Homosexuality Is An Indicator Of Lack Of Divine Participation In The Creation Of Scripture

Note: I was working on this in the 'drafts' and it got published by accident. I'll stop working on it now and consider it published.

My presumption about the bible is that if it is to be called divinely inspired, then there must be some quality of divinity about it. I presume that if there were a holy spirit, and it can inhabit and influence all people who believe, then that spirit would be able to provide Quality Assurance to the writings that make up the Bible. This Quality Assurance about the internal consistency of the content of the Bible would be an indicator of aspects of its divinity.

And now, at the risk of "Political Incorrectness" I present my presumptions about homosexuality. I presume that it is like my heterosexuality. I presume that they didn't have any more choice about their sexual preference than I did. I presume that since most people are heterosexual, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

With these presumptions I intend to show that the treatment of Homosexuality in the bible most likely does not have any divine aspects about it. The following are some important passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible.

* Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

* Leviticus 20:13 (New American Standard Bible)
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 (New American Standard Bible)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

In summary, it is an abomination, it is detestable and they shall be put to death, and they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But research into human sexuality casts doubt on the 'Righteousness' of biblical principles regarding homosexuality. In the recent edition of Scientific American (June 2007) there is an article called "Going Beyond X and Y" by Sally Lehrman. Dr. Eric Vilain researches the phenomena of babies born with mixed sex organs. He has discovered new information that modifies traditional thinking about how developing babies sex is determined. He has discovered that it has genetic factors that are more complicated than previously thought. I am paraphrasing but he is researching the likelihood of competing genes that affect the organs, genitalia and brain development. He says that the gender effects in the brain happen before the organ effects. 1 in 4500 babies wind up with mixed sex organs. When this happens, the doctor makes a best guess on what the sex of the infant should be and performs surgery to facilitate it. Dr. Vilain has proposed that it be classified as DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development). In America, out of 300 million people, that comes out to be 66,666 people. It is a predictable rate. God is very consistent or he has nothing to do with it. Because of rushed gender assignment surgery to the infant, you will have cases where a woman is "trapped" in a mans body or vice versa.

Homosexuals shouldn't be considered an abomination, detestable or punishable by death and assignment to hell. Furthermore, we should be able to assume that some of that complex process will get mixed up to a lesser degree and result in a mans sexuality in a womans body and vice versa to include bi-sexuality.

Dr. Vilain recommends waiting on the sex assignment surgery, carrying out psychological counseling and classifying this as a clinical disorder. That seems pretty compassionate of him. He could just kill the baby in accordance with Leviticus if it weren't illegal by secular law, thank god [ ;-) ]

Does God do it on purpose or does it happen naturally? If he does it on purpose, then to what purpose? What value does it add? As a christian my justification that Homosexuality was an abomination was because logically, it would mean the end of the human race. But it doesn't happen enough to make this facet significant. As it stands, according to The Bible, it happens either naturally or divinely and then the subject should be killed or at least detested. If it happens naturally and God doesn't have anything to do with it, what is the principle by which Homosexuals are condemned? What is the principle in either case? Am I missing something? Where is the sense?

But homosexual behavior is exhibited in nature in other species. This means that it is not a specifically human trait. It spans species. This is the type of thing that is predicted by evolution. There is a museum exhibit in Norway that details the 1500 species that homosexual behavior has been observed in. I observed two camels doing something homosexual the last time I went to the zoo. One camel evidently was a cunning linguist. [ ;-) ]

I assert that the fact that there are biological determinants to human sexuality discredit the christian presumption that Homosexuality is a sin. It may be a disorder, but evil?
Is color blindness evil? Is dwarfism evil? Is a curved spine evil? Are they an abomination, detestable, punishable by death and assignment to hell?
No to all of the above. And neither is Homosexuality.

The attitude in the bible is simply an example of Bias against those that don't fit the standards for the group. It is human fear. Human Homophobia. Otherizing. It is obviously not very divine.

Note: Otherizing is
"(s)tereotyping…is part of the maintenance of social and symbolic order. It sets up a symbolic frontier between the ‘normal’ and the ‘deviant’, the ‘normal’ and the ‘pathological’, the ‘acceptable’ and the ‘unacceptable’, what ‘belongs’ and what does not or is “Other”, between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, Us and Them. It facilitates the ‘binding’ or bonding together of all of Us who are ‘normal’ into one ‘imagined community’; and it sends into symbolic exile all of Them —“the Others’—who are in some way different--- ‘beyond the pale” (Hall, 1997, 258).

