowing, experiencing and glorifying God. And, in the case of Old Testament Israel, subject to God as the literal head of state. The literal king of Israel. One who's purpose for agreeing to be Israel's King was to bring about His plan of salvation for all of mankind.
So, when I said the law was not the thing itself, I was saying that the actual thing was rejection of all that. That the issue was much more than simply having broken a command. More than simply having disobeyed God. Rather, it's what doing those things mean. It's about that moment, when you're about to do some thing and you have to choose. Am I god of my life or is God? For the OT Israelites, the whole basis for their being a nation, the whole reason for their existence, was their promise to God that He would be their God. They promised to carefully and conscientiously follow His word. So when one committed a homosexual act, he wasn't just breaking the law, he was rebelling against God, his King. Dethroning Him in his heart. He would be god of his own life and do what pleased himself.
Then it was nothing but a misunderstanding. Good. I wish we could avoid this.
Probably more accurate is for you to note that I might not be able to see things as you do. My cognitive abilities, however, are perfectly sound and I am confident that I understand things far more complex than what we are discussing. Just saying.
Sure. Not really something I was trying to refute.
Okay. And that God instructed His creations to not engage in homosexual acts at the penalty of death. For a reason - not simply because He said so. Do we agree on this point?
I understand (and understood) that disobeying God was a critical failure. As long as we do not whitewash the rule with a hand wave and a note to the effect that we should disregard the specifics and simply recognize the real underlying fact of not disobeying God then I have no issue.
Yes, so God offered several hundred rules which He expects all of His creations to follow. By breaking any of these rules the individual is rebelling against God. I can accept that. What I can NOT accept is ONLY that. To wit, God (ostensibly) did not author hundreds of random rules only to draw a multidimensional box around His creations - hundreds of lines that if crossed are bad news. Those rules were more than 'if you break it you disobeyed me'. The rules, in and of themselves, have meaning. For example, Leviticus 20:13 is not only 'do not disobey' it is also 'do not engage in homosexual acts' and the reason offered for this (as far as scripture goes) is that the act is an abomination (connotation = disgusting). It is specific. It is God (ostensibly) making a statement of right vs. wrong. The point I raised upfront is that each rule has meaning beyond its function of defining the limits of behavior outlined by God (i.e. the point where an individual can be deemed to be disobeying God).
I thought that is what I said. For you, this is a conceptual discussion. For me, it is reality. To me, your wife is a concept. You could tell me everything about her and she would only remain a concept to me. The difference would be in meeting her. This is what I meant when I said I do not think you can understand without knowing God. Not that you lacked intelligence.
Yes. My point is, and has been, that the reason is actually more than the if/then nature of the act.
I did not dismiss the rule. There is no point in this conversation where I attempted to suggest the rule was anything less than it is. I didn't say anything like "the rule wasn't really meant to be taken seriously" or "God didn't really mean it. Honestly, I don't know why you are stuck on this point.
In actuality, we're barely scratching the surface here. There's a lot more about this subject than what we've been speaking of. Like why God gave those laws in the first place.
I am not really. You acknowledge that each rule has a specific purpose beyond the general 'obey God'. I am good with that.
Okay. I am game. Let's go there.
Well, briefly, if you zoom all the way out, what we see is a titanic battle between God and Satan. Satan corrupted man in order to separate man from God. Satan did this because man is God's most prized creation. God knew this would happen and had a plan in place before Adam and Eve were created.
Now we zoom in a bit and look at the Earth. Generations have come and gone and man is not only corrupt, meaning their natural state is living in opposition to God, but not even knowing who God is. Some know God exists, but they don't really know much about Him. Others know He exists but fashion God in whatever image makes sense to them, ending up with many gods.
Zoom in a little more. God essentially begins His plan with Abraham. Eventually, we get to Moses and the giving of the law through His word. He begins to teach the Hebrews about Himself. He gives them laws. These laws are more than just a list of do's and don'ts. The tell the people about God's nature. This law only applied to the Hebrews, who eventually became known as the Israelites. Keep in mind that Earth is the battlefield where the war between Satan and God is occurring.
