Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Food for thought!

I'm currently on a virtual date with Lo. Which is pretty funny. We both went to a coffee shop and are discussing that "Borg" book I posted about yesterday and this article my friend Peter sent me.  Walter Wink on homosexuality and the bible. It's really well done.

Here are some quotes I found particularly thought provoking
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight." He had no concept of homosexual orientation The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant) For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.
A quote to piss off women... 
adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife- And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut- 22:13-21)' but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
Something I sure didn't know. Woh. Better not let people learn this...
The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?

Go read the whole thing. I can't quote everything. It's highly worth the read.

No comments: