This is a thesis I have to thank my old debating buddy, Ananel. To him I dedicate this infodump in memory of his former thesis, as well as to commemorate his service to M&R and the religious studies community at large. To him I say vale and wish him the best in whatever travails may befall him in his journeys through life, the universe, and everything. I hope that this thesis, though paltry it may be, meets his approval and the approval of the peer review process here in M&R.
I had stood firmly on the side against this very argument, but I came to the realization that the Bible just doesn't say anything about a practice that either (A) didn't exist back then, or (B) didn't attract Paul's criticism. People sometimes force interpretations on the Bible when it was never meant to mean that in the first place. To do so is dishonest at best and even blasphemous at worst. As the Bible admonishes, it's wrong to add to scripture.
Thus, the only conclusion that I have is that prohibitions against homosexuality depend on the tradition you partake in. As a Mormon, I recognize that my tradition doesn't view homosexuality very positively and asks people who attracted to the same gender to remain celibate and/or marry the opposite gender regardless. In the future, the Church may change its stance, but meh. It is my opinion that there are far worse problems in our society than who is sleeping with whom, so therefore I will focus my efforts on clarifying truth, giving meaningful service, and calling out people who are being dishonest and disseminating clearly incorrect information.
It is important to understand the basis of this argument, because people can and do make public policy decisions based off what they perceive as theological truth that is unforgiving. And, quite frankly, that is a position that is just not true. Personally, as a Mormon, I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms, unless I happen to be a legal and ecclesiastical representative of the Church, which I'm not right now. And even if I did, the only purview I could have would be over people in my own faith and in my own congregation. Until that time, I will show an increase in love towards my friends who happen to have fallen in love (and truly love it is) and formed a strong bond that serves as the bedrock for a family.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13
These can arguably refer to temple prostitution or other pagan fertility rituals, as a good deal of the Torah tends to. Doing so makes you unfit for Hebrew rituals. That is what is meant by "ritual uncleanness," which a Christian shouldn't care about.
Though the scripture does not reference a particular ritual it is forbidding, the culture context is more important to consider. Canaanite fertility cults abounded around the Hebrews, and such practices as boiling a goat in its mother's milk were primarily a response to Canaanite practices. I mean, come on -- some of these mitzvot just don't make sense all by themselves. However, it does make sense in the cultural context the Israelites were surrounded with.
"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. ... (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled [i.e. made common]; ) ... Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:3,27,30)
Clearly, these were all practices that the people before had done. As such, to distinguish the practice of worshiping YHWH from that of the Canaanite deities, he gives them prohibitions and actions that would make them "peculiar" (unique).
Chapter 20 of Leviticus also deals with various social and cultural practices which by banning would make the Israelites a completely distinct culture:
"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. ... A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:6,27)
Again, this deals with distinguishing the Israelites from the Canaanites, rather than from the fundamental immorality of the thing. Their practices were foreign, and the Israelites had already dilluted their culture by staying in Egypt for too long. Was it possible for Israel to come up with its own culture? Yes, but it had to extinguish the Canaanite practices. This was all about nationalism and the need to establish a new society, not from the underlying problems with talking with supernatural entities and/or engaging in sexual relations with a person you love and cherish.
In any case, the concepts of ritual cleanliness are abolished completely by the New Testament. "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28 ) Thus, concepts of being unclean by virtue of disobeying specifics in Leviticus should be disregarded, since the concept of "cleanliness" is moot in Christianity.
The only thing that is important in Christianity is to have faith and to love one another. Peter again admonishes the early Church to not require the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law:
" 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:8-11)
Faith makes a person pure, and the witness of the Holy Ghost tells a person that their sins are forgiven. It is not a checklist of to-dos and not-to-dos -- which about half of the New Testament goes into agonizing details.
However, there are some things that are required of Christians:
" 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication [temple prostitution], and from things strangled, and from blood." (same chapter, vs. 18-20)
All of these elements have some sort of connection to pagan rites, whether through eating something offered to an idol or engaging in the celebration of a deity other than YHWH. As such, these are subject to smititude.
Over and over the writers of the New Testament preach against Christians having to obey the "law of the circumcision," which incorporates all the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, including the prohibitions against wearing garments of more than one material, of having sex with a woman on her period (i.e. in the "time of her uncleanness" ) and having to celebrate the Feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and so forth (which were absolutely required by practicing Jews).
So, in summary: the New Testament is rife with statements that you don't have to obey the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul goes one more and states that any and all commandments have to be relatable somehow to the one commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself (Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:13-14). In order to maintain that God is against homosexuality, you have to prove definitively that it fundamentally goes against the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. Under consensual homosexuality, I find this prospect incredulous at best.
1 Corinthians 6:9
There's a number of problems with this scripture in 1 Corinthians. The best way to describe this is to refer back to the original Greek just to show how poorly understood this scripture really is.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakos], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Malakos means "catamite," which is a specific title of the submissive role in pedastery (which is nowadays considered *****). There's a problem of power disparity, as these young boys were often "submitting" to their professional mentors and masters so as to "learn the ways of the trade" of sex. This relationship had nothing at all to do with love (or even lust), and had more to do with learning sexual techniques and/or to gratify one's master.
Arsenokoites was a word of uncertain meaning, as the author was apparently coining the word as he wrote. It is a splicing-together of two words, arsenos meaning "man," and koites meaning "bed." It could mean two men in a bed, it could mean male prostitution (i.e. a woman inviting a man other than her husband into her bed), or it could mean a man alone in a bed engaging in sexual relations with himself. At various times, it has been translated as a temple prostitute, masturbator, those who are "morally soft" (i.e. wishy-washy), and even more curiously as "abuser of themselves with mankind" (which while adding content to the meaning, it does leave it accurately vague).
Here's a good source that goes into some detail:
ReligiousTolerance.org
I Corinthians 6:9 -- Sins that Paul believes will send you to Hell:
The author, Paul, listed a group of sinful activities. He believed that practicing any one of them would prevent a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. They would be sent to Hell when they died. This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed.
One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. 1
Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.
Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned about their own salvation and that of their family and friends. It is a pity that one of the behaviors that many Christians feel will cause them to lose their salvation is currently unknown. Many probably fear that they might inadvertently engage in the activity and thus having to spend eternity in Hell.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm
The author, Paul, listed a group of sinful activities. He believed that practicing any one of them would prevent a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. They would be sent to Hell when they died. This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed.
One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. 1
Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.
Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned about their own salvation and that of their family and friends. It is a pity that one of the behaviors that many Christians feel will cause them to lose their salvation is currently unknown. Many probably fear that they might inadvertently engage in the activity and thus having to spend eternity in Hell.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm
This source also provides a good discussion on differing interpretations of malakos and arsenokoites. My point is that the words themselves are vague and open to interpretation, not "clear" or concise in any way, shape, or form. Pretty par for the course whenever Paul uses words outside of their original context and makes up new words altogether. I mean, he barely knew Greek and most of his grammar is stumbling and imprecise.
Or, to summarize my point: Paul knew exactly what he was talking about, but we don't really have any idea whatsoever. Whatever he meant has been appropriated by just about everyone to mean whatever vague sexual indiscretion they feel like lampooning at the moment -- whether temple prostitution, masturbation, and being wishy-washy -- or as John would say, "lukewarm" (Rev. 3:16). The current vogue is to lombast homosexuality because a number of Christians happen to like boys/girls/both.
If you wish to interpret arsenokoites as "a man engaging in homosexual relations in a loving, closed relationship," I could interpret it just as easily as "a man who is at any time in a bed doing anything, including sleeping." It just does not fit like some people want to force it to be.
Romans 1:26-28
I'm gonna go old school on this one, and quote Karashebi from 2004 (or earlier), who had an excellent response to this particular scripture:
Karashebi
Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.
One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.
Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was "on bottom." Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.
Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.
Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.
My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments for and against this
My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?
One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.
Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was "on bottom." Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.
Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.
Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.
My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments for and against this
My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?
Conclusion
The only conclusion that can be made is that the Bible does not speak against the practice of consensual homosexuality as we know it today. This is not to say that individual traditions can't make decisions about what their practicants should or shouldn't be doing -- however, the Bible is not an ironclad reference on this matter due to the reasons listed above. The Bible may very well be considered the very Word of God by any particular tradition, but to over-interpret it to the point of adding to what the Bible actually says is both dishonest and possibly blasphemous.
This is part of a long line of interpreting the Bible -- and particularly 1 Corinthians 6 -- in any way one sees fit to attack any given moral problem of their day. This is just downright dishonest, and although I can respect what their tradition asks of its members, I cannot in good conscience see this as any kind of a good justification for public policy decisions. We must stand up and acknowledge that members of our society have rights to participate in a communally-recognize institution which has been dominated by Judeo-Christian interpretations for the better part of two thousand years.
Just be honest about it. You may disagree with it, but don't lie about what the Bible says, because it might not say what you think it is. I hope and pray that we all take the study of our own and others' religions, worldviews, and philosophies with a grain of humility and deference, and that we acknowledge that from time to time we are, in fact, incorrect, and that the more bits of truth and reconciliation we gain, the greater this world will be.
To quote this article, copy and paste this code:
[quote="Boxy"][b][u][size=18]Homosexuality Is Not Prohibited by the Christian Bible[/size][/u][/b]
This is a thesis I have to thank my old debating buddy, Ananel. To him I dedicate this infodump in memory of his former thesis, as well as to commemorate his service to M&R and the religious studies community at large. To him I say [i]vale[/i] and wish him the best in whatever travails may befall him in his journeys through life, the universe, and everything. I hope that this thesis, though paltry it may be, meets his approval and the approval of the peer review process here in M&R.
I had stood firmly on the side [i]against[/i] this very argument, but I came to the realization that the Bible just doesn't say anything about a practice that either (A) didn't exist back then, or (B) didn't attract Paul's criticism. People sometimes force interpretations on the Bible when it was never meant to mean that in the first place. To do so is dishonest at best and even blasphemous at worst. As the Bible admonishes, it's wrong to add to scripture.
Thus, the only conclusion that I have is that prohibitions against homosexuality depend on the tradition you partake in. As a Mormon, I recognize that my tradition doesn't view homosexuality very positively and asks people who attracted to the same gender to remain celibate and/or marry the opposite gender regardless. In the future, the Church may change its stance, but meh. It is my opinion that there are far worse problems in our society than who is sleeping with whom, so therefore I will focus my efforts on clarifying truth, giving meaningful service, and calling out people who are being dishonest and disseminating clearly incorrect information.
It is important to understand the basis of this argument, because people can and do make public policy decisions based off what they perceive as theological truth that is unforgiving. And, quite frankly, that is a position that is just not true. Personally, as a Mormon, I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms, unless I happen to be a legal and ecclesiastical representative of the Church, which I'm not right now. And even if I did, the only purview I could have would be over people in my own faith and in my own congregation. Until that time, I will show an increase in love towards my friends who happen to have fallen in love (and truly love it is) and formed a strong bond that serves as the bedrock for a family.
[b][size=15]Leviticus 18:22, 20:13[/size][/b]
These can arguably refer to temple prostitution or other pagan fertility rituals, as a good deal of the Torah tends to. Doing so makes you unfit for Hebrew rituals. That is what is meant by "ritual uncleanness," which a Christian shouldn't care about.
Though the scripture does not reference a particular ritual it is forbidding, the culture context is more important to consider. Canaanite fertility cults abounded around the Hebrews, and such practices as boiling a goat in its mother's milk were primarily a response to Canaanite practices. I mean, come on -- some of these mitzvot just don't make sense all by themselves. However, it does make sense in the cultural context the Israelites were surrounded with.
"[color=red]After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. ... (For [b][u]all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled[/u][/b][/color] [i.e. made common][color=red] ) ... Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable [b][u]customs, which were committed before you,[/u][/b] and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.[/color]" (Leviticus 18:3,27,30)
Clearly, these were all practices that the people before had done. As such, to distinguish the practice of worshiping YHWH from that of the Canaanite deities, he gives them prohibitions and actions that would make them "peculiar" (unique).
Chapter 20 of Leviticus also deals with various social and cultural practices which by banning would make the Israelites a completely distinct culture:
"[color=red]And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. ... A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.[/color]" (Leviticus 20:6,27)
Again, this deals with distinguishing the Israelites from the Canaanites, rather than from the fundamental immorality of the thing. Their practices were foreign, and the Israelites had already dilluted their culture by staying in Egypt for too long. Was it possible for Israel to come up with its own culture? Yes, but it had to extinguish the Canaanite practices. This was all about nationalism and the need to establish a new society, [i]not[/i] from the underlying problems with talking with supernatural entities and/or engaging in sexual relations with a person you love and cherish.
In any case, the concepts of ritual cleanliness are abolished completely by the New Testament. "[color=red]And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; [b][u]but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.[/u][/b][/color]" (Acts 10:28 ) Thus, concepts of being unclean by virtue of disobeying specifics in Leviticus should be disregarded, since the concept of "cleanliness" is moot in Christianity.
The only thing that is important in Christianity is to have faith and to love one another. Peter again admonishes the early Church to not require the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law:
"[color=red] [b][u]8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.[/u][/b]
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.[/color]" (Acts 15:8-11)
Faith makes a person pure, and the witness of the Holy Ghost tells a person that their sins are forgiven. It is not a checklist of to-dos and not-to-dos -- which about half of the New Testament goes into agonizing details.
However, there [i]are[/i] some things that [i]are[/i] required of Christians:
"[color=red] 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they [b][u]abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication [temple prostitution], and from things strangled, and from blood.[/u][/b][/color]" (same chapter, vs. 18-20)
All of these elements have some sort of connection to pagan rites, whether through eating something offered to an idol or engaging in the celebration of a deity other than YHWH. As such, these are subject to smititude.
Over and over the writers of the New Testament preach against Christians having to obey the "law of the circumcision," which incorporates all the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, including the prohibitions against wearing garments of more than one material, of having sex with a woman on her period (i.e. in the "time of her uncleanness" ) and having to celebrate the Feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and so forth (which were absolutely required by practicing Jews).
So, in summary: the New Testament is rife with statements that you don't have to obey the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul goes one more and states that any and all commandments have to be relatable somehow to the one commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself (Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:13-14). In order to maintain that God is against homosexuality, you have to prove definitively that it fundamentally goes against the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. Under consensual homosexuality, I find this prospect incredulous at best.
[b][size=15]1 Corinthians 6:9[/size][/b]
There's a number of problems with this scripture in 1 Corinthians. The best way to describe this is to refer back to the original Greek just to show how poorly understood this scripture really is.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [b]nor effeminate[/b] [[i]malakos[/i]], nor [b]abusers of themselves with mankind[/b] [[i]arsenokoitai[/i]] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
[i]Malakos[/i] means "catamite," which is a specific title of the submissive role in pedastery (which is nowadays considered *****). There's a problem of power disparity, as these young boys were often "submitting" to their professional mentors and masters so as to "learn the ways of the trade" of sex. This relationship had nothing at all to do with love (or even lust), and had more to do with learning sexual techniques and/or to gratify one's master.
[i]Arsenokoites[/i] was a word of uncertain meaning, as the author was apparently coining the word as he wrote. It is a splicing-together of two words, [i]arsenos[/i] meaning "man," and [i]koites[/i] meaning "bed." It could mean two men in a bed, it could mean male prostitution (i.e. a woman inviting a man other than her husband into her bed), or it could mean a man alone in a bed engaging in sexual relations with himself. At various times, it has been translated as a temple prostitute, masturbator, those who are "morally soft" (i.e. wishy-washy), and even more curiously as "abuser of themselves with mankind" (which while adding content to the meaning, it does leave it accurately vague).
Here's a good source that goes into some detail:
[quote="ReligiousTolerance.org"][b][u][size=15]I Corinthians 6:9 -- Sins that Paul believes will send you to Hell:[/size][/u][/b]
The author, Paul, listed a group of sinful activities. He believed that practicing any one of them would prevent a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. They would be sent to Hell when they died. This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed.
One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. [b][u]The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity[/u][/b]. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. 1
Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.
Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned about their own salvation and that of their family and friends. It is a pity that one of the behaviors that many Christians feel will cause them to lose their salvation is currently unknown. Many probably fear that they might inadvertently engage in the activity and thus having to spend eternity in Hell.
[url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm[/url][/quote]
[url=http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/cor69.html]This source[/url] also provides a good discussion on differing interpretations of [i]malakos[/i] and [i]arsenokoites[/i]. My point is that the words themselves are vague and open to interpretation, [i]not[/i] "clear" or concise in any way, shape, or form. Pretty par for the course whenever Paul uses words outside of their original context and makes up new words altogether. I mean, he barely knew Greek and most of his grammar is stumbling and imprecise.
Or, to summarize my point: Paul knew exactly what he was talking about, but we don't really have any idea whatsoever. Whatever he meant has been appropriated by just about everyone to mean whatever vague sexual indiscretion they feel like lampooning at the moment -- whether temple prostitution, masturbation, and being wishy-washy -- or as John would say, "lukewarm" (Rev. 3:16). The current vogue is to lombast homosexuality because a number of Christians happen to like boys/girls/both.
If you wish to interpret [i]arsenokoites[/i] as "a man engaging in homosexual relations in a loving, closed relationship," I could interpret it just as easily as "a man who is at any time in a bed doing anything, including sleeping." It just does not fit like some people want to force it to be.
[b][size=15]Romans 1:26-28[/size][/b]
I'm gonna go old school on this one, and quote Karashebi from 2004 (or earlier), who had an excellent response to this particular scripture:
[quote="Karashebi"]Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.
One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.
Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was "on bottom." Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.
Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.
Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.
My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments for and against this
[b][u]My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?[/u][/b][/quote]
[b][size=15]Conclusion[/size][/b]
The only conclusion that can be made is that the Bible does not speak against the practice of consensual homosexuality as we know it today. This is not to say that individual traditions can't make decisions about what their practicants should or shouldn't be doing -- however, the Bible is not an ironclad reference on this matter due to the reasons listed above. The Bible may very well be considered the very Word of God by any particular tradition, but to over-interpret it to the point of adding to what the Bible actually says is both dishonest and possibly blasphemous.
This is part of a long line of interpreting the Bible -- and particularly 1 Corinthians 6 -- in any way one sees fit to attack any given moral problem of their day. This is just downright dishonest, and although I can respect what their tradition asks of its members, I cannot in good conscience see this as any kind of a good justification for public policy decisions. We must stand up and acknowledge that members of our society have rights to participate in a communally-recognize institution which has been dominated by Judeo-Christian interpretations for the better part of two thousand years.
Just be honest about it. You may disagree with it, but don't lie about what the Bible says, because it might not say what you think it is. I hope and pray that we all take the study of our own and others' religions, worldviews, and philosophies with a grain of humility and deference, and that we acknowledge that from time to time we are, in fact, incorrect, and that the more bits of truth and reconciliation we gain, the greater this world will be.[/quote]
This is a thesis I have to thank my old debating buddy, Ananel. To him I dedicate this infodump in memory of his former thesis, as well as to commemorate his service to M&R and the religious studies community at large. To him I say [i]vale[/i] and wish him the best in whatever travails may befall him in his journeys through life, the universe, and everything. I hope that this thesis, though paltry it may be, meets his approval and the approval of the peer review process here in M&R.
I had stood firmly on the side [i]against[/i] this very argument, but I came to the realization that the Bible just doesn't say anything about a practice that either (A) didn't exist back then, or (B) didn't attract Paul's criticism. People sometimes force interpretations on the Bible when it was never meant to mean that in the first place. To do so is dishonest at best and even blasphemous at worst. As the Bible admonishes, it's wrong to add to scripture.
Thus, the only conclusion that I have is that prohibitions against homosexuality depend on the tradition you partake in. As a Mormon, I recognize that my tradition doesn't view homosexuality very positively and asks people who attracted to the same gender to remain celibate and/or marry the opposite gender regardless. In the future, the Church may change its stance, but meh. It is my opinion that there are far worse problems in our society than who is sleeping with whom, so therefore I will focus my efforts on clarifying truth, giving meaningful service, and calling out people who are being dishonest and disseminating clearly incorrect information.
It is important to understand the basis of this argument, because people can and do make public policy decisions based off what they perceive as theological truth that is unforgiving. And, quite frankly, that is a position that is just not true. Personally, as a Mormon, I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms, unless I happen to be a legal and ecclesiastical representative of the Church, which I'm not right now. And even if I did, the only purview I could have would be over people in my own faith and in my own congregation. Until that time, I will show an increase in love towards my friends who happen to have fallen in love (and truly love it is) and formed a strong bond that serves as the bedrock for a family.
[b][size=15]Leviticus 18:22, 20:13[/size][/b]
These can arguably refer to temple prostitution or other pagan fertility rituals, as a good deal of the Torah tends to. Doing so makes you unfit for Hebrew rituals. That is what is meant by "ritual uncleanness," which a Christian shouldn't care about.
Though the scripture does not reference a particular ritual it is forbidding, the culture context is more important to consider. Canaanite fertility cults abounded around the Hebrews, and such practices as boiling a goat in its mother's milk were primarily a response to Canaanite practices. I mean, come on -- some of these mitzvot just don't make sense all by themselves. However, it does make sense in the cultural context the Israelites were surrounded with.
"[color=red]After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. ... (For [b][u]all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled[/u][/b][/color] [i.e. made common][color=red] ) ... Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable [b][u]customs, which were committed before you,[/u][/b] and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.[/color]" (Leviticus 18:3,27,30)
Clearly, these were all practices that the people before had done. As such, to distinguish the practice of worshiping YHWH from that of the Canaanite deities, he gives them prohibitions and actions that would make them "peculiar" (unique).
Chapter 20 of Leviticus also deals with various social and cultural practices which by banning would make the Israelites a completely distinct culture:
"[color=red]And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. ... A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.[/color]" (Leviticus 20:6,27)
Again, this deals with distinguishing the Israelites from the Canaanites, rather than from the fundamental immorality of the thing. Their practices were foreign, and the Israelites had already dilluted their culture by staying in Egypt for too long. Was it possible for Israel to come up with its own culture? Yes, but it had to extinguish the Canaanite practices. This was all about nationalism and the need to establish a new society, [i]not[/i] from the underlying problems with talking with supernatural entities and/or engaging in sexual relations with a person you love and cherish.
In any case, the concepts of ritual cleanliness are abolished completely by the New Testament. "[color=red]And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; [b][u]but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.[/u][/b][/color]" (Acts 10:28 ) Thus, concepts of being unclean by virtue of disobeying specifics in Leviticus should be disregarded, since the concept of "cleanliness" is moot in Christianity.
The only thing that is important in Christianity is to have faith and to love one another. Peter again admonishes the early Church to not require the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law:
"[color=red] [b][u]8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.[/u][/b]
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.[/color]" (Acts 15:8-11)
Faith makes a person pure, and the witness of the Holy Ghost tells a person that their sins are forgiven. It is not a checklist of to-dos and not-to-dos -- which about half of the New Testament goes into agonizing details.
However, there [i]are[/i] some things that [i]are[/i] required of Christians:
"[color=red] 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they [b][u]abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication [temple prostitution], and from things strangled, and from blood.[/u][/b][/color]" (same chapter, vs. 18-20)
All of these elements have some sort of connection to pagan rites, whether through eating something offered to an idol or engaging in the celebration of a deity other than YHWH. As such, these are subject to smititude.
Over and over the writers of the New Testament preach against Christians having to obey the "law of the circumcision," which incorporates all the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, including the prohibitions against wearing garments of more than one material, of having sex with a woman on her period (i.e. in the "time of her uncleanness" ) and having to celebrate the Feasts of Passover, Tabernacles, and so forth (which were absolutely required by practicing Jews).
So, in summary: the New Testament is rife with statements that you don't have to obey the Mosaic Law. In fact, Paul goes one more and states that any and all commandments have to be relatable somehow to the one commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself (Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:13-14). In order to maintain that God is against homosexuality, you have to prove definitively that it fundamentally goes against the notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. Under consensual homosexuality, I find this prospect incredulous at best.
[b][size=15]1 Corinthians 6:9[/size][/b]
There's a number of problems with this scripture in 1 Corinthians. The best way to describe this is to refer back to the original Greek just to show how poorly understood this scripture really is.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [b]nor effeminate[/b] [[i]malakos[/i]], nor [b]abusers of themselves with mankind[/b] [[i]arsenokoitai[/i]] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
[i]Malakos[/i] means "catamite," which is a specific title of the submissive role in pedastery (which is nowadays considered *****). There's a problem of power disparity, as these young boys were often "submitting" to their professional mentors and masters so as to "learn the ways of the trade" of sex. This relationship had nothing at all to do with love (or even lust), and had more to do with learning sexual techniques and/or to gratify one's master.
[i]Arsenokoites[/i] was a word of uncertain meaning, as the author was apparently coining the word as he wrote. It is a splicing-together of two words, [i]arsenos[/i] meaning "man," and [i]koites[/i] meaning "bed." It could mean two men in a bed, it could mean male prostitution (i.e. a woman inviting a man other than her husband into her bed), or it could mean a man alone in a bed engaging in sexual relations with himself. At various times, it has been translated as a temple prostitute, masturbator, those who are "morally soft" (i.e. wishy-washy), and even more curiously as "abuser of themselves with mankind" (which while adding content to the meaning, it does leave it accurately vague).
Here's a good source that goes into some detail:
[quote="ReligiousTolerance.org"][b][u][size=15]I Corinthians 6:9 -- Sins that Paul believes will send you to Hell:[/size][/u][/b]
The author, Paul, listed a group of sinful activities. He believed that practicing any one of them would prevent a person from inheriting the Kingdom of God. They would be sent to Hell when they died. This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed.
One of the condemned behaviors is "malakoi arsenokoitai" in the original Greek. Malakoi means soft. It was translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. [b][u]The actual meaning of arsenokoitai has been lost. Some sources in the early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. exhibiting unethical behavior. That may well be the correct meaning, because presumably people from that era would probably have still known the meaning of the word "arsenokoitai." Others in the early Church thought that it meant "temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was in universal use. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior, whereas many Christians were concentrating on homosexuality as a despised activity[/u][/b]. New Biblical translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967. 1
Each Bible translating team seems to take whatever activity that their group particularly disapproves of and inserts it into this verse. To compound their error, they usually do not have the decency to indicate by a footnote that the actual meaning of the word is unknown, and that they are merely guessing its meaning.
Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned about their own salvation and that of their family and friends. It is a pity that one of the behaviors that many Christians feel will cause them to lose their salvation is currently unknown. Many probably fear that they might inadvertently engage in the activity and thus having to spend eternity in Hell.
[url]http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm[/url][/quote]
[url=http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/cor69.html]This source[/url] also provides a good discussion on differing interpretations of [i]malakos[/i] and [i]arsenokoites[/i]. My point is that the words themselves are vague and open to interpretation, [i]not[/i] "clear" or concise in any way, shape, or form. Pretty par for the course whenever Paul uses words outside of their original context and makes up new words altogether. I mean, he barely knew Greek and most of his grammar is stumbling and imprecise.
Or, to summarize my point: Paul knew exactly what he was talking about, but we don't really have any idea whatsoever. Whatever he meant has been appropriated by just about everyone to mean whatever vague sexual indiscretion they feel like lampooning at the moment -- whether temple prostitution, masturbation, and being wishy-washy -- or as John would say, "lukewarm" (Rev. 3:16). The current vogue is to lombast homosexuality because a number of Christians happen to like boys/girls/both.
If you wish to interpret [i]arsenokoites[/i] as "a man engaging in homosexual relations in a loving, closed relationship," I could interpret it just as easily as "a man who is at any time in a bed doing anything, including sleeping." It just does not fit like some people want to force it to be.
[b][size=15]Romans 1:26-28[/size][/b]
I'm gonna go old school on this one, and quote Karashebi from 2004 (or earlier), who had an excellent response to this particular scripture:
[quote="Karashebi"]Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.
One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.
Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was "on bottom." Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.
Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.
Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.
My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments for and against this
[b][u]My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?[/u][/b][/quote]
[b][size=15]Conclusion[/size][/b]
The only conclusion that can be made is that the Bible does not speak against the practice of consensual homosexuality as we know it today. This is not to say that individual traditions can't make decisions about what their practicants should or shouldn't be doing -- however, the Bible is not an ironclad reference on this matter due to the reasons listed above. The Bible may very well be considered the very Word of God by any particular tradition, but to over-interpret it to the point of adding to what the Bible actually says is both dishonest and possibly blasphemous.
This is part of a long line of interpreting the Bible -- and particularly 1 Corinthians 6 -- in any way one sees fit to attack any given moral problem of their day. This is just downright dishonest, and although I can respect what their tradition asks of its members, I cannot in good conscience see this as any kind of a good justification for public policy decisions. We must stand up and acknowledge that members of our society have rights to participate in a communally-recognize institution which has been dominated by Judeo-Christian interpretations for the better part of two thousand years.
Just be honest about it. You may disagree with it, but don't lie about what the Bible says, because it might not say what you think it is. I hope and pray that we all take the study of our own and others' religions, worldviews, and philosophies with a grain of humility and deference, and that we acknowledge that from time to time we are, in fact, incorrect, and that the more bits of truth and reconciliation we gain, the greater this world will be.[/quote]