So, at this point, let's pause the picture and look at the law. What was it's true purpose? It wasn't the method to get to heaven. The law said even just one sin, one as small as eating an apple when you were told not to, was a death sentence. So what was it for? Well, I already mentioned one reason. It told them something about the nature of God. Another was how He expected them to live. But the main reason for the law was to expose the sin in their lives. It was a mirror they could look into and see their nakedness. It was the method God used to show us what Satan had done to us. To see our state before God.
Concurrently, and just as important, the law also said there would be an inescapable reckoning for the sin in a person's life. The law offered no escape. It was either obey the law perfectly, which no one could do, or you would be condemned on the day of judgement. These two facts were the ultimate purpose of the law. To show us how corrupted we are and how hopeless our situation was.
Again, I remind you that this is about the war between Satan and God. At stake is who's way is right before all the powers that exist. God could have destroyed Satan the instant he rebelled, but then those powers would not know who was right, only that God had the power to destroy anyone who went against Him. They wouldn't have known He was right, only that He was stronger.
So, here's what the powers see at this point. Mankind, exposed and hopeless before the law and God. What can possibly be done? Has Satan proved himself over God? Will Satan force God to condemn His favorite possession? The Earth has been Satan's territory since the fall. What will God do?
God sends His Son, born as a human and lived the law perfectly, to be the atonement through his death, for the sins of those who put their faith in him, satisfying to the last drop God's demand for justice. The law shows, for those who can see it, our need for Christ.
Hopefully, you can see that it is about much more than whether one commits a particular sin, such as a homosexual act. The picture is a lot bigger.
How can you possibly worship something so evil that it will murder people for even the smallest error?
To start, remember that to me this is simply a story. So I am going to comment on why this story is not persuasive to me. And for now I will focus on the foundation of the plot rather than get into details.
To begin with, the story justifies the battle between Satan and God with this:
Since all of God's creations are told by God what is right vs. wrong anyway (note the laws and consequences) there really is no doubt about God being right. God is always right, by definition. Creations have no choice here. So when God finally defeats Satan what is the big lesson? God defeated Satan. God wins. God is right, Satan is wrong. God could have just destroyed Satan upfront and His creations would still be 100% subservient to an almighty entity who is right by definition.
By not destroying Satan upfront, God put all of His creations through countless generations of misery simply to teach them the concept of good vs evil (to know God is right). Information that God could simply wire into the brains of His creations (omniscience and omnipotence).
Next is the very concept of Satan. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created Satan. Logically God created Satan knowing what Satan would do (and of course empowering Satan to do this) or God created Satan and was surprised by the rebellion. You have stipulated that the former is the case:
So God created (and thus empowered) Satan knowing what Satan would do. That yields the inescapable conclusion that God wanted Satan to corrupt man and wanted to battle Satan and wanted all the nasty consequences of satanic 'evil' in the world.
Of course there is plenty more to discuss, but without a solid plot the story is not believable (to me).
Uh, I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the post.
I understand the bigger picture you presented Drakk. You are describing why you believe God has laws in the first place (to teach creatures of their own sin and God's nature).
My net response is that your explanation leaves plenty of open questions. I focused on the biggest question first - the plot of your story.
I suppose I could have just responded with: 'okay, that is what you believe' but that would be a boring / dismissive response.
IMO this an aother articles like it only serve one purpose....''my religion or non religion is right and your's wrong''...Which IMO is nothing more than a crock of bullshit.
Ones morality isn't another persons morality. If one would take the time to actually investigate this you'd find out that most indigenous groups have come to terms with this eons ago.
Personally I really don't give a crap what your morals are or what you claim to be moral...History will show that those that pontificate about ''their morals'' thus being the only thing that can/could be right is mostly bullshit.
Morals, IMO, have nothing to do with religion. Religion is simply an excuse to push your believes on others.
I always looked at religion as a book of morals for people to coexist together, it doesn't work.
I am a strict evolutionist. The spark of life came from atoms IMO.
So, what is happening to homosexuals all over the world has no moral component for you? It's just evolution working itself out?
There are a lot of wonderful things happening to homosexuals all over the world and they have a most decidedly moral component and a positive moral effect on western society. The east will follow us into modernity, as it always has.