Published by 
Image by ohadweb via Flickr
Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but drug use is not the topic at hand here. Rather, it’s the tale of a futile argument – heard by me if not by you – between Christians and those who beg to disagree and how a course in philosophy helped me to understand the ‘disconnect’. The argument of note concerns same-sex relations, smart-ass kids and a hand full of rocks, because in Old Testament times when people got out of line they oftentimes got stoned to death. Now maybe you care and maybe you don’t, but if nothing else, perhaps you’ll come to realize that even the most boring of classes can teach you something.
The stage that sets the scene is not an unfamiliar one. A young Christian with Bible in hand is seeking to share with another, or preach if you prefer, to enlighten the darkened mind of the unaware with respect to the Word of God and what it states concerning same-sex relations. Inevitably, the following exchange takes place: Leviticus, verse 19:22 is offered up: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman…” To which the reply is, “You Christians don’t still stone kids for talking back to their parents, so you’re nothing but a hypocrite” (ref: Lev. 20:9, Deut. 21:18-21). After that little exchange it’s good to have a box of popcorn handy while you watch what ensues next, because “turning the other cheek” can go right out the window. “In this corner…” (ding-ding).
To be honest, even I used to wonder how a person is supposed to respond to that rebuttal. It was amusing to watch and all, but there had to be some way around it, an effective counter, though heck if I knew what it was. Clearly, the Christians I’ve witnessed didn’t either, going out with a TKO one after the other like dominoes in a row; Flick your finger and watch them fall.
Then, sitting in philosophy class one day, I was hit with the sudden realization that the ‘stoning’ argument was an invalid one; The Straw Man says so. The Straw Man being that fallacy of reasoning that entails the misrepresenting of an opponent’s position. In this case, the non-Christian’s argument sounds good on the surface, even seems to make sense, but the current reality with respect to Christian teachings is not being fully acknowledged, either intentionally or out of simple ignorance. Follow me here: Do Christians, via the New Testament (NT), still assert that it’s wrong for kids to smack talk their parents? Yes. Do Christians or the NT still teach that we should stone kids for smack talking their parents? No. Do Christians, generally speaking, or the NT still instruct against same-sex relations? Yes. Now, for the ‘brass ring’, do Christians, as a rule, or the NT still promote the stoning of those who engage in same-sex relations? No, they don’t! So, given this fact, it means that there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in the Christian’s position, insofar as this specific argument is concerned. Maybe now the Christians can get past round one and make a better show of things.
Just think, if people actually paid attention in class once in a while, they might actually learn something applicable. Sadly, this is about the only thing I remember from an entire semester spent in philosophy. Well, that and the fact that the ‘Ghost in the Machine’ doesn’t make for much of a Halloween costume.
