I personally have long suspected that many Christians lie not only to others but also to themselves. The particular sins that are so-called 'abominations' to God are plentiful in the Bible. But probably most people are in total ignorance as to what they are. The average 'pew-warmer' (no offense) would perhaps not realize that they themselves commit one or more of these professed 'abominations' on a daily basis. Indeed, the author/s of these particular condemning scriptures were also human and one would surmize that they too would have fallen foul of these 'abominations' fairly regularly.
But yet ...homosexuality stands out way above the other 'abominations' contained in the Bible ...if indeed one's natural sexual orientation toward another of the same gender IS an 'abomination' to begin with. Many Christians are very bold, some quite quite militant in fact, in their approach against homosexuality. Even if they don't take to marching the streets with banners they still do vent their wrath in other ways toward homosexuality though in a less exhibitionistic manner. Surely, after reading some of those 'antigay' posts on this sub-forum one must wonder WHY this is. One need not be a Rhodes Scholar to realize that something other than the Bible is driving these people ...or MANY of them anyway.
Below is a post (19-1-2007) at the Atheist Ethicist, The Source Of Hatred, where Alonzo Fyfe explores the question of why theists hate homosexuals. It's rather lengthy but easy reading.
< Staff Edit source link: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/01/source-of-hatred.html >
The vast majority of people who claim to oppose homosexuality (or civil unions, for that matter) for religious reasons are lying.
They may be lying to themselves as much as they are lying to others. We have a great deal of evidence to show that people are capable of embracing the greatest absurdities when it is psychologically comforting to do so. A person who is unwilling to face the true nature of their disapproval of homosexuals, and unwilling to accept what it says about them as a person, can easily grab onto a lie that gives them an illusion of legitimacy.
However, whether this is self-deception or an attempt to deceive others, few people, if any, actually oppose homosexuality for religious reasons.
This can be proved.
There is a fire, and the fire department needs to determine what caused it. The investigator sets out to do his work. He gathers evidence and conducts experiments. Then, several weeks later, he calls a press conference to discuss his findings. He reports that the reason for the fire was the presence of oxygen in the air, because his research has shown that if there was no oxygen there would have been no fire.
Immediately, the mayor of that community would have reason to start looking for a new fire marshal.
“Excuse me, Mr. Investigator. There is oxygen present in every house on the planet. Yet, very few of them burned down. When we asked you to find the cause of this fire, we were asking you to explain why this particular house burned down. The cause that we are interested in is what makes this house different from all of the houses that did not burn down.”
Anybody who gives us a reason, where we can answer that there is another case where that reason applies but the outcome one is trying to explain did not come about, has given us a poor reason indeed. We are justified, in these instances, to answer, “That is not the real reason. We need you to give us a reason that actually explains what we asked you to explain.”
But yet ...homosexuality stands out way above the other 'abominations' contained in the Bible ...if indeed one's natural sexual orientation toward another of the same gender IS an 'abomination' to begin with. Many Christians are very bold, some quite quite militant in fact, in their approach against homosexuality. Even if they don't take to marching the streets with banners they still do vent their wrath in other ways toward homosexuality though in a less exhibitionistic manner. Surely, after reading some of those 'antigay' posts on this sub-forum one must wonder WHY this is. One need not be a Rhodes Scholar to realize that something other than the Bible is driving these people ...or MANY of them anyway.
Below is a post (19-1-2007) at the Atheist Ethicist, The Source Of Hatred, where Alonzo Fyfe explores the question of why theists hate homosexuals. It's rather lengthy but easy reading.
< Staff Edit source link: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/01/source-of-hatred.html >
The vast majority of people who claim to oppose homosexuality (or civil unions, for that matter) for religious reasons are lying.
They may be lying to themselves as much as they are lying to others. We have a great deal of evidence to show that people are capable of embracing the greatest absurdities when it is psychologically comforting to do so. A person who is unwilling to face the true nature of their disapproval of homosexuals, and unwilling to accept what it says about them as a person, can easily grab onto a lie that gives them an illusion of legitimacy.
However, whether this is self-deception or an attempt to deceive others, few people, if any, actually oppose homosexuality for religious reasons.
This can be proved.
There is a fire, and the fire department needs to determine what caused it. The investigator sets out to do his work. He gathers evidence and conducts experiments. Then, several weeks later, he calls a press conference to discuss his findings. He reports that the reason for the fire was the presence of oxygen in the air, because his research has shown that if there was no oxygen there would have been no fire.
Immediately, the mayor of that community would have reason to start looking for a new fire marshal.
“Excuse me, Mr. Investigator. There is oxygen present in every house on the planet. Yet, very few of them burned down. When we asked you to find the cause of this fire, we were asking you to explain why this particular house burned down. The cause that we are interested in is what makes this house different from all of the houses that did not burn down.”
Anybody who gives us a reason, where we can answer that there is another case where that reason applies but the outcome one is trying to explain did not come about, has given us a poor reason indeed. We are justified, in these instances, to answer, “That is not the real reason. We need you to give us a reason that actually explains what we asked you to explain.”
Last edited by a moderator:
