Today that church still considers being gay as an abomination. There are a whole lot of sects of Christianity that claim the same. Often the response, reaction, rebuttal offered in this debate is referencing the Book of Ruth or John reposing on the shoulder of Jesus at the last supper. I love the Book of Ruth, and I’m not sure it’s really a lesbian relationship even though perhaps a good model. There are plenty of patriarchal cultures wherein men show physical affection for each other and that doesn’t imply gayness.
The Bible is the foundational document for Christianity. That’s what’s believed. I’m not sure it’s true. What seems obvious is that generally speaking for many so called Christians, vis a vis gay rights, is that the old testament is the source of reference. That’s rather a befuddling contradiction since Christians are named as such because they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. He doesn’t exist, his teachings haven’t been preached, his miracles haven’t occurred in the old testament.
The old testament is a history of a people and that history is laden with war, cruelty, misogyny and, admittedly also some great poetry, wisdom and honor. Still it’s mainly a history of patriarchal ascendance and domination. The story of Moses, for example, is exactly a description of a turn over from matriarchal culture, goddess religion to patriarchal society, god religion.
The old testament is also a history of mighty struggle and marvelous survival. The command to go forth and multiply had importance then because it was important to the literal survival of the people. To underscore that importance, homosexuality was denounced not on moral grounds but on the necessity for survival. However, what was needed to survive then, the laws that were enforced, the god described are dissolved by the new testament.
When some Christians thump their bibles and quote passages of abomination, they’re quoting from the old testament. This suggests to me that they aren’t Christians at all. The only place in the Bible wherein the life of Jesus is described is in the new testament, the gospels. Everything else is the before and after. What the after shows is that really nothing much has changed from the before except that now there’s a new form of patriarchal religion.
When Jesus arrives on the scene he not only brings miracles, he brings change and a new testament; the beatitudes in effect replace the ten commandments, his teachings challenge the social precepts regarding the “place” of women and children in a patriarchal society. It’s not so much that he brings a return to matriarchal origins. The message is more of a change toward balance.
The laws of vengeance, judgment, retribution are replaced with understanding, forgiveness, compassion. Since Christians believe he’s the son of god bearing god’s message, it stands to reason that the god of the old testament has had a change of heart. He wants balance, forgiveness, understanding and compassion as well.
The god of the old testament is often cruel and cruelty ought to be considered a top ten sin, perhaps number one. My take on the life of Jesus as the son of god is that not only did Jesus die for the people’s sins, he was also sacrificed for god’s sins of cruelty, zealotry, misogyny and old fashioned murder.
Nowhere in his teachings is there any mention of abominations. The only mention of sin exemplifies the tenet that there’s no sin to condemn. The main radical message brought by Jesus is unconditional love. If Jesus comes a second time, it won’t be to save us from ourselves, but to tell us we finally got it right. If Christians want to get it right, they ought to stick with the gospels.
No comments:
Post a Comment