Subject: Re: Can someone explain to me...
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 8:48:00 +0800
From: "Nigel Mitchell" <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion


Andy: 
>>> And I say that's bollox.  The foundation of your religion has homophobia as 

>>> a mandate.  Do you understand that?  The foundation,  your bible,  has 
>>> homophobia as a mandate - directly from your invisible friend.  This is 
>>> why your comparison is flawed. 

Nigel:
>> Really? 
>> 
>> What makes you think that the Bible is the foundation of my religion? 

Andy:
> You tell me what the foundations for your religion are.  I'd always thought 
> christianity = based on christ.  The only real source for the life of 
> christ I know of is the bible.  Educate me otherwise. 

The basis of Christianity is faith in Christ. An active, living, and life-
enhancing friendship with an invisible friend called Jesus (as you might say).

The New testament of the Bible records the teaching of Jesus, as remembered by
his followers during the 1st century, and the events and debates that took place
during the first few decades after his death. According to Christian tradition
and the internal evidence of the documents, they were writen by people of faith,
who were inspired (by God) to write what they wrote. Their words are
authoritative for Christians in matters of faith and doctrine. But it is a
mistake to read the New testament as some sort of law-code or instruction book.
What is recorded there is how people understood Jesus' teachings and put them
into practise in the 1st century. We read them in order to help us put Jesus'
teachings into practise in the 20th century.

Paul condemed homosexuality, and he also condemned women speaking in Church. He
commended celibacy for Church leaders, and the wearing of hats by women in
Church. I cannot thinhk of a single Church today that follows Paul's teaching in
all four of these matters.

Christians are not lobotomised at Baptism. We are allowed and encouraged to use
our God-given intelligence in interpreting the scriptures and putting them into
practise. According to Jesus (and the Jewish teachers from whom he derived this
understanding), the whole of the law that God requires is summed up in love of
God and neighbour. Paul understood love of God to require rejection of homosexual
practises - probably at least in part because in his cultural milieu these were
associated with 'pagan' Roman religious and cultural practises. In the modern
era, many Christians, including me, consider love of God and neighbour to require
that we oppose bigotry and hatred against homosexual people and racial
minorities.

The two things I find quite hurtful, and which I make every effort to oppose on
these newsgroups, are 1. Christians who use their religion to promote hatred and
bigotry. and 2. People who charaterise Christians and Christianity as inherently
promoting hatred and bigotry.

I do this because I believe that Christianity (the teachings of Jesus and the
possibility of an invisible friendship with him) has much to offer to people in
the modern world, but it will be much better able to do that when the sins of
hatred and oppression and bogtry of the past have been expunged.


 
>> What makes you think it comes directly from my invisible friend? 
> 
> As above.  I'd been told your bible was authored or inspired by your 
> invisible friend.  I'd even heard there were some direct quotes from him on 
> the matter of homosexuality.  I may be mistaken. 

You are.

Jesus said _nothing_ about homosexuality. In fact, he said hardly anything about
sexuality at all.

There is a story in the Gospel according to John in which a person accused of
sexual 'sin' was brought to Jesus by the religious leaders and scriptural
literalists of the day. They said that 'according to our Law, given to us by God,
she ought to be put to death'. Jesus refused to condemn her, and challenged those
who were calling for her death to look at their own sin before condemning another
person's. I think this story (John 8:1-11) provides an excellent prototype for
Christians who wish to follow Jesus in the matter of sexuality. Jesus a)
shieleded the woman from those who would condemn her. b) refused to condemn her
himself c) encouraged her to 'go and sin no more'. (see ***)

Of course, some people would prefer to chop that event out of their Bibles and
pretend it does not exist, but that is another story...

*** I should explain in reference to point c) above that the sexual sin of the
woman was adultery. Adultery is not a victimless crime. It involves breach of
promise, and a betrayal of the marriage vows and the marriage partner. The
definition of 'sin' which I use is, "things which are harmful to other people or
which harm my relationship with God". I _do_ believe that adultery fits this
definition. In most circumstances, I do _not_ believe that homosexual practise
falls into the category of Sin.

cheers

-- 

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell