|
A
point of clarity.
If the
sacred scriptures are to be held as an
authoritative text, someone has to be able to
interpret it with absolute authority. Otherwise, we
really are wasting our time debating whose interpretation is
accurate. Yours? Mine? His? Hers? (Did someone mention the sin of pride?).
No one
has that authority except the author,
the Church (by way of her divinely inspired writers).
The sacred scriptures (at least the NT) came from the Church,
not the reverse. The Church was established long before the
Bible was ever compiled as an anthology. In fact, as far as we
know....Jesus never said anything at all about writing matters down,
not the Gospels, not the epistles, nothing. (In fact...theoretically...the
Church could still exist without the Bible, and still have the same authority to
preach the Good News).
In
other words, the Bible emerged from the Church. It was
authored by (or at least through) the inspired members
of the Church. Therefore, only the Church has the
authority (and the Tradition) to interpret
the Bible.
Now...
it's quite possible that this is all bunk. (God help us if it is).
But,
if it is bunk...then once again... we are wasting our time debating
interpretations, for the Bible is, as I think Robert suggested, no more
significant than the writings of Orwell, Percy, or Weil. It's just another
interesting text.
Moreover, if the Church is mistaken and such things, I'm hardly
going to take my cues from anyone else.
In
short, either the RC Church has it right or she's full of crap.
I'm
placing my bets, as did Percy, that she's not full of crap.
Steve
Tim -
Thanks for the reasoned response - quick reply: You say we should
judge for ourselves what is right and wrong. Yes - but to apply to
our own behavior. (And, as a side note, it's a complicated involved and
thoughtful process that isn't simply listening to what someone else says or a
"literal interpretation of the Bible" (since it seems clear we've established
that "literal" meanings vary depending on who's reading them - we here can't
even decide on the meaning of "marriage" or "homophobe" or etc.). )
However, I don't think we do much good for anyone, including ourselves,
by judging others -- if we're busy taking the mote out of another's eye
often we have a log in our own - as someone on the list already said. We
have so many more important things to do for them. (Jesus declared our most
important admonishments are to love God first, and our neighbor and ourselves
next.)
Do you really think the fact that the Pharisees never questioned Jesus
about homosexuality is the reason that he never mentioned it? Are all
the things we have recorded about Jesus in direct response to the Pharisees or
issues of the day?
I was being slightly facetious with the cross-dressing and ham sandwich
thing (as I guess you picked up) - the point was we go around violating
God's law probably multiple times every day and others could just as
easily admonish US for that. Better to pay attention to our own
behavior than try to change others'.... If we judge them, we put
ourselves above them (pride - the greatest sin), and usually we're not
paying attention to what we need to do spiritually ourselves.
Paul's comments were more culturally determined (the "po-mo-phobes" in
the bunch will probably hate that remark) and much of what he said regarding
social groups and social arrangements (women, homosexuality, marriage,
dressing, etc.) can be read as influenced by his
social context.
Do you want to hear MY judgment (since I'm being accused of the "sin" of
postmodernism by withholding it)? OK, let's get technical
here: Dante places the sexual sinners in the first or second
(I forget which one, but it's early) circle of his Inferno. That's
because the sexual sins (adultery, etc.) are a kind of "missing the mark"
of the greatest virtue, love. And that's where our homos would
go IF indeed Paul is right that they are sinning. But those guilty
of the sin of pride are MUCH further down in Dante's scheme. I'm with
Dante on this (who was decidedly un-po-mo).
KP
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches
In addition, the surrounding words of
this name of God have feminine inflection, further emphasizing the feminine
nature of this side of God.
I think it's reasonable to think that
God is a mix of what we would label both male and female traits...and it has
implications in what Genesis says about marriage between man and
woman.
In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not
female is blasphemy because it is limiting God.
Agreed. We
see through a glass darkly...
And I firmly believe not only
should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing (only harm) by
judging.
We are called to love.
We are also
called to discern, test the spirits, test doctrine, hold fast to that which
is good. We can't do that without making moral or epistemic judgments. If
you're saying that not judging means not being able to do this, then I
disagree and think you have problems with both the OT and NT in what it
affirms and commands with regard to conduct.
I think what we're told
not to do is judge the hearts of others...things that only God can
know.
Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality.
Which is not surprising since there wasn't a gay rights movement
in 1st century Palestine. It wasn't an issue, like divorce, around which
there was much theological debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus on the hot
potatoes of the day...homosexuality wasn't one of them because Hebraic
culture and theology condemned it una
Leviticus DOES say a
man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal interpretation
means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic against
cross-dressing???)(!).
The literal interpretation of what
word(s) in Leviticus 18 or 20, exactly? Shakab means to lie with sexually.
Odd that an admonition about cross dressing would be so badly misinterpreted
by Jewish scholars for so many centuries. ;^)
Leviticus
says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman.
However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork -
that is, uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to
describe the act of eating pork.
At the risk of
getting sidetracked into a protracted debate about the Bible and
homosexuality, the revisionist arguments of Boswell and others have been
refuted thoroughly and frequently. Suffice it to say that ham and
cross-dressing comparison isn't valid (there are both ceremonial and ethical
abominations...they are different...one is associated with the Works of the
Law that defined Jewishness [and about which Peter had to be sorted out via
a vision in light of Gentile believers], the other is a fluxless universal
ethical standard), and the Biblical teaching in the subject goes way beyond
the statements in Leviticus. There's Romans 1, and, perhaps more
importantly, there's the description of marriage in Genesis. You can
understand the Biblical position on homosexuality not just based on the
prohibitions, but also the affirmations.
The marriage of man and
woman is a picture of the full nature of God (as referenced above), and it
is the divine plan...according to the Bible, at least. This union is what
the Bible affirms and what both OT and NT morality are designed to protect
and help flourish.
Of course this is not an excuse for real
'homophobia,' whatever that is, or gay bashing, but it does constitute
Biblical grounds for condemning the behavior...or so I believe.
;^)
Tim
--
An archive of all list discussion is available at
http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
Visit the Walker Percy Project
at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
|
