Gene Robinson on the Bible and Homosexuality

The Lead shared links to the first two pieces in a new series that Gene Robinson is writing for The Washington Post on homosexuality and the Bible. The first is essentially about hermeneutics and Biblical interpretation. The second focuses on Leviticus.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889 Lvka

    Funny, I don't see him saying the same thing about relaxing incest or zoophilia on the grounds that since the biblical verses that condemn them are alongside others that proscribe eating pork, they should be considered as unbinding to Christians as those. Or that since the pedophiles are also naturally inclined towards being attracted to children, and the ancients did not know this, then we should exempt them as well. Etc. (He also pretends not to have any idea on why Christians don't punish sinners by death; etc). Anyway…

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    I don't see why that is funny. Why should allowing adults certain freedoms require abandonment of laws protecting minors?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889 Lvka

    Women weren't stoned for menstruating, and being on the cycle was not considered a sin, let alone a mortal one; just because people became more sinful (contraception) does not mean that that's OK with God, or that He condones it: sinners will not judge each other, they will be judged by Christ; etc. — his whole reasoning's a mess, from one end to the other.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889 Lvka

    Why should allowing adults certain freedoms require abandonment of laws protecting minors?Ask the ancient Greeks: they seemingly had no problem with it, nor did the Romans…(More to the point, there's where his reasoning leads: if it's OK for homosexuals who are so by nature to engage in same-sex relationships because they were born this way, it logically follows by analogy that the same should hold true for pedophiles who were born this way and are by nature so).

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647 James F. McGrath

    Maybe your point is that simply arguing from what is natural alone is not sufficient, because it can be taken to the absurd extreme you are suggesting? If so, that's a fair if uninteresting point, since there is no reason to have only one principle guide our moral decisions or legislation.And clearly the Bible is useless for addressing pedophilia, since it says nothing about e issue, even though it was composed in a time and place when young girls were given in marriage at an age that would be considered illegal and immoral in our own time and context.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X