Bigotry in Christians, bug, feature, or neither?

[epronovost]

Actually, Epy, they seem to revel in it!

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

--Romans 13.1

I seems I forgot how broad the support for authorities the Scripture support. This basically means, medical, academic and scientific authorities are all supported. Fuck, if "there are no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God" is taken very literally, it would mean that even organized crime has legitimate authority over the criminal underworld.

[airportkid]

... it would mean that even organized crime has legitimate authority over the criminal underworld ...

Has to.  Otherwise the Church would be an illegitimate enterprise.

[Minimalist]

Maybe Fanni Willis can turn her RICO attention to the church?  Super idea.

[Cavebear]

Maybe Fanni Willis can turn her RICO attention to the church?  Super idea.

Well, if I understand RICO correctly, that fact that "the church" (any church) engages in plans to overthrow or control governments might be worth a look/see... I wouldn't want to be that lawyer, but I would support him/her in some exploration of the idea.

[isbelldl]

I shake my head at those that claim they “know” god because they felt a bit tingly while praying or reading scripture.  They fail to explain how god chooses who to tingle with his Holy Spirit.  Certainly not to millions of people that have asked for this proof.  No, only one here and one there.  These few that are amazed that the HS chose them but never question how they know it’s Jesus and not Mithras or Zeus.  How their true religion just happens to be the one taught by their parents…because parents are never wrong.  Or their preacher who’s also never wrong.  

Why is god silent to the others that have asked, even begged for a tingle.  I would love to have a supernatural layer to our reality.  But, nothing…ever!  No way to test it.  No way to “believe” it.  No way to show how to do it that actually works every time…or even most of the time.  How can we distinguish between all our choices…just pick the one we like the most?  Fits our geography?  No, we have to believe it before hand and trust…trust who?  You?  Would you trust me to tell you who god really is?  

Sorry, Charlie.  You have no ability to explain god’s absence, his geographical areas of rule nor his problem of evil.  You have a book.  A book with a lot of problems and errors.  A book that ONLY makes sense to those that already worship it.  You have an irrational god and no evidence it exists.

Sorry for my ramble…I hate it when someone assumes that if I just ask Jesus into my heart, he’ll tingle me…like I’ve never tried, never struggled, never cried out and never believed.  In my world, there is no “spirit” and certainly nothing supernatural going on.  There’s just creative imaginations at work.

No, it's not ramble to me! 

James 4:8

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."

God rewards faith!!! He is constantly looking for those who will worship Him in Spirit and Truth.

If you search for God and show your faith by not giving up, you have just caught His attention.

He will respond, there are millions who will attest to this fact! 

I wasted 30 years trying to have a relationship with your supposed god. 30 years with no actual response. I'd be stupid to waste another 30 on something that if it did exist clearly didn't want to talk to me. If a deity actually wanted a relationship with me, it already would be in one. I wouldn't still be left wondering why I thought it might have been real.

[Charlie24]

No, it's not ramble to me! 

James 4:8

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."

God rewards faith!!! He is constantly looking for those who will worship Him in Spirit and Truth.

If you search for God and show your faith by not giving up, you have just caught His attention.

He will respond, there are millions who will attest to this fact! 

I wasted 30 years trying to have a relationship with your supposed god. 30 years with no actual response. I'd be stupid to waste another 30 on something that if it did exist clearly didn't want to talk to me. If a deity actually wanted a relationship with me, it already would be in one. I wouldn't still be left wondering why I thought it might have been real.

Since so many seem to be sensitive to my Scripture, are you well with criticism? 

If you are, I have something to say to you. if not, Thank you for your time in posting.

[isbelldl]

I wasted 30 years trying to have a relationship with your supposed god. 30 years with no actual response. I'd be stupid to waste another 30 on something that if it did exist clearly didn't want to talk to me. If a deity actually wanted a relationship with me, it already would be in one. I wouldn't still be left wondering why I thought it might have been real.

Since so many seem to be sensitive to my Scripture, are you well with criticism? 

If you are, I have something to say to you. if not, Thank you for your time in posting.

If you have something actually useful, great. If you're just going to suggest I should keep hunting for your imaginary deity for eternity, save your breath.

[Charlie24]

Since so many seem to be sensitive to my Scripture, are you well with criticism? 

If you are, I have something to say to you. if not, Thank you for your time in posting.

If you have something actually useful, great. If you're just going to suggest I should keep hunting for your imaginary deity for eternity, save your breath.

Thank you for your comments.

[SteveII]

P1. God defines what is right and wrong
P2. God said homosexual sex is wrong because it was not part of his intended order of things
C1. Therefore homosexual sex is wrong

P1 has a problem. Who says God exists? Who says that God defines what is right and wrong for us? I mean, God can decide what is right or wrong for him should he exists, but why should we assume that not only God can define what is right or wrong with us, but that he also has our best interest at heart too. 
P2 has a problem. If homosexuality is not part of his intended order of things then why do homosexuals exist, not only just in humans, but also a wide variety of animals, and why is homosexuality an innate characteristics?
C1 has problem since both P1 and P2 is severely defective.

The entire thread is about what Christianity teaches and the implication of that. Therefore in every part of that discussion, you must grant the Christian belief (for the sake of the argument). Of course the subject wanders, but to fall back on "Who says God exists" is literally a discussion stopper.

One such Christian belief you need to grant is the Fall: the world, humans, everything is not as it was supposed to be, a corruption at every level.

While we are doing syllogisms, your argument is just one big burden-of-proof-assuming assertion:

P1. God does not exist
C1. Any beliefs related to that are irrational

That's not my argument. My argument is the following.

P1: There are no verifiable, credible existence for a deity involved in human affairs at a personal level.
P2: Claiming that there definitely and assuredly is a deity involved in human affairs at a personal level that wishes humans and humanity in general good is based on faith alone.
C1: Any belief in a deity involved in human affairs at a personal level that wishes humans and humanity in general good is not a reasonable belief.
C2: Any moral argument based on faith alone in the wisdom of divine revelation is not rational.

I know of no verifiable (that could be confirmed by someone else or via testing, experience, observation or measuring/observation instruments), credible (from a neutral sources) evidences for the existence of a deity involved in human affairs at a personal level. At best, I have seen some tentative and relatively weak evidence for a remote deity acting as a creator of all things, but to then claim that his remote "watchmaker deity" has any interest in human affair, let alone who two consenting adults are having sex and falling in love with, there is quite a stretch. It seems rather petty. I don't care about other people's sexuality and most people don't care who others have sex with or love as long as it doesn't harm anybody. I would imagine a cosmic entity to be rather unconcerned with such notions.  

If you want people to take seriously your claim that God demands people to do something specific you better be able to prove it. I doubt your deity exist. Can I prove he doesn't? No, I don't; proving a negative is almost impossible though I can show that most of the myths associated with your deity are false from the creation of the universe, souls and spirits, a worldwide flood, the miracles of Jesus, especially those associated with his death, exorcism. I could also present arguments against some traits associated to your deity like the Problem of Evil, the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, the Problem of Omnipotence, the Problem of Free Will, etc. 

Can you prove he does? I seriously doubt you have the philosophical, scientifical and historical knowledge to pull something like that convincingly since you would struggle to convince a Christian from another sect that your sect is better. No Christian has ever proven beyond all reasonable doubts that their deity and their instructions are real. Fuck, there are many Christian who don't think God has anything against homosexuals and this was just bigotry added on by someone else later in the text and tradition. Jesus himself doesn't touch the subject. I believe it's Paul who mentions it and Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. He pretends to have encountered him in a vision while on the road to Damas and there was no one to confirm such a story of course as he was alone. We have to believe that if there was indeed a Jesus Christ preaching around AND that Paul is not just a grifter surfing on his popularity to make himself popular and adored until he got arrested by Romans, but that also often happens to crazy, dishonest, grifters who play cult leaders. We have many modern example of that kind of people who take a popular belief, give it their own spin, pretend they have received divine revelation and run with it for a long while.

I am going to leave the proof part for another thread I intend to start. But I have issues with your theory of knowledge you use above to arrive at your conclusion.

I think the fundamental problem in your reasoning is that you have used a really restricted concept of knowledge and what a reasonable belief is (it must be verifiable). I have written about this in other posts years ago when talking about logical positivism, verificationism, and the more pejorative scientism. The whole idea was poplar in the early 20th century but has fallen out of favor by the 1960s when it was obvious that those theories had some flaws.

Your position is that a proposition, statement, or belief is reasonable only if it can be empirically verified or confirmed. Here are some of the problems with that:

1. The proposition itself is unreasonable: The position that reasonable statements must be empirically verifiable, faces a paradoxical problem. The principle itself cannot be empirically verified, leading to a self-defeating stance. This puts the entire position on shaky ground.

2. Non-Empirical Statements: Your position dismisses non-empirical statements (such as metaphysical claims, ethical statements, and mathematical propositions) as unreasonable because they don't have empirical verification. However, this excludes a wide range of meaningful human discourse that is not purely empirical in nature.

3. Scientific Underdetermination: The underdetermination problem in philosophy of science challenges the idea that reasonableness is required to verify or falsify a theory. Multiple theories can sometimes explain the same set of observations, which means that empirical verification can't always provide a clear-cut decision.

4. Radical Reductionism: Your position can lead to an overly restrictive view of reasonableness , where only statements about immediate sensory experience or empirical facts are deemed reasonable. This ignores the complexity of language and human thought, limiting our ability to discuss abstract or theoretical concepts.

5. Value Judgments and Ethics: Ethical and value judgments often play a central role in human discourse, but they are not easily subject to empirical verification. Your position's strict criterion for meaningfulness can undermine discussions of ethics and values, which are important aspects of human life.

6. Science Itself: Scientific theories often include unobservable entities and theoretical constructs. These theories provide valuable insights into the natural world but may not be immediately empirically verifiable. The strict requirements of your position could potentially undermine scientific progress.

7. Historical and Singular Events: Many historical events and singular occurrences cannot be directly verified due to the lack of direct empirical evidence. Relying solely on empirical verification would limit our understanding of the past.

8. Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning, which is a fundamental aspect of scientific and everyday reasoning, involves making generalizations based on observed patterns. However, strict verificationism may not be compatible with this form of reasoning.

9. Analytic Propositions: your position would have difficulty accounting for analytic propositions—statements that are true by virtue of their meaning (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried"). These propositions don't require empirical verification but are still reasonable .

10. Development of Scientific Theories: Scientific theories often start as conjectures and hypotheses that aren't immediately verifiable. The process of scientific inquiry involves testing and refining these ideas over time, which might not align with strict verificationist criteria.

Overall, verification criteria for reasonableness and its inability to account for various forms of human discourse and knowledge are problematic at best. I think you need to find a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to understanding knowledge and belief.

[epronovost]

The entire thread is about what Christianity teaches and the implication of that. Therefore in every part of that discussion, you must grant the Christian belief (for the sake of the argument).

The implication that I keep trying to make is that IF Orthodox Christianity is assumed to be the whole truth, we find ourselves with a big problem. There are many, many moral and ethical command in Scriptures. Most are not a problem and are sound on the face of it like not killing other people and being generous with others. Others though call specifically for prejudicial attitudes and beliefs towards some group and Christianity teaching, so far as you have mentioned them, doesn't seem to offer any reason for such prejudicial attitudes and beliefs. That's why I keep asking you why does God says X or Y. Why does God considers this or that good or wrong? You seem content in obeying and trust fully it's for the best, but the problem of Divine Command Theory is that it produces the exact same result no matter God's instructions. Any instruction is equally good and must be obeyed; screw any sort of moral compass you might have if God tells you to slit a young boys throat in front of his own defenseless mother before you kill her too this is just as good and noble than healing the sick and sharing your wealth with the poor. Divine Command Theory is fundamentally dogmatic, uncritical and relativist. It's fundamentally bigoted. This moral theory is at the core of all forms of bigotry since it's impossible to parse, debate or extract wisdom and knowledge from. It's basically "do as I say" taken to an extreme level.  

Another problem with accepting the whole of your theology as true for the sake of the argument (or any other theology or philosophy) is that everything can become reasonable. Are suicide bombers killing innocent children reasonable? Absolutely, they fervently believe God/their leader demanded it so and what God/their leader demand is always good by definition. Jim Johns massacre of his followers becomes reasonable. There is a problem with equating "having a reason" with "being reasonable". Having an argument to explain or excuse one's behavior is obvious. Having a good, convincing, broadly acceptable argument based on some solid moral foundation is necessary to even start claiming a reasonable status. Everything can have a reason; everybody can find excuses for any behavior or belief. We are all expert at this since childhood. In general, when it comes to something being properly real as existing outside of us and our imagination, empiric proof is considered the standard of reasonable. If we talk about ethics and morality, the "no harm" axiom is considered the reasonable basis of morality. Harming people is considered wrong since all moral systems and all ethical codes without any exception has for objective human happiness, prosperity and flourishment. It's a universal objective with a wide variety of means to achieve it. If you want to harm people; you need some very good reasons; specifically, you will need to demonstrate that not harming those people would cause just as much or even more harm. That, or you will have to demonstrate how those people you harm should not be considered as people proper in a very convincing way. In a multicultural democratic society where rule of law prevails and humanist morals and ideals are considered a social and political norm, appealing solely to religious faith to justify a prejudicial belief towards a group of harmless people (like homosexuals) or a practice that improves the level of happiness, productivity, sense of justice and flourishment of society in general (like women social, economical and political equality with men) is not reasonable.

I think the fundamental problem in your reasoning is that you have used a really restricted concept of knowledge and what a reasonable belief is (it must be verifiable). I have written about this in other posts years ago when talking about logical positivism, verificationism, and the more pejorative scientism. The whole idea was poplar in the early 20th century but has fallen out of favor by the 1960s when it was obvious that those theories had some flaws.

Your position is that a proposition, statement, or belief is reasonable only if it can be empirically verified or confirmed. Here are some of the problems with that:

1. The proposition itself is unreasonable: The position that reasonable statements must be empirically verifiable, faces a paradoxical problem. The principle itself cannot be empirically verified, leading to a self-defeating stance. This puts the entire position on shaky ground.

I didn't say that every argument to be reasonable had to be based on empirically verifiable statement. I was talking specifically about your claim of God existence and the reliability of his prophets, apostles, priests, missionaries and other devout. If you claim that God exists and can give commands to people; talk to people; heal people, etc. These are empirical claims. Claims of the reality of certain events and creature are empirical claims, so of course I ask for empirical evidence of God and all those things. You don't claim God to be a purely social and philosophical construct like democracy or justice. You make the argument it's an actual sentient being that exists independently of our own existence that can give commands and act upon the world in a conscious manner. 

2. Non-Empirical Statements: Your position dismisses non-empirical statements (such as metaphysical claims, ethical statements, and mathematical propositions) as unreasonable because they don't have empirical verification. However, this excludes a wide range of meaningful human discourse that is not purely empirical in nature.

That's not entirely true. I don't ask for empirical claims for mathematical proposition though I will ask for mathematical proofs for these; mathematics does have it's own set of criteria for determining the accuracy and reasonableness of a proposition/theory. The same goes for history for example; I'll rely on the historical method to determine the accuracy and reasonableness of any historical claim. The same goes for ethics; I'll ask for their logic and proof that their ethical codes are good means to arrive to the objective. All discipline have their standard of evidences. No discipline or human endeavor requires "no proof of reasoning".  

Even theology, a discipline not known for it's strong methodology, heavy evidential standards and strong peer review system, has one. I can't just say that Jesus wants children to be fucked by his priests; I would need to present some evidence in Scriptures or accepted philosophical argument to demonstrate that this is true or at the very least a reasonable interpretation of God's teaching in a specific situation. I could for example say that Jesus wants children to be fucked by his priests because of the doctrine of predestination or God omnipotence and omniscience. I could also argue that there is nothing in scripture prohibiting priests from marriage and nothing in scriptures prohibiting the marriage of children. Now, of course, these arguments are all terrible even if they make sense on the face of it; theology doesn't accept just what makes sense on the surface as good arguments. It requires a more profound analysis of Scriptures, religious traditions and their messages. I don't think my theory of Jesus being a-okay with his priests fucking children would be considered reasonable even if it's based on actual theological arguments and positions. There is a difference between having a reason and being reasonable.

Reasonableness imply some means of verification; some more or less external standard on which we can measure something. Sure you can't do it with the statement itself that's an irreducible elements of philosophy and the world. At some point, you will be forced to make some axiomatic statements. Statements you have to assume are true on the face of it else you devolve into the problem of hard solipsism. In the same way you can't prove mathematics with mathematics, you can't prove empirical proofs with empirical proofs ad infinitum, but you do have to make a serious attempt at providing proof to be considered reasonable and if you must rely on an axiom of absolute truth, then you have demonstrate how it's necessary to do so for anything to make sense. Axioms like these are not supposed to be cop-out; they are supposed to describe necessities/limits of the human conditions or of the cosmos itself.    

If you want to make the argument that it's reasonable to consider women's equality in society and family or homosexuality as morally wrong. You will have to provide something more convincing than "God says so" to break the "no harm" axiom of morality considered at the base of any reasonable discussion about morality. Yes, harming people is generally considered, at the very least, counter-intuitive, to good moral conduct. There is no doubt that inferiorizing people harms them in various and often profound ways. Why is their harm necessary for the greater good? On the face of it, it doesn't make any sense so how is it reasonable. If you can't present any argument on how harming them is necessary and only inferiorize homosexuals and women on the basis of a command from your deity (of which the existence you can't prove off) then you are bigoted. That's exactly the type of attitude the word "bigotry" aims to describe.

3. Scientific Underdetermination: The underdetermination problem in philosophy of science challenges the idea that reasonableness is required to verify or falsify a theory. Multiple theories can sometimes explain the same set of observations, which means that empirical verification can't always provide a clear-cut decision.

Hence why in such situation, more the reasonable thing to do is to remain skeptical and keep on trying to figure things out.

PS: I know I don't address all of your points one after the other, but I do think I address them all in my reply since some overlapped one another and some of the earlier points allowed me to extend the explanation to some further down the list immediately. If you think I have missed one important, please let me know.

[Minimalist]

Your position is that a proposition, statement, or belief is reasonable only if it can be empirically verified or confirmed. Here are some of the problems with that:

Wrong, as usual Stevie although not surprising from you.

Facts can be established and proven by evidence.  What you seek to do here with this rather transparent sleight of hand is to equate your opinions or, even worse, beliefs, into facts with a load of silly sophistry.

As always, YOUR burden of proof is that this fucking god of yours exists.  Let me know when you can factually demonstrate that because your opinios ain't worth shit, son.

Once you do that, we can go from there.

[SteveII]

The entire thread is about what Christianity teaches and the implication of that. Therefore in every part of that discussion, you must grant the Christian belief (for the sake of the argument).

The implication that I keep trying to make is that IF Orthodox Christianity is assumed to be the whole truth, we find ourselves with a big problem. There are many, many moral and ethical command in Scriptures. Most are not a problem and are sound on the face of it like not killing other people and being generous with others. Others though call specifically for prejudicial attitudes and beliefs towards some group and Christianity teaching, so far as you have mentioned them, doesn't seem to offer any reason for such prejudicial attitudes and beliefs. That's why I keep asking you why does God says X or Y. Why does God considers this or that good or wrong? You seem content in obeying and trust fully it's for the best, but the problem of Divine Command Theory is that it produces the exact same result no matter God's instructions. Any instruction is equally good and must be obeyed; screw any sort of moral compass you might have if God tells you to slit a young boys throat in front of his own defenseless mother before you kill her too this is just as good and noble than healing the sick and sharing your wealth with the poor. Divine Command Theory is fundamentally dogmatic, uncritical and relativist. It's fundamentally bigoted. This moral theory is at the core of all forms of bigotry since it's impossible to parse, debate or extract wisdom and knowledge from. It's basically "do as I say" taken to an extreme level.  

A couple of things. I do think our moral values and duties do stem from God alone (Divine Command Theory). But even as God's attributes/properties/nature, describe what God is, it also provides clear parameters to what he commands. Relevant natures might be perfect love, justice, mercy, holiness.  So, there is an internal moral framework to God as dictated by his attributes (a limit). For example, an all-loving God (and arguably a perfectly just God) could not command you slit the boy's throat. It would be imprecise to ask "Why does God considers this or that good or wrong?" That implies a subjective nature of morality. That is not how it is conceived. God's morality is perfect in that it is the perfect synthesis of his perfect and unchanging attributes and could not be anything different. It is also how the Euthyphro dilemma is defeated.

That is not to say God's commands are inscrutable. It's just that a rationale is not required. It is enough to know that they flow from the the standard I described above.

You said that "Others though call specifically for prejudicial attitudes and beliefs towards some group." That seems more nuanced that you make it sound. If you mean some some Hittite in the OT, then that was a nation-state being run as a theocracy in a hostile culture. If you are talking about categories of sins (so Christian doctrine), then you have incorrectly characterized it. It is always the act and not the person. Grouping people together with a common sin is incidental.

[epronovost]

A couple of things. I do think our moral values and duties do stem from God alone (Divine Command Theory). But even as God's attributes/properties/nature, describe what God is, it also provides clear parameters to what he commands. Relevant natures might be perfect love, justice, mercy, holiness.  So, there is an internal moral framework to God as dictated by his attributes (a limit). For example, an all-loving God (and arguably a perfectly just God) could not command you slit the boy's throat.

And yet, in the OT God commands acts of genocide of great brutality upon the enemy of the Hebrews, including the slaughtering of children as young as babies and even their pets and livestock. That's rather disconcerting. Sure we could then assume that of god is perfect love, justice, mercy and holiness that such command were not truly from God, but from greedy and hateful humans talking in God names to curry His authority for their personal gain and vendettas. The problem with that is that we find ourselves back to the question of the sinful nature of homosexuality and women's equality. Why are those things bad if God is perfect love, justice, mercy and holiness. How is condemning women (or homosexual) to oppression just, loving, merciful and holy? Many Christian would prefer to believe that these are just another example of people abusing God's authority for their personal gain, false preachers and prophets, wolves in sheep clothing (of which the Bible and Christian oral tradition does warn about a lot). Why not you? How do you parse the divine commands that you should obey from those you deem to only have value in ancient time from those that are outright abuse of power and charlatan pretending to speak in God's name?    

It would be imprecise to ask "Why does God considers this or that good or wrong?" That implies a subjective nature of morality. That is not how it is conceived. God's morality is perfect in that it is the perfect synthesis of his perfect and unchanging attributes and could not be anything different. It is also how the Euthyphro dilemma is defeated.

That is not to say God's commands are inscrutable. It's just that a rationale is not required. It is enough to know that they flow from the the standard I described above.

if it's not required, but nor inscrutable that means there is a reason for God to consider this or that good or wrong. There is a logic, a perfect and unchanging logic according to you, for his actions. It might not be of importance to you because you have faith this reason is, like God, perfect, but I do not have faith, many people do not have such faith and many people believe "God's will" has been used and abused by charlatans and hateful believers alike. So, for their sake, why does God considers homosexuality wrong? What's his reason since this command is not inscrutable? After all, if there are charlatans and hateful bigot pretending to talk for God while they were only talking for themselves, what makes you say the injunction against homosexuality or gender equality are not false preaching that were accepted for a long time by a society in which those things were already not well perceived.

Let's remember that inscrutable commands that must absolutely be obeyed is basically what bigotry describes; a sense of morality that is devoid of reason and prejudicial to others.

[SteveII]

A couple of things. I do think our moral values and duties do stem from God alone (Divine Command Theory). But even as God's attributes/properties/nature, describe what God is, it also provides clear parameters to what he commands. Relevant natures might be perfect love, justice, mercy, holiness.  So, there is an internal moral framework to God as dictated by his attributes (a limit). For example, an all-loving God (and arguably a perfectly just God) could not command you slit the boy's throat.

And yet, in the OT God commands acts of genocide of great brutality upon the enemy of the Hebrews, including the slaughtering of children as young as babies and even their pets and livestock. That's rather disconcerting. Sure we could then assume that of god is perfect love, justice, mercy and holiness that such command were not truly from God, but from greedy and hateful humans talking in God names to curry His authority for their personal gain and vendettas. The problem with that is that we find ourselves back to the question of the sinful nature of homosexuality and women's equality. Why are those things bad if God is perfect love, justice, mercy and holiness. How is condemning women (or homosexual) to oppression just, loving, merciful and holy? Many Christian would prefer to believe that these are just another example of people abusing God's authority for their personal gain, false preachers and prophets, wolves in sheep clothing (of which the Bible and Christian oral tradition does warn about a lot). Why not you? How do you parse the divine commands that you should obey from those you deem to only have value in ancient time from those that are outright abuse of power and charlatan pretending to speak in God's name? 

   

I don't know if God commanded those things or not. The book that describes them was written hundreds of years later.

I am not aware of any verse that condemns women or homosexuals to oppression so you will have to be more specific what you are referencing. I am sure you didn't make this narrative up, but what I have seen is that critics create and propagate this narrative based on vague ideas and most often wrong conclusions of what the Bible (especially the NT--since that is the authority and basis for Christianity) actually teaches. I assure you that the typical critic has no use for nuanced positions or examining context when the vague idea will suit the purpose just fine. I would welcome looking at any references you think support this.

As to your specific question about distinguishing between those commands given to an ancient people, set up as a theocracy in a hostile land, often for a single purpose and everything else? Reasoning about the context but mostly that anything of significance can be found again in the NT. The epistles have chapter after chapter of instructions on living a Christian life--with tons of themes being brought forward from the OT. It's not like there is a debate among most Christians which laws to follow. We don't do dietary laws, we don't do ceremonial laws, we don't participate in the sacrificial system anymore. It is not as vague as critics often portray.

It would be imprecise to ask "Why does God considers this or that good or wrong?" That implies a subjective nature of morality. That is not how it is conceived. God's morality is perfect in that it is the perfect synthesis of his perfect and unchanging attributes and could not be anything different. It is also how the Euthyphro dilemma is defeated.

That is not to say God's commands are inscrutable. It's just that a rationale is not required. It is enough to know that they flow from the the standard I described above.

if it's not required, but nor inscrutable that means there is a reason for God to consider this or that good or wrong. There is a logic, a perfect and unchanging logic according to you, for his actions. It might not be of importance to you because you have faith this reason is, like God, perfect, but I do not have faith, many people do not have such faith and many people believe "God's will" has been used and abused by charlatans and hateful believers alike. So, for their sake, why does God considers homosexuality wrong? What's his reason since this command is not inscrutable? After all, if there are charlatans and hateful bigot pretending to talk for God while they were only talking for themselves, what makes you say the injunction against homosexuality or gender equality are not false preaching that were accepted for a long time by a society in which those things were already not well perceived.

Let's remember that inscrutable commands that must absolutely be obeyed is basically what bigotry describes; a sense of morality that is devoid of reason and prejudicial to others.

As I said before, God had in mind a perfect framework in which we were made to operate and flourish. Sin happened and the framework was corrupted. I think it is obvious (both in the particular Biblical context where it is mentioned and in real life) that sexuality is an important part of who we are and probably the most frequent and quickest way to unravel a life.  So there are many sexual prohibitions in the Bible: pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, and homosexual acts (all acts)--having nothing to do with identity.  Sexual purity was important as part of a worldview component: what it meant to be human, not as a list of dos and don't.  But again, at the root, is to trust God (the architect of humanity) that sexual purity is not only a command, but is for our own good.

There is no ambiguity in the Bible about the sexual sins. Christians who want to adapt to modern culture do so by rationalizing that it was a cultural bias insertion (and therefore sacrifice concepts of inspiration and inerrancy). But it is, in my and many theologian's opinion, an ad hoc argument starting with the conclusion you want and backfilling the best you can. Ironically, it is unreasonable to make an exception just to adapt to a modern concept of morality.

[pattylt]

Steve…
Can you point to where the OT categorizes the 616 commandment to be obeyed into your categories? Can you point to where Jesus distinguishes these categories and declares which ones no longer have to be obeyed?

Paul did distinguish some of them but never, to my knowledge, calls out ceremonial vs dietary vs sacrificial in those words. It was later divided that way by interpreting Paul…not Jesus.

[Minimalist]

Can you point to where Jesus distinguishes these categories and declares which ones no longer have to be obeyed?

Quite the opposite according to the bullshit artist who wrote "matthew", Patty.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew  17-18

[epronovost]

I don't know if God commanded those things or not. The book that describes them was written hundreds of years later.

All the books of the Bible were written and edited significantly later than the event they pretend to portray. Some by several centuries others by a few decades. Even the earliest copies of Pauline Letters as we know them date back from the mid second century. We have none of the original nor a good chain of custody for any of those documents. Many of them have seen modifications.. 

I am not aware of any verse that condemns women or homosexuals to oppression so you will have to be more specific what you are referencing.

Well there is the famous OT verse about condemning homosexuals to death which is the most extreme case of oppression as it sanction the outright extermination of homosexuals and numerous verses demanding women to obey men and submit to men and prevents them from teaching and leading adult men, especially in Church. This is bog standard discrimination and oppression. 

As I said before, God had in mind a perfect framework in which we were made to operate and flourish. Sin happened and the framework was corrupted. I think it is obvious (both in the particular Biblical context where it is mentioned and in real life) that sexuality is an important part of who we are and probably the most frequent and quickest way to unravel a life.  So there are many sexual prohibitions in the Bible: pre-marital sex, adultery, incest, and homosexual acts (all acts)--having nothing to do with identity.  Sexual purity was important as part of a worldview component: what it meant to be human, not as a list of dos and don't.  But again, at the root, is to trust God (the architect of humanity) that sexual purity is not only a command, but is for our own good.

That's a big non-answer. Sexual purity is good since purity is associated with good, but what does sexual purity actually means seems arbitrary. What's "impure" about homosexuality? Sure, you trust that your God has a perfect framework for human sexual conduct, but once again, what's his reasoning for establishing such purity rule. Some purity rule about sexuality don't involve a prohibition on homosexuality (or pedophilia which is absent from Christian Scripture too). For example, sexual purity for the Stoics was through genuine feelings of love and attachment and a certain temperance towards it's physical aspect as in sex is fun and this is great, but it must not be sought for pleasure alone nor excessively or it would damage a person's ability to enjoy it's other facets. They had no specific problem with homosexuality. In some society all sex that generates feeling of pleasures and affection in both partners no matter the style, the time or the age is considered pure and sacred. In some particularly harsh and ascetic religious sect, including some Christian sects, all sexual acts are impure and the only one's tolerated are for strictly procreative purpose and must be made unpleasurable. Deriving pleasure any from sexuality is viewed as impure and lust. In those same sects and religious movement even things tangentially related to sexuality are impure like menses, childbirth, pregnancy or physical attractiveness and allure. That's when you see religious requirement demanding particularly extensive covering of the body (especially of women) and strict norms of conduct on how people of the opposite sex should talk to one another or behave in public as to not be perceived as "attractive" or "seductive". Purity is a purely culturally dependent notion. Why do God's criteria for purity exclude homosexual acts.

There is no ambiguity in the Bible about the sexual sins. Christians who want to adapt to modern culture do so by rationalizing that it was a cultural bias insertion (and therefore sacrifice concepts of inspiration and inerrancy). But it is, in my and many theologian's opinion, an ad hoc argument starting with the conclusion you want and backfilling the best you can. Ironically, it is unreasonable to make an exception just to adapt to a modern concept of morality.

Is it not unreasonable to declare a concept of divine inspiration and inerrancy to a document that was produced and written by men, established through a Council over 300 years after the alleged death of Christ and in which we have physical evidence that alterations to the original text were made later in time? Is that not an example of starting with your desired conclusion and justifying it by appealing to an absolute authority? The position of inerrancy is even more problematic when biblical passages are riddled with historical inaccuracies, some blatant contradictions (like the two genealogy of Jesus where they can't even agree on who is Jesus paternal grand father let alone the rest of the family tree)  and differences. The way I see it, the idea of biblical inerrancy seems to be suspicious on my account and largely absent from the most traditional and most popular Christian sects.

[pattylt]

Can you point to where Jesus distinguishes these categories and declares which ones no longer have to be obeyed?

Quite the opposite according to the bullshit artist who wrote "matthew", Patty.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew  17-18

Oh, I know.  Christian’s spout these categories like they were self evident and Jews agree with them.  They most certainly don’t.  

The rituals would have assured that no Greeks/Romans ever became Jewish.  Cut off the ends of our WHAT?  Ha!

When Christian’s realized that following all the Torah wouldn’t work, they began classifying the laws into these arbitrary categories so they could keep the ones they could follow and dump the ones that made them look too Jewish or defeated their evangelization attempts.  

I can forgive the dropping of the Temple Laws…hell, the Jews did, too.  But, all the other requirements?  Instead, the Christian’s declared that they were too hard and no one could follow them.  That’s bullshit.  Jews still follow them today and don’t feel like they are oppressive or unobtainable.  That’s the Christian excuse for why they limited them.  Jesus didn’t.  He followed them as he was Jewish….and yet, Christian’s claim to follow Jesus?  They follow Paul…the religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus.  Big difference!