From John's post: And why shouldn't I believe that Rick Warren, a man of his time and tradition, could nonetheless be open to change?
My understanding of the fundamentalist Christian rejection of homosexuality is that it derives from a quirky reading of 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1: 9-10. The two different Koine words translated after 1946 as "homosexual" in those passages (which are "vice lists") are extremely vague, and could refer to anything from boy prostitutes to heterosexual gigolos. No one knows for sure. Most likely they refer to some kind of sex for money. But who knows?
However literalists insist that Paul and the author of the pastoral letter mean "homosexual" because that's how the scholars have construed the two words in certain translations issued since 1946 or thereabouts.
All of which is background to the question of what it would mean for Rick Warren to change.
Consider that homosexual-castigating fundamentalists AND liberal gay rights activists can be equally ignorant of the true context of the New Testament and the scholarly debates surrounding the text.
If both parties are ignorant of the source of their disagreement, asking Rick Warren to change merely means exchanging his views for the views of the gay activists. Surely it would be better to ask BOTH sides to change, sit them both down with some biblical scholars, and go through the various vice lists, explicating the many possible meanings of "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi."
Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
