Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[ADigitalArtist]

Scripture quoting atheists are a joke!@!

Atheists are no less capable of understanding scripture than theists. We all have a variety of interpretations, theists and atheists alike. Don't paint us with too broad a brush.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a really odd argument to me. It would be like understanding that there's a lot of racism and misogyny in various classic literature by authors I like, and then stating I should remove them to preserve some false narrative. Instead of removing it, I'd rather keep it there to show where we've come from and how we've changed as story tellers, and take both the truth I see in it and the failures I see in it as part of the narrative. In no way does that make me responsible if someone takes it as instruction of that racism and sexism.

A few problems with the analogy:

- presumably, you aren't proclaiming this classic literature as true or good.

- the Bible is an anthology, and it's very much the case that updated anthologies of classic authors will sometimes leave out problematic works from an anthology even if they include other works in a theme. For instance, just because you're putting together a volume of Kipling poems doesn't mean you have to include "The White Man's Burden" (or not put a big asterisk on it if you do decide to).

At the very least, a volume of liberal commentary on the Bible would be good: something to explain which verses they accept and which they reject... and the tradition of commentary on religious scripture is almost as old as religious scripture.

Edit: the responsibility comes from proclaiming the Bible as a source of truth or moral teaching. When someone does that, they're endorsing the truth claims and moral teachings of the Bible... even if, later on, they say "oh, but I didn't mean that Biblical teaching."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

- presumably, you aren't proclaiming this classic literature as true or good.

I wouldn't proclaim the classic literature is all literal (and the vast majority of Christians and Jews aren't bible literalists), but I might claim that it has truth and goodness within it, despite some things I disagree with.

- the Bible is an anthology, and it's very much the case that updated anthologies of classic authors will sometimes leave out problematic works from an anthology even if they include other works in a theme. For instance, just because you're putting together a volume of Kipling poems doesn't mean you have to include "The White Man's Burden" (or not put a big asterisk on it if you do decide to).

If I wanted to get Kipling's perspective on the world through with my anthology, as I believe the people who assembled the bible wished to do with the Israelite belief, experience and history, then I wouldn't omit it. But I certainly would talk about it, as you suggest in the following.

At the very least, a volume of liberal commentary on the Bible would be good: something to explain which verses they accept and which they reject... and the tradition of commentary on religious scripture is almost as old as religious scripture.

This is why I like cross reference bibles and the Oral Torah, so that the implicit question of 'what is it you think about this scripture in historical, lingual, and interpretive context' is answered in footnotes and margins. But you could also just ask the individual. I try very, very hard not to assume everyone interprets the bible the same way I do, so asking 'what does that mean to you' is part of my regular interaction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't proclaim the classic literature is all literal (and the vast majority of Christians and Jews aren't bible literalists), but I might claim that it has truth and goodness within it, despite some things I disagree with.

... and that's a big difference from the Bible.

If I wanted to get Kipling's perspective on the world through with my anthology, as I believe the people who assembled the bible wished to do with the Israelite belief, experience and history, then I wouldn't omit it.

That's one possible use for the Bible; if someone is using the Bible in a different way (e.g. as a guide for the tenets of their faith, or as a devotional to use to align their desires with God's), then it very well could make sense to remove material that wasn't from God.

But I certainly would talk about it, as you suggest in the following.

And, generally, they're not even doing that much.

This is why I like cross reference bibles and the Oral Torah, so that the implicit question of 'what is it you think about this scripture in historical, lingual, and interpretive context' is answered in footnotes and margins. But you could also just ask the individual. I try very, very hard not to assume everyone interprets the bible the same way I do, so asking 'what does that mean to you' is part of my regular interaction.

The Oral Torah generally isn't seen as authoritative by Christians.

And regardless of a person's interpretation of the anti-gay verses in the Bible, Christians generally keep them... even in denominations that have had no issue with revising or adding to the Bible to suit their own purposes.

 

[Lyndon]

Atheists are no less capable of understanding scripture than theists. We all have a variety of interpretations, theists and atheists alike. Don't paint us with too broad a brush.

total nonsense, obviously a theist has a better chance of understanding a theist scripture, just like a scientist has a better chance of understanding a scientific paper!!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

... and that's a big difference from the Bible.


That's one possible use for the Bible; if someone is using the Bible in a different way (e.g. as a guide for the tenets of their faith, or as a devotional to use to align their desires with God's), then it very well could make sense to remove material that wasn't from God.


And, generally, they're not even doing that much.


The Oral Torah generally isn't seen as authoritative by Christians.

And regardless of a person's interpretation of the anti-gay verses in the Bible, Christians generally keep them... even in denominations that have had no issue with revising or adding to the Bible to suit their own purposes.

I don't agree that it's different. Once again, the vast majority of Christians aren't bible literalists and regularly do differentiate between 'this part is instruction' and 'this part is a record of events and perspectives' and do talk about differentiation both on personal levels and in writing. (Once again, those commentated cross reference bibles and yes, Christians do often use Rabbinical ones in addition to their own.) And it's not hard to find various websites that go into further detail about subjects such as homosexuality in the bible from a Christian same-sex approving perspective. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm This site's been around forever and have referred to it when talking about temple prostitution perspective et all.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

total nonsense, obviously a theist has a better chance of understanding a theist scripture, just like a scientist has a better chance of understanding a scientific paper!!

There's no special training or test to become a theist. A more apt comparison is that a layman is not going to understand the bible as bible scholars, but there are bible scholars from all sorts of backgrounds, including atheists. I personally know plenty of people who had formal bible scholar training and still became atheists. And I myself studied the bible cover to cover for about ten years. I'm not saying this to say I'm more of an authority than someone else, just saying that belief doesn't equal accuracy any more than nonbelief means inaccuracy.

 

[sojourner]

Sure it does. It says homosexual sexual relationships are "sinful." And because it doesn't specify monogamous or otherwise, monogamous relationships are included.

.

It does assume, though, certain cultural understandings of homosexual behavior that are endemic to ancient, middle eastern culture, and does not make allowances for modern, social science or psychological findings. Therefore, the directive can not apply to us. It’s moot information, whose basis can only be understood in the broader context of how interpersonal relationships are informed by mutual love and respect.

 

[sojourner]

No I didn't. I simply found it specious---there is absolutely no reason to consider Leviticus 18:22 in any kind of temple context (your Rev, Turner, whom you quote, is a grasping apologist of the worse kind: he has an agenda he's working to fulfill)---so I moved on to the issue at hand.

And FYI, when you directly quote someone, as you indicate by your italicization and attribution, it's against the rules of accepted composition to paraphrase it.

.

.

Actually, there is reason to consider it in that context, according to a body of research by eminent biblical scholars. One also has to consider other factors not explicitly spelled out, which I’ve mentioned before, and which you’re omitting.

 

[sojourner]

How do you think Christians should interpret the anti-LGBT passages in the Bible?

First of all, we begin by not labeling them “anti-LGBT” (you forgot the “Q”) passages, because that’s not what they are. They are simply passages that clash with what we now know about sexual orientation, just as the creation myths clash with what we now know about cosmology. Then we move to: “how can these passages work to inform our interpersonal relationships in a way that promotes love and respect?”

 

[sojourner]

Every translation I've ever read of Leviticus has rendered that passage as a prohibition on same-sex sexual relations. Do you think the community of Biblical scholars are all incompetent

Yes, but within a particular and narrow cultural understanding, and without the benefit of modern scientific research. The Bible scholars are telling us this, and it’s incompetent lay people who idolize the texts and force them into a vacuum, who refuse to listen.

 

[sojourner]

Why do you keep the parts that you don't think come from God?

Because that’s not what the Bible is. The Bible is a library of a broad cross section of cultural and religious understandings of Divinity. It does not represent one story or one viewpoint. It’s purpose was to preserve tradition, not shape it.

 

[sojourner]

If you really do disagree with parts of the Bible, why not get rid of those parts?

If you don't do this, you still bear your share of responsibility when other Christians take these parts seriously.

Because it’s not about “agree” or “disagree.” It’s about preservation of the traditions.

 

[sojourner]

A few problems with the analogy:

- presumably, you aren't proclaiming this classic literature as true or good.

- the Bible is an anthology, and it's very much the case that updated anthologies of classic authors will sometimes leave out problematic works from an anthology even if they include other works in a theme. For instance, just because you're putting together a volume of Kipling poems doesn't mean you have to include "The White Man's Burden" (or not put a big asterisk on it if you do decide to).

At the very least, a volume of liberal commentary on the Bible would be good: something to explain which verses they accept and which they reject... and the tradition of commentary on religious scripture is almost as old as religious scripture.

Edit: the responsibility comes from proclaiming the Bible as a source of truth or moral teaching. When someone does that, they're endorsing the truth claims and moral teachings of the Bible... even if, later on, they say "oh, but I didn't mean that Biblical teaching."

Well, if I remember correctly, there have been several canons of texts created from a broader body of texts. And the texts that are shared between canons have gone through a process of redaction in most cases.

The problem is that the texts are held to too great a standard, while at the same time, ignoring other threads of Tradition meant to inform the community.

 

[sojourner]

The Oral Torah generally isn't seen as authoritative by Christians

Which is a huge problem, since the texts have always been understood through the lens of rabbinic teaching. Traditionally, they never stood alone (until the Reformation and sola scriptura came along). That has all but ruined how the texts have traditionally been treated.

 

[sojourner]

total nonsense, obviously a theist has a better chance of understanding a theist scripture, just like a scientist has a better chance of understanding a scientific paper!!

Nah. You’re wrong on this point. From a purely exegetical standpoint, anyone can learn to understand the texts. From a theological standpoint, you may be able to make a case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it’s not about “agree” or “disagree.” It’s about preservation of the traditions.

And the tradition of ostracizing gay people is one you're interested in preserving?

 

[sojourner]

And the tradition of ostracizing gay people is one you're interested in preserving?

Trolling are we? You know as well as I do that “ostracizing gay people” isn’t something that I advocate. More important to the discussion at hand, it’s not part of the Tradition (which is what I’ve been trying to get across). I believe that you and the OP are intentionally posting provocative statements like this one in order to garner a specific reaction from folks, feigning ignorance for your entertainment at our expense. It’s disingenuous and counterproductive to good debate. And you should know better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is a huge problem, since the texts have always been understood through the lens of rabbinic teaching. Traditionally, they never stood alone (until the Reformation and sola scriptura came along). That has all but ruined how the texts have traditionally been treated.

Do you think that there was ever a time when Leviticus 18:22 was ever interpreted in a way that would be considered positive or tolerant, even with the Oral Torah, Holy Tradition, or other supplementary source?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trolling are we? You know as well as I do that “ostracizing gay people” isn’t something that I advocate. More important to the discussion at hand, it’s not part of the Tradition (which is what I’ve been trying to get across). I believe that you and the OP are intentionally posting provocative statements like this one in order to garner a specific reaction from folks, feigning ignorance for your entertainment at our expense. It’s disingenuous and counterproductive to good debate. And you should know better.

Hey - don't blame me for your holy book.