Since Alfred C. Kinsey published his seminal research, Research into Human Sexuality has suffered setbacks due to the influence of the religious right. "Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society. Many in the Christian Right found their religious and socially conservative views in conflict with Kinsey's methods and underlying principles. They saw his supporters as dissolute libertines and his work as morally corrupting. Even today, Kinsey's name can elicit partisan rancor." Many of Kinseys general conclusions have been verified by other research and are now considered valid by the scientific community. (Wikipedia, Alfred Kinsey)

Further Reading/References:

This paper discusses problems in Education regarding "Otherizing".

Hall, Stuart. ed.(1997). Representation : Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Open University.

Here is a link to a story of one families effort to force a son to be a girl after a circumcision tragedy. It didn't turn out too well. He didn't seem to be able to willfully change his sexuality.

Here is a link to more information on Homosexuality
Alfred C. Kinsey
Some other DC articles that discuss Homosexuality:
Was Jesus Left Handed?
Homosexuality Bible vs Nature
Homosexuality and the Christian

Why I am an Agnostic: The Bible as a Domain of Knowledge

"In my walk with God, I thought I found him but I was wrong. If he were there I would have found him, unless he were hiding."

I present this diagram and explanation because I have seen several times Believers lamenting that they just want to see how an atheist thinks. While I don't consider myself an Atheist, I definitely have properties of one, so the label fits well enough for practical purposes. I can't speak for everyone but this is how I think. Johns Book review and follow on Article gave me the impetus I needed to come to grips with an idea that had been bubbling on my back burner for a while. I had alluded to it several times in articles and comments but had never made it coherent. It was an internal thought process that I had never tried to put into words or explain before. Hopefully this will show, contrary to claims from believers, that I do not want god to be a trick pony, and that there is evidence that would convince me of his existence and why it is not reasonable for me to commit to the Idea of a god.

If we say that the Bible represents a domain of Knowledge (A) and it contains knowledge that we can perceive (B) as well as knowledge that we can't perceive, then there is a portion of the knowledge of A and B that we can validate. If we set about a process of validation then the parts that we cannot validate or are shown to be false will fall outside our sphere of commitment (C). As we validate, invalidate or find inconclusive, our sphere of commitment will move either inside or outside the Domain of A. There will come a time when the sphere or commitment falls far enough outside the Domain of A that the person cannot reasonably commit to the domain of A. This depends on the acceptance of the types of evidence that the person is willing to commit to. In my case, the kind of evidence that I require prevents my sphere from moving towards A. I think my requirement for evidence is pretty simple. I want a god to be non-ambiguous and/or irrefutable. Not that I want it to make me a robot, but I do want it to present its case or evidence so that it would be unreasonable for me not to accept it. I have to say that my walk with god was a lot like a walk with chance. That idea occurred to me while I was praying one day.

Now this raises the question, if I am wrong, is god justified in sending me to hell. He has the burden of proof. Compared to a god I am stupid, worthless and weak. I should be easy to convince.

Here is how to say it in a more nerdy way. It is a reprint from a comment I made in Johns follow on article.

In an inquiry, when an argument from ignorance has investigated a domain looking for a true proposition and does not find one, then the argument from ignorance turns into an argument from knowledge.
The more you search through a knowledge base, the more you know about it until you know enough about it to say whether a given proposition is true or not.

- If I had an older brother I would know about it. Robert C. Moore calls this type of reasoning Autoepistemic Reasoning.
- I did not find my dog in my house, if he were in my house, I would have found him.

Another way to say it is as follows.
D is a domain of knowledge, K is a knowledge base in D.
It has not been established that all true propositions in D are contained in K.
A is a special type of proposition such that if A were true, A would normally or usually be expected to be in K.
A is in D.
A is not in K.
For all A in D, A is either true or false.
Therefore it is plausible to presume that A is false (subject to further investigations in D).
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press. P.149.

The Bible as Truth?

If a truth is real, shouldn't it be able to be verified? Once a truth is verified shouldn't it become a fact? Once a fact is verified as the truth, shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny and always be found to be true?
If we can't verify a fact, should it be a truth? If we can't verify a truth can it really be considered a truth?
(I am updating this article with new links and references as they come to mind.)

