Homophobia is un-Christian

[sojourner]

... which is why I think there's a double standard here. On both sides, I think the Christians are just projecting their own personal morality onto Jesus and assuming that Jesus approves and disapproves of the same things that they do.

If I could "like" one phrase in a post, I'd "like" this.

I just recognize that on this issue, the foundation for their position is simple human decency, not the Bible. The Bible is just acting as an echo chamber.

I disagree. I think that, when read properly, the bible does not condemn homosexuality as we know it.

 

[Nada]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

You are correct.Christians should love everyone.Just as John 13:35 points out.Even though homosexuals are breaking God's law,this is no reason for others to point fingers.Everyone sins and all are sins.People only look at what they do not like about others but fail to look at themselves first.True Christians should hate the sin but not the sinner.

 

[sojourner]

More relevant to this thread, I would say that the fact that he took control of the situation shows that he didn't trust someone else (e.g. God) to take care of things on his own, though.

God most times works through human agency, so "trust" really isn't at issue here. Not in the way you suggest.

As I said earlier, the Bible has something for everyone. If you seized on the "love your neighbour as yourself" Jesus, that's great - as far as Jesuses go, I think that's a good one to pick. Some other people seize on the "I do not bring peace, but a sword" Jesus, which I can't say is any less authentic than yours.

It's inauthentic in that one, or a few, statements like this, taken out of context, and not exegeted properly, are taken as some kind of character reference for Jesus. When you take under consideration that the bible was written by believers for believers, to say that the "enemies" of that faith will be put down isn't such a bad statement to make. Where we go wrong is in conflating the post-modern world view with the far more limited world view of the biblical writers.

I don't see how this can be reconciled with turning the other cheek.

What do you realistically think Jesus meant by that statement? It's not a pacifistic statement, it's a passive-aggressive statement, dependent on the culture of the time that simply doesn't translate well to our culture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what way do the examples provided point to hatred? This statement seems a trifle provocative -- that may be a conscious choice on your part?

A bit. I was trying to get at what I think is an important point here: the homophobic Christian approach isn't typically that different from the non-homophobic Christian approach. To the extent that the individual Christian believes in non-violence or loving one's neighbour, exceptions* can be made in cases where the Christian thinks he knows that God is opposed to something. Really, the only difference between them is in their premises about what God opposes and condones.

*or maybe "excuses" would be a better term for it: rationalizations for how apparently unloving acts are supposedly loving (e.g. "we need to shun our gay boy to set him straight because it would be unloving to just leave him to the Devil.")

You're also misrepresenting the texts here. The religious authorities weren't "competition." The money-changers weren't simply "engaging in open commerce." They were breaking sacred law. And there's no indication that Jesus "hated" them.

I don't know how things are where you are, but around here, attacking someone with a bullwhip is generally considered to be a sign that you don't hold the person you're attacking in high regard.

... but is this another one of my cultural biases?

 

[sojourner]

To the extent that the individual Christian believes in non-violence or loving one's neighbour, exceptions* can be made in cases where the Christian thinks he knows that God is opposed to something. Really, the only difference between them is in their premises about what God opposes and condones.

*or maybe "excuses" would be a better term for it: rationalizations for how apparently unloving acts are supposedly loving (e.g. "we need to shun our gay boy to set him straight because it would be unloving to just leave him to the Devil.")

I get that. What you're really talking about here is "entitlement." No one is entitled (in our post-modern, Western religious culture) to stand in such judgment of anyone.

I don't know how things are where you are, but around here, attacking someone with a bullwhip is generally considered to be a sign that you don't hold the person you're attacking in high regard.

You missed the point. I wasn't talking about my culture -- I was talking about biblical culture. In that culture there was social stratification. For Jesus to take a whip to someone of a higher stratus is ludicrous in reality. That's why the story may be more bullspit than bullwhip.

 

[viole]

You are correct.Christians should love everyone.Just as John 13:35 points out.Even though homosexuals are breaking God's law,this is no reason for others to point fingers.Everyone sins and all are sins.People only look at what they do not like about others but fail to look at themselves first.True Christians should hate the sin but not the sinner.

We do the same. We love the believer, we hate the belief,

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you realistically think Jesus meant by that statement? It's not a pacifistic statement, it's a passive-aggressive statement, dependent on the culture of the time that simply doesn't translate well to our culture.

I don't buy that explanation. In fact, I think it's a good example of what you just criticized: pulling a verse out of context. The passage where it's given begins with a clear statement from Jesus: "do not resist an evil person." He then goes on to give examples of this principle in action. It's contradictory to assume that in one of his examples of how not to resist evil people actually means "resist evil people, but do it passive-aggressively."

So... how would I interpret "turn the other cheek"? Just the way the Bible says: I take it to mean "do not resist an evil person."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get that. What you're really talking about here is "entitlement." No one is entitled (in our post-modern, Western religious culture) to stand in such judgment of anyone.

No, I'm not talking about entitlement at all.

You missed the point. I wasn't talking about my culture -- I was talking about biblical culture. In that culture there was social stratification. For Jesus to take a whip to someone of a higher stratus is ludicrous in reality. That's why the story may be more bullspit than bullwhip.

Well, I suppose one way to deal with the passage is just to reject it. I'm not going to argue that the incident actually happened myself.

 

[Nada]

We do the same. We love the believer, we hate the belief,

Ciao

- viole

Who homosexuals,atheist, or both?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I could "like" one phrase in a post, I'd "like" this.

I disagree. I think that, when read properly, the bible does not condemn homosexuality as we know it.

That depends on your point of view.

I agree that it doesn't explicitly address long-term monogamous same-sex romantic relationships between consenting adults, but I do think it presents a model of the "natural order" (that does not include homosexual relationships) and argues that it's wrong to deviate from this order.

 

[sojourner]

I don't buy that explanation. In fact, I think it's a good example of what you just criticized: pulling a verse out of context. The passage where it's given begins with a clear statement from Jesus: "do not resist an evil person." He then goes on to give examples of this principle in action. It's contradictory to assume that in one of his examples of how not to resist evil people actually means "resist evil people, but do it passive-aggressively."

So... how would I interpret "turn the other cheek"? Just the way the Bible says: I take it to mean "do not resist an evil person."

Right, but what does that mean in the cultural context that produced the writing? In that culture, a man of higher social caste could strike one of lower caste on the left cheek, using the back of his left hand (the hand of "shame" making a statement of shame by the act of slapping). So, by "turning the cheek, the slapper would either have to 1) use his right hand to strike the left cheek (one didn't strike with the right hand), or 2) strike the right cheek (also unacceptable in that culture). The strikee isn't "resisting," he's simply making it very, very difficult for the striker without the striker acting shamefully. This is placing the passage squarely in the cultural context.

 

[sojourner]

That depends on your point of view.

I agree that it doesn't explicitly address long-term monogamous same-sex romantic relationships between consenting adults, but I do think it presents a model of the "natural order" (that does not include homosexual relationships) and argues that it's wrong to deviate from this order.

Right. And since that order "gets it wrong" (much as the creation myth "gets it wrong"), we don't have to give it any notice.

 

[sojourner]

No, I'm not talking about entitlement at all.

Sure you are! What else is it but entitlement that ... well ... entitles someone to make such a judgment against someone else?

Well, I suppose one way to deal with the passage is just to reject it. I'm not going to argue that the incident actually happened myself.

It probably didn't, given what we know of the cultural context. But to entirely dismiss the passage is to throw the baby out with the bath water. The story may very well be an example of literary hyperbole, but if it is, it is for a reason that bears our scrutiny. Why would the writer use such hyperbole? Usually, it's to emphasize a point. So, rather than waste time debating the incongruity of the details, we should read deeper to figure out what the writer means by using this literary device.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, but what does that mean in the cultural context that produced the writing? In that culture, a man of higher social caste could strike one of lower caste on the left cheek, using the back of his left hand (the hand of "shame" making a statement of shame by the act of slapping). So, by "turning the cheek, the slapper would either have to 1) use his right hand to strike the left cheek (one didn't strike with the right hand), or 2) strike the right cheek (also unacceptable in that culture). The strikee isn't "resisting," he's simply making it very, very difficult for the striker without the striker acting shamefully. This is placing the passage squarely in the cultural context.

Again: I don't buy it. There are passages that support a range of interpretations, but the interpretation you're suggesting just doesn't work. We can't reconcile your interpretation with the explicit statements in this passage ("do not resist an evil person", "rejoice and be glad when people persecute you") as well as the other example of the cloak (where Jesus advocates actually facilitating the people who seek to wrong you) with the idea that we should use social pressure to get our way against our enemies. We can't accept your interpretation of this verse without throwing out the message of the larger context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. And since that order "gets it wrong" (much as the creation myth "gets it wrong"), we don't have to give it any notice.

I agree... which is why I'm not a Christian.

 

[sojourner]

Again: I don't buy it. There are passages that support a range of interpretations, but the interpretation you're suggesting just doesn't work. We can't reconcile your interpretation with the explicit statements in this passage ("do not resist an evil person", "rejoice and be glad when people persecute you") as well as the other example of the cloak (where Jesus advocates actually facilitating the people who seek to wrong you) with the idea that we should use social pressure to get our way against our enemies. We can't accept your interpretation of this verse without throwing out the message of the larger context.

Again, the cloak story falls into a larger cultural context. It was legal for a Roman soldier to require a cloak from someone. To offer an undergarment as well shames the soldier (without actually shaming the soldier). Likewise with the burden example. It was legal to recruit one of a lower caste to carry burdens for one mile. By offering to carry the burden two shames the recruiter (without actually shaming him). It's all about using the honor/shame system against the abuser. Notice that the story doesn't say "Let him hit you again." It says, "offer the other (wrong) cheek." It shames the perpetrator without actually shaming him.

 

[gsa]

Who homosexuals,atheist, or both?

I cannot speak for all gay people or all atheists, but this is pretty much my approach. I think your chosen religion in particular, for example, is an authoritarian cult that should be discouraged and socially stigmatized to the point where people are ashamed to be members. This is out of concern for social stability. Very similar really, except that we have things like facts, evidence and the like to support it. You know, truth.

 

[sojourner]

I agree... which is why I'm not a Christian.

You're not a Christian... why? Because you might have to weigh the factual veracity or moral compass of biblical texts? Because you, as a modern, can't just take these texts at face value? What do you mean, "which is why I'm not a Christian?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure you are! What else is it but entitlement that ... well ... entitles someone to make such a judgment against someone else?

Gee... I'm glad you're here to tell me what I'm thinking.

I wasn't trying to make some argument about not judging others. The point I was trying to get at is this: dismissing other groups within one's religion interferes with self-reflection. There IS homophobia, misogyny, and all sorts of other nastiness throughout the Christian scriptures. As long as the Christians who express this nastiness are dismissed as "inauthentic",
the nastiness in the source material won't be addressed.

It probably didn't, given what we know of the cultural context. But to entirely dismiss the passage is to throw the baby out with the bath water. The story may very well be an example of literary hyperbole, but if it is, it is for a reason that bears our scrutiny. Why would the writer use such hyperbole? Usually, it's to emphasize a point. So, rather than waste time debating the incongruity of the details, we should read deeper to figure out what the writer means by using this literary device.

That's what I was doing. You brushed it off by saying that the incident didn't happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, the cloak story falls into a larger cultural context. It was legal for a Roman soldier to require a cloak from someone. To offer an undergarment as well shames the soldier (without actually shaming the soldier). Likewise with the burden example. It was legal to recruit one of a lower caste to carry burdens for one mile. By offering to carry the burden two shames the recruiter (without actually shaming him). It's all about using the honor/shame system against the abuser. Notice that the story doesn't say "Let him hit you again." It says, "offer the other (wrong) cheek." It shames the perpetrator without actually shaming him.

You know, if you trot out the old story about how "the eye of the needle" is actually a narrow gate in Jerusalem that's moderately inconvenient for a laden camel to get through, you'll score a revisionist apologetics hat trick.

Again: I'm not buying it.