Sunday, December 22, 2013

And I should care because ....?

The article What Jesus Says About Homosexuality? appeared a recently in the  Huffington Post, it makes a point that nowhere in the Christian Testament does Jesus mention the topic.

I have seen it referred to in several posts and Facebook pages, and I cannot for the life of me understand why.

  • Speaking as one who has done some study on Christian theology and history:

    I find this argument problematic; if memory serves, there is little mention of  Halakhic law (though there is the interesting comment about fulfilling the law), much less its dispensing in the first four books of the Christian Testament, and it isn't until the expression of Pauline marketing -- written after the gospel accounts -- that Biblical laws are devalued in Christian thinking. 

    Given that, one would assume that as far as Jesus was concerned, in silence there is consent with regard to the law.
    Mind, this does raise the interesting question of what role the Bible's laws have to Christianity -- some are to be obeyed, others not.  For example, the observation of Shabbat is Biblically more important that sexual laws, but seems largely to be waived, as is the injunction against images.

    From an outsiders position, there is an ad hoc quality to this legal thinking.

And as amusing as thinking about this is to me, sort of a mental ping-pong practice, a position as an outsider is the main reason for me to raise the question of why.

  • Speaking as a member of this republic:

    The specific teaching of the one of the gods of one particular religion should not be relevant to any debate.

    My position on the issue same sex marriage is founded on utility to the society,  people are jointly acquiring and transmitting properly and producing progeny, it is useful to have a common set of rules for governing that for all couples.

    Official impartiality about private sexual practices should stem from the fact is no reason to regulate the behavior.

    This republic was founded "like a bastard child, half compromised and half improvised" (from the play 1776), and not in allegiance to a given religion.
And finally
  • Speaking as a Jew:

    Should I care about what arguments are made between the various parts of the Christian continuum? 

    If I deal with Christians, as above, as members of a shared republic, then a conversation is reasonable.  We can discuss the good of our shared enterprise.

    But is it not more likely that I will be insulted instead than be swayed by the arguments advanced by other peoples gods or prophets? 

"Unhappy is the land..

".. that needs a hero." Bertolt Brecht, Gallileo

In that light, an article that does not attempt to deny that Mandela was good and important man, but reminds us how good is really accomplished: The Mandela coverage and the banality of goodness