[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: arsenoikoites
Greg:
First, your accusation of Michael is just as critical an example of naive
and bigoted name-calling as you label his post (btw, I realize that by
making that statement I have subjected myself to the same charge--please
withhold flames). Second, I may be wrong, but I don't think that the only
option that Michael gave was that "only homosexuals would defend
homosexuals." That was certainly an implied option in what Michael said,
but it was in no way the only thing he said. We all want the right to
speak our mind, but most of us would curtail that right for others
(especially when "they" disagree with "us"). Shouldn't we pay closer
attention to what is being said?
For example, you state in your post that "hateful lenses" have been used to
read the Bible, and you are right. But that does not then justify an
equally hateful reading by the offended party! When ACT-UP disrupts a
Catholic Church service and pelts a bishop with condoms simply because
he sees their lifestyle through a different lens, then they (members of the
homosexual or gay community) are engaging in the very form of hate of which
they accused him. Can we label these individuals "heterophobic"? (By the
way, please do not throw around the "homophobic" label at others until you
are sure that they really fear homosexuals. To disagree with a person's
lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean that I fear that lifestyle!) Isn't it
quite possible that there are those in the gay community that are guilty of
the sins of homosexism and heterophobia? Couldn't we all produce anecdotes
that support "our side" of the issue--i.e., heterosexual people who care
for and accept homosexual people, homosexual people who care for and love
heterosexuals--as well as bad examples from the "other" side (see story
above)? What does that prove?
Again, you accuse Michael (and, I assume, me) of being afraid of "what
the Bible really says". Do you have a corner on that market? I don't! I
have read views on this list that disagree with Boswell's reading of
_arsenoikoites_, and they seem to me to carry more weight, but I am open to
more evidence (not assertion!). Also, might I point out that there are
those who agree with your view that have espoused a type of "traditional
prejudice" against those who disagree with them! Tradition and prejudice
can be found in every camp, does that make the view of others in that camp
necessarily wrong? I hope not! I agree, traditional prejudice does little
to foster understanding and does a lot to foster hate, but that road runs
both ways!
Finally, you seem to think that if some "Christians" act in a decidely
un-Christian manner, then it must be the fact they have failed to
understand _arsenoikoites_ or "what the Bible really says" about
homosexuals. Could it not be that they have failed to understand what
Jesus meant when he talked of loving your neighbor more than yourself and
loving (not hating) your enemies (i.e., those who disagree with you)? Even
if Scripture labels homosexuality a sin, that does not mean that
homosexuals are to be treated worse than other humans (Greg, on this point
you and I heartily agree!). On the other hand, it also means that we
dim-witted conservatives that happen to think that Scripture does label
homosexuality as a sin deserve to be treated with love by our more enlightened
siblings. Yes, Greg, God's message does indeed change minds by spreading
the truth, but that doesn't mean that some of us are better than others (even
if more truth has been spread to us). After all, let's not forget that
paranoia is not restricted to certain groups. We all need to repent!
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU