Apocolips

Hola!

I was reading www.usatoday.com where there were two different stories, one concerning the threatened split of the Anglican/Episcopal churches into conservative and liberal factions, and the Presbyterian General Assembly votes to drop gay clergy ban.

Liberal Christianity has always mystified me, because it seems that these people do not read their Bibles, and those that do are always trying to make excuses or make end runs around what is clearly written. It is like they only read from the Bible that they like and makes them happy, while disregarding the rest.

For example in the Anglican story, http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...ervative_N.htm, there is a female bishop. The Bible disdains a woman's leadership or teaching role in a church, stating..............

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Do the Anglicans/Episcopals just disregard this? If the Bible is their church's holy scripture and guide, what is their explanation for women church leaders?

Second story concerning the Presbyterian chuch............

The denomination's General Assembly, meeting in San Jose, Calif., voted 54% to 46% Friday to drop the requirement that would-be ministers, deacons and elders live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...ians-gay_N.htm

O.K. How do the "gay christian" and the pro gay faction of a liberal Christian assembly explain this passage from the Bible...............

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

This is probably one of the most clear verses in the Bible. Get caught having same sex (at least with two men), then they should be both put to death in a violent fashion with blood upon their bodies.

How do female Christians and Christian gays explain this away? It seems that a lot of religious sects do not, or don't want to, see the Bible in a critical eye, and they try to wedge their beliefs which are aginst the Bible. I have read a lot on this subject, with the explaining away of Bible passages by saying that this word is from the Greek or Latin, and that old covenents do not matter now, and all that. This homosexual church tries to explain away the anti-gayness away.........

http://www.soulforce.org/article/hom...-gay-christian

My question is, why do people follow a religion and not follow the tenents thereof? And, are "liberal" Christians better than "Conservative" ones?

Senor

Joan of Bark

Liberal Christians are nice people, and I wish there was more of them and less of the fundamentalist types. But you are correct when you say they don't follow Biblical commands (conservatives don't either). They'd be better off dumping the Bible as any sort of truth and simply appealing to people as compassionate human beings. The Bible is like a vague, ambiguous and contradictory star witness ... doing more harm than good for their case.

Larry Fox

Regarding how these nasty passages would be explained, I think there are a couple of lines that would be followed:

1) Reinterpreting the passages quoted; I've heard gay believers make the point that the Hebrew word for "abomination" was used for homosexuality in the same context that it was used for any violation of the dietary code, so that eating a shellfish is as "sinful" as anal sex with your buddy, and vice versa. (Also, a lesbian Rabbi I know of, argued that since the Bible didn't actually mention lesbians, she was free to practice as she liked.)

2) Revising their notion of the canon; accepting that the Bible isn't evenly inspired, that the sexist parts aren't inspired, showing that Paul's prohibition on . As was noted, fundamentalists don't follow the whole Bible either; I remember something about (that original fundamentalist) Martin Luther considering the whole Book of James to be worthless because he didn't agree with its doctrine of works over faith.

(Note that this phenomenon isn't limited to the religious; among intellectuals in France there is something of a schism between the Nietzscheans & non-Nietzscheans, where the Nietzscheans have written things like how they must "argue with Nietzsche against Nietzsche", retaining the parts of his work they like and discarding the advocacy of slavery, etc...)

Regarding the bigger picture about liberal religion, I agree with Dawkins et al that these people are enablers for the fundamentalists, but I think that, in its favor, for many people liberal religion is just what the fundies say it is, namely a step in the direction of leaving the faith. It was that way for me as well as lots of folks I know.

Toto

Search for "Homosexuality" in this forum and you will find how Christian gays interpret this.

Christians believe that Jesus changed all the rules in Leviticus, so they can eat shellfish and wear cotton - polyester blends. It is the fundamentalists who are not faithful to that tradition when they elevate the prohibition of a man lying with a man to a special status.

There are some disparaging remarks about something that might be homosexuality in some of Paul's letters, but some Christians don't think a lot of Paul. The passages about women in Paul's letters were probably not Paul's own words, since he worked closely with women prophets and preachers. In any case, liberal Christians believe in "progressive revelation" or "process theology," or they prefer to concentrate on the nice things Jesus said which are inconsistent with Fred Phelps' sermons.