Gay man, unhappy with Scriptures, sues Bible publishers
flockwoodThose verses that describe homosexuality as an abomination? They don’t sit well with at least one gay man. So he’s decided to sue Bible publishers.
Click here for several stories on this most unusual lawsuit.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Again, if you narrow it down, it’s pretty clear-cut, it has to be one or the other between these two scenerio’s #1-The Bible is inspired by God, and the verses I’m sure this man is referring to, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are part of God’s word. or #2- All the fundamentalist throughout America are nut jobs, we need to embrace more new-age, maybe take an anger management class, unlearn what we’ve been taught.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:00 am
since the word “homosexualzlity” is not in the Bible, I would think this gentleman would first have to prove that is what is being said in Leviticus 18:22. It might not bode well with many if these verses proves to be valid.
July 12th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Leviticus 18:22′Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.’Over to Leviticus 20:13 ‘If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. It doesn’t say ‘homosexual’, a word they used more back them was ’sodomites’ from Sodom and Gommorah.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Mike, I think you’re making the classic mistake here of tarring everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush. While I agree that fundamentalists are generally “nut jobs,” they are fundamentalist nut jobs, and one shouldn’t try to characterize them in ways that are not accurate. The same goes for liberals. You jump immediately from suggesting that fundamentalists have the “right” interpretation to skipping over every middle ground and landing on the side of the “new age” religions. I’m not sure where that anger management thing came in, but my experience is that a lot of fundamentalist Christians could certainly use some anger management training, particularly the ones wearing white robes.
We liberal Christians are not “new age,” and I’ve never heard the term “anger management” used in an Episcopal Church; we laid back Anglicans are unlikely to need it. What I have heard is the explication of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a manner that can be taught to all people, black and white, man and woman, straight and gay. The Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, and northern Baptists reject any view of Leviticus that demonizes homosexuality, and that crowd is hardly new age.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Caleb, the only point I tryed to make is this #1-Are these Bible verses accurate? Are they the word of God? If they are, what is it it’s trying to tell us? All people, have a choice of either believing, or disbelieving something in print. As far as the ‘nut job’, I was referring to a term I’ve heard people call fundamentalist on different issues. I believe in absolutes, I believe Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 are God’s word. If I’m wrong, then that makes me wrong, there is no halfway on that. You have to agree, it’s clear-cut, #1-This is God’s word, or #2-This isn’t God’s word. It’s pretty cut and dry, it either is, or it isn’t.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
It takes faith to believe that there are absolutes, but to claim that you fully understand those absolutes requires a lack of humility. Our friend Caleb observes quite regularly that the Bible is not as cut-and-dry as Mike implies. Take a look around and count how many Christian theologies there are! Everyone relies on some measure of interpretation, including Mike. It’s just that a lot of folks don’t admit it. It’s silly to pretend that the understanding the holy scriptures is either simple or clear. It’s prideful to claim that any person’s understanding of God is infallible.
July 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
In all honesty, I don’t understand everything Jose, over the years, I’ve come to the point that if I never come to the point of understanding, I pray I can at least accept things, by God’s grace, no credit to Mr. Mike, I’ve been able to do that.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Mike, I don’t agree that those are the questions. To me, the first question is what weight is to be given to scripture in the first place. In the religious traditions of more mainstream churches, scripture is studied for wisdom, but is not generally considered the last word. If it were, we’d still be selling our daughters into slavery, which is also allowed by Leviticus, but which even the Baptists have backed away from these days. Also, we rarely stone people anymore, a practice also authorized by scripture.
If one’s answer to my question is the answer given by most mainstream churches, that the bible is to be considered in the light of church history and reason, one can conclude both that these are genuine verses of scripture, that is, they were written and used as scripture by the Hebrew people, but that they are not applicable to modern life, just as many of the scriptures relating to slavery, leprosy,stoning, witchcraft, and other matters are not applicable to modern life. Otherwise, we’d still be having witch trials and executing the guilty.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Today I had an enlightning talk with a baptist minister. He and I talked about some of the subjects on the blog here and I asked his opinion about circumstances as these. His veiw was that homesexuality was a form of adultery and that twisting the word of God to suit your own needs was not permitted. It is a distortion from the Bible and its not viewed very well among his peers. So, he and I agreed that the gay movement is in fact starting a new religion, distorted to fit their needs because we both felt that gay wouldn’t be an issue if you followed the word of Christ. Chew on that Caleb.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Well, Peach, your talk doesn’t seem to have enlightened you much, because apparently the minister merely repeated the arguments made by the right wing religious movement. Calling something a “new” religious movement is kind of tough coming from the representative of a group that has itself turned theology on its head with its fundamentalist views that are nowhere reflected in traditional church teachings.
Peach, there is no question that there are adverse references to homosexuality in the Bible, just as there are positive references to slavery, stoning, and the execution of witches. The mainstream protestant churches have long ago come to the view that the old doctrine of “sola scriptura” cannot be valid, because the church produced the bible, not the other way around. We see the bible as a part of theology, but certainly not the whole of it. If we are starting a new religion, then those brave men and women who opposed slavery in the 1700s and 1800s were also beginning a new religion, as were those who supported the civil rights movement in the 1900s.
The Southern Baptists were formed in the 1860s to support slavery. They maintained their racist views at least until the 1960s, when they opposed integration. Jerry Falwell’s first act out of the box was to preach against the Brown v. Board of Education decision, and to found an all-white segregated “academy” for the children of parents who didn’t want their children attending integrated public schools. These segregation academies were established all over the south, and significantly undermined efforts to integrate public schools.
