Shifting Gears

In our ongoing discussion of homosexuality, it seems that the debate's fulcrum is whether or not their is validity to one basing his morals on the Bible. Notice that the question is not whether or not the Bible contains good morals, whether it is a basically good book to follow if one wishes to be a moral person. The question is whether one can legitimately base his entire ethical view of the world on the Bible. If the pro-homosexuality camp (cat) could demonstrate that is is not legitimate to base one's moral positions on the Bible then he could effectively discard any positive biblical argument purported by the anti-homosexuality camp (dog). But anti-homosexuality does not find its only basis in the Bible. Appeals to nature may rightly be made, and they too could be somewhat easily shot down. This truism causes us to shift our earlier suggestion that the debate's fulcrum hangs on the valid basis of Scripture as the authority on morality. To be anti-homosexuality is not to be a biblicist. Conversely, to be a biblicist is not to be pro-homosexuality. And now we're confronted with the problem of hermeneutics. But hermeneutics doesn't even matter if one is not a biblicist, or doesn't place at least some. credence in the comments of Scripture on issues. If one can however demonstrate the reasonableness of the Biblical worldview, then he has forced us all to listen to his hermeneutic, which should leave us with a solid opinion of homosexuality. We may at this point disagree, but we may not say that his opinon is unreasonable. We'd have to admit that. A reasonable opinion should not be confused with a true opinion. This is a trap that many the debater falls into. Many seem to think that if you can prove that something is reasonable, logical, and consistent, then you have proven the truth of it, but this itself is self-contradictory. In the end the truth of anything is not based on its logical consistency, or reasonableness, for these are subject to the an almost infinite amount of perspectives, impossible to wade through, but simply upon whether or not it is true. To say that something is reasonable is to say that it could be true, but not to say that it definitely true. However, if something is unreasonable, then it is definitely more suspect, though the arguer may simply be unskilled at argument, and unable to find the reasonable anecdote. When you really start to think about it, it all becomes crazy. Simply put. If something is true then it is reasonable. But that doesn't mean that if something is reasonable that it is true. If an argument is unreasonable it may not mean that the truth being argued is false, although it may mean that. I believe that the dogs have a reasonable basis for their belief that it is not okay to be gay. I also believe that the cats have a reasonable basis for their opinion. On this issue, both cannot be right. I believe faulty arguments are employed by both. With that said, the reasoable proof of the Bible as a valid all encompassing authority on morality is possible, and if properly demonstrated cannot be dismissed. But if someone is unwilling, that is in their will, to accept that the Bible is an authority, no amount of proving can persuade them. The will is the last thing to succumb to truth. And it's probably true that the will may be all their is when it comes to beliefs.

I am veering from the path I set out in the earlier post. I believe I have made my point. Hopefully both sides can see that there coming from such different perspectives that debate is nearly impossible. That is all I was trying to demonstrate. What is of particular interest to me is showing, not why it's reasonable to believe the Bible, but why the Bible is uncompromisingly anti-homosexuality. But also how current "Christian" attitudes toward homosexuals is uncompromisingly unbiblical. And also how this is a symptom of a bigger wolrdview problem that may accurately be called a crisis, and that problem is manifest in how Christians see themselves in relation to the world, which I believe has been very unbiblical, untrue, and unfortunate as of late.