I grew up United Methodist, and was honestly surprised to see that homosexuality is explicitly against dogma when I was sixteen, which partly speaks to me naivete. Regardless, I will always have a...
I grew up United Methodist, and was honestly surprised to see that homosexuality is explicitly against dogma when I was sixteen, which partly speaks to me naivete. Regardless, I will always have a soft spot for the church I grew up in and I hope they make the right decision to support LGBTQ people in their Church going forward.
Homosexuality is explicitly against dogma in all Christian denominations. They all share the same Old Testament, with the same Leviticus chapter, with the same verse saying "You shall not lie with...
was honestly surprised to see that homosexuality is explicitly against dogma
Homosexuality is explicitly against dogma in all Christian denominations. They all share the same Old Testament, with the same Leviticus chapter, with the same verse saying "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Some Christian denominations might try to ignore this verse, or try to explain it away, but it's still there. They can't erase part of the Bible.
Leviticus also forms part of the Jewish Torah, so Jews have the same prescription against homosexuality as Christians.
Yep, absolutely. I was a naive kid...I have learned much since then, haha. Though I think it is possible to have a historical religion and a modern religion that says, "We don't believe that any...
Yep, absolutely. I was a naive kid...I have learned much since then, haha. Though I think it is possible to have a historical religion and a modern religion that says, "We don't believe that any more." Like how Americans reversed prohibition.
Prohibition is only human law, not The Word of God. Humans can write, rewrite, and repeal human laws. Humans can't rewrite The Word of God. People can try to re-interpret the fuck out of God's...
Though I think it is possible to have a historical religion and a modern religion that says, "We don't believe that any more." Like how Americans reversed prohibition.
Prohibition is only human law, not The Word of God. Humans can write, rewrite, and repeal human laws. Humans can't rewrite The Word of God. People can try to re-interpret the fuck out of God's Word to try to make it fit into human morality but, ultimately, they're stuck with the words as originally written.
That's only if you see the Bible as the literal transcription of the exact Word of God. There are faith traditions that believe that while the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written...
That's only if you see the Bible as the literal transcription of the exact Word of God. There are faith traditions that believe that while the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written by people, with all their foibles, including prejudices against homosexuality.
After all, it's also written in Leviticus that you can't eat pork, or wear clothes made of different fibers; when Jesus came on the scene he said the old laws do not apply, which you could say includes the prohibition on homosexuality.
Why would God have allowed His Word to be recorded wrongly? A lot of people say this, but I don't think it's true. In Matthew 5:17:18, Jesus is recorded as saying "Do not think that I came to...
That's only if you see the Bible as the literal transcription of the exact Word of God. There are faith traditions that believe that while the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written by people, with all their foibles, including prejudices against homosexuality.
Why would God have allowed His Word to be recorded wrongly?
when Jesus came on the scene he said the old laws do not apply
A lot of people say this, but I don't think it's true. In Matthew 5:17:18, Jesus is recorded as saying "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." That seems like the opposite of "the old laws do not apply". That seems like "the old laws still apply, and I'm here to tell you the old laws will continue to apply until the end of the world."
To your first point, I think (I really don't know; I'm not a theologian by any means, and to be perfectly honest, this is getting out of my depth) that if you look at the Bible as a history of one...
To your first point, I think (I really don't know; I'm not a theologian by any means, and to be perfectly honest, this is getting out of my depth) that if you look at the Bible as a history of one people's relationship to the Divine, as opposed to the literal transcribed Word of God, then there's not really a "wrong" way to record it. It's a different faith proposition.
Regarding Matthew, I'm not sure of the different ways to interpret that but the fact remains that most Christians don't keep kosher nowadays, which is required under old Hebrew law. So there's an argument that the laws no longer apply. My thing is, if you're going to use the argument that "the old laws still apply, and I'm here to tell you the old laws will continue to apply until the end of the world," then you'd better observe all the old laws, including keeping kosher and whatever else is in there. Which I can still disagree with, but at least then the views are consistent. Anything else feels like a bait-and-switch: "Well, gay people aren't okay because of this law in Leviticus, but this other verse where it says we can't wear wool and cotton at the same time doesn't count because reasons." They're both in the same book.
Some people approach the Bible this way. Other people believe the Bible - or, at least, significant portions of it - are the literal transcribed Word of God. People do argue that. However, people...
if you look at the Bible as a history of one people's relationship to the Divine, as opposed to the literal transcribed Word of God
Some people approach the Bible this way. Other people believe the Bible - or, at least, significant portions of it - are the literal transcribed Word of God.
the fact remains that most Christians don't keep kosher nowadays, which is required under old Hebrew law. So there's an argument that the laws no longer apply.
People do argue that. However, people have a strong tendency to cherry-pick bits from the Bible they agree with and say "these are the important bits that God really wants us to follow", and then dismiss other bits from the Bible they disagree with and say "these are obsolete and don't count any more, or were never really the word of God in the first place". I think the New Scientist article 'Dear God, please confirm what I already believe' is relevant reading here: “Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one’s own beliefs."
