The Bible and Homosexuality

[JenellYB]

Jonathan Haidt, in his studies of morality across cultures has identified 'Five Foundations of Morality".

 

care for others,

fairness,

loyalty,

authority and

purity.

 

Loyalty has also been called Ingroup but it is a positive value.

 

Haidt says that liberals only work out of the first two. Conservatives work out of all five. If liberals want to work with conservatives they must speak authentically about all five.. Liberals are for diversity (vs loyalty), anti-authority, not worried very much about sanctity or purity unless it involves food.

 

Dutch

 

I can't agree with him on this, certainly not the conclusion about conservatives vs liberals.

I would say conservatives and liberals may approach and deal with all these point in different ways, but not the simplistic "conservatives=sensible well-rounded good guys" vs "liberals=half-witted idiots"...I imagine this guy's ideas are quite popular with current socio-political conservative right pundits...

 

Consider upon these five items, and for each, it is an easy slide into the ditch on either side of the road to a perverse imitation that negates any orginal positive intent.

 

As a liberal, I fully recognize, and embrace, the need for authority to maintain safe and civil society, without going off into their the right ditch, authoritarianism, or the left, anarcgy.

 

As a liberal, my inclusive acceptance of diversity does not preclude my loyalty to those with whom I share personal, social, or practical relationship. I am both at once, definitely a liberal, and remarkable loyal in my personal and social realtionships.

 

As a liberal, I can embrace concerns about moral "purity" that actually affect the well-being of people and society, without adopting either a left-ditch anything-goes position nor the right-ditch, "purity" as foundation for racism, classism, sterotyping and prejudice.

 

And George, I agree there is influence from both biological evolution, as well as the evolution of social thought and structures within the human cutural/social matrix.

That homosexuality is generally accepted as natural and acceptable within most primitive societies, however, to me seems to indicate more of the latter than the former.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

I might add, I have become increasngly, hmmm, what's the word? Intolerant of? the use of biological evolutionary foundations for "explanations" (worse, justifications) for such things as human anti-social behaviors and attitudes. (Social Darwinism...)

 

As also noted, we humans do have a human brain capable of reasoning, we are not at the mercy of animal instincts and urgeds. Biological evolution might "explain" male agression in claiming and keeping exclusive rights to what ever female he choses, but human reason and society structures recognize that is not compatable with a safe, civil society. It may be "natural survival instrinct" to kill other people competing with oneself for limited food and other resources, but we do not as a society and as most individuals, find that acceptable.

Jenell

[minsocal]

Jenell,

 

From Haidt's webpage:

 

I am a Professor in the

Social Psychology area of the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia. (For the current academic year I'm a visiting professor at the NYU-Stern School of Business.) I study morality and emotion, and how they vary across cultures. I am also active in positive psychology (the scientific study of human flourishing) and study positive emotions such as moral elevation, admiration, and awe.

I am a Professor in the

Social Psychology area of the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia. (For the current academic year I'm a visiting professor at the NYU-Stern School of Business.) I study morality and emotion, and how they vary across cultures. I am also active in positive psychology (the scientific study of human flourishing) and study positive emotions such as moral elevation, admiration, and awe.

I thought you favored positive psychology?

Myron

[glintofpewter]

Haidt's audiences are quite liberal. Search youtube

[JenellYB]

I do favor positive psychology. I don't think my response to the except posted is contradictory to anything in positive psychology. I also don't see that particualr excerpt, as it stands alone here, is reflective of principles of positive psychology. I was responding only to the excerpt posted above, since it is all I have to respond to here...I don't know of the authors' postions apart from the except posted above.

 

PS note...I just noticed that the "excerpt" I am reffering to in that post is *not* an exceprt from that named sociologist, but as someone, Dutch, I presume, unless he's quoting it from elsewhere, is re-stating as what the noted professor posits, not an actual quote from that professor....so maybe something has gotten lost in the he said he said...

 

Jenell

[minsocal]

Haidt's audiences are quite liberal. Search youtube

 

Yes, this is true.

 

He defines himself as a secular liberal.

 

Myron

 

Edited to add:

 

And friendly towards religion.

[JenellYB]

Something also very relevant to ANY discussion about 'conservative' or 'liberal'....

These have proven to be very imprecise and fluid terms/concepts...

I was only in the past few years I have begun to feel 'liberal' applied to me at all, or consider myself 'liberal'....until recently, I considered myself a "moderate", socially, fiscally, very "middle of the road" in my poliitics.. I guess its one of those thing, enough people have told me enough times that I'm a liberal I just kinda started accepting the label. It actually took be by surprise for a long time when it first started happening, lol.

What is problematic is that I do not feel it is ME and my views and positions that have changed, but those of society and politics around me...I've felt that was a long while, and now we are beginning to hear social and poltical analysts and historians pointing out this same thing...such as that past presidents considered traditional conservatives held views and took actions that in the present poltical/social are being viewed as very liberal.

So any attempt to define or discuss conservatvie or liberal must take into consideration, what conforms to present definitions would not have at other times, past or future.

 

Jenell

[minsocal]

Something also very relevant to ANY discussion about 'conservative' or 'liberal'....

These have proven to be very imprecise and fluid terms/concepts...

I was only in the past few years I have begun to feel 'liberal' applied to me at all, or consider myself 'liberal'....until recently, I considered myself a "moderate", socially, fiscally, very "middle of the road" in my poliitics.. I guess its one of those thing, enough people have told me enough times that I'm a liberal I just kinda started accepting the label. It actually took be by surprise for a long time when it first started happening, lol.

What is problematic is that I do not feel it is ME and my views and positions that have changed, but those of society and politics around me...I've felt that was a long while, and now we are beginning to hear social and poltical analysts and historians pointing out this same thing...such as that past presidents considered traditional conservatives held views and took actions that in the present poltical/social are being viewed as very liberal.

So any attempt to define or discuss conservatvie or liberal must take into consideration, what conforms to present definitions would not have at other times, past or future.

 

Jenell

 

Jenell,

 

I think you know how research works in psychology. It's not that Haidt pins the label on the subjects, his findings are from people who self-identify as liberal or conservative today.

 

Myron

[JenellYB]

Myron wrote: I think you know how research works in psychology. It's not that Haidt pins the label on the subjects, his findings are from people who self-identify as liberal or conservative today.

 

My apology then, I plead misunderstanding. I understood the generalization about conservatives and liberals values as an opinion, even if an educated opinion. I did not know it reflected responses of a study group of self-identifies liberals. Obviously I would not self-identify with those participating liberals.

 

Jenell

PS, Now made aware ofhim, I am checking him out on the web. Thanks.

[minsocal]

Myron wrote: I think you know how research works in psychology. It's not that Haidt pins the label on the subjects, his findings are from people who self-identify as liberal or conservative today.

 

My apology then, I plead misunderstanding. I understood the generalization about conservatives and liberals values as an opinion, even if an educated opinion. I did not know it reflected responses of a study group of self-identifies liberals. Obviously I would not self-identify with those participating liberals.

 

Jenell

PS, Now made aware ofhim, I am checking him out on the web. Thanks.

 

Haidt is as close to Jung as any 'modern' can get.

 

Myron

[dirkello165]

Hello -

 

I find the discussion here quite interesting. I thought I'd add a few thoughts (and that's what they are - thoughts - I do not presume to have answers).

 

One, and as I think most here would agree, taking commands/rules specific or seemingly specific to sexual mores in the Bible is likely a bit risky. There are many that are completely regarded by those oriented toward the opposite sex (sex during menstruation - described as 'toevah' just as is male/male sex in Leviticus, Levrite marriage, marriage and sex forced upon females a very young age, etc.). I believe it is much safer to reason from the ethic of loving neighbor, God, and self than to take specific sexual references in scripture as primary clues to what a holy and ethical sexuality looks like.

 

It is important, for me, to always remember note that the references to male/male sex in Leviticus were likely not describing the sexual activities of gay men who loved one another (which is as strong and holy as that of straight perons) today. And, of course, one should note that straight persons aren't gay persons; they do not know/have the God-given same oppourtunity to know what it is "moral" gay sexual ethic. Gay persons learn from life experiences and God's unique influence on their lives just as straight persons do. And each gay person, just like each straight person, experiences God differently. I trust God's work in others/me than I do others' judgments about mine or someone else's; I don't put my experience of the divine higher for others than the experience of God others have. We can attempt to find ethics about whatever for people of all different backgrounds or just one, but to assume we know God's will for them as a group or indivually is audacious and, I think, demeaning of God's work in others.

 

To the original question: can the Bible be seen as condemning those men oriented towards other men who have never had sex? Well, of course, that depends on your interpretation. My answer would be that the "orientation" or - what literalists would likely see as desire, intent, motivation - of a sinful act is sinful, whether or not the person possessing it had anything to do with having it in the first place or encouraging and embracing that desire within them. And perhaps they are not without biblical warrant. But, of course, that presumes that it makes sense to base sexual mores on those of the Bible because male/male and female/female sex between two persons in love is sinful.

But I would also mention is that many more conservative Christians with whom I am acquainted would say the fact that some men have that oriention is a result of the Fall. I, of course, disagree and challenge them to find where scripture actually says that, how we possibly know what was before the "Fall" is known to us, and how that would matter if we did know (as just because something didn't exist at the "beginning" can't provide an answer to the moral qualities resultant of diversity).

 

Anyway...those were my (long) ramblings. Hope I made some sense, and offended no one (not my intention at all).

 

Peace,

Derek