Let me begin by saying that this is a long piece. I value brevity and clarity in writing, but this is a different kind of thing. I needed to be clear above all other considerations. Let me also say that I have no reason to think anyone outside of Christianity would care what the New Testament says. After all, I don't make my ethical choices in life based on the Upanishads. So I offer this simply because so much has been said about Christianity and homosexuality. And it seems like the default position is that the Bible CLEARLY condemns homosexuality. Most Christians don't even read the Bible, so how would they know?
So here it is. If you are interested, everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality. 6 passages, four of them not a required part of Christian theology and belief.
I truly hope this is helpful to anyone who is dealing with a homophobic Christian, a person who is probably decent enough but has been told by ministers that the Bible speaks against homosexuality.
***
I'd like to speak to this issue in 4 parts.
Part One - Hypocrisy:
If we Christians were honest, we would admit that we do not abide by all the commandments of scripture ourselves. I don't mean that we try and fail. I mean we deliberately choose to ignore scriptures that are not convenient for our lifestyles. As I pointed out in my post yesterday, the amount of scripture that is ignored, scorned, and abused by modern Christians is incredible. This blatant disregard for scripture never seems to bother church people when the issues at hand have to do with their own sins. But suddenly, when the subject of homosexuality comes up, everyone becomes a biblical literalist. The hypocrisy of this is appalling.
I think we should afford our homosexual brothers and sisters the same luxury we claim for ourselves. If we plan to ignore whatever scriptures threaten our lifestyles, perhaps we should offer them space at our bonfire to burn their little handful of scriptures as we burn the Bible chapter and verse.
We should all agree that none of us are able or willing to follow all the teachings of scripture. Let the one who is obeying God's word ask for detailed scriptural explanations from others.
In my book, that settles the argument, and there is no reason to go further. However, if you are determined to hold homosexuals to a higher standard, demanding detailed explanations for why they do not obey minor parts of the Bible while all of Christendom tramples on the very heart of scripture, move on to part two:
Part Two - The Bible and homosexuality:
The Bible never addresses the subject of homosexuality as an orientation. The idea of sexual identity was not a part of human thought until very recently. The Bible addresses some specific homosexual acts in very specific contexts. The idea of two people in a loving, committed homosexual relationship was not understood in the ancient Hebrew world and is not a subject in the Bible. Very credible biblical scholars treat the passages in question as specific commands against specific acts, and not as a wholesale prohibition on a homosexual orientation.
For many people, understanding this obvious limitation of the Bible is all that is needed. The Bible does not address the broad subject of sexual orientation because it was written before that was an issue. Any specific condemnation of homosexual acts must be seen as just that – a specific condemnation of an act in a specific context.
However, if that sounds too wishy-washy to you, if it sounds too slippery and subjective, let me now speak to all 6 of the passages in the Bible that are thought by some people to address the issue of homosexuality.
Part Three – Exegesis
There are exactly 6 scriptures that are thought to address homosexuality. I’ll either quote the passage or provide a link so that you can read it.
The story of the destruction of Sodom – Genesis 19:1-29. If you read this story, you’ll quickly see that the men of the city of Sodom wanted to commit a brutal, homosexual rape. We simply cannot condemn a sexual orientation because of a rape. There is a heterosexual rape described in the next passage we will examine together. Shall we condemn heterosexuality because of this rape?
Any reasonable person will understand that this passage has nothing to say about loving, consensual homosexual relationships.
Judges 19:1-30 is a sad story of human evil of the type that is often recounted in scripture. It is basically a retelling of the Sodom story in a different context. This time, however, the men actually did rape a woman. This passage speaks to the need for God's love in a brutal world. It has no bearing on the question of homosexual orientation for the same reason that the Sodom story is not applicable. Both of these stories condemn ignorance and sexual brutality, but not homosexuality.
Texts 3 and 4 are both in Leviticus and make up a part of the Old Testament Levitical code.
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
The code of rules and behaviors in Leviticus does not apply to Christians. The book of Acts, specifically chapter 15, makes it clear that Gentile Christians are not required to keep all of the Mosaic laws. No Christian group I know demands full compliance with this ancient code of behavior. If we did we would have to keep kosher laws. We don’t even demand compliance with the sexual laws in Leviticus. If we did, we would allow polygamy, which is lawful in Leviticus. Unless you are prepared to obey all the laws in Leviticus, you cannot blame the homosexual for not feeling bound to obey all of them. To point to these two verses and demand selective compliance is ludicrous.
The Old Testament really has nothing specific to say to Christians about homosexuality. We turn now to the New Testament.
Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. His absence of comment does not support or condemn homosexuality. Jesus was Jewish, kept the Law of Moses, and mainly dealt with Jewish people. The issue of homosexuality was not relevant or important to his ministry. It’s not surprising that Jesus never addressed what was not an issue for his culture.
Paul, who lived in the gentile world and dealt with gentiles, discusses specific homosexual acts twice. These passages are the only two times homosexual behavior is mentioned in the New Testament. Let me repeat that because it is important. The two passages I am about to discuss comprise the total New Testament witness on the subject of homosexuality.
I Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” (NIV)
"Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders." Can someone explain to me why we would condemn an entire orientation because of the prohibition of these very specific behaviors?
The Greek words Paul used in this passage include the word for a young, effeminate male prostitute and the word for the older man who paid to have sex with him. Admittedly, there is some disagreement over how these words should be translated, but let me point out that I'm quoting from the New International Version, arguably the most conservative modern translation available. You may disagree with this translation, but you cannot dismiss it as ridiculous. The scholars who worked on the NIV are not lightweights. And uncertainty and ambiguity in translation is only a further argument for tolerance.
We can acknowledge that the New Testament condemns prostitution and a system where a younger man makes his living committing sex acts for money with older men. But we cannot condemn homosexuality in general because homosexual prostitution was condemned. Paul condemns many heterosexual acts in his writings, even in this very verse, yet we do not condemn heterosexuality.
Romans 1:18-29 is the last passage we shall look at. It is the one most often quoted, and it is clearly the closest thing we find to condemnation in the New Testament. Verse 27 is the most specific verse.
I simply ask you to read this entire passage with an open mind. In it, Paul says that those who reject God will be given over to "shameful lusts”. They will engage in many acts that are not pleasing to God. Men will “burn with lust for one another.”
In Paul's experience, the only homosexuality he knew was that practiced in the non-Jewish world and probably tied to pagan temple worship. He claims that homosexuality is one of the punishments for those who reject God. But what are we to do with gentle and committed Christians who love God and worship God, but who tell us that they have a homosexual orientation?
My homosexual friends do not burn in lust for people and run around committing scandalous acts. They are quietly committed to their partners in love. The dilemma here is that the homosexual Christians I know just do not fit the picture Paul gives us in Romans.
I'll be honest- I don’t know exactly what Paul meant by this passage. I know he was describing people who chose not to worship God and then "burned with lust for other men." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I know this DOES NOT describe the homosexual Christians I know, who love God with great passion.
Because of my inability to make clear sense of these passages, I am willing to allow a person's sexual orientation to be between him or her and God. I am willing to take a chance and err on the side of compassion and inclusion.
Part Four – Conclusion
Those are the 6 passages in the Bible that are thought to address the subject of homosexuality. The Old Testament passages amount to nothing and the two New Testament passages are ambiguous at best and highly open to interpretation.
I do not think the Bible teaches that every expression of homosexual love is sinful. The scriptural witness on this subject is shaky at best.
