Comments on: How Sensible! Part 2 http://www.brucellama.com/2009/12/22/how-sensible-part-2/ That's one crazy Llama Sat, 04 Oct 2014 22:50:30 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5.4 By: Bruce http://www.brucellama.com/2009/12/22/how-sensible-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1326 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:39:13 +0000 http://www.brucellama.com/?p=1130#comment-1326 Thanks Doug,

I think if the text is open to a variety of interpretations, then it is not possible to understand the authors intent. Therefore it is not the inerrant word of any god but just another demented alpaca trying to tell the world how to behave, it’s nice to try and turn the bible to mean whatever suits the reader, that’s the flaw of the thing and it should not be considered anything but a nice little fairy tale from many years ago.

]]> By: Doug Pollard http://www.brucellama.com/2009/12/22/how-sensible-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1325 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:34:01 +0000 http://www.brucellama.com/?p=1130#comment-1325 Thanks Bruce. I might add that although I may not be Jewish, and although I have committed the cardinal sin (according to Ms Fein) of having Jewish friends, I also have a lot of religious Christian friends of a variety of persuasions from born-again (one of my oldest friends) to ex-Catholic now Anglican (my husband of 17 years). As a result I have heard a lot of theological argument regarding e.g., Leviticus, from qualified theologians, and I am aware of many possible interpretations of the well-known Biblical prohibitions.
EG the phrase that a man should not lie with another man as with a woman, or words to that effect.
A close reading seems to indicate that this prohibition refers only to the receptive partner, or so I’m told.
From this it can be inferred (don’t ask me for the details, ask a theologian) that this law is not aimed at homosexual men – since at the time the concept of a homosexual person was not known – but at heterosexual men turning to other men as a substitute for women, e.g., older men using younger men over whom they had authority for sexual gratification, or because women were not available, as in prison.
It has nothing to say about committed same-sex relationships, or persons of a homosexual orientation.
Needless to say, this nuanced interpretation does not find favor with either Jewish or Christian fundamentalists, who in my experience do not deal very well with the notion of ‘nuance’.
I should that although I acknowledge the right of anyone to delude themselves with beliefs in whatever imaginary sky-fairy they may choose, that doesn’t give them the right to impose the made-up rules of said imaginary sky-fairy on other people. Or to claim any kind of moral superiority on the basis of their adherence to said rules.

]]>