Classical Values :: Every plot should have finality!

Every plot should have finality!

Are there Christians who hate Jesus but cannot dare admit it?

I have long thought so. My theory is that if you took the teachings of Jesus and put them all in a book (much the way Thomas Jefferson did), many people would not like it. That is because there is a need out there for "muscular" religion, of the type found in the Koran, or parts of the Old Testament.

Some of these folks might tend to think Jesus was a sort of wimp, and let's face it, a wimp religion is a tough sell for some people. That, in my view, is why the most compassionate, tolerant, and understanding religions (Bahai, Unitarianism, Buddhism) fail to garner the ferocious followers it takes to spread the religion around.

And to be honest, when was the last time Buddhists, Unitarians, or Bahais won a war?

Politics, of course, is war without bloodshed. Does that mean religious wars are political? Are the millions of Americans who think that religion is not politics all wrong? And, if religion is politics, then how do we vote on it? How do we decide which religion gets to "rule?"

In modern America, the debate over where men ought to be placing their penises has become a colossal national trainwreck of religion and politics. Human sexuality -- particularly homosexuality -- is now considered so central to the Christian religion that few question the underlying assumption. Yet if the teachings of Jesus are studied, there are few references to sex or penises, a couple of odd references to eunuchs, and zero mentions of homosexuality. True, it is undeniable that homosexuality is condemned elsewhere in the Bible, but only along with innumerable other sins -- many of which are not considered sins at all by Christians.

So, if we are logical about this, at best homosexuality is a peripheral issue to Christianity; something not mentioned by Jesus (or any of his disciples, as far as is known) but grafted onto early Christian theology by incorporation of Mosaic Law in a pick-and-choose manner. (Circumcision and dietary laws out; the rest left up to early Christian leaders who were also charged with running governments.)

How, then, did a peripheral issue become such a central issue to certain Christians in modern America?

I don't know, but I am still worried about poor Antinous. There is something just too, er, MTV about the guy. This male beauty thing, it won't go away. (And I didn't start it, so don't blame me. But I do I fear that in the Fall series, I might have stumbled upon a central issue in the Culture War, possibly its Third Rail....)

Hey, there's thunder outside..... Thor, Tlaloc, Seth, Jupiter, Allah, just plain God? Who's in charge here?

Why am I writing this after visiting my future grave? You think I'm kidding? I don't mean to be morbid, but....

Here's a picture I took just this afternoon, showing a view from the top of my future headstone:

Looks rather homey, doesn't it? Hey, when you gotta go, you gotta go. I still have around 40 years left if all goes well, but I like to visit the future occasionally.

And hell, why should I worry about the damned Culture War?

It has been argued recently that the right is no longer losing this war, but then, some bloggers have questioned whether there is universal agreement by conservatives on that point.

But again, this depends on how Americans define the Culture War. I tend to define it as that phenomenon which began in 20th Century America when the sometimes dormant, sometimes erupting, roughly 1500 year old war between religion and sex blew up again in the modern American political sphere.

I am haunted by many, many ghosts, including those of my family, my friends, and my lovers. The list grows.

But let's stick to ghosts from the 1500 Year War.

Are the ghosts of, say, Allan Bloom and Antinous at war?

Think Antinous, and think young male beauty. Think MTV.

Think Culture War Avatar Allan Bloom.

Allan Bloom was in love, and, tragically, at war, with Antinous.

This sort of thing -- personal pain, really -- is what makes the Culture War so difficult (and in my view, so evil). The profoundly political, profoundly historical, becomes profoundly, painfully, personal.

And profoundly unnecessary.

It would be too easy to call Bloom and others like him "hypocrites." I share this writer's discomfort with the term "hypocrisy," because it merely restates a deep and painful problem by recasting it as an insult. (link.) Such stuff never should have been ad hominem attack material in the first place -- and the use of an ad hominem attack to answer an ad hominem attack just seems, well, childish.

Or might I have just launched another ad hominem attack on the ad hominem attackers by calling them childish?

This stuff is political. Even talking about it is political. Even if one argues -- as I am trying to argue -- that it should NOT be political.

This war -- a three-way war between sex, religion, and politics -- has been going on for too long. Fifteen hundred years is too long for a war, by any standard. I wish that all Americans could realize that the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and yes, even the founding of the United States of America, were periods when reason, art, and real culture prevailed, and the war died down, even appeared to be over. Reverting to that which is dark and dismal in the past when there is so much to choose from that is not dark and dismal makes no sense to me, and I wish it didn't make so much sense to others. In particular, I include ibn Taimiyah (hater of ancient Greek philosophers), his reviver Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (into stoning women, if you like that), Sayyid Kutb (considered the father of Al Qaeda), the Ayatollah Khomeini, and assorted American ayatollahs I am just sick and tired of listing.

I'm afraid I'll not live to see the end of it.

In fact, I know I won't; hence the above photo.

(The Islamists would level the whole cemetery as "un-Islamic" of course. But will I allow the bastards to destroy my "plot?" Never!)

Comments

It would be really nice if you could come up with something just a little bit more original and more intellectually substantive than that old "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality" argument. That "logic" posthumously rehabilitates Adolf Hitler since Jesus never said anything about genocide.

Christopher Johnson · November 5, 2003 06:24 PM

Interesting take... Concur your analysis of many points you bring up.

If The Creator was relating to the Creatures (humankind) through the human-shaped intermediary known as Abraham, known as Moses, known as Jesus, known as Muhammad, known as Baha'u'llah, then there IS a pattern, and the Teachings revealed by these Divine Intermediaries show spiritual (attitudinal, thought, personal) components AND social components.

It is apparent upon investigation that the 'heaven' of the spiritual components have been restated and -usually- enlarged upon through the ages, even during the first 7,000 years when virtually EVERYONE hearing these Teachings was a member of the agrarian-illiterate masses. (Hence Jesus' famed excoriation of 'Priests, clergy, hypocrites! You bar up the kingdom of heaven, not going in yourselves nor allowing others to go in either!)

The other portion of each age's Divine Outpouring is the 'earth' of social teachings, which have needed revision and alteration every 500-1000 years as humankind grew.

Now that the day of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Moses and Abraham has ended; now that billions of humans can read and investigate reality for themselves; now that "I have given power to the people" after having "...seized power, from kings and ecclesiastics..." we are witnessing the close and yet widespread investigation of spiritual dynamics and social dynamics.

The 'war' aspects of it can be seen in supremecy, applicability, congruence, positive outcomes and courteous creativity... when these are present, humans are attracted to those who practice and display such attributes. Those practical believers 'win' the war.

When a tiny, hateful fringe minority engage in sociopathic, homophobic, mysogynist and irrational violence (Islamo-fascits, Wahabbists) they 'lose' the war. The war is a clash of different values, and those who seek materialism, death and violence show themselves spiritually bankrupt, devoid of creative, positive or uplifting life, no matter how diligently they proclaim their own 'submission to the will of God'

"He hath created men and women as a comfort, one to the other..." We ARE allowed and encouraged to embrace our own human sexuality, in ways which enhance our knowing and loving capacities. This is the teaching for This Day.

Cheers...

Eye Opener · November 5, 2003 06:29 PM

Christopher Johnson: it would be nice if your critique involved something a bit more substantial than making a cheap shot about Nazi genocide. Jesus was Jewish. Knock it off.

Ghost of a flea · November 5, 2003 06:59 PM

Although I agree with the gist of your post I think you lack a historical perspective on sexual morality. The environment that our ancestors lived in and in which our traditional moralities evolved in was much different than in the present day developed world. It is only in the latter half of the 20th century that political and technological developments made it possible to even pretend that ones sexual choices have little affect on other people and therefor should be a totally apolitical matter. .

Prior to the mid-industrial age, no reliable institutions existed beyond the family. Families provided the only security for individuals, especially children. Marriages represented not only unions between individuals but between their extended families. They unified property and established alliances and social networks. Individuals had a duty to their families to marry wisely. Their own wishes being secondary if they were considered at all. Homosexuality threatened this system.

Prohibitions against homosexuality grew stronger as individual choice in marriage increased. Cultures, such as in Confucian influenced asia or classical Greece, that left little choice in marriage to the individual, cared little about that individuals sexual orientation. Contra-wise, anti-homosexual doctrines and laws intensified in the western world as personal choice increased up into the late 1800's. Only as reliable non-family based institutions evolved did the intensity of the persecution decline.

Only the very recent medical developments of antibiotics, prophylactics, birth control, safe abortion and safe delivery have drastically reduced the risk of non-monogamous sex. Anybody who tried to screw around in 1900 like a present day college student would end of dead in short order possibly leaving behind orphans as well.

Nor does our modern medical technology spare us all the consequences. It is only dumb luck that the HIV virus attacks lymphocytes in the identical manner that the Black Plague bacillus did. Those whose ancestors passed through the black death have a degree of immunity to HIV. Without this resistance we would have seen infection rates similar to those suffered in sub-sahara Africa. Instead of killing hundreds of thousands over two decades AIDS would have killed millions of disco hopping baby boomers in the early 80's. The sexual revolution would have gone down in history has the greatest cultural blunder ever.

You can argue that certain traditional prohibition do not apply to contemporary conditions but it is wrong to say that the traditions were absolutely wrong and unwarranted for all eras and conditions.

Shannon Love · November 5, 2003 07:17 PM

To say that Christianity consists only of what Jesus said is profoundly inaccurate. Almost every other New Testament writer quoted the Old Testament as an authoritative document and the O.T. was universally accepted from the first century on as containing God's Word for the Christian church.

Phil Prestamo · November 5, 2003 08:02 PM

Well, the Buddhists seem to be giving the Tamil Tigers a hell of a time in Sri Lanka.

Joel · November 5, 2003 10:27 PM

The only reason why civilizations and cultures are formed in the first place, is the benefits it provides for its members.

Back in the old days, sex had consequences. It caused babies, which as one writer noted, is like a barbarian invasion for an established culture. Kids who are not raised right become a threat to the established culture, of which many lives and livelyhoods are at stake.

So cultures, in order to continue, had to restrain sex, to make sure it took place inside of marriage, because bastards could be, well, bastards.

But, advances in medical technology have removed that problem from sexual relationships. Older established religions are having a hard time coping with an unchanging God on the one hand, and a changing world on the other.

ben · November 6, 2003 12:50 AM

Is it just me, or does this piece bear the stink of "the world revolves around me and the problems that I face".

Look, I agree that THIS is a good question: "How, then, did a peripheral issue become such a central issue to certain Christians in modern America? "

While I don't really wish to undermine the central point here, your comment, "This war -- a three-way war between sex, religion, and politics -" just seems offensive in it's simplistic, (and self-serving) effort to confine Christians and Christianity into little more than a war against good v/s homosexuality. Pleeeasse. I'd say most people would define it as a war against good and evil, in each and everyone of us. Again, maybe it's just me, but I think that's a bigger than JUST the part about the persecution against homosexuals.

Again, I'm not saying that your point isn't valid, but rather pointing out that it's just so fucking EGOCENTRIC to proclaim that the entire world revolves around your own personal issues.

Becky · November 6, 2003 05:45 AM

Homosexuality is definatly not the central theme of Christianity.

As to homosexuality not being mentioned in the Bible. This is incorrect. While not using the word, it is specificly mentioned it as a sin in the Old Testament. Sine you brought up the concept of Chrisitians not being under the Law but being under Grace, there is a New Testament referance. Romans 1:26 & 1:27. From the King James Version:

"1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "

As with any refurrance to scripture, I encourage you to go back to the source and read it for yourself.

James · November 6, 2003 07:08 AM

To say that there is no prohibition on homsexuality in the New Testament is to advertise your ignorance. The Romans reference is only one of several.

Do we have a direct qquotation of Jesus saying so? No... but then, as someone else mentioned, we don't have a direct quotation of Jesus condemning murder, either, among other things.

Even atheists are laughing at the Episcopal Church at the moment (I've had discussions with them on this) - not that THEY believe in the bible, but since the Episcopal Church claims to blieve in the bible, and it's obvious even to atheists who have bothered to check that homosexuality is completely condemened in the bible (both NT and OT), well, the Episcopal Church (and many other denominations that claim to follow the bible) are ridiculed as hypocritical to the nth degree.

deoxy · November 6, 2003 07:42 AM

Fascinating reactions, although somewhat emotional. I did not say that the Bible was silent on homosexuality; only that Jesus was. To argue that Jesus was also silent about murder or Nazis is facetious in the extreme, as his central message was a form of the Golden Rule -- LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR!

I did not argue that homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible; only that opposition to it should not have degenerated into the central message of Christianity which it has become for so many. I submit that this is not good thing for Christianity -- whatever anyone's opinions on homosexuality.

This is not a case of my believing the "world revolves around me," for I did not create this problem; I am only trying to offer a solution along the model of people minding their own (sexual) business. Where a man puts his penis is not the business of anyone else except his conscience and his sexual partner. And if he is religious, then it is also between him and his god. How does that become the business of anyone else?

If you feel the Bible contains religious commands binding on you, then by all means obey them. But bear in mind that in addition to homosexuality, the Bible also forbids astrology, necromancy, drunkenness, disobedient children, and working on the Sabbath, contact with any woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness, eating shellfish (Lev. 11:10), approaching the altar of God by the blind, dwarves, deformed, or crippled (Lev. 21:18-20), trimming hair, including the hair around their temples (Lev. 19:27), touching the skin of a dead pig (Lev. 11:6-8), planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (Lev. 19:19), and many other things. Many of these are death penalty offenses, but slavery is somehow justifiable (Lev. 25:44-45).

I see problems with consistency.

Eric Scheie · November 6, 2003 08:40 AM

I support equal rights for all people. That said, it is damned annoying that most of the talk about gay rights seems to be centered on white homosexual men. Last time I checked, this cohort resembles the power elite far more than I ever will (white female). I can only imagine the disgruntlement of other disenfranchised groups - ie people of color, the disabled.

hope o'hara · November 6, 2003 08:45 AM

Regarding the last comment, I share your annoyance with those who discuss homosexuality only in the context of men (white or otherwise -- and no one has mentioned race in these comments). I have already blogged about it here:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/000440.html

Please bear in mind that in this post and in my comment I was discussing the Old Testament, which (like it or not) condemns only homosexuality between men. See the following URL for a more extensive discussion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Eric Scheie · November 6, 2003 09:52 AM

Eric, you make some good points but you misunderstand the relationship of Christianity and Torah. Torah ("The Law") is something that is to be observed by Jews, including those Jews who came to accept Yeshua as their Meshiach. However, Paul makes clear in the New Testament that Gentiles do not have the same obligations. Read the Bible more carefully if you want to understand what Gentile believers' obligations are. Suffice it to say, the kashrut laws, strict observance of Shabbat, laws of ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness, and rules of how one may treat a slave (also keep in mind that the conception of slave in the Near Eastern mind was different than the modern concept which is infused with notions of colonialism and racism) do not apply to Gentile Christians. Can Torah inform Christian morality? Sure, but that's a very different concept from the strict observance that God expects of the Jews. It is for the Jews to argue amongst themselves (and they have, in the Talmud) about how to apply Torah laws about the Temple and slavery to modern times, and whether these infractions should still be enforced by penalty of death.

Andrew · November 6, 2003 10:13 AM

Eric, I don't think homosexuality is the central issue of Christianity and I don't think you really mean it is a central tenant. You are saying it isn't a central issue so why are Christians making it so.

The reality is they aren't. Right now one of the mainline denominations in the US is have a public argument about what they believe is right and wrong. About how they interpret the Bible and how they run their organization. This doesn't mean this is even normally a big issue for them.

When I say big issue I mean one that is regularly argued, or one that gets you kicked out. I have rarely heard a sermon on homosexuality in my 30 some years of church attendance in a pretty conservative denomination. Yes they teach homosexuality is wrong, just like alcoholism, just like adultery and fornication.

So I guess your real problem here is you don't want Christians "forcing" their beliefs on you. Forcing must be related to government and law. Well in our democratic republic we have to come to some kind of consensus on what is right and wrong and what people can an can't do in our society. So people who believe homosexuality is harmful to homosexuals and society are going to argue it needs to be stopped.

Where they get this belief is going to be varied and I don't think can or should be regulated. Nor should they be told they can't make that argument. It is up to the rest of society to oppose them and keep their belief from becoming law.

So feel free to argue Christians are wrong. That's what it is all about. But don't argue Christians don't have the right to base their political beliefs on their Christian beliefs.

Ron · November 6, 2003 10:25 AM

Well, it's a small point, really. But it is reeeeally a big point if you ever want to get the acceptance you desire. First, let me say that I COMPLETELY agree with the primary point you are making. It's highly unlikely that Jesus would have been happy with mean people who use him as a flag bearer to persecute or denigrate homosexuals.