Even if you do not buy my claim that we have no right to demand specific explanation of scriptures from homosexuals since we don’t provide similar explanations for the hundreds of passages we blatantly ignore…
Even if you do not agree that the Bible never really addresses the subject of homosexuality as a sexual orientation…
Even if you reject my biblical analysis and decide that the Bible is condemning of homosexuals…
Would you at least agree that the passages are ambiguous and open to many interpretations? Would you at least agree that others may responsibly interpret them and not agree with you?
If you could at least acknowledge that those of us who disagree with your interpretation are nonetheless serious-minded people who read scripture carefully and want to follow it, then perhaps you too would be willing to err on the side of compassion. Perhaps you would be willing to open your churches to our homosexual brothers and sisters, trusting them to read the Bible just as you do, with love and hoping for Grace from God.
rlp
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Y Heron
Critical Mess
Harry Knapp
Greg Correll
Nada Holland
Mumbletypeg
Salon.com
Comments
Superb post.
Background: I am not a Christian, I am an agnostic. But I am a student of the Bible; it is an interesting book.
For you to suggest that the code of rules and behaviors in Leviticus do not apply to Christians is absurd—self-serving, gratuitous nonsense. And that absurdity is not mitigated at all by the fact that so many of your fellow Christians have suggested the same thing.
Leviticus means “the law.” Here is what Jesus had to say about “the law.”
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true." Matthew 5:17ff
Paul, a man with his own agenda (often quite out of sync with the agenda of Jesus) arbitrarily decided that for expediency reasons, two aspects of “the law” were not to be considered binding on gentiles who were interesting in adopting the teachings of Jesus (becoming Christians), namely, circumcision and dietary restrictions. This was in response to specific questions posed in various areas where Paul had lots of influence.
I defy you or anyone else to show any passage that indicates any other parts of the law to be inapplicable.
Yes, Christians have since rejected other parts of the law…but they have done so in abject hypocrisy; they have done so because of convenience; and I suspect, they have done so also because they recognize the god of the Old Testament to be a vain, jealous, comically tyrannical, revenge driven, murderous, petty barbarian whose laws often conflicted with decency and honor.
Look, that’s not meant as an insult. The god, by any reasonable guess, is a fictional god invented by ancient Hebrews to protect themselves from the vain, jealous, comically tyrannical, revenge driven, murderous, petty barbarian gods of their enemies. They were not going to invent a sissy god preaching all the “forgive your enemies, turn the other cheek” stuff Christians want to see in their god.
Christians, unfortunately, want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want the Bible to be correct that Jesus is the son of god…and they want the Bible to tell them what GOD is like—what pleases and what offends GOD—but they want to pretend that the god of the Bible, the god Jesus worshipped—is that GOD and that they can ignore some (most) of the “this pleases me/this offends me” if they feel like it.
The fact that Christian pick and choose what they will “believe” and what they will dismiss is not a barometer of what the Bible says and means, Preacher—and you are purporting in this blog to speak to what the Bible actually says, rather than how the Christians, in their hypocrisy, rationalize their departures from what it says.
What the Bible actually says about homosexuality—or as you correctly noted, homosexual activity—is that it is an abomination (is detestable) in the eyes of the god of the Bible. So much so, that homosexuals, by their acts, forfeit their lives. THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT IT…and that is what it means.
Why any homosexual would want to worship this god is beyond me. If this god were a human and preaching its madness, hatreds, and petty prejudices…he would be booed from auditoriums across the country. In fact, one has to wonder why anyone would worship this god.
I’ll let you respond if you choose to do so, and I will discuss this from now until you decide you don’t want to hear more. This is a tremendously interesting issue for me to discuss. I hope you do decide to respond.
Pastor's who make homosexuality (and abortion) the centerpiece of their weekly lambastes against the ills of society, should be condemned in no uncertain terms. There is nothing I've ever read in the scriptures that shows this is "Christlike"
This is in no way a "moral" issue, this is pure politics.
The more torrential these cultural storms become, the less validity the church retains.
Not everybody has a savage, ignorant heart. In twenty more years it will be much more difficult to find people to put money in the plate who are comfortable having their friends, neighbors and relatives condemned to everlasting hell by the guy in the pulpit.
Thank you again for your excellent piece.
The Bible says: ““If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20-13
It says that.
And even if the Preacher here were right that the laws of Leviticus do not apply to Christians…all that would mean is that Christians do not have to put homosexual to death. It certainly wouldn’t mean that the god of the Bible doesn’t consider homosexual activity to be an abomination—or to be detestable.
Why don’t you get off your bullshit and actually discuss the issue rather than simply claiming victory. I mean, if you have the courage to do so.
But this discussion has a given: The the Bible has something to say about homosexuality...and that the Preacher can explain to us what it says.
I am disagreeing with his explanation.
Sorry.
…you have come into a half dozen discussion where I have discussed biblical matters made the same silly assertion…that my arguments have been debunked.
It simply hasn’t happened.
You sound to me like a guy who hasn’t the stomach for real debate. Nothing wrong with that, but to constantly assert that somehow you have debunked my arguments is absurd.
Here are the essentials of the arguments I’ve presented here:
One: The Bible contains the following passage: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20-13
Two: Even if the preacher is correct that the laws of Leviticus do not apply to Christians (something I disagree with completely, but besides the point)…then they are not required to put homosexuals to death for their abominable behavior. But there is no way that would mean that the god of the Bible does not consider homosexual acts to be an abomination.
Now, John, rather than being a big-mouth bragging that my arguments have been debunked…DEBUNK THEM. Right here. Present the arguments that show these arguments to be wrong. Debunk them if you can…otherwise, stop the nonsense.
By the way, just as you enjoy reading my comments on other issues, I certainly enjoy your comments on a wide variety of other subjects. But that does not impact on this.
It should be called Heterophobia, because I have no phobias. I think the gay person is scared of being straight.
How do you fit four gay men on a bar stool? Flip it over.
First of all, when you begin your comment with this statement, "Preacher, with all the respect in the world, you are all wet here." you show your hand. Did you really want to hear a response or do you just want to insult people and piss them off?
C'mon. You're sounding like the classic troll here. Dropping in and leaving an inflammatory comment and then enjoying the response. If that's not what you are, you need to lighten up a bit.
Now, as to what you said, let me just say this. I have a master's degree in Biblical studies. I followed that with 3.5 years of seminary. I took a year of Hebrew and 6 years of Greek. Do you seriously want to tell me I'm all wet here? It's the extreme nature of your comment that is silly. As if this issue is so easy. So easy even an atheist can see right through the scriptures with ease.
Everything I said is backed up by the best New Testament scholars in the world. Period. You're wrong on this. This is hard because how technical should I get here? Positioning the gospels over against Paul as though Paul came later is 19th century scholarship. Paul's letters are the earliest New Testament writings we have. They, along with the gospels are a record of the early Christian community.
But it's not Paul that's the trump passage. It's the book of Acts by the author of Luke's gospel. Chapter 15. The entire Christian movement gathered to decide whether or not gentile Christians would be required to be Jewish. They said no. We're not. And for 2,000 years we have not been.
That's not something you can dispute. It's like saying the sky is blue. For 2000 years, gentile Christians have not been obligated to follow the Jewish Levitical laws. You might think that's wrong, but that's history. That's our religion.
And as for Jesus? Instead of proof texting the extreme statement of a first century rabbinical teacher who taught with hyperbole and paradox, you have to read all of the gospels. He ate with prostitutes. He pardoned a woman caught in the act of adultery. His entire message was saying that legalistic application of Biblical laws that hurt people and are not merciful was not to be our way.
