Yahzi

I don't think its right when fundies make up interpretations of the Bible, and I don't think its right when liberals do it.

Either take the book for what it says; or trash it altogether.

DaMan121

I have no problem with that, except they have to sift through alot of pages to find those particular ideals, and even then , why pay more significance to those, and not the more nastier and archaic parts? But, sure, I conceed that the world would be alot better off if it was filled with liberal religious people.

ScarletBea

hehehe I agree with your ex.

Of course, then there's each person's interpretation of what is 'right' for me is giving all of myself to my girlfriend, making her happy and being happy too - but that's cos I can't do sex without love, sex outside a relationship; others may think differently.

jbernier

I would suspect it is because they are Christian. Just a wild guess, though.

There is a bit of a fallacy here: It assumes that all churches which "believe" in the Christian scriptures do not want homosexuals. That, of course, is easily disproven; I know of a large number of very orthodox churches which firmly see scripture as the foundation of Christian faith and practice who also have no problem with homosexuality or homosexual people whatsoever. Quite simply you are overgeneralizing.

Hmmm..."I want to change this" is a "slave mentality." That strikes me as a bit of a non sequiter.


Actually the term "deadly sin" is nowhere to be found in reference to same-sex relations in scriptures. Leaving that aside the question becomes how one lives out Biblical faith in the contemporary world. Your critique is true of those who insist in as literal a reading of scripture as possible and a corresponding committment to apply that literal reading in the most rigorous fashion. This, however, is reading the scripture as a law book, a legal code - and it is precisely not the way that the earliest Christians read scripture. Starting from Paul onwards you have a strong tradition of much more allegorical readings, of an attempt to get "beyond the word" that is written to the "Word that is God." We see this in certain Hellenistic Jewish thinkers, such as Philo, as well. Thus there is a strong tradition of not reading the texts in the literalist (i.e. fundamentalist) fashion that you have offered here and I would argue that this is where Christian thought needs to move.

Now, of course, the adjective "most" in front of Christians logically implies that "not all" Christians want to "work against" homosexual people (and "most" does not mean "all", therefore it is logically "not all"). Thus you yourself open the possibility for Christians who do not work against gay people. Thus your argument needs to be rearticulated to "stay away from those in the church who want to harm you" which leaves open the statement "do not stay away from those in the church who do not want to harm you." Consequenly you have answered your own question: Not all Christians "work against" homosexual people and therefore there is no reason for homosexual people to stay away from those Christians.

jbernier

This, of course, rests upon a particular model of reading in which the text is a passive object and the reader an active subject who is to bring out the meaning already present within the text. Revelation then is equated with the meaning that is already present within the text.

An alternative model suggests that meaning exists only insofar as reading is an encounter between the text and the one reading the text. There is no passive, pre-read, meaning that exists independently of that encounter. Meaning can only be said to exist in the act of reading and thus it is that act which is meaningful (not the text per se but rather the reading of the text). If one wants to continue to identity meaning with revelation than one would see revelation as lying not within the text but within the encounter with the text that is reading; i.e. God reveals Godself not through the text but through the encounter with the text. The canon would be authoritative insofar as it is these texts with which Christians must continue relate and thus encounter; thus the ongoing process of encountering these texts would be a primary source of Christian revelation as opposed to the text themselves as passive objects simply awaiting the human subject to interpret them. One is then free to allow the encounter with the text to shape one's life and understanding thereof, recognizing that encounter as a point of encounter with God, while simultaneously having the freedom to say "Hmmm, I'm not sure that I can agree with that" - because the very act of not agreeing is meaningful and thus revelatory.

Note that this is a model of how to relate to the text on what one might call an existential level; it is very different from more historical approaches which aim more at figuring out what the text would have meant in its original context.

Yahzi

If the Bible is merely a mirror, then really, anything will do: an inkblot, a reflecting pool, a rock garden. This is not Christianity, but simply deism. To which you've added Christ(TM) Flavor Bits.

g-21-lto

A person can have a deep belief in and love for their god/dess(s) and yet, as in the case of gays in christianity, find themselves at odds with a church law. Feeling their attachment to God stronger than a fixation to the church, i think it's perfectly legitimate that gays would remain in the church. I have a friend who is gay and who has stayed in the church, though he did find himself a church that is very liberal and accepts gays and lesbians.

Also there is a xtian denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church, which was founded primarily to allow gays and lesbians a chance to worship the xtian God in a church environment and to allow them to take communion/be baptized/other things that regular churches wouldn't do. The pastor of the local MCC came and spoke to my university's gay-straight alliance a few weeks ago; he's gay and has a spouse.

Apparently there are many verses in the Bible which lend support to a more lenient interpretation of xtianity toward homosexuality. I'm not sure what those verses are; I do know that Jesus spoke of people who do not marry -- "eunuchs" the KJV terms them -- whether from choice, from castration, or since birth. I've heard this verse interpreted several times to mean that Jesus was speaking of homosexuals. Of course, homosexuality as an orientation wasn't talked about until around a hundred years ago, so I'm rather dubious on that point.