In my post on the bible as a faulty premise I showed that the bible does not appear to be the product of one mind, a Gods mind, and there is no corroboration for it, therefore its claim to be 'god breathed' is likely to not be valid. Its validity is based on circular reasoning. What is circular reasoning and why is it important with reference to the Bible? In laymans terms circular reasoning is when you state your claim and then, usually after rewording it, you state it again as your reason for your claim.
Here is a link to Wikipedia that explains it and I have also provided some analogies to help explain it which follow.
- Tom says he doesn't lie, therefore he doesn't.
- The company that makes motor oil says theirs is better than all the rest.
- A childs parents tell them not to do something because they said so.
- God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God.
- The Quran is a revelation from God because it says it is.
- Formula one auto racing is the best kind of racing because they go faster and use complicated tracks, and any race that goes faster and is more complicated must be the best.
- A Pharmaceutical company says their drug will help this or that and is safe.

Hopefully these analogies will show why it is important not to overlook the fact that a thing should not be considered valid until there is some other way to measure it or validate it.

Circular reasoning is not an acceptable kind of reasoning in our day to day life. When we submit a resume, the employer always asks for more than one reference. In courts, people are not convicted on the testimony of one individual. We tell our kids not to talk to strangers, or get in the car with strangers. Should we tell them that the exception to the 'stranger' rule is when they find one that says they are honest?

If we accept the concept of circular reasoning as valid reasoning, we open ourselves up to all kinds of fraud. In fact billions of dollars are spent every year in law, medicine and insurance because circular reasoning is not a practical type of reasoning for ensuring fair and equitable circumstances for a population.

So if we shouldn’t accept the Bibles claims simply because it claims them, maybe we should find out where it came from. If it is the truth it should be verifiable and stand up to scrutiny.

What else could corroborate the bible?
Archeology, Anthropology, Textual Criticism, Biblical Criticism.

I recommend some impartial university courses on Comparative Religions and Ancient Civilizations concentrating on Near Easter Civilizations and I urge people to give a serious look at their mythology.

There is good reason to believe that the Tanakh (The Old Testament) has roots in Near Eastern Mythology. Here is a website from a scholarly author that talks about his research and his books. He is one of many since the 15th century that have observed this phenomena.

Here are some links to information (from Wikipedia) about that time period. They are not intended to prove anything but are intended to be a quick reference for a better understanding of the Bible.
Phonecia
Ugarit
Fertile Crescent
Canaan
Palestine
Israel
Judea
Assyria
Persia
Babylonia
Egypt
Flood Myths, Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible
Validity of David and Solomon, interview with archaeologist/author Neil Asher Silberman
Excerpt from Biblical Archeology Review with Israel Finkelstein from MSN Groups

Alan Dundes, a famous Folklorist, says that academics are at risk for questioning the traditional understanding of the bible. "It turns out that studying the content of the Bible could prove to be a risky proposition, definitely dangerous to ones health or professional standing"(Dundes, 20). He goes on to cite some cases. His Book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore" was published at the end of his career and a few years before his death. There is significant pressure in academia not to criticize the Bible. This is not the case in other fields of study. In other fields of study, criticism is expected and necessary to weed out the ideas that don't work from the ideas that do.

In a addition to the general information links listed above, below are some references material that are useful for a study of the Bibles validity.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

Davis, Kenneth C. 2006. Don't Know Much About Mythology: Everything You Need to Know About the Greatest Stories in Human History but Never Learned. New York. Harper.

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. 2002. The Bible Unearthed. New York. Simon and Schuster Free Press

Frazer, James George. 1975. Folklore in the Old Testament. New York. Hart Publishing

Friedman, Richard Elliot. 2003. The Bible With Sources Revealed. 2003. New York. HarperCollins.

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

Matthews, Victor H. and Benjamin, Don C. 1997. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from that Ancient Near East. New Jersey. Paulist Press.

Smith, Mark S. 2002. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Dearborn, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Interesting link, but I'm not sure of its credibility:
Torah, Ugaritic Bible

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are built on a faulty premise

This may be old news to some, but maybe not to others, so here goes!
A valid conclusion is tied to the truth or plausibility of its supporting premises. The truth of the three Abrahamic religions is tied to the presumption that scripture is true.
Premise: The Bible tells us about God.
Premise: The Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, God.
Premise: The Bible must be true.
Conclusion: God Exists.
The faulty premise that I am talking about is the proposition that the various religious scriptures came from Divine Inspiration. To say that "God exists and all we know about him comes from the Bible and the Bible comes from God, therefore it is true" is circular reasoning, AKA begging the question. The argument begs us to accept the presumption that God Exists in order for the propositions to be true.