But...my point was different. My point was that it is offensive, simplistic, and self-serving to reduce Christians and Christianity into little more than a war against good v/s homosexuality. By doing so, you are guilty of the crime which you accuse others. You don't like them painting all homosexuals with the same broad brush....Homosexuals=Bad. Yet you seem to have no problem of likewise taking billions of people and doing the same .... Christians=Homophobes=Bad=RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS.

Hmmm, last I checked, Christianity was about faith, hope and charity, NOT hating homosexuals, as you have somehow deluded yourself into believing. You seem to want it both ways. Saying that Christianity is not about hating homosexuals...and then turning around and claiming hating homosexuals is the central issue on the minds of all Christian's today. I guess "Christians" would be all those nameless faceless "they" as you envision them.

I'm sorry, you lost the moral high ground when you became as much of a bigot as the bigots you condemn.

Becky · November 6, 2003 11:05 AM

Ron,
Don't tell other people what basis they can use for their arguments. Religion and politics should be kept strictly separate and I'll say that whether you like it or not.

Becky,
You are completely twisting everything Eric said to fit your own hateful attitude.

Lynn S · November 6, 2003 11:48 AM

Gosh Lynn, your jumping to the conclusion that I have a hateful attitude, just because I pointed out that perhaps one should not paint all Christians with the same brush, proves my point does it not?

I don't have a hateful attitude about gays, nor did I say anything to give you that impression.
Your accusation that I am twisting and hateful, with NO supporting facts, shows only your pre-conceived bigotry, not mine.

Becky · November 6, 2003 01:49 PM

Thor, Tlaloc, Seth, Jupiter (Zeus Pater), Perun, Hiiaka -- yes, _They_ are in charge when the lightining flashes and the thunder rolls.

Steven Malcolm Anderson · November 7, 2003 06:08 PM

I never liked the Jesus of the New Testament either, the Sermon on the Mount. Give me the _style_ of the Old Testament, and the Eddas, the Vedas, the Homeric sagas. I have long thought that among those calling themselves "Christian conservatives" are some of the best Pagans, if they but knew it. Give me that Old Time Religion! Hail to all the ancient, eternal Gods and Goddesses!
I keep thinking of the cover of a book a once saw back in the early 1980's. It was entitled "Forgiven Love". It should two beautiful Lesbians -- being separated by a wimpy, ugly Jesus. Despicable! That _I_ will _never_, ever forgive! I don't know or care if Jesus actually existed, but if he was anything remotely like that, then crucifixion was too good for him. He should have been fisked instead. Harsh, I know, that's the way I am, I'm in a really pissy mood today. Up with androsexual men _and_ gynosexual women! Up with Lesbianism! Up with Beauty!

Steven Malcolm Anderson · November 8, 2003 12:28 PM

"incorporation of Mosaic Law in a pick-and-choose manner."

That's a rather presumptuos opinion on a complex theological topic.

And pretty self-indicting, from somebody who wants to just abstract out the teachings of Jesus to prove a point. The teachings of Jesus are set in a context, one of the whole bible.

pd · November 20, 2003 04:00 PM

pd -- Speaking of "picking and choosing" I suggest you read the Council of Jerusalem.

It is hardly "self-indicting" to argue for a contextual as opposed to a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Mosaic Law -- especially when the latter was abrogated by Saint Paul.

Eric Scheie · November 20, 2003 05:00 PM

I'd rather discuss homosexuality in the context of women, gynosexual women, i.e., Lesbianism, Sapphism, Tribadism, holy, holy, holy, holy Dawn and her holy wife Norma.... ...and wicked Wanda, ha! ha!

But the fact is that is usually the men's men who get the shaft (if you will pardon the pun) from the law and society. Androsexual men get it the worst (see Leviticus 20:13). That's because most societies throughout history, including our own, have been patriarchies ruled by gynosexual men.

As for "of color", within my story Norma is a Negro, and, outside my story, that great Negro man's man Tyron Garner: John Geddes Lawrence couldn't have done it without him. Fighters for Freedom!

As for "disabled", I don't regard homosexuality as a disability. Homosexuality is a different form of sexuality, and sex is power (the power of the penis, the power of the clitoris) in its very meaning and essence.

Steven Malcolm Anderson · March 2, 2004 09:28 AM