I'm saying that both faith positions are valid, and I support the Methodist church moving toward the non-literal one. Right, I think this is annoying. Thus my commentary on consistency: if you're...
Some people approach the Bible this way. Other people believe the Bible - or, at least, significant portions of it - are the literal transcribed Word of God.
I'm saying that both faith positions are valid, and I support the Methodist church moving toward the non-literal one.
However, people have a strong tendency to cherry-pick bits from the Bible they agree with and say "these are the important bits that God really wants us to follow", and then dismiss other bits from the Bible they disagree with and say "these are obsolete and don't count any more, or were never really the word of God in the first place".
Right, I think this is annoying. Thus my commentary on consistency: if you're going to argue that homosexuality is a sin, and cite Leviticus, then you should also keep kosher and obey all the other laws set down in Leviticus. Any thing else is cherry-picking, in my book.
Regardless, I'm not sure if we're debating a point here, or just talking past each other. I personally don't believe in God, especially not the Christian version; I originally commented because I was glad the Methodist church was moving toward what I consider a more egalitarian and human-rights position on a topic I'm personally invested in. I'm not sure what your position is on said topic, or what your views are regarding God or religion or Christianity, but I do want to make sure that I respect your relationship with the unknown, whatever it may be. I think too many times on the Internet we (or maybe just I) can lose sight of what we're really communicating about, and can get hung up on implementation details of various philosophical systems.
I hope this last part makes sense. I'm also enjoying this debate, for what it's worth!
But those so-called "implementation details" matter. Take, for example, what we're talking about here: Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality. Rejection of homosexuality (and the rest of the...
I think too many times on the Internet we (or maybe just I) can lose sight of what we're really communicating about, and can get hung up on implementation details of various philosophical systems.
But those so-called "implementation details" matter. Take, for example, what we're talking about here: Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality. Rejection of homosexuality (and the rest of the LGBT+ spectrum) has caused active harm to people: emotional harm, psychological harm, financial harm, physical harm, and even death. This is no mere implementation detail; it impinges directly on the health and well-being of real people.
Maybe a debate about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin or whether God has free will (if He knows everything, including what He is going to do, can He choose to do something other than what He knows He will do?) is pure mental masturbation with no impact on anyone's daily life, but a debate about whether Christianity accepts, tolerates, or rejects homosexuality has real consequences on real people, and is therefore an important matter to discuss.
Like you, I also like the fact that the Methodists might be moving toward a position of acceptance rather than rejection regarding LGBT people. However, I also feel the need to point out the inconsistency in a religion accepting homosexuals when its own religious text explicitly says homosexual acts are an abomination. I believe this is extremely important to point out and discuss, because it demonstrates that religion is man-made rather than god-given.
(And if that doesn't give you a strong enough indication about my views on religion, I'll make it explicit: I am a secular humanist, and I have never believed in any deities or religions.)
Oh okay, I got you now! I think you're saying that, while this development is great, it's built on a shaky foundation, and is ultimately subject to the whims of the people in the religion (which...
Oh okay, I got you now! I think you're saying that, while this development is great, it's built on a shaky foundation, and is ultimately subject to the whims of the people in the religion (which would be true anyway, since as you said, it's built, but is especially so because the book that Methodists, and really all Christians, are going off of specifically calls out homosexuality in particular), right?
You're absolutely right about the implementation detail bit, as well. What major religious groups' dogmas on certain groups of people are is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. I think I was getting lost in the argument and lost the plot, ultimately. Thanks for sticking with me while I got there.
As an aside, I'm curious as to how you saw me in the exchange we've had, since I felt it necessary to explain where I was coming from. I also wasn't sure where you were coming from, and I wonder how much that matters in discourse. I guess since getting on Tildes I've been thinking more about the nature of discourse online and how it works.
Exactly. Although, my point also extends a little further than just this particular issue of accepting homosexuality, and goes to the core of religion itself: if this one issue is being decided by...
while this development is great, it's built on a shaky foundation, and is ultimately subject to the whims of the people in the religion
Exactly.
Although, my point also extends a little further than just this particular issue of accepting homosexuality, and goes to the core of religion itself: if this one issue is being decided by humans, and not God, then we can extrapolate from this decision to the conclusion that all religion is created by people, rather than being handed down from a supreme being.
As an aside, I'm curious as to how you saw me in the exchange we've had
I didn't see you, I saw your comments. I looked at what you wrote, not at you as a person. I'm discussing what you say, not who you are - if that makes sense.
Re religion: yes, absolutely! I forget sometimes, because it's easy to do the whole "everyone's on their own journey in the way they relate to the universe and that part of it that is ineffable,"...
Re religion: yes, absolutely! I forget sometimes, because it's easy to do the whole "everyone's on their own journey in the way they relate to the universe and that part of it that is ineffable," that people don't realize that beliefs are built things that have real, lasting consequences on people's lives. And that I need to make sure and speak out when people use those beliefs to trample others. If that makes sense.
Re my comments: it does make sense, and it's interesting because I think I tend to always think, Where does the comment come from? Who's the person that made it? So that's my frame for seeing comment threads, and that's why I asked. You make a good point though about replying to the words.
