Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

I thought it was a pretty good essay, especially considering it's the cover story in Newsweek fer goodness sake. It hits all the high points of the Biblical angle, and makes the points about the "true meaning" of Jesus' teachings very well too IMHO. And the distinctions between the civil and the religious meaning of the "M" word.

I predict it will raise much ire among subscribers. And, perhaps, open a few eyes and minds.

Sorry for the lack of clarity - I was arguing that the pro- position advocated by the author of the article was nonsense based on a scriptural argument. Using the Bible to argue in favor of homosexual marriage is much like taking a good chemistry book and trying to convince someone that the atomic weight of oxygen is vastly different from 16.

Absolutely! To argue otherwise would be, in the sage words of Issodhos, letting loose one's inner fascist.

I disagree. From a demonstrable lack of knowledge of both the OT and the NT, it's incredibly shoddy if you have had even a smattering of serious study of scripture.

Amen! To that.

That shoddy type of scholarship raises - at least for me - more questions about what was rolling around inside the author's head than it does about the issue.

Ron, if you read the article it seems to me to display a complete and thorough knowledge of the Bible. Maybe you have something other than Leviticus to support your claim?

I'm not sure what constitutes "serious study" Ron. Maybe you could give an example of what you found to be shoddy, or demonstrating lack of knowledge.

For starters, I would offer her example of whom the Apostle Paul was addressing his comments about "committing shameless acts with men" to. I found that reference intriguing, and one I had not really thought of (disclaimer: I am not a "serious student" of the Bible). Do you think it demonstrates lack of knowledge, or less than a smattering of serious study?

On this point, I am afraid my friend, that we will have to disagree. It is neither a new nor unsubstantiated argument (I noted the book "The Sexuality of Jesus" earlier, by the same author of "Was Jesus Married?" - both of which, written in the 70's, are well supported scripturally and historically), nor is it as verifiable as the atomic weight of oxygen.

Although there are aspects of the article that I disagree with (such as her assertion that "the biblical Jesus was... emphatically unmarried" - which is scripturally, culturally, and historically improbable), the gist of the argument is actually quite sound. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and Paul's assertions against it were culturally based, not based upon Jesus' teachings. (Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Paul was actually gay himself, but now we are deep into spiritual speculation.) Paul was certainly, though, an odd bird in many respects, and tied very much to a cultural viewpoint that was not always consistent with the extant exemplars of Jesus' teachings. Most importantly, though, is the sense of acceptance that Jesus taught that is not reflected in the vitriolic approach of anti-gay zealots who claim "Christian" support for their position. Seriously, why are proscriptions in Leviticus only followed when convenient, or as the author notes, Selective application, in my view, of archaic texts and not the fundamental nature of Jesus' lessons. I think the author is entirely accurate in asserting
Not to take this thread too far off topic, but what portion of the essay is inaccurate in your view? If you would prefer, you can respond by PM.

New York Times

I consider the author to have been extremely shoddy in his presentation, and to have indulged in a number of logical and factual errors.

Perhaps you think that other parts of Leviticus can be also overlooked? Like the prohibitions on murder, incest, theft and perjury? Of course, perhaps it can be shown that Jesus condoned - or at least did not condemn - these other Levite proscriptions and it is, therefore, acceptable to indulge in them?

One of the problems with arguing from scripture is that you have to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why you should follow this and ignore that.

Those seem odd choices, Ron, since they are all behaviors that victimize another person or persons. What about the passages that prohibit women from wearing men's clothing? Or touching a football? Or wearing cotton/wool blended fabrics? What kind of trouble will we get into for deciding those can be overlooked?

As the author says:

A couple of college literature courses with the Bible as literature, three years of Methodist-oriented Bible study, and a number of years of teaching an adult SS class. Pace, I am not going to argue anything from a theological/doctrinal point of view - only from the point of view of what the scriptures say as opposed to what people think that they say.

How about this, a complete representation of the story:

Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?

There was no epiphany, much less any sneakiness on the patriarch's part; Sarai and Abram had discussed her infertility for years. It was Sarai who proposed - in accordance with custom - that he try to have children by her Egyptian servant, Hagar. What I think you see here is the problems that arise from the weakness of Abraham's faith in God's promise - or at least that's what a couple of rabbis have told me.

Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

And in this, as in the story of Abraham, there is the moral lesson of jealousy, betrayal, covetousness and a lack of faith. I think that the lesson from the story of the patriarch's personal lives is not than polygamy is acceptable but that the failure to act always in faith leads to problems not anticipated and difficult to deal with that continue to bother us years later.

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family.

Well, to borrow a line from the Blues Brothers, he was indeed on a mission from God. Itinerant, unmarried rabbis were not uncommon in that era, and the Levite law allowed for what is called a Nazarite vow - such as undertaken by Samson and by John the Baptist and probably by Bar Abbas. And Jesus's specific injunction is to his disciples - you can follow me or you can follow the way of the world - not to a general dismissal of marriage as unimportant.

The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

Paul's approach seems to be based on the expectation of the imminent return of Christ; therefore, the institutions of the world were of less importance than the spiritual ones. It has also been suggested that Paul himself was a homosexual, and that he - as a Pharisee - would have seen it as unacceptable and would have recommended marriage as an alternative to what he considered an unacceptable behavior. He admonishes married Christians to be humble and faithful toward their spouses

Paul's letters to the various churches addressed both their good and bad points. I think that he is specifically addressing problems reported as existing in various parts of the very small Christian world and not necessarily some general misbehavior on the part of the rulers and the aristocracy.

Hope this helps to clarify my position.