That is the basis of my interpretation.
I've already cited a passage with Jesus saying he was not here to change one word, not one letter of one word, not one stroke of one letter.
Just a citation.
And ease up yourself. I have not been rude. Yeah, I am jabbing a bit...but you folks of the cloth do more than your fair share of that.
I'll stop.
We'll discuss calmly and with no shots.
But I want to see a citation that actually says anything other than circumcision and dietary restrictions are done.
And I really would like a comment about the other issue: Even if none of the law applies...the fact remains that the Bible tells us the god of the Bible finds homosexual activity to be an abomination.
Really. Talk to me about that.
just having a little fun.:)
peace
mary
I don't go to church anymore. Not for years. I went once, five years ago, and guess what the new Lutheran pastor wanted to discuss? Why homosexuality is a sin. I'll wait another 10 years and see if they have finally seen the light. Till then, thanks for reminding me of what I loved about Jesus when I was a child. Forgiveness and compassion. Merry Christmas!
I admire any attempt at inclusion and elimination of hatred. So I’ll give you a nod for that effort.
;-)
My first thought as I was reading your essay was exactly what Frank Apisa has stated: Christians want to have their cake and eat it, too.
At one moment Christians claim the Bible is the written word of “God”, not just one Testament or the other, but the entire book, and they say that one must honor this written word of “God” or suffer the consequences of Hell. In the next moment, they point to some sort of convention about which “word of ‘God’” can be disallowed, and which will continue to be accepted.
If one believes in “God”, then one must, at that point, become very confused and is probably wondering what “God” thinks about this betrayal of his “Word”.
In the end, this entire essay seems a solid argument proving the vacuous nature of any values the “Bible” has to offer.
Even the New Testament is nothing more than a compilation of books found acceptable by the politically driven and powerful organizers of this religion, and because of the elimination of so many other “gospels”, it is an inaccurate, incomplete, unreliable, and politically motivated document at best.
I commend you for alluding to this, albeit in a somewhat vague manner. I think you might have benefited your piece by providing not only more detailed information about the problems with translation, to which you referred, but also with the problems of cultural meanings of specific words that have changed over the centuries. What some of those words mean today is not what they meant then.
Biblical scholars of the sort to whom you refer do much to expose the ambiguity of the Bible, and therefore also the Christian doctrine. That ambiguity is a problem, not an advantage. I’ll end with this: as long as we have to deal with religion, I would not mind seeing more views expressed like those you have expressed here.
rated
I'll put some thought into this and respond. Probably later this weekend or Monday. It will be the last thing I'll have to say. I've been blogging a long time. I enjoy back and forth in the comments, but I really don't respond well to folks who drop in and start off with such a negative tone. But okay. I'm going to take your question seriously enough to give some of my time to thinking carefully and addressing it.
Back soon...
Thanks for extending the courtesy, Preacher. I “get” that you consider my attitude to be objectionable—and it would have been easy to simply blow me off.
By the way, you may be right about that attitude thing. I like to think I am simply being frank (blunt, not my first name)—but you are not the first person to call a certain “abrasiveness” in my manner to my attention. Much as I would like it, you folks can’t all be wrong.
I honestly don’t see it. I certainly don’t intend it! And for what its worth, I will see that it not come back into play the remainder (short as it may be) of our interaction here.
As for the “negative tone”—I think you are giving me a bum rap there. First of all, I am probably one of the most “up” people you will ever encounter. I have a great love of life; I am an extremely fortunate individual (things break my way much more often than not): and I have a very positive attitude about most things.
I do have a negative attitude toward religion—that’s a given. And I know it shows. But almost anyone who has a negative attitude toward something or someone—shows it to one degree or another. You, Preacher, have a negative attitude toward me…and it shows. I’m sure you think the negativity you feel towrd me is justified—but I also think the negativity I feel toward religion is justified. Negativity toward things you do not like is not unusual—in fact, it should be expected. Anyway, it seems that in the excitement of seeing an opportunity to discuss religion, I may just have “gotten my game face on” a bit too early and a bit too enthusiastically.
I apologize.
I’m looking forward to the response.
First, I assume that you're ultimately making an argument for same-sex marriage, even though you don't argue for that specifically. For example, you say "I think we should afford our homosexual brothers and sisters the same luxury we claim for ourselves." Given the results of the recent election in California and subsequent controversy, I assume the "luxury" to which you refer is about marriage. If not, let me know.
With all respect to the arguments that you presented very clearly in your post, I am extremely skeptical of any argument that suddenly "discovers" support for same-sex intimate relationships or same-sex marriage in the Bible.
I have never seen any support for that in the writings of the early church fathers, nothing in the Catholic tradition, nothing in the Protestant tradition, and certainly nothing in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. So in discovering such support for that in the Bible, one could only conclude that all of these Christians for the last two thousand years somehow "missed it."
The operative word here is "tradition," and I think this is what is missing from your post. I don't want to sound harsh, but it seems to me that you basically dismiss what the vast majority of Christians have believed and practiced for two millennia, substituting for that a theological position that would have been unbelievable and incomprehensible to them and would have been rejected by them.
Anyway, thanks for posting, and I'm giving you a "thumb."
And Frank, you're over your head, out of your depth. When you start with "Leviticus means “the law” " you lose all credibility -- it simply means "of or relating to the Levites." You come across as the worst kind of autodidact -- regarding commonplaces as received wisdom (especially problematic in an agnostic) just because you read it somewhere.
(Rated)
Humans usually act in self-interested ways and since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we get 'scriptures' and 'gospels' and 'rubiyats' written by individuals to influence the collective interests of those who would oppose them. The rest is mere polemics.
The founding fathers had the idea right if not the practical application: complete separation of church and state. If Barack Obama would more strictly perfect this notion, perhaps he would not encounter these 'pastor' situations.
Oh, Barack, this latest one is a doozey. Had you learned from the Rev. Wright flap, you would not have committed the Pastor Ric one. An ode from Keats would have suited me just fine. Thank you.
Rated.
If Christians are going to cherry pick the Bible, then they shouldn't throw stones when homosexuals do the same thing. But, even in those few passages, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. It's disingenuous to claim that it is ambiguous about the topic. It isn't by a long shot.
IT'S FINE TO LOVE THE BIBLE. BUT YOU'VE GOTTA ADMIT:
IT TAKES A TON OF CREATIVITY TO ATTRIBUTE YOUR DECENCY TO WHAT I'VE SAID IN THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE.
YOU ALL ARE GREAT. I MEAN THAT. MY ONLY ADVICE IS THIS:
SPEND LESS TIME COMING UP WITH REASONS FOR BEING NICE. INSTEAD, JUST BE NICE. IT'S YOUR NATURE. YOU'VE GOT HEAVEN RIGHT HERE THIS VERY MOMENT IF YOU CARE TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT. THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE UP IMAGES AND PLACE THEM OUT IN THE FUTURE. I AM PRIOR TO TIME. LOVE ROCKS ETERNALLY.
LOVE,
GOD
All my life I have attended strict Baptist churches, moderate Baptist churches, and at times, crazed-fundamentalist churches, so I've seen the whole spectrum of hate and hypocrisy. It really burns my biscuits when I see a portion of the faithful held to a standard that no other segment of the church is held to. And what bothers me worse is that young, homosexual Christians are driven away from their faith by the very people that should be pulling them toward the love of God.
Sorry for rambling.
RLP is correct that Christianity separated from the main body of Judaism for two major reasons:
Christianity came to regard Jesus as in some sense God's presence in human form. This was unacceptable to most Jews.
Judaism is defined by a covenant made between God and the Jewish people. Part of this covenant is the Law, a set of religious and ethical rules and principles.
Most Christians came to regard both this covenant and Law as in some sense superseded by Jesus' teaching and the community that he established. On the night he died, Jesus talked about establishing a "new covenant" based on his death and resurrection.
These two issues continue to be among the most distinctive and controversial aspects of Christianity. They are controversial even among Christians. All Christians assign Jesus a role that would seem inappropriate to Jews. However his exact relationship with God was the source of major disagreements among Christians as late as the 5th Century. While most modern Christians accept the standards developed in the 4th and 5th Centuries, there are small groups that do not. This aspect of Christianity is also often attacked or reinterpreted by "liberal" elements within Christianity.
The role of the Law also continues to cause controversy within Christianity. In a narrow sense this is reflected in small groups of Christians that worship on Saturday rather than Sunday, in obedience to one of the provisions of the Law. In a broader sense, the current conflict about the role of women and homosexuals in the Church involves the Christian approach to ethical and cultic or denominational standards. But what is most important to note here is that this is a matter handled differently in different Christian denominations. In any case, RLP has it right here in a New Testament interpretation, which is what we are all doing all the time when we read scripture. There is nothing but interpretation, even when we are saying something is Law.
The point being that some parts of how individuals practice Christianity are open to personal interpretation. Certainly, I agree with the scholarship, and the interpretation, that RLP very carefully has written so kindly and well here.
Given that there is nothing to hang the idea on, I can't fathom why anyone would imagine that those men who wrote it were somehow okay with homosexuality.
The real question, I humbly suggest, is why would anyone want to take moral guidance from a bunch of know-nothings out of the ancient world, whose book was, in any case, butchered pretty extensively by the early church? Why waste energy trying to work out what their opinion was when we have far better references available now?
Wouldn't it be better to say (for example), On balance, the bible seems to condemn homosexuality. However, 2000 more years of thought and human development have brought us to an understanding of the human condition that is far more sophisticated, informed, and considered than anything the authors of the bible could manage. And on that basis, we know not just that homosexuality is "acceptable", but also that sexuality is a fundamental and private right that doesn't depend on our collective permission or definition of what's "acceptable" anyway.
That's my thought anyway. I hope it doesn't sound anti-religious. I definitely don't mean to say that you'd have to be stupid to be religious. I just mean to say that you'd have to be deeply deluded (at best) to regard the bible as having any particular (or indeed divine) value as a moral guide, compared to literally hundreds of other, better books, however interesting it may be as a piece of history.
With all due respect RLP, I think there is something deeply wrong with this notion that you can, on the one hand, persist in the idea that the bible is a book of enduring moral authority, and on the other hand, lay your hands all over it and try to rationalise it by means of a completely self-serving set of revisions that anyone can see are completely at odds with its historical context. I just don't understand why you'd jump through hoops to create a fiction that the bible is a sound moral guide that's okay with homosexuality, when the honest thing would be to observe that from our vastly more enlightened standpoint today, the bible simply gets it morally wrong on many, many topics, probably including homosexuality and certainly including things like slavery.
If you go to "manage posts", then manage comments, and delete this one from Catamite Bastard:
"And I do it really, really well."
... I think the rest of the comments may revert back to normal. There is an errant html tag in there that is throwing things out of whack; you can see it if you view the page source.
But the ambiguity argument doesn't hold water.
I have struggled so hard with my Christian friends. They read so much into the Word, that they miss the message. I know a lot was put into this post. Thank you for sharing. :)
I doubt that very seriously, CM…but there is nothing I like better than someone thinking that. Almost always makes my end of the debate much easier.
CM wrote: When you start with "Leviticus means “the law” " you lose all credibility -- it simply means "of or relating to the Levites." “
The Hebrew title of Leviticus is Torath Kohanim…which means, “the law of the priests.” Leviticus in their book…and they are not responsible for any Greek mistranslations. The very first words of Leviticus are “The Lord called Moses, and from the meeting tent have him this message: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them…” From that point on 99.9% of Leviticus is the “law” given to Moses by the god of the Bible. Leviticus IS the law.
I don’t lose credibility here at all, CM.
CM wrote: “You come across as the worst kind of autodidact -- regarding commonplaces as received wisdom (especially problematic in an agnostic) just because you read it somewhere.””
Wow. Well let me give this comment the response it deserves: Sticks and stones…! Or maybe, I know what you are but what about me? This was a very childish attempt at an insult CM. You should have stopped after your first two mistakes. This last part didn’t add anything to your post.
Preacher was right also that I came on too strong in my initial posting. Gotta learn that not everyone responds to ballbreaking with as much humor and understanding as my fellow golfers.
Thanks again for your remarks.
Great thoughts, God Almighty. Thanks for taking the time to share them. Let’s hope everyone pays heed.
“As a minister myself, I find it interesting, and offensive at the same time, that folks are so sure that they understand what Christianity is, and what its practice requires, show themselves to be incredibly critical in ways that demonstrate a lack the knowledge or scholarship to back up what they are saying. Where does this certainty come from I wonder? In their own areas of expertise they would scoff at anyone who showed the same lack of understanding.”
I find it interesting and offensive at the same time that you wrote all this without actually directing it toward someone. If it had been directed toward me, I would have noted that I am not lacking in knowledge or scholarship; I do back up what I’m saying with a passage citation or tradition reference at just about every occasion; and I think any unwarranted presumptions being made…are yours.
Jason Korke and James King: Thank you both for your contributions here. This is an interesting subject with decent, intelligent people often being in polar disagreement. It certainly is a subject worthy of lots of discussion.
WANT TO BE SURE OF ONE THING: I think homosexuals should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals…and think any difference makes as much sense as treating people with light hair differently from people with dark hair.
I just do not think the god of the Bible feels that way. The god of the Bible considers homosexuals to be engaging in activity the god considers an abomination.
Treat homosexuals with as much respect (or disrespect, for that matter) at you would heterosexuals. But to do what the Preacher is attempting here…to make it seem that the god of the Bible feels that way—deserves all the counterargument anyone can muster.
SF wrote: “RLP is correct that Christianity separated from the main body of Judaism for two major reasons”
Yup, he is. But he is wrong on almost all the other items in his major thesis here…which is what I am attacking.
Perhaps we should concentrate on the strong possibility that Paul was exhorting in the next part of the text, almost never quoted, that Christians must do their best to not judge others.
Read 2:1.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (King James version)
The Essenes did not accept the legitimacy of the books of law. This rejection is reflected in the stories in the bible that relate Jesus' teachings. If Jesus already rejected the books of law, why do those who claim to follow him rely on these same books to condemn others?
The Essenes were also vegetarians. It seems to me it would be more of a rejection of the intent of Jesus to eat meat (of the non-human variety) than to be a homosexual.
The bible's archaic attitudes toward females have long been dismissed by all but those like that family whose wife has a clown car vagina...the Duggars? Those who previously defended 2nd class citizenship for females also quoted scripture like the devil - it still didn't make them right, but it certainly provided a precedence to show how utterly worthless it is to look to the bible to understand things about which the writers of these stories themselves were ignorant.
Same with racism in the south. Jerry Falwell came out of a southern baptist culture that claimed blacks were from the "tribe of Dan" and thus did not receive god's blessing... and therefore it was okay to enslave them. Those devils could quote scripture to back them up too.
The real issue for people who want to deny homosexuals their rights is the belief that homosexuality is a choice, not a part of someone's biological existence.