Jesus is the Word of God, not the bible. I know that religious conservatives have been very successful at convincing people that fundamentalism is the only "true religion," but that's just not...
Jesus is the Word of God, not the bible. I know that religious conservatives have been very successful at convincing people that fundamentalism is the only "true religion," but that's just not true. Interpretation of scripture in the light of tradition, faith, and reason is a much more common way of reading the bible, historically. The idea that "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" is actually a modern reaction to enlightenment critiques of Christianity.
Even within the new testament there's precedent for questioning the absolute authority of scripture. When Jesus is challenged for allowing his followers to pick food on the sabbath he responds "The sabbath is made for mankind, not mankind for the sabbath." St. Paul creates even more space for interpretation and discretion, writing that the old law is a tutor that we are no longer bound to obey; instead, we are bound by the law of love. Our responsibility is to serve one another in love, not to follow a list of rules. And our primary way of knowing how to serve in love is by following the true Word of God, Jesus Christ.
And where does one read the Word of God, if not in the Bible? Those gospels are pretty much the only place that Jesus' statements are recorded. And some of the statements reportedly uttered by...
Jesus is the Word of God, not the bible.
And where does one read the Word of God, if not in the Bible? Those gospels are pretty much the only place that Jesus' statements are recorded. And some of the statements reportedly uttered by Jesus confirm the old laws recorded in the Old Testament - so, by His own words, we know that the older words still apply.
Interpretation of scripture in the light of tradition, faith, and reason is a much more common way of reading the bible, historically.
I know. But, how far can one go in interpreting the text of the Bible before it stops being the Word of God and starts being the words of humans? At one end of the spectrum, there's full fundamentalist acceptance of every word in the Bible as literally true. At the other end of the spectrum, there's total reinterpretation of every word in the Bible as being only a metaphor with no literal truth. Where in that spectrum do you draw the line, and how?
If Jesus's words are recorded in the bible that doesn't mean that Jesus and the bible are equivalent any more than Ben Franklin is equivalent to the Old Farmer's Almanac. As I said, Jesus is the...
If Jesus's words are recorded in the bible that doesn't mean that Jesus and the bible are equivalent any more than Ben Franklin is equivalent to the Old Farmer's Almanac. As I said, Jesus is the true Word, and we know him not only through scripture, but also through prayer, worship, and celebration of communion. We interpret the bible with our own reason, traditions, and experiences to guide us. Like anyone else, we do our best to find the truth while realizing that we can never be totally certain that we have it right.
So, it's all subjective. It's up to each individual Christian to feel Jesus, and decide for themselves what they think He says to them. The Bible is just a starting point, and not even a fixed...
So, it's all subjective. It's up to each individual Christian to feel Jesus, and decide for themselves what they think He says to them. The Bible is just a starting point, and not even a fixed starting point.
Did you see this article I linked elsewhere? 'Dear God, please confirm what I already believe' What you're effectively saying is that each person creates their own version of Christianity to align with their own existing beliefs.
There's a lot of space in between "absolute biblical authority" and "do what feels right." One of the reasons we go to church is to be challenged by scripture and by the Church (the institution...
There's a lot of space in between "absolute biblical authority" and "do what feels right." One of the reasons we go to church is to be challenged by scripture and by the Church (the institution and the people who compose it). I guess you could say that each Christian "creates their own version of Christianity" in the same way that each person constructs their own understanding of reality, but in both cases personal understandings are shaped by objective sources. If a Christian totally disregards scripture and doesn't go to church (things that I wouldn't recommend) then their beliefs will be more or less entirely their own, just as someone who never reads the news will end up with some idiosyncratic ideas about world affairs.
There's enough space for hundreds of Christian denominations (some say as many as 43,000!). That's a lot of scope for subjective interpretation! What if a Christian goes to a church which says...
There's a lot of space in between "absolute biblical authority" and "do what feels right."
personal understandings are shaped by objective sources. If a Christian totally disregards scripture and doesn't go to church
What if a Christian goes to a church which says that they're disregarding a particular passage in the Bible, such as Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." This is the situation being discussed in this article: a church which is deciding whether or not to disregard this stricture against homosexuality. Is that Christian's version of Christianity still shaped by objective sources? They're following a church's teachings - even though that church is teaching them to ignore a section of the Bible, while other churches teach their congregation to embrace that section. How do Christians reconcile these contradictory positions? How far can you go in ignoring sections of the Bible before you end up with your own beliefs rather than Christian beliefs?
Sure it is. The teaching of the church is also an objective source, just not a biblical source. We often don't reconcile them. That's why there are so many denominations. I believe that the Nicene...
This is the situation being discussed in this article: a church which is deciding whether or not to disregard this stricture against homosexuality. Is that Christian's version of Christianity still shaped by objective sources?
Sure it is. The teaching of the church is also an objective source, just not a biblical source.
How do Christians reconcile these contradictory positions?
We often don't reconcile them. That's why there are so many denominations.
How far can you go in ignoring sections of the Bible before you end up with your own beliefs rather than Christian beliefs?
I believe that the Nicene Creed lays out the limits of interpretation pretty well. It mostly has to do with what we believe about God and Jesus.
How objective is "the church" when different churches teach different things? Within Christianity, the teachings on homosexuality range from total hatred by the Westboro Church and rejection by...
The teaching of the church is also an objective source
How objective is "the church" when different churches teach different things? Within Christianity, the teachings on homosexuality range from total hatred by the Westboro Church and rejection by the Catholic Church, through ambivalence from the Anglican Church and Methodist Church, to full acceptance by the Uniting Church of Australia and other LGBT-affirming denominations.
I'm struggling to see the objectivity when, within Christianity, there are so many different and contradictory views on this one topic alone.
By objective I only mean that it's a source of authority outside of the individual Christian. There is, of course, a wide range of teachings among denominations, each arrived at through that...
By objective I only mean that it's a source of authority outside of the individual Christian. There is, of course, a wide range of teachings among denominations, each arrived at through that body's interpretation of scripture and tradition.
I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. If your point is just that there's a huge array of beliefs that can all be called Christian, I readily agree. But I think you started by saying that there's only one opinion (on this subject) that can be called Christian. I only mean to point out that for many Christians, snippets of scripture are not the final word on the topic.
Let me put it very very bluntly: they're making it up as they go along. There is a single, crystal clear, line in the Bible that is shared by all Christians which says that sex between men is an...
I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore.
Let me put it very very bluntly: they're making it up as they go along.
There is a single, crystal clear, line in the Bible that is shared by all Christians which says that sex between men is an abomination. However, various theologians and churches have decided to either interpret that line to mean something different or to outright ignore it. Humans' choices are overriding the Word of God. Christianity is therefore not some God-given doctrine, but is the product of human thought.
I guess you're unable or unwilling to look at this in a nuanced way. In fact, I don't believe you've read most of what I've written, so I'll just leave you with this: you don't understand...
I guess you're unable or unwilling to look at this in a nuanced way. In fact, I don't believe you've read most of what I've written, so I'll just leave you with this: you don't understand Christianity as well as you think you do. Maybe you should spend some time trying to understand what actual Christians believe. You might find out that we're not all as foolish as you assume.
I have never said nor implied all Christians are foolish. Some of them - especially the theologians - have to be very smart to come up with the level of double-think that can reconcile "You shall...
I have never said nor implied all Christians are foolish. Some of them - especially the theologians - have to be very smart to come up with the level of double-think that can reconcile "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." with "We will conduct same-sex marriages and ordain LGBT ministers." There is some very high-level intelligent logic-chopping going on in that process.
In fact, the whole construction that is Christianity relied on some very smart people to create it.
I never said Christians were foolish. They've created one of the biggest religions in human history.
Knowing what Christians believe is not the same as figuring out where those beliefs came from in the first place. Therein lies our fundamental difference: most Christians believe their doctrine comes from, or is derived from, a deity, and I believe it came from people. The actual beliefs themselves are irrelevant; I'm discussing the source of those beliefs. And this very discussion about a church debating whether to approve same-sex weddings reveals the source of those beliefs: it is the believers themselves who create the beliefs they believe in.
This is absolutely not true and it's ridiculous to paint these denominations as "ignoring" or "explaining away" parts of the bible that they interpret differently. There's a huge range of belief:...
This is absolutely not true and it's ridiculous to paint these denominations as "ignoring" or "explaining away" parts of the bible that they interpret differently.
It is absolutely true that all Christian denominations share the same stricture against homosexuality: it's in the Bible. Maybe I was a bit too extreme when I said all Christian denominations...
It is absolutely true that all Christian denominations share the same stricture against homosexuality: it's in the Bible. Maybe I was a bit too extreme when I said all Christian denominations share the same Bible; I am aware that various denominations include and exclude some books within their versions of the Bible. However, all versions of the Bible include the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus. Leviticus is common to all Christian denominations, and it does include a very clear stricture against men having sex with men.
If there are Christians who are against homosexuality and Christians who are neutral towards homosexuality and Christians who are accepting of homosexuality, that means that they are not consistent with each other. This also means they can't all be following God's teaching. There's no way that rejection and acceptance can come from the same source material. Someone's got it wrong.
If they're all working from the same original text, which supposedly came from God via His chosen representatives, how did they all end up with such varying beliefs? That's not God's doing! God wrote (or caused to be written) one single, unambiguous sentence about this. Everything that came after that comes from people interpreting that sentence: either they create an explanation which leads to them believing it has a different meaning, or they simply choose to ignore it as no longer relevant. But, that's humans' work, not God's work.
Even the strictest, most conservative readings are still matters of interpretation, as any reading is. Even if you simplify it to one translation in one language that everyone agrees upon as the...
Even the strictest, most conservative readings are still matters of interpretation, as any reading is. Even if you simplify it to one translation in one language that everyone agrees upon as the true word, making meaning from that is always going to be in the hands of people.
You can't start from the assumption that the most common reading is God's message and the rest are just interpretation when they both equally come from a human trying to figure out what those words on paper mean.
You're kind of making my point for me. (Is that your intention?) If every version of the Bible is an interpretation, then there is no definitive Word of God.
You're kind of making my point for me. (Is that your intention?) If every version of the Bible is an interpretation, then there is no definitive Word of God.
Is that the point you're making? Your original comment, with the idea that all denominations have the same Bible so they equally have homophobic scripture sort of relies on...the scripture being...
Is that the point you're making? Your original comment, with the idea that all denominations have the same Bible so they equally have homophobic scripture sort of relies on...the scripture being homophobic. And that meaning comes from how we read it.
It's a multi-layered point: All Christian denominations share the same scripture, which includes a stricture against homosexuality. Some Christian denominations accept homosexuality. Therefore,...
It's a multi-layered point:
All Christian denominations share the same scripture, which includes a stricture against homosexuality.
Some Christian denominations accept homosexuality.
Therefore, scripture is not the sole determiner of Christian doctrine: at least some doctrine comes from people, rather than from God.
When you come in saying that all readings of the Christian scripture are interpretations, you're supporting that third point that I'm making: religion comes from people, not from God.
You're starting with the assumption that that scripture is against homosexuality, that's the problem with your point. Reading that and thinking "this means homosexuality is bad" is human...
You're starting with the assumption that that scripture is against homosexuality, that's the problem with your point. Reading that and thinking "this means homosexuality is bad" is human interpretation. The denominations that don't accept homosexuality are doing just as much interpretation of the text as the ones who do.
Do I think religion comes from people? Sure, I'm not religious. But if there were a "true meaning" to the Bible, the fact that we disagree on what it is and have different readings of it doesn't contradict that. It just means it's a hard text to pin down, which I think many Christians would see as the beauty of it.
So... "That is abomination." is not a bad thing? I've been misunderstanding "abomination" all this time, when it's really a good thing? And all those people who translated the original Hebrew...
Reading that and thinking "this means homosexuality is bad" is human interpretation.
So... "That is abomination." is not a bad thing? I've been misunderstanding "abomination" all this time, when it's really a good thing? And all those people who translated the original Hebrew "הִוא" into Greek and Latin and English as "abomination" also got it wrong? "הִוא" actually means "wonderful"?
That's just ridiculous. The text is crystal clear. People can try to reimagine it to suit their own purposes, but that's like reading "cats are good" and deciding it means "dogs are bad" - it just isn't supported by the text.
What matters in this case is that it's interpretation, not the quality of the interpretation. God is not directly transmitting his word into our brains, he gave us a book to do that instead....
What matters in this case is that it's interpretation, not the quality of the interpretation. God is not directly transmitting his word into our brains, he gave us a book to do that instead. Everyone is making their own meaning out of the text, calling that twisting is just a matter of framing. No reading happens without human minds (and other things like language and time) coming between the message and the one receiving it.
There are arguments from scripture to be made which support homosexuality. In these cases, your example might be like "cats are good" being presented sarcastically, or only within a certain context, but you insist that because the words "cats are good" are written on the page, it can only mean cats are good in all cases regardless of context and anyone else is just twisting the text.
not surprising, but also not likely to be popular with many congregations. anecdotally, i live in a very evangelical county and a lot of the UMs around here are considering leaving the church.
not surprising, but also not likely to be popular with many congregations. anecdotally, i live in a very evangelical county and a lot of the UMs around here are considering leaving the church.
Well that's disappointing. Or even more than disappointing, I don't know how to express it. It's a weird feeling because I grew up United Methodist, so even though I haven't been a member for a...
Well that's disappointing. Or even more than disappointing, I don't know how to express it. It's a weird feeling because I grew up United Methodist, so even though I haven't been a member for a very long time this feels like a personal thing, to me. Also my family has been UM for generations and my parents are still UM, if lapsed. I might write the clergy or something.
I grew up United Methodist, and was honestly surprised to see that homosexuality is explicitly against dogma when I was sixteen, which partly speaks to me naivete. Regardless, I will always have a soft spot for the church I grew up in and I hope they make the right decision to support LGBTQ people in their Church going forward.
Homosexuality is explicitly against dogma in all Christian denominations. They all share the same Old Testament, with the same Leviticus chapter, with the same verse saying "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Some Christian denominations might try to ignore this verse, or try to explain it away, but it's still there. They can't erase part of the Bible.
Leviticus also forms part of the Jewish Torah, so Jews have the same prescription against homosexuality as Christians.
Yep, absolutely. I was a naive kid...I have learned much since then, haha. Though I think it is possible to have a historical religion and a modern religion that says, "We don't believe that any more." Like how Americans reversed prohibition.
Prohibition is only human law, not The Word of God. Humans can write, rewrite, and repeal human laws. Humans can't rewrite The Word of God. People can try to re-interpret the fuck out of God's Word to try to make it fit into human morality but, ultimately, they're stuck with the words as originally written.
That's only if you see the Bible as the literal transcription of the exact Word of God. There are faith traditions that believe that while the Bible may have been inspired by God, it was written by people, with all their foibles, including prejudices against homosexuality.
After all, it's also written in Leviticus that you can't eat pork, or wear clothes made of different fibers; when Jesus came on the scene he said the old laws do not apply, which you could say includes the prohibition on homosexuality.
Why would God have allowed His Word to be recorded wrongly?
A lot of people say this, but I don't think it's true. In Matthew 5:17:18, Jesus is recorded as saying "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." That seems like the opposite of "the old laws do not apply". That seems like "the old laws still apply, and I'm here to tell you the old laws will continue to apply until the end of the world."
To your first point, I think (I really don't know; I'm not a theologian by any means, and to be perfectly honest, this is getting out of my depth) that if you look at the Bible as a history of one people's relationship to the Divine, as opposed to the literal transcribed Word of God, then there's not really a "wrong" way to record it. It's a different faith proposition.
Regarding Matthew, I'm not sure of the different ways to interpret that but the fact remains that most Christians don't keep kosher nowadays, which is required under old Hebrew law. So there's an argument that the laws no longer apply. My thing is, if you're going to use the argument that "the old laws still apply, and I'm here to tell you the old laws will continue to apply until the end of the world," then you'd better observe all the old laws, including keeping kosher and whatever else is in there. Which I can still disagree with, but at least then the views are consistent. Anything else feels like a bait-and-switch: "Well, gay people aren't okay because of this law in Leviticus, but this other verse where it says we can't wear wool and cotton at the same time doesn't count because reasons." They're both in the same book.
Some people approach the Bible this way. Other people believe the Bible - or, at least, significant portions of it - are the literal transcribed Word of God.
People do argue that. However, people have a strong tendency to cherry-pick bits from the Bible they agree with and say "these are the important bits that God really wants us to follow", and then dismiss other bits from the Bible they disagree with and say "these are obsolete and don't count any more, or were never really the word of God in the first place". I think the New Scientist article 'Dear God, please confirm what I already believe' is relevant reading here: “Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one’s own beliefs."
I'm saying that both faith positions are valid, and I support the Methodist church moving toward the non-literal one.
Right, I think this is annoying. Thus my commentary on consistency: if you're going to argue that homosexuality is a sin, and cite Leviticus, then you should also keep kosher and obey all the other laws set down in Leviticus. Any thing else is cherry-picking, in my book.
Regardless, I'm not sure if we're debating a point here, or just talking past each other. I personally don't believe in God, especially not the Christian version; I originally commented because I was glad the Methodist church was moving toward what I consider a more egalitarian and human-rights position on a topic I'm personally invested in. I'm not sure what your position is on said topic, or what your views are regarding God or religion or Christianity, but I do want to make sure that I respect your relationship with the unknown, whatever it may be. I think too many times on the Internet we (or maybe just I) can lose sight of what we're really communicating about, and can get hung up on implementation details of various philosophical systems.
I hope this last part makes sense. I'm also enjoying this debate, for what it's worth!
But those so-called "implementation details" matter. Take, for example, what we're talking about here: Christian doctrine regarding homosexuality. Rejection of homosexuality (and the rest of the LGBT+ spectrum) has caused active harm to people: emotional harm, psychological harm, financial harm, physical harm, and even death. This is no mere implementation detail; it impinges directly on the health and well-being of real people.
Maybe a debate about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin or whether God has free will (if He knows everything, including what He is going to do, can He choose to do something other than what He knows He will do?) is pure mental masturbation with no impact on anyone's daily life, but a debate about whether Christianity accepts, tolerates, or rejects homosexuality has real consequences on real people, and is therefore an important matter to discuss.
Like you, I also like the fact that the Methodists might be moving toward a position of acceptance rather than rejection regarding LGBT people. However, I also feel the need to point out the inconsistency in a religion accepting homosexuals when its own religious text explicitly says homosexual acts are an abomination. I believe this is extremely important to point out and discuss, because it demonstrates that religion is man-made rather than god-given.
(And if that doesn't give you a strong enough indication about my views on religion, I'll make it explicit: I am a secular humanist, and I have never believed in any deities or religions.)
Oh okay, I got you now! I think you're saying that, while this development is great, it's built on a shaky foundation, and is ultimately subject to the whims of the people in the religion (which would be true anyway, since as you said, it's built, but is especially so because the book that Methodists, and really all Christians, are going off of specifically calls out homosexuality in particular), right?
You're absolutely right about the implementation detail bit, as well. What major religious groups' dogmas on certain groups of people are is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. I think I was getting lost in the argument and lost the plot, ultimately. Thanks for sticking with me while I got there.
As an aside, I'm curious as to how you saw me in the exchange we've had, since I felt it necessary to explain where I was coming from. I also wasn't sure where you were coming from, and I wonder how much that matters in discourse. I guess since getting on Tildes I've been thinking more about the nature of discourse online and how it works.
Exactly.
Although, my point also extends a little further than just this particular issue of accepting homosexuality, and goes to the core of religion itself: if this one issue is being decided by humans, and not God, then we can extrapolate from this decision to the conclusion that all religion is created by people, rather than being handed down from a supreme being.
I didn't see you, I saw your comments. I looked at what you wrote, not at you as a person. I'm discussing what you say, not who you are - if that makes sense.
Re religion: yes, absolutely! I forget sometimes, because it's easy to do the whole "everyone's on their own journey in the way they relate to the universe and that part of it that is ineffable," that people don't realize that beliefs are built things that have real, lasting consequences on people's lives. And that I need to make sure and speak out when people use those beliefs to trample others. If that makes sense.
Re my comments: it does make sense, and it's interesting because I think I tend to always think, Where does the comment come from? Who's the person that made it? So that's my frame for seeing comment threads, and that's why I asked. You make a good point though about replying to the words.
Jesus is the Word of God, not the bible. I know that religious conservatives have been very successful at convincing people that fundamentalism is the only "true religion," but that's just not true. Interpretation of scripture in the light of tradition, faith, and reason is a much more common way of reading the bible, historically. The idea that "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" is actually a modern reaction to enlightenment critiques of Christianity.
Even within the new testament there's precedent for questioning the absolute authority of scripture. When Jesus is challenged for allowing his followers to pick food on the sabbath he responds "The sabbath is made for mankind, not mankind for the sabbath." St. Paul creates even more space for interpretation and discretion, writing that the old law is a tutor that we are no longer bound to obey; instead, we are bound by the law of love. Our responsibility is to serve one another in love, not to follow a list of rules. And our primary way of knowing how to serve in love is by following the true Word of God, Jesus Christ.
And where does one read the Word of God, if not in the Bible? Those gospels are pretty much the only place that Jesus' statements are recorded. And some of the statements reportedly uttered by Jesus confirm the old laws recorded in the Old Testament - so, by His own words, we know that the older words still apply.
I know. But, how far can one go in interpreting the text of the Bible before it stops being the Word of God and starts being the words of humans? At one end of the spectrum, there's full fundamentalist acceptance of every word in the Bible as literally true. At the other end of the spectrum, there's total reinterpretation of every word in the Bible as being only a metaphor with no literal truth. Where in that spectrum do you draw the line, and how?
If Jesus's words are recorded in the bible that doesn't mean that Jesus and the bible are equivalent any more than Ben Franklin is equivalent to the Old Farmer's Almanac. As I said, Jesus is the true Word, and we know him not only through scripture, but also through prayer, worship, and celebration of communion. We interpret the bible with our own reason, traditions, and experiences to guide us. Like anyone else, we do our best to find the truth while realizing that we can never be totally certain that we have it right.
So, it's all subjective. It's up to each individual Christian to feel Jesus, and decide for themselves what they think He says to them. The Bible is just a starting point, and not even a fixed starting point.
Did you see this article I linked elsewhere? 'Dear God, please confirm what I already believe' What you're effectively saying is that each person creates their own version of Christianity to align with their own existing beliefs.
There's a lot of space in between "absolute biblical authority" and "do what feels right." One of the reasons we go to church is to be challenged by scripture and by the Church (the institution and the people who compose it). I guess you could say that each Christian "creates their own version of Christianity" in the same way that each person constructs their own understanding of reality, but in both cases personal understandings are shaped by objective sources. If a Christian totally disregards scripture and doesn't go to church (things that I wouldn't recommend) then their beliefs will be more or less entirely their own, just as someone who never reads the news will end up with some idiosyncratic ideas about world affairs.
There's enough space for hundreds of Christian denominations (some say as many as 43,000!). That's a lot of scope for subjective interpretation!
What if a Christian goes to a church which says that they're disregarding a particular passage in the Bible, such as Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." This is the situation being discussed in this article: a church which is deciding whether or not to disregard this stricture against homosexuality. Is that Christian's version of Christianity still shaped by objective sources? They're following a church's teachings - even though that church is teaching them to ignore a section of the Bible, while other churches teach their congregation to embrace that section. How do Christians reconcile these contradictory positions? How far can you go in ignoring sections of the Bible before you end up with your own beliefs rather than Christian beliefs?
Sure it is. The teaching of the church is also an objective source, just not a biblical source.
We often don't reconcile them. That's why there are so many denominations.
I believe that the Nicene Creed lays out the limits of interpretation pretty well. It mostly has to do with what we believe about God and Jesus.
How objective is "the church" when different churches teach different things? Within Christianity, the teachings on homosexuality range from total hatred by the Westboro Church and rejection by the Catholic Church, through ambivalence from the Anglican Church and Methodist Church, to full acceptance by the Uniting Church of Australia and other LGBT-affirming denominations.
I'm struggling to see the objectivity when, within Christianity, there are so many different and contradictory views on this one topic alone.
By objective I only mean that it's a source of authority outside of the individual Christian. There is, of course, a wide range of teachings among denominations, each arrived at through that body's interpretation of scripture and tradition.
I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. If your point is just that there's a huge array of beliefs that can all be called Christian, I readily agree. But I think you started by saying that there's only one opinion (on this subject) that can be called Christian. I only mean to point out that for many Christians, snippets of scripture are not the final word on the topic.
Let me put it very very bluntly: they're making it up as they go along.
There is a single, crystal clear, line in the Bible that is shared by all Christians which says that sex between men is an abomination. However, various theologians and churches have decided to either interpret that line to mean something different or to outright ignore it. Humans' choices are overriding the Word of God. Christianity is therefore not some God-given doctrine, but is the product of human thought.