My point is this. These people have been wrong, so far, on every civil rights and social issue that has come before them, and have claimed that the Holy Scriptures absolutely supported them on everything they said. They’re saying the same thing now. What makes you think they’re right now when they’ve always been wrong in the past?
July 15th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I must apologize; I said “Peach” in that last post when I meant “perplexed.” I suppose I need to read more than the first letter in someone’s name. But having made the mistake, I’m even more perplexed: Why would you, a Catholic, care what the Baptists, who have long thought that every Catholic was going to hell, think about anything?
I realize that the Catholic Church doesn’t support the practice of homosexuality, but at least they don’t condemn and try to “convert” those who have those tendencies. Here, the Baptists are just plain mean spirited. I wouldn’t think the Catholics would be down with that.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Caleb, I’m interested in what everybody has to say. Its when people talk that solutions are found. I was impressed with this young black pastor and enjoyed our conversation. He did admit to me that his youth had him still accumulating wisdom, but he was able to see farther than the next thought. The Catholics have had their share of troubles and still do. The biggest problem is not the acceptance of gays, its putting yourself as gay in front of your religious service, its the wrong order, its like and or or. If you do you duty as Gods’ servant, what does gay matter. That’s not how things are today, its gay and then the religion, which helps me to understand the division in the church. The next item will be, “who will concede”. Its going to be an interesting few years.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Perp, let’s take your message from a different point of view:
“The biggest problem is putting more emphasis on someone’s sexual orientation ahead of their religious faith, and that’s the wrong order when it comes to church membership. If someone confesses Jesus as Lord, what difference does it make whether they are gay or straight? But that’s not how most churches are today; if you are gay nothing else matters to them. They don’t care what you believe.”
Perp, you contend that homosexuals put their sexual orientation first and everything else after. What makes you say that? The gay people that I know don’t make a big fuss about identifying themselves as such, any more than I make a point of introducing myself as a straight person. When they talk about their faith, they call themselves Christians. It’s the other folks like the good pastor who insist on stamping labels on people and then kicking them out of church because of those labels.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Jose, what does your sexual orientation have to do with God’s work? Think about that. If you are a Christian first, what does your orientation matter. I cannot condemn gays, simply because they are children of God. The problem is gay comes before christian in this particular circumstance and I personally think its wrong and it taints the cause for recognition. Look at the headline on this post, read the article. This man is offended by what is printed in the Bible, because of his orientation. It only took him 20 years to figure this out. So whats first here, his christian belief or his sexual orientation.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Sorry, Perp. I was on a different track of discussion, regarding the more general topic of churches that label people for the purposes of denying them membership (blacks, gays) or ordination (women).
Yes, this particular guy is nuts, IMHO. One of the news articles has a quote that I found to be wonderfully understated:
“The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims,” the judge wrote.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:47 am
The problem with that analysis, perplexed, is that people are who they are. A black person rejected by a church because of his color might well be seen as putting his color before church service; after all, there were always churches made up of people of one race. Likewise, here, there are churches like the Episcopal Church that do not discriminate against gays and lesbians. So, I suppose that a gay or lesbian Catholic or Baptist could well determine to leave their own church and engage in ministry in a church that will have them. However, I don’t think they see this as putting their “gayness” ahead of their Christianity any more so than the person rejected because of his race.
Christians don’t need to be dividing people against each other. Perplexed, you seem hung up on this idea that someone is putting being gay before being Christian. It seems to me that one is always entitled to advocate for their rights, within and without a church organization, without being accused of doing this. Were women putting being women above being Christian when they sought the right to be ordained? Were blacks putting being black before being Christian when they demanded equal membership in church organizations? It seems that people who take this view are looking for reasons to exclude gays and lesbians, not reasons to include them. And that is putting being a bigot or homophobe above being a Christian. I’m not accusing you of that, perplexed, but I am accusing those who lead the right wing element of that. They are essentially bigoted and homophobic, and will come up with any excuse to avoid admitting that.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I don’t doubt that there is an element that is driven by the scripture interpretation that being gay is the same as a non conforming Christian. Grant you , the powers in charge will have to change hands before a resolution is reached, but in my opinion, this is the wrong way to achieve the results that are needed. The only way I can see is that the Christian driven work ethic take precedence over the gay fight.
Caleb, in religion, God is first, its not about rights, its about sacrifice, its about denying the body, its about focusing on text in the Bible. Its not about politics or orientation, but it is, whether we want it or not. Religion today is a business, its almost lost the true meaning of what a Christian really is. What a shame for mankind.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I agree, perplexed, that it’s a shame for mankind when the homophobia of the leaders of so many of our churches excludes the contributions that could otherwise be made by gay and lesbian christians. Perhaps, as you suggest, their narrow mindedness will decline over time and we can put aside our prejudices and let the love and justice of God flow down, as Martin Luther King quoted scripture, “like a mighty stream.”
July 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am
You know Caleb, there needs to be a mutual work ethic that creates respect among both parties before any type of forward movement will happen.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
If that’s true, perplexed, it’s the straight community that needs to do the work. I don’t know of gays or lesbians trying to exclude anyone.
July 21st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
They need a project to work on that has a common goal, something that will acknowledge that all parties are human beings and should be treated that way.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I agree, perplexed. It’s hard to have a common project, though, if you don’t allow one group to work on it.