The following stems from a conversation in the General Forum regarding biblical view on homosexuality and biblical views in general…

jem71 - 09 June 2008 07:12 AM

  You cant pick and choose from the bible what teachings you wish to uphold.

  Simple as that.

Says who? It’s all or nothing package, right? So one’s faith in Jesus Christ ultimately means condoning smashing babies against the rock? If you don’t get the reference, let me know. ;)

Besides, there are such things as context, cultural relevance, historical arguments. It’s called hermeneutics and it’s used in literature to determine a meaning of any text. Why should biblical passages be an exception?

Aleksejs…. Dont really want to argue - too much work to do :)

but anyway for me the reason you cant pick and choose is that the Bible is supposed to be THE word of God. When you decide that some parts of what God has written is unworthy then you might as well throw out the whole charade.

listen, I grew up going to church for 18 years so I now what the church is about….. I dont like hypocrisy and so I think I get a slight edge up when people pull out biblical homosexual rulings out of context as a basis for their prejudices. If you can say the slaughter of an ox is not relevant, culturally or historically, then I can say any of your Leviticus references are culturally & historically irrelevant.

jem - am doing work and arguing at the same time ;)

Leviticus references are not culturally and historically relevant. Which is the point, really. People use Leviticus passages that are irrelevant to point out passages in other parts of the Bible that are.

And this is why I brought up Romans. I believe God hates homosexuality as much as he hates lies and deceit. Or hypocrisy for that matter, so I am not trying to justify or excuse the new generation church people.

And yes, you can chose what passages are relevant and what not….

A Church Of Her Own
by Sarah Sentilles
(Harcourt)
Reviewed by Donna Bowman
April 17th, 2008

For millions of American churchgoers, ordained women are old news. Mainline denominations like the United Church Of Christ and the Episcopal Church USA have been putting women in official ministerial positions for decades. But as Sarah Sentilles reveals in her poignant study A Church Of Her Own: What Happens When A Woman Takes The Pulpit, familiarity hasn’t necessarily meant equality. Even in the most liberal churches, the challenge of a female minister divides congregations and uncovers deep ambivalence about gender and religion. Sentilles, at one time an aspiring Episcopal priest, talked to dozens of women who sought ordination, in churches from the far left to the far right. Some stuck it out, some found other ways to minister; nearly all have frightening stories to tell. While the book is aimed at an ecclesiastical audience, the conclusions it draws about the uncertain future of feminism resonate beyond the church walls.

Many of the women profiled weren’t prepared for the level of sexism they encountered in the churches they served. Often, they started their careers as associate pastors, working under a male superior. Instead of getting their fair share of chances to preach and lead, they were relegated to what Sentilles terms “pink-collar ministry,” like children’s programs or pastoral care. If they failed to be as nurturing or caring as the congregation expected, it wasn’t received as a failure by a particular minister—it was a failure by an entire gender. Ministers who got pregnant found that their congregations were disturbed by their bodily presence at the altar, as if their obvious fecundity took away from the spirituality of the moment. Males were treated as gender-neutral, while females bore the brunt of the label “woman priest” and were judged on completely different standards. Sentilles delves into the even more uncomfortable topics, like lesbian ministers, those undergoing sexual reassignment, and Catholicism’s stubborn refusal to contemplate the ordination of women.

The book’s style will put off many readers. Sentilles writes without irony of call, discernment, incarnation, and the like, making the experience of reading akin to joining a women’s spirituality group. But bursting through her seminarian-speak are the angry, resigned, self-loathing, passionate, and above all diverse voices of the women whose portraits she sketches. By the end of her love letter to a church that let her down, Sentilles has rendered her opponents’ arguments absurd and irrelevant. The answer to women’s equality may not lie in a religious tradition rooted in patriarchy, but there’s something inspiring about Sentilles’ refusal to cede the field of religion to those old, destructive ways.

Sad, very sad. It seems that you (Aleksej) do the most common of religious arguments- use “the” bible (how and why did this particular collection get to be the sole text?) and simply use it to justify your own preexisting prejudices.

Please re-read Romans. It is about people who turn away from God (or a Christian life) and fall into sexual depravity. This is about people who become depraved. Please tell me where it says that being a believing Christian and gay are mutually exclusive. The short answer is that it does not.

In your world of hermeneutics (great word- remember it from my Jesuit education) you might do well to place Romans in its historical context. Paul had just returned from the Mediterranean and northern Africa where he saw orgies and various depravities being carried out at temples to various gods. He was not warning about sex and passion as such but depravity- allowing our passions to become defining. And, contrary to what many fine heteros believe, most gays I know are in no way defined by their passions (at least not their sexual ones).

I hate to say it, but please spend some time with our fine friend google and look at the number of very well reasoned arguments that suggest that the church argument about the bible and homosexuality is not a slam dunk.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3;=&id=22333

just a crazy idea; what if the liberals really don’t know one hole from another, and
the ultra-conservatives know which is which from experience…..............................??????????????????