I didn't choose to be heterosexual. Why would anyone assume someone chooses to be homosexual? What evidence does anyone have that sexual orientation is a matter of choice?
Speaking of the NT, The first Chapter of Romans in context Paul states a list of sins (homosexuality being one of them) and then he lists the outcome of the hearts of men who are given over to all manner of sin including idolatry not just homosexuality. It makes no mention of prostitution in this passage but, it does list homosexuality. From the context of the passage there is no indication it is talking about anything other than consensual sex and the individuals mind is given over to all manner of lusts and delusional thinking based on the entire list of sins not just homosexuality. Isn't adding or interjecting meaning into a passage from outside the sources eisegesis not exegesis? If I understand the definition of exegesis it means to draw out the internal meaning from the passage not interject new meaning from external sources.
Jesus did not discuss a whole host of subjects. He never discussed drugs, incest, child abuse, sleeping with animals, and polygamy, but most Christians and even the general population would consider them wrong. If I understand you correctly since Jesus did not mention homosexuality, it could be OK? Regardless of what the rest of the Bible says. For me it seems confusing to know which moral directives are OK to drop from the list.
Your confusion is understandable, because that is a question that never gets answered.
In any case, no matter how anyone feels about translations or word meanings or whether Old Testament rules apply to Christians or not…what is dead certain from the words contained in the Bible is that the god of the Bible considers homosexual acts to be an abomination—absolutely detestable behavior.
I cannot see anyway around that…although I am looking forward to the Preacher’s comments in that regard.
Part of what many Christians believe is that, with Jesus, the Old Testament laws pass away and are no longer applicable, and the New Testament is the new law. Not all Christians believe this, of course. Many more fundamentalist churches, for example, really like the Old Testament and use it still.
Also, Paul is most certainly addressing, with this list, a group of sins that cannot and should not be judged by human beings. As he basically says so in the next passage.
But, of course, none of this matters in terms of the United States because we're supposed to have separation of church and state. Unfortunately, for some people, their idea of equality ends at the point where someone's penis or vagina goes. Completely ridiculous. With luck, this inequality someday will go just as others have done in the past. That Obama picked that rather awful guy for the convocation is really a bad thing and a strong indication that it's probable that he will not be the president to lead the way on this issue of equal civil rights. That that's ironic, I'm sure, escapes no one. Ah well.
If it makes anyone feel better, and able to reconcile acceptance of homosexuals with their need to believe the bible is unerring - wonderful. We all need our illusions, myself included. Only way mine are different is I keep them mostly to myself :-).
Why even care what a religious text has to say about a matter of civil law? As odetteroulette noted, we live in a nation whose very existence is grounded in the idea of government by Enlightenment principles of reason, not revealed knowledge.
Since both Jefferson and Adams are on record noting the utter worthlessness of stories of miracles, since the Treaty of Tripoli absolutely states this is not a Christian nation, the special treatment accorded to one hate-filled faction of Christianity seems like a perversion of democracy.
People can believe in green lizard gods in the privacy of their homes. They may not force the rest of us to abide by the revealed "truth" of the green lizard monster.
You say that like God is an actual person, and is, to each writer for every book of the Bible perceived as the same person. But the Bible was written by multiple writers and each one, as all writers do, had their own perceptions, just as you and I do. Each of those books have gone through numerous translation from one language to another, and yet, you want to argue like all Christians and the Bible come from monolithic perspective. That is where you are wrong.
Fine, that is your prerogative. But there are some people who argue that people on the outside of religion actually see the Bible more clearly than people on the inside. People on the inside have considerations that often cloud their perspective. People on the outside tend to examine the evidence and come to a conclusion (such as can be obtained); people on the inside often start with a conclusion and then hunt for evidence or rationalizations that will support the arbitrary conclusion. In any case, you don’t even know what my credentials and/or scholarship on this issue are…so this analysis of yours is gratuitous and self-serving. I don’t mind; I even enjoy it on one level…but it is gratuitous.
You wrote: “You say: "I just do not think the god of the Bible feels that way. The god of the Bible considers homosexuals to be engaging in activity the god considers an abomination."
You say that like God is an actual person, and is, to each writer for every book of the Bible perceived as the same person. But the Bible was written by multiple writers and each one, as all writers do, had their own perceptions, just as you and I do. Each of those books have gone through numerous translation from one language to another, and yet, you want to argue like all Christians and the Bible come from monolithic perspective.”
Sorry, you mentioned you were a minister and I thought you “believed” in just one god. If you think there are many…or that one should suppose there are many in discussions, go for it.
My remarks here refer to the god of the Bible…the god Jesus worshipped. It is a very specific god. Supposedly, the Bible tells us what pleases that god and what offends it.
I am referring to a specific piece of information about what offends it. I offered a passage with a citation for that specific piece of information.
Your arguments make no sense in the light of what I am doing here. This is the only rational way to approach the subject of what the Bible says about homosexuality…to discuss what it actually says. That is the subject of this thread!
That is what I am doing.
You wrote: That is where you are wrong”
Where am I wrong? Are you saying that the passage I quoted is not in the Bible—that I made it up? Are you saying that the god of the Bible really doesn’t think homosexual activity is an abomination?
What are you talking about???
But I have promised to give Frank a careful response. That I plan to do.
There is also this: A number of issues have been raised here. I'd like to list them and give each a response. Basically, the entire discussion reflects very limited ideas about what it means to count the Bible as an authority. Christians and Jews have scores of highly nuanced ways we deal with scripture. I guess I was assuming people knew that. What's clearly happening here is people are picking up one of those methods, thinking their idea is the sum total of all Christian thought on the matter, and demanding someone offer a rebuttal to variety of logical problems with it.
So my plan is to leave a comment dealing Frank. And Frank, I accept absolutely your explanation of things. Sorry to have misjudged your intent. After this calms down, I look forward to dropping by your site to get to know you.
Then I'm going to post something here on Tuesday or Wednesday that addresses a number of the issues. I will try to do so succinctly. After that, we'll all move on.
Thanks for all the comments and interest. Kind of spooked me this morning when I saw all of them.
I try and approach any text for a logical idea that a writer wrote for a particular audience. Since the writer was trying to communicate, he spoke in words, images and ideas his original audience would understand. If an interpretation is to be true, one must understand what the original cultures understood about what the writer was saying.
A good example how each culture understand words differently is the passage is the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Most of the times I hear someone quote that they mean bad stuff happens to good people being that the rain is bad. In our culture rain is a bad thing since it means storms and ruined plans. But, the original audience understood rain was a good thing because they live in the desert and without rain they all died. So when the original writer said the rain falls on the just and the unjust he was saying God provides goodness to those who deserve it and those who don't because of his general providence towards mankind.
That does not mean you agree with the statement, but at least you understand what the writer was trying to say. From my experience most of the problems people have with the text of the Bible is when someone superimposing their own presuppositions over what the original author said in order to get the text to say what they want. This is usually done by taking a portion of text and remove it from the whole context of the passage, chapter, or book. Or applying all sorts of external forces and arguments to force the text to fit the argument.
Does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin, I think it does. That does not mean I have to agree, but it does not change what it says. And just because I disagree with a text does not give me the right to change it.
Interesting stuff here. This has been an outstanding discussion of an issue with great meaning for lots of people right now. Obviously each individual has to make up his/her own mind about where to come down on the fundamental question of equality of rights for all people regardless of differences such as sexual orientation or preferences...and on the ancillary issues that have been raised in this thread.
We'll see how it plays out.
Where you quote a kiddie doggerel "Sticks and stones etc.", you should instead be quoting: "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring..." and know that the quote is from Pope's "Essay on Criticism"(see my moniker below), and that Pieria was the home of the Muses etc. Then you would have some cred.
Instead, pushed to the wall, you resort to unsupported, indeed unsupportable assertions. I don't know which Temple you belong to, but the Hebrew custom is generally to refer to the books of the Torah by their first word, which in this case would be transliterated as Vayikra : " and the Lord called". That custom is precisely so that there is no prior interpretation of the contents, especially by the likes of you.
Note further, and here I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia"certain Rabbinic writers denote the last three according to their contents; they called the third book torath kohanim". It doesn't require a Ph. D. steeped in textual analysis (which I have, and I would wager you do not) to realize that the very naming exposes the bias of the writer doing the naming.
So why don't you tell us what your qualifications are to enter into this debate, other than some self-taught scraps that you now ride as a hobby horse to the point of boring the hell out of most of us?
You can't have it both ways. The passages are exceedingly clear. Either homosexuality is wrong in the Bible or the Bible is so esoteric as to be woefully inadequate as moral guide.
“See, Frank, you exemplify the problem with Where you quote a kiddie doggerel "Sticks and stones etc.", you should instead be quoting: "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring..." and know that the quote is from Pope's "Essay on Criticism"(see my moniker below), and that Pieria was the home of the Muses etc. Then you would have some cred.”
No, CM…your previous post and this one sound like they are the product of a childish mind…so I responded with a child’s come-back. Sorry subtlety is lost on you.
CM wrote: “Instead, pushed to the wall, you resort to unsupported, indeed unsupportable assertions.”
Name any unsupported, indeed unsupportable assertion that I’ve made…and we’ll discuss it. So far, all you have done is to make an unsupported assertion that I have made unsupported assertions.
CM wrote: “Instead, pushed to the wall, you resort to unsupported, indeed unsupportable assertions. I don't know which Temple you belong to, but the Hebrew custom is generally to refer to the books of the Torah by their first word, which in this case would be transliterated as Vayikra : " and the Lord called". That custom is precisely so that there is no prior interpretation of the contents, especially by the likes of you.
Note further, and here I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia"certain Rabbinic writers denote the last three according to their contents; they called the third book torath kohanim". It doesn't require a Ph. D. steeped in textual analysis (which I have, and I would wager you do not) to realize that the very naming exposes the bias of the writer doing the naming.”
Previously, I wrote: The Hebrew title of Leviticus is Torath Kohanim…which means, “the law of the priests.” Leviticus in their book…and they are not responsible for any Greek mistranslations. The very first words of Leviticus are “The Lord called Moses, and from the meeting tent have him this message: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them…” From that point on 99.9% of Leviticus is the “law” given to Moses by the god of the Bible. Leviticus IS the law.
The Catholic encyclopedia, to which you referred says:
Leviticus, called by Rabbinic writers "Law of the Priests" or "Law of the Sacrifices", contains nearly a complete collection of laws concerning the Levitical ministry. They are not codified in any logical order, but still we may discern certain groups of regulations touching the same subject. The Book of Exodus shows what God had done and was doing for His people; the Book of Leviticus prescribes what the people must do for God, and how they must render themselves worthy of His constant presence.
So what in the hell are you arguing??? I am correct.
And I don’t care what you see as a prejudice…I said it was what the Catholic Encyclopedia also says it is…and it is. It is the law.
What is you problem?
CM, ended his/her post with: “ So why don't you tell us what your qualifications are to enter into this debate, other than some self-taught scraps that you now ride as a hobby horse to the point of boring the hell out of most of us?”
Oh, CM, I really enjoyed this sentence. Thanks for confirming what I thought was happening!
Anyway, my qualifications are that I am a member of Open Salon. Anyone in Open Salon can come onto a thread and express an opinion.
Sorry you are bored, CM…but you really shouldn’t speak for the rest. Maybe some of them are not bored at all. Usually, people do not find me boring at all.
Hey, allow me one personal word. Try to relax. Lighten up a bit. You’re gonna blow a gasket. We’re just having a friendly conversation here on an issue that provokes considerable disagreement. Its not the end of the world. Certainly it is not nearly important enough to get your knickers all up in a knot!
"You can't have it both ways. The passages are exceedingly clear. Either homosexuality is wrong in the Bible or the Bible is so esoteric as to be woefully inadequate as moral guide."
As usual, you continue to have difficulty with language and meaning. Your membership in OS is not a credential i.e. anything that provides a basis for confidence, credit etc. It merely gives you a right (within limits) to post in this forum. You have the right to post nonsense and you clearly enjoy exercising that right.
But similar to your disability with language, you also suffer from the inability to understand limits or norms. It is not normative to hijack threads here, which you have done. If you wish to bloviate on the subject in your own untutored way, create your own post and blather away. If there are folks here who wish to read your tripe there, they are welcome to it. But to have to wade through your muck to get to other comments on someone else's post is unpardonable.
Your posts read like a personal vendetta. You haven't attacked Frank's premise with any reasonable arguments, just ad hom. If you don't agree with him, why not bring your evidence to the table? I'm sure you can find millions of ways to creatively insult him but, if you want to silence him, it will be a lot easier to just prove him wrong.
Tee hee hee!
35 years ago when I was a member of the Presbyterian church the homosexual community wanted acceptance and inclusion into the Presbyterian ministry. It was met with opposition based on the sexual moral standards of the scriptures. That did not mean everyone followed it, but if a minister was caught in adultery or some other sin they were held to a standard and removed from ministry.
There was never a question of accepting homosexuals as people, sinners in need of grace same as all other members straight and gay. But, the standard for acceptance as clergy was drawn from scriptures and according to the Presbyterian interpretation of scriptures homosexuality was a sin and the lifestyle excluded them from the clergy. This was unacceptable for the homosexual community and this campaign to reinterpret the scriptures was underway. But, try as they may the scriptures still say the same thing.
Words like adultery, incest, homosexuality, fornication still mean what they meant 2000 years ago. Each individual has the right to believe them or not, but not to change the definition. Murder, incest and adultery is also part of the Leviticus code, but no one in their right mind would say a Christian is free to ignore these moral commands. So why is homosexuality excluded while adultery, incest and murder still remain sins? The same holds true in the NT.
I would be interested to hear what might pass as suitable qualifications. Do we have to be clergy?
What, really, is this "interpretive" approach to the bible if not autodidacticism anyway?
CM has no logical response to my arguments. So instead, he/she simply asserts my arguments are illogical and instead of even attempting to present reasons why, resorts to claim superior credentials.
Pathetic! But enjoyable from my perspective.
I've always that people will pick and choose what they want to believe in the Bible. And I am getting really tired of hearing hate-mongers like Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity pretend to be Christians and pretend to understand the scriptures. I bet none of that bunch have even read the Bible.
What this discussion clearly shows is that man and womankind create God in our own imag(e)ination, not vice-versa. Jesus was about soiritual love. Amen!
I've personally read the bible from cover to cover but could never make much sense of the homosexuality parts. Or better said, as you kindly indicated, the fact that there is none clearly defined.
"You legal experts, damn you! You have taken away they key of knowledge. You yourselves haven't entered and you have blocked the way of those trying to enter."
The first is by revelation which some claim is a result of special meaning other than the actual text given to a special individual by God. Joseph Smith of the Mormons claimed to be a prophet and relied heavenly on Special revelation when interpreting the scriptures. There are many others who claim special revelation to interpret the Bible. That does not make it so, and special revelation seems to be the preferred method of some because if you disagree, all the prophet has to say is of course you disagree because God did not reveal it to you.
The second method more widely used is called hermeneutic. This is the science or rules of interpreting ancient manuscripts. The basic idea is that the Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but since the writers were writing to an audience in a known language and to a known culture the use of grammar, context, historical context and word meaning are in force. The problem or the task of the interpreter is to understand how the original reader understood the language in order to make a proper interpretation and application of the text today.
Hermeneutic also deals with writing styles such as figurative, poetic, allegoric, word pictures. etc. For example when it says God is like a mother hen gathering her chicks, the writer was not saying God is a cosmic Chicken, but rather employing an allegory or word picture to help the reader understand how God was gathering the children of Israel in the same way a hen lovingly gathers her chicks.
Another important part of interpretation is context both immediate and remote. Immediate would be the text before and after test in question and the remote would be the historical context and what similar verses in other books of the bible say on the subject.
Hope that helps Jason.
Great essay. It's good to encounter a Christian with the backbone to stand against the tens of millions of crotch christians.
My query was directed at Critical Mess, who suggested that Frank Apisa has no standing to participate in a debate about the Bible because of his lack of "qualifications", and that being an autodidact is "especially problematic in an agnostic".
It does seems that CM is a bit of a tool, but I would still like to hear his/her answer on suitable qualifications for making comment here.
At issue is the idea that one cannot have the scriptures as a moral authority unless ones accepts all that they have to say. I found myself being surprised by the passion in some of the comments. They seem to say, “Your Bible describes an angry and hateful God, dammit. So that IS your God. Period. How dare you try to wiggle out of this. Choose now, Christian. Serve the hateful God of your scriptures or abandon them altogether. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.”
What an odd experience it was for me to read these comments. Because I have spent the last quarter of a century hearing the same thing from religious fundamentalists. How strange to hear that message in this forum.
We live in the year 2008. The 66 works of religious literature that comprise the Hebrew and Christian scriptures were written thousands of years ago. It is the task of modern Christians and Jews to find a way to relate to the scriptures as modern people. It should be no surprise that in a spiritual practice, how you read the scriptures is as important a thing to decide as what the scriptures say. On this subject, Christians and Jews fall along a spectrum. On the far right, we might say, are fundamentalists who still attempt to live within the ancient cultural worldview of the Bible. On the far left are practicing Christians and Jews who read the scriptures as myths and archetypes, gleaning wisdom, holding onto the wheat and letting go of the chaff. Many would find themselves somewhere in the middle. There are some exegetical traditions for working out what scripture contains eternal truths about life and what is cultural chaff. Those traditions are also subject to disagreements and discussions. And yes, this is messy procedure. So what? What part of life isn’t messy?
What I wrote here was an information piece that also included some thoughts of my own. But its main purpose was to force people to come to grips with how scant the Biblical witness is on the subject of homosexuality. And to provide the reasons why I and many Christians like me have chosen to let go of the Bible’s word on this subject. I was speaking the language of those Christians who are still wondering what they should do and believe. I win if I introduce ambiguity. A victory for me simply involves the church accepting homosexuals and allowing their sexuality to be between them and God. Which of course it is, because what else could it be?
LET ME BE CLEAR: Having come to know and love the gay and lesbian friends I have made, I stand with them. For humanity’s sake. For the sake of the deepest idea of scripture, which is, I believe, to love my neighbor as myself. I don’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality at this point. I’m not going to do anything less than accept these dear folks as my friends. For those gay and lesbians who still wish to pursue the spiritual tradition of Christianity, I open my arms and offer humble apologies for what my tradition has done. All of humanity has had to learn about what it means to have a sexual orientation. The Church too. And having learned it, we are responsible to make a moral stand.
For people to cling to the Bible and make it an excuse to practice hate and anger sounds suspiciously like something that is at the root of much evil and destruction. “I was just following orders.”
ONE LAST THING ON THIS: This IS my spiritual practice. It IS what my friends and I practice in our church. It IS the way we read the scriptures. So in a sense, all of this arguing is meaningless. That’s the way we do it. What are you going to do, kick in our doors and take our Bibles away from us? We progressive Christians have already dealt with the anger coming from the right side of the Church spectrum. Hell, those are the people who write our paychecks, so to speak. They have the power to hurt us. Many ministers have lost their jobs and still claimed their right and responsibility to read the Bible as I have described. So do your worst. It’s not like I’ve not heard all of this before. As I said, it was...interesting…hearing it in this other forum.
Perhaps some have a motive of keeping Christians barefoot and pregnant, so to speak. It’s much easier to fight with a fundamentalist. I don’t know. I truly don’t know why anyone outside of our tradition would be so concerned and bothered about the inner workings of our hermeneutic, our scriptural epistemology.
As to the charge that I am trying to have my cake and eat it too. I thought long and hard about that. And the only response I can come up with is, “Yeah. So what? I ate some of the cake. And some of the cake I didn’t eat but left on the cake stand. What, you thought I had to either eat the whole freakin cake or eat no cake at all?”
I never understood that thing about eating cake and having it anyway.
In a sense, this response also answers Frank’s questions about whether or not, in my view, Christians are obligated to embrace the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures. Obviously not, from my point of view and the point of view of thousands of other Christians.
But I will leave another comment because Frank asked for some scripture references. These I will provide in the following comment, though I don’t really need to provided them for myself. My choice has been made. But because Frank asked, I’ll answer.
rlp
Again, I think I've given my view on the heart of the issue that has come up here in my previous comment. But Frank asked for some specific Biblical references that free Gentile Christians from following all of the Mosaic laws in the Old Testament. This has got to be extremely uninteresting to most people, but I want to honor Frank's question.
I sent Frank an email, by the way, and found his response to be kind. This comment is not intended to continue the argument. I've moved on. This is all I will write. Frank can read or respond however he wishes. At this point, we've all said what we think.
Frank, I don't think it is fair to reduce Christ's teachings on keeping the law to that one verse from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. It is necessary to take a larger look at the New Testament.
The gospel of Mark seems to have been written specifically for gentile Christians who no only had no copy of the Hebrew scriptures, but were not required by Jewish Christians to become Jewish in that way.
Mark 7:3 includes a remark intended for gentile readers that is interesting. Mark clarifies something in the story for them. "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles."
What I'm saying is, the very existence of Mark's gospel makes it clear that even that early, gentile Christians were not required to become Jewish and follow the holiness code of Moses.
Most of chapter 7 of Mark deals with Jesus and his new way of reading the law of Moses.
"14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") "
That part at the end is interesting. "In saying this Jesus declared all foods "clean." For his followers. You understand that a very large part of the Levitical code of behavior has to do with diet. Here is Jesus himself setting that aside.
The 15th chapter of Acts describes the process the Jewish Christians went through in deciding what to require of gentile Christians. This is where that decision was made. It was not an arbitrary decision by Paul. Paul wrote later and only enforced what the Church had decided. Acts 15 includes the letter they wrote to those early gentile Christians. Beginning with verse 22:
"The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."
These exceptions seem to be to make interaction between the Jewish and gentile Christians a little easier. The Greek and Roman food and practice of the gentiles was hard for Jewish Christians to stomach, pardon the pun.
And then, of course, Paul (as you noted) went along with this decision. In Colossians 2:16 he encouraged the gentile Christians not to be pressured into feeling as though they had to keep the law of Moses.
"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." Here is a verse that releases gentile Christians from the Sabbath, for goodness sakes. Which is a part of the Decalogue, the ten commandments.
