s skippy the bush kangaroo: god told me to hate you: the contextual

skippy the bush kangaroo



Friday, April 14, 2006

god told me to hate you: the contextual

ruth and her lawyers, of course, are taking select passages out of the bible, and thus, out of the bible's context. many more knowledgeable scholars than we have successfully debated the narrowly-focused parameters that the conservative evangelicals use to justify their hateful actions. some of those whose work we enjoy reading are found at the cathedral of hope:

what does the bible really say about homosexuality? actually, very little. most significantly, jesus said nothing at all. considering the relatively small amount of attention the bible pays to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue. other subjects about which the scriptures say a great deal (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) receive much less passionate attention. before looking at specific passages, it is important to note that everyone understands the scriptures based on, and through, the light of what they have been taught. the bible was not written in a cultural void, and many of its instructions and laws are simply classified as less relevant today (e.g. prohibition against eating pork).

nowhere does the bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. the statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. that truth is a relatively recent discovery. the biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.
the cathedral of hope also discusses the leviticus code, which

is not kept by any christian group. If it was enforced, almost every christian would be excommunicated or executed.
to wit: why is it acceptable to use two passages in leviticus to rail against same sex marriage, but at the same time, ignore the admonitions against intercourse during menstruation, or even worse, the wearing of two different types of cloth at the same time? (we bet even peggy noonan would surely go to hell, if she were held to a literal interpretation of that particular biblical verse.)

and with the biblical admonition against eating of seafood, we have to ask, why aren't these fundies petitioning for a constitutional amendment against red lobster?

dr. loren l. johns, academic dean of the associated mennonite biblical seminary, asks a pertinent question in his discussion of homosexuality and the bible:
christian ethics is for christians: ethical discernment and discipline (based on biblical principles) are appropriate primarily among people who claim to follow jesus. it doesn't make much sense to ask, "what is god's will for people who have chosen not to submit to god's will?"
but of course, that's the very nature of evangelicals: to insist that their view of god is the only view of god. luckily for us, there is precedent to keep their holy noses out of our business, which brings us to the legal.
posted by skippy at 12:18 AM |

0 Comments:

Add a comment