re: #218 engineer cat

if the literal word of the scriptures is so important, why aren’t they boycotting divorce court?

jesus never mentions gay people, but he majorly rags on divorce

This is the core of why Dan’s argument, however clumsily stated, is a valid one: literal interpretation is clearly influenced by a variety of other social factors, as well as ideas about ‘swelling revelation’.

(Myself, I am partial to the idea that the soldier in Matthew who comes to ask for his servant to be healed represents some sort of unspoken assent to a same-sex relationship on the part of Jesus. But that’s a different kettle of worms.)

The problem is that this is not relevent. Believers can interpret the Bible in any way that occurs to them, and believe you me, we’ve come up with a full range. What’s actually important is that, as a free and secular society that promises full rights to all of its citizens, what any of us religious types believe about the Bible and what it says is only important to us. We cannot claim the right to harm others, or remove their rights, on the basis of how we engage the text.

That’s why the ‘hurr, hurr, no one avoids shellfish or mixed fibers any more’ is a poor argument, as well as an untrue one. The key argument is that when we talk about our schools, our laws, and our public places, the text we need to look to is not the Bible.

(Which does not prevent me from promoting much policy, and making my vote, on the ground of what my faith teaches me. But that’s MY vote, and MY voice, and I get to use it any way I like. And I generally keep my religious argument out of it, except when I’m fighting with other Jews.)