So Frank, I think we modern Christians are not being foolish or irresponsible when we choose what of the Mosaic law applies to us. You might not agree with this, though why you would care at all is something I don't understand, but you can't claim we're not being true to our own scriptures. There is a reason, wouldn't you think, that 2000 years of Christian scholarship disagrees with you on this subject. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but it's unfair for you say that I'm being hypocritical or inconsistent here.
The major question I proposed still remains unanswered, but I feel obliged to accept that you said you would respond this one last time and move on.
I will raise the question in a separate thread of my own…and if you are so inclined, I invite you to visit and comment there.
The question of course is (expanded here): In the passage at Leviticus 20:13, it says:
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20-13
Even if you take the position that Christians are no longer obliged to follow “the law”…all that does is to absolve them from any responsibility to put homosexuals to death for their deeds. You are still left with the fact that the god of the Bible is still on record as considering homosexual behavior to be an abomination.
I guess Christians can do what you mentioned in your comments, simply say, “I don’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality.” Of course, in order to get beyond all this, they’d also have to say, “I don’t care how God feels about homosexuality.”
This has been an interesting discussion. I hope some of you join me in my discussion “Old Testament—are its laws applicable to Christianity?” I’ll publish it today.
but this claim is the basis for all of the resistance to civil rights protections for gays. therefore, no matter what the scripture might say about homosexuality, it doesn't matter because what it says about many things are now glossed over or interpreted one way or another.
the protestant tradition evolved from the belief that people could interpret the bible as they saw fit, that they had no need for an intercessory like a priest. if someone claims they are interpreting the bible literally in the year 2008, they are lying to themselves.
my point wasn't really for or about you. I grew up in the south and attended my fundie church 3x/week. I have pastors in my family. one of them, from a more nutcase branch of protestantism, has informed me I'm going to hell. I tell him I'm already there.
What about women? Does christianity offer any guidance regarding female homosexuality?
but in case you were curious, the Bible only uses the male example in Leviticus and in Romans. The I Corinthians passage is also male-oriented.
Looking at this from an outsider's point of view, I would think that the real hurdle of someone who chooses to believe that homosexuality is a sin is the very basic question of "why?" Who is being harmed? How does the act of homosexuality create a demonstrable offense to the society at large?
It doesn't appear in any of those passages that God explains the WHY question. In almost every other aspect of Jesus' teachings, the why question is immediately self-evident.
If a Christian's only explanation for why it is wrong is that they read it in the bible and God said it was than I would be forced to wonder why do you believe what God says if it's not self-evident and He doesn't explain it?
Going back to the secular view - we know that gay marriage in just a purely objective perspective does no demonstrable harm to society. In fact, one could say it decreases the risk of the spread of AIDS and other sexual diseases if the couple engages in a monogamous union.
Therefore...in no way that I look at this - either through a religious lens or a secular lens, can I see an actual reason that has any moral weight to it at all to support the idea that gay people should not marry.
Thanks so much for this post. I've had this very topic come up several times, so it's nice to see not every Christian preacher is stuck in the old ways.
For people to cling to the Bible and make it an excuse to practice hate and anger sounds suspiciously like something that is at the root of much evil and destruction. “I was just following orders.”
That in a nutshell is how I'd hoped you approach it. While I'm no biblical scholar, one my fundamental issues with organized religion as a whole (an NOT just Christianity) is the whole "us VS. them" thing.
I'm grateful you post here, Gordon. It helps me to remember that not all religious people are narrow-minded, and that not everything that is done in the name of Christ is very Christian (but sometimes, there is a shining example - such as you).
Thumbed.
Romans 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:
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 recompense of their error which was meet.
26 addresses women "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" Verse 26 is tied into verse 27. A good indication is the use of "And likewise also the men" referring to verse 26. Verse 27 continues the thought and adds more detail of what natural use is in verse 27. Just simple grammar and English to see the conjunctive "and" is used to connect the two verse.
I stand corrected. I remembered that it wasn't explicit, but the context is clear.
Don't get me wrong, I think I understand your concern that many within the church have placed homosexuality at the top of the list of sins, and frankly many within the Christian community have been down right hateful towards homosexuals.
I believe the Bible says homosexuality is sin, not that it is any worse than the other sins. Nor that I necessarily believe the Bible, but from a purely hermeneutic standpoint the context both internal, cultural, and historical considers homosexuality a sin the same as lying, fornication, etc. To remove one would require removing all of them from the text.
Granted there are some media preachers making a lot of money for themselves and their ministries playing to the fear of homosexuality in this country. What started out as a concern for inclusion into the clergy has turned into a all out war that has placed homosexuality as the make or break sin that will bring judgement upon the United States.
When I hear this hysteria from my friends within the church, all I can ask is do you think starting an unprovoked war for oil that has killed over 100,000 people is going to bring blessing? Or the willingness to pay a trillion dollars to bail out banks and financial companies and then rail against the poor for getting welfare to stay alive is showing love to your fellow man? I think that will bring more judgement, if judgement is to be dealt than the sexual sins of this nation.
My personal belief is each one of us has a predisposition towards some sort of sin or short coming. For one it may be homosexuality for another anger, pride, alcoholism and so on, that is not making an excuse, but, instead understanding to keep myself humble and tender to the needs of others knowing that each one of us has our fallen nature including myself. And especially not using homosexuality as a scapegoat for all the moral problems in this country. There is plenty of blame to go around gay and straight.
It tells us there were talking snakes, men made out of mud, women out of spare ribs, everyone lived 800 or 900 years, the earth is only thousands of years old, Noahs daughters tried to get him drunk so they could have sex with them. It is impossble to fit dinosaurs on an ark, and there is no mention of them in human history before the 1800s because a human has never seen a living dinosaur demonstrating they died millons of years before we were born. I've read comic books that were more plausible. Yet we've based three major religions and countless wars on it. That is the equivalent of Marvel comics being used as a justification for ethnic cleansing. There is no plausible reason why a sane god would let small children drown, burn to death or diel slowly of cancer. If there is a god, it's a misanthropic one, or nuttier than squirerl shit.
Is was not Noah, it was Lot who's daughters and they did seduce him and the nations they bore became a thorn in the side of Israel.
Not that I am trying to convince you of the validity of the Bible, but, for me I find it interesting that it records not only the good stuff people do, but also the bad. That does not mean the Bible is endorsing it, but rather it is telling it like it is.
The writings of the Bible do not pull any punches and even shows some rather despicable behavior of the heroes of the story, which I find interesting since most PR and propaganda hides the real person in layers of superlatives. Instead you see the people of the Bible were just as screwed up as us, yet found hope and forgiveness.
As for the dinosaurs they did not make it on the ark and it does mention them in the Bible in Job 40:15 People being made out of mud, sounds like evolution to me.
As for allowing evil to exist, that is an age old question for sure. From a philosophical argument, does man really have freewill and if so can we choose to do evil. On one hand we want freewill to choose, but then we curse God for the wrong choices we make. The earth is capable of producing enough food for everyone, but we choose to let some starve to keep corporate profits high. I wonder how many cancers are a result of environmental pollutants. We find 1.4 trillion for war for oil, but access to health care for all is to costly. The budget for arms spent each year would provide housing and food for every person on the planet. But, then if everyone was secure who would the wealthy get to fight their wars and increase their power and profits.
If God was to right every wrong, should he destroy all wrong doers, give them a free pass, or just suspend their freewill so they don't choose evil? If so where should he start? With me or you, or just guy down the street. Hitler did not do it alone, he had help.