If we accept the proposition that the Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, then we must necessarily presume (already believe) that (1)God exists, and that (2)scripture came from him and Scripture must be correct because it came from God. These are two unstated premises that the argument depends on. The critical questions in this argument are "how do we know that God exists" and also "How do we know the Bible came from God". Since it doesn't follow logically to say that we believe in God because the scriptures tell us that they came from God and the Scriptures tell us about God, then we need "corroborating evidence" to support the conclusion that God exists. To support a claim such as this I presume would be an easy matter since the preponderance of evidence should overwhelmingly support the creator. I would suppose that a careful analysis of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran would reveal a preponderance of evidence supporting their validity. But in fact this is not the case.

As I understand it, in these three faiths, the scriptures are considered Divinely Inspired. To avoid linguistic confusion, we need to define what "inspired" means. To the faithful, I think we can say that they believe that "Inspired" means more or less by "Revelation from God”, but in another context, the term "inspiration" means more or less the “motivation to describe or portray" an idea. We can be motivated by Godor we can be motivated by the Idea of God.

If we stipulate that the Scripture came to us through divine inspiration/revelation, then we would expect it to have some characteristics of documents that came from one mind, assuming that God only has one mind. And we can check to see if these characteristics exist. We can check for consistency and continuity. For example if a Dan Brown novel contained inconsistencies such as exist in the gospels regarding the 'empty tomb' (only because Easter is around the corner, but you can insert your own example here), I don't expect it would be a bestseller. I expect people would not take it seriously since it would lack consistency and continuity.

And if we stipulate that the scripture came to us through ideological inspiration then we would expect other types of characteristics consistent with documents that were the result of many minds, such as the types of inconsistencies and problems of continuity that we all know exist in the Bible.

What is needed is some corroborating evidence that lends support to the idea that a God exists and he had an active part in the creation of scripture. We need something besides the Bible. Lets look at some characteristics of the Bible and think about what they may mean.

- Generally speaking, over the years churches have more and more assumed the position that the effective understanding of the Bible comes from interpreting it as metaphor. For example, I have heard devout protestant Christian ministers say that the Bible is not a "science book" or "a History Book" in response to the criticism that there are inconsistencies in these areas.

- Forgive me for dredging up a tired example, the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his belief in the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the Sun. This was later demonstrated through science to be the case as we all know. I would not have expected the creator to have been so ambiguous about this.

- The Laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are likewise minimized and rationalized away as only being applicable in a different time. Some of them were insightful, some of them common sense (Deut.23:12-14) but I expect that a God, rather than saying that excrement should be buried outside camp because it is indecent and he would turn away from them, I expect a God would have explained that there were properties of excrement that were dangerous and life threatening. Maybe an introduction to germ theory. In fact, in all cases where Christians and Muslims point to this or that as evidence that God gave advanced knowledge of this or that, It could have been done better. These days, we explain science to children better than God did to his beloved.

- Slavery was supported in large part by Jesus' advisement to slaves to obey their masters. Logically, I don’t see why slavery would be permissible in those days and not now if Jesus advocated it.

- The faithful concede that there necessarily must be copyist errors in the Bible to explain some difficulties. I would have expected that the alpha and the omega would have wanted his word as error free as possible and would have been able to make that happen, even across languages. Maybe he could have made a holy language, which was perfect that would have preserved everything perfectly.

- Archeological discoveries in the Near East and specifically in Ugarit of documents that were written about and in praise of other Gods pre-date the Bible scriptures which paraphrase or match verbatim. It seems that some of the Biblical scriptures were borrowed. It seems that the story that I grew up with, that David wrote the Psalms and Moses wrote the Pentateuch, can't be true. Is this still being taught in Sunday school?

Internal inconsistencies exist, regarding all sorts of things including the most important event in the history of mankind. The resurrection of its Savior, God incarnate. And all this from scripture that were supposedly given to us by inspiration or revelation from one mind.

The discussion above does not support the claim that scripture was the revelation from one mind, but more neatly supports the assertion that scripture was the result of many human minds through ideological inspiration. The closer you get to the original documents, the less likely it is that scripture was the product of one supernatural mind, through human beings. It was put together out of lots of little pieces written at different times and places and is similar to other writings from other times and places from other cultures. And It is clear that those authors did not write them with the intention of them being put into one volume. Scripture is, in a word, Folklore; In two words, Oral Tradition. As John W. Loftus said "the Bible debunks itself".

So, if we concede that the scriptures are not the product of God, then we really don't know anything about God, including if he exists or not.