There’s an insufficiently recognized irony in the culture wars between Christians and homosexual activists. On the one hand it’s become politically correct orthodoxy for atheists to support homosexual rights.
Yet, if atheism is true, homosexuals are worthless. They are worthless, not because they are homosexual, but because, if atheism is true, no one has intrinsic value. We’re just fleeting, fortuitous packets of matter–like sand dunes in the wind.
On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then homosexuals do have intrinsic worth. They are creatures made in God’s image. They are fallen creatures, but they are also redeemable creatures. They are sinners, but that’s also true of Christians.
The very religion they revile is the only worldview that makes their existence meaningful and worthwhile–if they avail themselves of the gospel. It’s the only worldview that offers them the hope and promise of healing and wholeness, of having their deepest longings met–if they repent of their sins and trust in Christ.
Atheism offers them poisoned apples while Christianity offers them the tree of life. Take and eat.
Out of curiosity, do you label as "sodomites" heterosexuals who engage in non-procreative (or what you might call "unnatural") sex? Some do ... at least some Eastern Orthodox that I know. It's probably similar to the Catholic condemnation of marital contraception: that is, any sex act that is not open to procreation is sinful.
ReplyDeleteSince I don't share the contraceptive philosophy of Rome, the answer is "no."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you didn't think this through.
ReplyDeleteMost atheists don't accept the existence of objective morality or purpose, but that doesn't mean that they don't have plenty of the ordinary non-objective kind.
And using the Bible to support an anti-homosexuality agenda is pretty weak. I won't get into it in this comment, but I've written a thorough discussion here:
http://crossexaminedblog.com/2012/03/02/homosexuality-v-christianity/
I'm afraid you didn't think this through.
DeleteI think the last person who started off like this with Steve was Dale Tuggy.
Most atheists don't accept the existence of objective morality or purpose, but that doesn't mean that they don't have plenty of the ordinary non-objective kind.
Second display of ignorance...
And using the Bible to support an anti-homosexuality agenda is pretty weak.
...third display...
I won't get into it in this comment, but I've written a thorough discussion here...
...full display and completion.
Axisoflogos:
DeleteYou may give me too much credit. I don't know Dale Tuggy. Did he get intellectually spanked for an error of some sort?
Comments are a pretty limited way to have a conversation, so that may be constraining your thoughts, but you've simply claimed victory without actually providing any evidence. If you want to make a real argument, please do so with evidence.
Follow the link to my blog, read the arguments, and then dismantle them in the comments.
You may give me too much credit...
DeleteRather, my issue was you not giving Steve enough credit. There are a few topics that I would like to engage Steve on, but I have not done my homework. Therefore, I will neither waste his time nor disparage his thinking. You have not done your homework either.
Comments are a pretty limited way to have a conversation, so that may be constraining your thoughts, but you've simply claimed victory without actually providing any evidence.
This was similar to your three assertions. It was an easy pattern to duplicate. You started an argument here, you should continue here.
If you want to make a real argument, please do so with evidence.
Because you find a "non-objective kind [of morality]" to be convincing, I doubt you handle evidence well.
Follow the link to my blog, read the arguments, and then dismantle them in the comments.
If "comments are a pretty limited way to have a conversation," my expansive thoughts will also be constrained at your blog. However, I did go there and read through several posts and comment sections before my initial response. There is nothing new under the sun.
From a link previously posted on this site, an atheist stated:
...if you do insist on treating the Bible as some super-human source of guidance, some interpretations are easier to come up with others. “The Bible says men having sex with men is an abomination to God” is easy to come up with because it’s right there in Leviticus. It takes more work to convince yourself that the Bible says nothing against loving gay relationships.
Considering your respect for atheistic morality and your low view of Scripture, you appear well on your way to eliminating the source of your cognitive dissonance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteaxisoflogos:
ReplyDeleteYou have not done your homework either.
Yeah, you said that. And, again, it’s just a bald assertion with nothing to back it up. Help a brother out! Show me where I erred.
You started an argument here, you should continue here.
I’m not following. I provided a link to a somewhat long blog post. It’s invalid if it’s a link?
Because you find a "non-objective kind [of morality]" to be convincing, I doubt you handle evidence well.
Try me.
However, I did go there and read through several posts and comment sections before my initial response. There is nothing new under the sun.
Then summarize here (or there) the errors and take your well-deserved victory lap. Easy, right?
… an atheist stated
Sounds good to me. Getting from the Sodom ‘n Gomorrah rape story or Leviticus to “long-term, committed, loving gay relationships are wicked” is indeed a big stretch.
"if atheism is true, no one has intrinsic value."
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven´t spent much time actually talking to atheists. Every conscious entity that is capable of experiencing happiness in life has intrinsic value _to_itself_ at the very least, and, in a highly social species like ourselves, to a whole host of other people as well. If you think that people have value only because God values them, then why are you unable to admit that people might have value because other people value them, or because they value themselves? After all, you are right to imply that ´value´ is only meaningful if there´s someone to do the valuing. What´s weird is that you seem to think that only God is qualified to find people valuable, and that, if an atheist values the life, or the happiness of someone who happens to be gay, that valuing is somehow invalid. What makes God´s valuation valid here where the human´s valuation isn´t?
If you are surprised that atheists hold people, whatever their sexual orientation, to have intrinsic value, then might I suggest that you have created a totally unrealistic caricature of what atheists are about, and that you should actually talk to some if you are honestly interested in finding out what their values are and where they come from.