GeorgeW

Did Santorium's comment the we are or should be a "Christian Country" worry anyone? It is the same concern people had about JFK... I think it is a loyalty question ... If the good of the country conflicts with the good of the church ... what wins?

Kennedy affirmed the separation of church and state and Santorum denied it. He said he almost threw up when he read Kennedy's speech.

George

LC, welcome.

George

Once again, I expose my ignorance. What is the Daily Office?

George

Brian,

Welcome. I hope that you will contribute here.

George

And for you George, mental illness you define as unnatural. Is this any illness (for example a tumour affecting one's behaviour) or just specifically psychological mental illnesses?

And for me, I would say any illness (physical or mental) that motivates 'unnatural' behavior.

George

Is man part of nature; is so is there anything he can do that is unnatural?

Humans are part of nature and cannot violate natural laws. Humans are a species with certain abilities and limitations and cannot do anything that is unnatural for the species (like stay under water for days or fly unassisted).

Humans can behave in ways that are unnatural for humans. This is usually considered a psychological aberration or mental illness.

George

Which is precisely my point and why there is discrepancy in specific translations when it comes to the words - Malakos and Arsenkoites. As was thoroughly discussed already, these are often misinterpreted to mean homosexual. However, if Paul meant "men having sex men" he could have used the word "paiderasste" which he did not use and never does it appear in the Bible from what I understand.

I don't know about the Greek, but the Hebrew is unambiguous; it uses 'ish for man (not 'adam, the generic term for humankind), zakar for 'male' and 'ishah for woman. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Lev. 20:13)

I don't think they were giving license to lesbianism as such, but this was just not a concern. Our pastor (PCUSA) has said that he thinks the prohibitions against homosexual sex and masturbation were related to the wasting of seed. They thought that human semen (which in Hebrew is the same word as seed) was limited (like literal plant seed) and should not be wasted.

George

A minor, but pertinent, section of E.O. Wilson’s latest book addresses homosexuality. (He is a noted sociobiolgist whose latest book I recently read and have cited several times in this forum). Some excerpts from this section:

“Heredity-influenced homosexuality occurs in populations worldwide too frequently to be due to mutations alone […] The trait must be favored by natural selection […] homosexuality may give advantages to the group by special talents, unusual qualities of personality, and the special roles and professions it generates. There is abundant evidence that such is the case in both preliterate and modern societies.”

What he is proposing is that some level of homosexuality in society confers an evolutionary selective advantage to the groups in which it occurs. Otherwise, it would not persist.

George

Identifying as lesbian with a strong history with the Presbyterian Church from childhood, my church was telling me that I could not be lesbian and follow thier faith. Going to a Catholic College, I was met with the same attitude.

Bea, You should remind those who would scold you that the OT prohibition specifically designated men. They need to be more literal.

George

I have read in other texts such as by Dr. Mel White, that the Bible does not mean "homosexuality" as we mean it today. What does that mean? Is there a good book I can read on the subject?

Bea,

I cannot recommend a specific book. However, I think the contention is that there was no concept of homosexuality as an orientation at that time and the biblical prohibitions were against same-sex sex (at least male). As far as I know this is correct, but I also have no reason to think that there were not homosexual men at the time and the prohibitions would have included them as well.

Even if any form of homosexual behavior was prohibited in Biblical Judaism (and I think it was), this does not mean that the social norms of an ancient middle-eastern culture should apply to us today. As an example, they permitted bigamy. Are we obliged to allow it? Jesus forbade remarriage after divorce, must we? Should we abstain from pork and shrimp? Clothes with linen and wool? I don't think so.

George

Rob,

Welcome. Bishop Spong does not participate in the discussions here or answer questions in this forum. In any event, I hope you will "Introduce Yourself" in a thread with that title and join the discussions.

George

The Early Christian Reader (Mason and Robinson) says the following:

"John differs from the synoptic tradition in placing the Last Supper on the evening before the Passover. Scholars have tried to reconcile the different dates, frequently appealing to the thesis that the were calculating dates on the basis of different calendars; this is not an impossible explanation, since different religious sometimes used different calendars." (underlining mine)

The authors don't dismiss the possibility of different calendars, but also don't seem to endorse the idea by using 'not impossible' vs. 'likely,' 'plausible,' or language to the like.

The authors suggest a theological explanation: "John, placing the Last Supper one day earlier, views the death of Jesus [...] as taking place at the time of the sacrifice of the Passover lambs, before the Passover meal. Thus Jesus is implicitly presented as the true Passover lamb."

This makes sense to me.

George

A caution: Let's not assume that Hornet's source is not sound (although, reasonable suspicion is justified). Hopefully, he will respond with his source(s) and we can then judge.

George

That said, it would be naive to think that any political candidate is actually 'their own man' (or woman) entirely. They have parties and benefactors to keep happy, and sometimes compromises and concessions are made.

I agree. But, it is not the Mormons that worry me about Romney. It is the Tea Party and the gazillionaires who are financing him.

George

I think it's mainly literalists and their opposite that need to be concerned with this discrepancy. The discrepancy is simply not an issue if one doesn't worry about taking the narratives literally.

Yes.

George

I can't bring any to mind, I was wondering if "aplogetics" is just an artifact of male hierarchy?

Nor can I (but as I said above, I am not an expert on this subject). However, it would make some sense as apologetics come out of conservative, literalist schools of thought which would be biased toward male dominance.

George

I'm not well versed on apolgetics. Are there any female apologetics?

 

Just asking.

I am not an expert on apologetics, but I can't see any reason why not.

George

Hal,

I have no religious concerns about Romney, but I do have serious policy concerns.

Mormonism does have a history of racism and sexism, but as far as I know, that is in the past and all religions (or denominations) that have existed for very long have some skeletons in their closet as well.

George

Hornet,

I would be interested if you could cite a good, scholarly source for this. Truthfully, this reconciliation sounds a little like apologetics to me, but I am open to good, well-supported information.

George

Steve,

Do churches cause people to be homophobic and Islamophobic, or do these churches reflect the worldview of their membership?

Since there are Christian churches that are quite the opposite, the case that Christianity causes hateful attitudes would be hard to sustain. And, it gets harder yet when there are secular people and organizations who also have these attitudes.

George

I am hoping to move towards a view that sees the early Bible as the beginning of a trajectory to where we are now? I'd call that progress without loss.

Yes, good point.

But, trying to explain away problematic texts without some degree of objectively, is not, IMO, the way to go. That is what I feel Patterson did as well as other well-meaning progressive Christians. I would prefer that we confront the text objectively in its context, accept it for what it is and "progress" from that point (as you point out).

FWIW, many things in the Bible that we consider reactionary today were quite progressive in their time. And, IMO, we should respect that.

George

Myron,

According to the APA you cited: "Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." To claim or suggest that this did not exist in biblical times, without solid evidence, is not being objective or responsible.

"The Bible does not talk about sex in terms of "love, attachment, and intimacy" and we have to ask whether heterosexuals in the time of the Bible would have used those words?"

Right . . . well . . . generally. Late writings like the Song of Solomon does, and in rather graphic terms. And, it almost didn't make the final cut for that reason. But, yes, there was no conceptual means of expressing this in the Pentateuch.

George

There is an article in the recent edition of "The Fourth R" (a publication associated with the Jesus Seminar) appropriate to this thread. It is titled "When a Man Lies with a Man as with a Woman" referring to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The author, Stephen Patterson, is a professor of religious and ethical studies at Willamette University.

The author argues that there were only three contexts in the Ancient Near East in which these passages can be read: Domination, recreation (in the absence of female companionship), and religious devotion (like fertility rituals). He does raise the question: "So was there actual gay sex, as we today understand that concept, in the Ancient Near East?" He answers, "probably" but then moves on without further consideration.

It is true that the concept of sexual orientation is modern and Western in origin. but it is, IMO, a huge reach to just dismiss this without examination. There almost certainty were gay men at that time and they almost certainly would not have abstained from sex. Further, there was no evidence offered that they would be exempted from this prohibition. The absence of the concept of sexual orientation would make it even more likely to apply to all instances of male, same-sex activities.

In fact, to imply that same-sex orientation could be a modern, Western innovation plays into the hands of homophobes who claim that it is a choice encouraged by a permissive society.

While I do not think we today are obligated to comply with a 3,000-year-old bedouin prohibition, to suggest that Leviticus did not encompass gay sex in its prohibition, is, IMO, simply trying to explain away the text instead of dealing with it objectively.

George

I haven’t said the question was irrelevant, but rather (in my experience) “invariably unproductive and perhaps inherently unprogressive.” (from a practical standpoint).

You are right, you have not said that. However, I think it is productive and maybe critical in approaching a text. As an example, one's reaction to a text that is fiction is different from one that purports to be history. Both may have the same information, may be well written with lots of useful information, but our understanding and perception can be quite different.

I don't think one can pick up a religious text (with an acknowledged human author) and react the same way as one that the reader believes to be divine revelation. Writing by, as an example, St. Augustine or Bishop Spong are not perceived the same as a text that the reader believes to be spoken by God.

BTW, you didn't answer my question about your view of other texts that some consider to be divine revelation.

George

Brent,

Do you think the UP is the only text that is divine revelation or just one of a group of other revelations (like the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, etc.)?

I don't agree about the irrelevance of authority in religious texts. Divine revelation is inherently authoritative. Can one decide that God was wrong about anything contained in a divine revelation? I don't think so. On the other hand, human inspired texts are subject to critical (with the meaning of 'judicious evaluation') examination and possible disagreement.

Divinely revealed texts are read quite differently from other texts. One only attempts to discern the meaning of the revelation. It can be interpreted literally, metaphorically, symbolically, etc., but one cannot deem any particular passage to be false or in error. A particular passage can even be considered scribal error or translation error, but not false in its original form.

George