3
Why It's Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong
(religiondispatches.org)
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
3 points (61.5% liked)
Christianity
246 readers
3 users here now
Discussion about Christianity by Christians and those who are curious.
Rule #1. Anti-Christian and anti-Bible statements will not be tolerated. Constructive criticism of Christianity is OK, however.
Rule #1.1. The measure for what is considered Christian, as has been the case in the faith since the earliest days, will be the faith proclaimed in the Nicene Creed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He never said that Jesus wasn't real?
His argument is not about morals, it's about the Bible. If something is from the 4th century, then it can't be biblical.
Are.you implying that non-whites people are necessarily homophobic? Because it's not the case, just look at Taiwan or Thailand which recently adopted homosexual marriage; and historically, colonial France and Great-Britain introduced anti-homosexuality laws in regions where homosexuality was accepted.
Literally and seriously are absolutely not synonymous.
Inspired doesn't mean that it should be read literally.
To cite the author of the text, “the opposite of not being literal is not that it’s not true. The opposite of literal is to be interpretive”. There are just a handful of not perfectly clear verses about homosexuality (the author of Leviticus or Paul spoke about a reality very different than ours), while there are thousands of absolutely clear verses about solidarity. If you interpret the Bible, you can't treat these two subjects equally.
The author implied strongly that Jesus didn't literally feed the 5000, was born of the Virgin Mary, etc. Doing so would strip Him of His most important aspect- His divinity.
Taiwan and Thailand are the only countries in Asia to allow same-sex marriage. The likes of Mainland China and Japan escaped colonisation. The Middle East adheres to Islam, not Christianity, which has the same moral rule regarding Homosexuality (if not made harsher under Sharia)
The justification of Homosexuality doesn't come from any objective standard of morality- just from culture.
While the verses in the Bible about Homosexuality couldn't be clearer.
Nope.
But not westernization. Japan is a great example: it was a closed country until the Meiji era, in the end of the 19th century. Until then homosexuality was accepted, and it became frowned upon only after western influence grew. It's just racist to think that homophobia is normal outside the west.
Bible stance on homosexuality is nor clear nor central. It's your culture that impose this reading on the Bible. That's not taking the Bible seriously; even the contrary.
Romans 1:27 ESV [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV [8] Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, [9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, [10] the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, [11] in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV [9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Come on, the Bible is quite clear on this.
Your translation is. The Greek isn't.
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:27 TR1624 [27] ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 1:8-11 TR1624 [8] οιδαμεν δε οτι καλος ο νομος εαν τις αυτω νομιμως χρηται [9] ειδως τουτο οτι δικαιω νομος ου κειται ανομοις δε και ανυποτακτοις ασεβεσιν και αμαρτωλοις ανοσιοις και βεβηλοις πατραλωαις και μητραλωαις ανδροφονοις [10] πορνοις αρσενοκοιταις ανδραποδισταις ψευσταις επιορκοις και ει τι ετερον τη υγιαινουση διδασκαλια αντικειται [11] κατα το ευαγγελιον της δοξης του μακαριου θεου ο επιστευθην εγω
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 6:9 TR1624 [9] η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται
Better? Or are you going to tell me that these manuscripts are somehow wrong, too?
None of these words can be translated by “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, if you understand homosexuality as “a loving and stable romantic and sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex” like the marriages blessed by this pastor.
The word αρσενοκοιται
αρσεν Male
κοιται Bed
It literally means "males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)"
As for Romans 1:27
The Greek and the English both make it clear that they "burned in their lust one toward another". Which describes a passionate, consensual relationship.
When talking about marriage, marriage is insituted by God. In fact, it's the first sacrament (if you see it as one) instituted.
Genesis 2:24 ESV [24] Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The marriage is between a man and a woman. It remains that way throughout the whole Bible, that it's between a man and a woman. The only time a sexual union is mentioned between two men or two women, it's condemned. A man and a man cannot get married, neither can two women.
And “butterfly” literally means “winged insect made of butter”.
An ἀρσενοκοίτης is a male who has homosexual relationships, but there's no certainty about which kind. Nothing permits to be sure that Paul thought there about all kinds of homosexual relationships, that's why I said and still say that these texts aren't clear.
We have two clues, however, that suggest this is not the case. The first is Romans 1:27, which does not speak of love but of lust. Nothing to do with today's romantic and sexual homosexuality. The second is Paul's context: in his time, homosexual sexuality existed mainly in the form of pederasty, that is, the rape of young boys by mature men. So when Paul writes about “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)” he has this image first in mind. It would therefore be entirely justified to translate ἀρσενοκοῖται as “pederasts” and not as “homosexuals”.
If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of “taking the Bible seriously.”
Ah yes, I'm sure "males who bed with other males" is referring to a butterfly.
Romans 1:27 speaks of "lust for one another". Mutual lust is an aspect of a sexual relationship. Are you trying to tell me that homosexual men don't lust after each other?
The word ἀρσενοκοίτης can be related to what's written in the Septuagint in Leviticus 18:22
"καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν."
There is absolutely zero mention of children when there could be. That's just a vague theory which isn't as probable as showing what the text actually says and has been interpreted to do so
Where did my "cultural homophobia" originate?
And these "scholarly revelations" about the meaning of these verses in the Bible did not predate the LGB movement. They mysteriously popped up after. Isn't this not injecting cultural values into the text? Why can't we inject cultural Chinese values into the text and claim that the "eye of a needle" is actually a gate or some unfounded rubbish.
In my mother tongue, lust and desire are very different things. It's normal to desire your significant other, not to lust after them. It may not be the case in English, but it was in Greek.
Yes, but that's why I spoke about culture. There were no need to explicitly speak about children, as the involvement of children was the norm. On the contrary if Paul spoke about adult relationship too, it would have been logical for him to say that explicitly, and he didn't.
That's normal, science and culture evolve, and out understanding of the Scriptures have to evolve too. Just like everyone thought that the Bible taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was logical for everyone that, say Isaiah 40:22 was geocentric. And we discovered that Earth was not the center of the universe, and we stopped to take these texts literally. It will be the same with the texts about homosexuality, as our understanding of sexuality changed.