|
One might inquire further into the mind-set of these advocates.
In fact not theory, ancient homosexuality had a lot in common with modern
homosexuality: most of the men who practiced this behavior were promiscuous, with multiple
partners. Some unloving and judgmental people think they should not
have done that. The tail wagging the dog, a small subculture wants to
put its stamp on a much larger group. They substitute their own subjective desiderata for what all
available surveys show is the reality, both then and now. This is gay 'liberation'? Some
people think they were placed upon this earth to herd sheep! Now they
must submit to being told how to behave, not by the church, not by
society, but by a tiny subset of their own community? Who are
these advocates for the seldom-seen age-equal, monogamous life-long
homosexual relationship to judge their contemporary brethren, who
greatly outnumber them, who do not share their likes and dislikes?
These advocates are replacing an 'is' with an 'ought;' since the
Bible is quite realistic, it doesn't say much about all those
monogamous, committed homosexual relationships out there; if it were
more realistic, it would say even less.
"The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all
sins." (Kurt Eichenwald, The
Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin, December 23, 2014 Newsweek
magazine). True, murder's worse. He intones, "No, every sin is equal in
its significance to God." (Kurt Eichenwald, The
Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin, December 23, 2014 Newsweek
magazine). The things you learn reading Newsweek Magazine! You sure
about that? While Augustine loved the stealing more than he loved the
pears, stealing pears is after all fairly small time. Gay marriage has become an issue of public controversy, not because the
Bible teaches that homosexuality is worse than adultery or other
moral evils, but because there is no party or faction demanding
social assent to the proposition that adultery is morally good.
Our author dislikes politicians like Rick Perry, but instead of
making a case to their constituency that their candidate's views on many points are
out of alignment with theirs, he believes launching an
ignorant diatribe against Christianity will do the trick. Gay
marriage and abortion on demand have become litmus test issues for
the Democratic party, with the predictable result that a huge chunk
of the electorate is simply lost to this party. These are not issues
where, the more you know about the Bible, the more likely you are to
agree with Mr. Eichenwald, but rather the contrary. The idea that,
if Christianity is the problem, simply dismantling it is the
solution, is bold but rather naive and over-ambitious. It didn't
work for Nero, a participant in a gay marriage, and won't work any
better this time. One must wonder if it really was a smart move to tie
the fortunes of liberalism to these two divisive issues, which cut
right across the normal social and political boundaries, because the
Republican goals of lower taxes for the wealthy, reckless
deregulation, and foreign adventures might turn out to be unpopular
after all were their lack of attraction not masked by these two
litmus test issues.
Letters of Paul
Our author gets down to cases and explains that Paul did not
write those of his letters which mention ascetic practices (of which
he disapproves):
"The next thing to check is whether 1 Timothy was
based on a forgery. And the answer to that is a resounding yes.
In 1807, a German scholar named Friedrich Schleiermacher
published a letter observing that 1 Timothy used arguments that
clashed with other letters written by Paul. Moreover, 1 Timothy
attacks false teachings, but they are not the types of teachings
prevalent when Paul was writing — instead, they are more akin
to the beliefs of the Gnostics, a sect that did not exist until
long after Paul's death." (Kurt Eichenwald, The Bible: So
Misunderstood It's a Sin, December 23, 2014, Newsweek
magazine).
And they really did think like that. Colossians, for example,
they say cannot have been written by Paul for this reason:
"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh."
(Colossians 2:20-23).
James and Paul were contemporaries, and James, a life-long
celibate according to Epiphanius, did indeed neglect the body. And
it is known that missionaries came out from James: "For before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they
were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which
were of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:12). Given that Paul knew
James, it is after all not that likely he had never heard of such
practices, although of course James cannot be accused of the later
horrific heresy, which denies even monotheism.
|