Even more bluntly: religion is all made up.
I guess you're unable or unwilling to look at this in a nuanced way. In fact, I don't believe you've read most of what I've written, so I'll just leave you with this: you don't understand Christianity as well as you think you do. Maybe you should spend some time trying to understand what actual Christians believe. You might find out that we're not all as foolish as you assume.
I have never said nor implied all Christians are foolish. Some of them - especially the theologians - have to be very smart to come up with the level of double-think that can reconcile "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." with "We will conduct same-sex marriages and ordain LGBT ministers." There is some very high-level intelligent logic-chopping going on in that process.
In fact, the whole construction that is Christianity relied on some very smart people to create it.
I never said Christians were foolish. They've created one of the biggest religions in human history.
Knowing what Christians believe is not the same as figuring out where those beliefs came from in the first place. Therein lies our fundamental difference: most Christians believe their doctrine comes from, or is derived from, a deity, and I believe it came from people. The actual beliefs themselves are irrelevant; I'm discussing the source of those beliefs. And this very discussion about a church debating whether to approve same-sex weddings reveals the source of those beliefs: it is the believers themselves who create the beliefs they believe in.
This is absolutely not true and it's ridiculous to paint these denominations as "ignoring" or "explaining away" parts of the bible that they interpret differently.
There's a huge range of belief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality
It is absolutely true that all Christian denominations share the same stricture against homosexuality: it's in the Bible. Maybe I was a bit too extreme when I said all Christian denominations share the same Bible; I am aware that various denominations include and exclude some books within their versions of the Bible. However, all versions of the Bible include the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus. Leviticus is common to all Christian denominations, and it does include a very clear stricture against men having sex with men.
If there are Christians who are against homosexuality and Christians who are neutral towards homosexuality and Christians who are accepting of homosexuality, that means that they are not consistent with each other. This also means they can't all be following God's teaching. There's no way that rejection and acceptance can come from the same source material. Someone's got it wrong.
If they're all working from the same original text, which supposedly came from God via His chosen representatives, how did they all end up with such varying beliefs? That's not God's doing! God wrote (or caused to be written) one single, unambiguous sentence about this. Everything that came after that comes from people interpreting that sentence: either they create an explanation which leads to them believing it has a different meaning, or they simply choose to ignore it as no longer relevant. But, that's humans' work, not God's work.
Even the strictest, most conservative readings are still matters of interpretation, as any reading is. Even if you simplify it to one translation in one language that everyone agrees upon as the true word, making meaning from that is always going to be in the hands of people.
You can't start from the assumption that the most common reading is God's message and the rest are just interpretation when they both equally come from a human trying to figure out what those words on paper mean.
You're kind of making my point for me. (Is that your intention?) If every version of the Bible is an interpretation, then there is no definitive Word of God.
Is that the point you're making? Your original comment, with the idea that all denominations have the same Bible so they equally have homophobic scripture sort of relies on...the scripture being homophobic. And that meaning comes from how we read it.
It's a multi-layered point:
When you come in saying that all readings of the Christian scripture are interpretations, you're supporting that third point that I'm making: religion comes from people, not from God.
You're starting with the assumption that that scripture is against homosexuality, that's the problem with your point. Reading that and thinking "this means homosexuality is bad" is human interpretation. The denominations that don't accept homosexuality are doing just as much interpretation of the text as the ones who do.
Do I think religion comes from people? Sure, I'm not religious. But if there were a "true meaning" to the Bible, the fact that we disagree on what it is and have different readings of it doesn't contradict that. It just means it's a hard text to pin down, which I think many Christians would see as the beauty of it.
So... "That is abomination." is not a bad thing? I've been misunderstanding "abomination" all this time, when it's really a good thing? And all those people who translated the original Hebrew "הִוא" into Greek and Latin and English as "abomination" also got it wrong? "הִוא" actually means "wonderful"?
That's just ridiculous. The text is crystal clear. People can try to reimagine it to suit their own purposes, but that's like reading "cats are good" and deciding it means "dogs are bad" - it just isn't supported by the text.
What matters in this case is that it's interpretation, not the quality of the interpretation. God is not directly transmitting his word into our brains, he gave us a book to do that instead. Everyone is making their own meaning out of the text, calling that twisting is just a matter of framing. No reading happens without human minds (and other things like language and time) coming between the message and the one receiving it.
There are arguments from scripture to be made which support homosexuality. In these cases, your example might be like "cats are good" being presented sarcastically, or only within a certain context, but you insist that because the words "cats are good" are written on the page, it can only mean cats are good in all cases regardless of context and anyone else is just twisting the text.
not surprising, but also not likely to be popular with many congregations. anecdotally, i live in a very evangelical county and a lot of the UMs around here are considering leaving the church.
Well that's disappointing. Or even more than disappointing, I don't know how to express it. It's a weird feeling because I grew up United Methodist, so even though I haven't been a member for a very long time this feels like a personal thing, to me. Also my family has been UM for generations and my parents are still UM, if lapsed. I might write the clergy or something.