[lit-ideas] Re: Obama, Warren, Faith and Change

Donal: ... the rejectionist view came to prominence along with the doctrine (Pauline, afair) that the sole function of sex is procreation, ergo, since homosexual acts cannot lead to conception (unless a lesbian in the area gets some fertilising spray, but the Bible is poorly thought-out in terms of such specifics) they must be sinful.
The Bible is an anthology and thus cannot have been "thought out" except by the administrators who decided which books to include and which to reject. And the doctrine ... well, what doctrine? The Council of Nicea developed a rough creed but no canon of texts. The Council of Chalcedon in the 400s made a little more progress toward a party line, but that came later. Even the Ten Commandments were not singled out as such until around 1000. (As for approved sex being goal directed, consider Song of Songs from the Jewish Scriptures.)
Donal: It goes deeper: the reason humans are prey to mad preaching about the form and content of their sexual practices, has surely something to do with how sexual desire raises intense, conflicting feelings . . . . and consequently we may seek to impose that practice on others (even if that involves killing them).
Good point. Many traditions suffer from dualist traditions that see physicality as a deadening of the spirit. Some Buddhist sects have their hackles raised by the beast with two backs. As for Islam, sex with chickens has been considered better than sex out of the approved loop. (See _Reading Lolita in Tehran_ for Khomeni's rulings about sex with chickens.)
However, it's worth noting that the Koine word often translated as "lust" in the New Testament means "an excessive desire for a *good* thing." The idea is that an excessive desire for a good thing creates a false idol and thus violates the commandment to have no gods before the God. There is an underlying assumption that sex, wine, sport, etc., are all good things that can be made into idols.
Donal: So making the point that textual disputes are often a forum/smoke-screen for underlying conflicts of values, ideology etc.: it is that underlying conflict that powers the textual dispute, not the text that powers the underlying conflict.
Another very good point. Which brings us back to what it means for Rick Warren to change. I read the original article as John suggested, and came away with the impression that Rick Warren was simply swayed by celebrity and contact with the new Prez. That may or may not be true. Yet I still maintain that a closer look at the actual texts and their historical contexts would do a lot to end all this nonsense about gays being evil; further, that the same closer look would dispel the alienation and acrimony of gay activists toward Christians. 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: