Why It's Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong
Why It's Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong
Security sells. That's why, says retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, despite his best-selling controversial books and popular speeches, his position on Jesus and the Christian church will never be the majority opinion, because he believes Jesus is not the Savior of the world and that the
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21033452
You're viewing a single thread.
I never thought someone could take the clear prophecies pointing towards Jesus throughout the old testament and distort them to think "yeah this means Jesus isn't literally real". Also the quotation where he claims Christians are still holding onto fourth century beliefs as if it's a bad thing- does that mean Morality is subjective? That what was moral 1600 years ago isn't moral now?
There's also undertones of white supremacy to this attitude as well. Suddenly, what white society sees as moral is morally correct. Taking the Bible seriously (or "literally"), we have the justification that we have the inspired word of God (which it claims to be, 2 Timothy 3:16). So we could take what the Bible says is wrong and have confidence that it is objectively wrong. The writer of this article claims they helped ordain someone in a homosexual relationship, when the Bible is clearly against this within the Church (Romans 1:27). So it seems he isn't taking that part literally. This is all fair and good, but if morality is whatever society says is okay and not the Bible, is it okay to refuse to give to the poor? In China homosexuality is seen as largely not okay, but giving to the poor is also frowned upon. Charity is non existent. For someone like the writer to say that the Chinese are wrong and need to learn to give to the poor and affirm homosexuality, they wouldn't be preaching from Christianity or objective morality, they would be preaching from their white supremacist mindset.
Just a thought.
I never thought someone could take the clear prophecies pointing towards Jesus throughout the old testament and distort them to think "yeah this means Jesus isn't literally real"
He never said that Jesus wasn't real?
Also the quotation where he claims Christians are still holding onto fourth century beliefs as if it's a bad thing- does that mean Morality is subjective? That what was moral 1600 years ago isn't moral now?
His argument is not about morals, it's about the Bible. If something is from the 4th century, then it can't be biblical.
There's also undertones of white supremacy to this attitude as well. Suddenly, what white society sees as moral is morally correct.
Are.you implying that non-whites people are necessarily homophobic? Because it's not the case, just look at Taiwan or Thailand which recently adopted homosexual marriage; and historically, colonial France and Great-Britain introduced anti-homosexuality laws in regions where homosexuality was accepted.
Taking the Bible seriously (or "literally")
Literally and seriously are absolutely not synonymous.
we have the justification that we have the inspired word of God (which it claims to be, 2 Timothy 3:16)
Inspired doesn't mean that it should be read literally.
if morality is whatever society says is okay and not the Bible, is it okay to refuse to give to the poor?
To cite the author of the text, “the opposite of not being literal is not that it’s not true. The opposite of literal is to be interpretive”. There are just a handful of not perfectly clear verses about homosexuality (the author of Leviticus or Paul spoke about a reality very different than ours), while there are thousands of absolutely clear verses about solidarity. If you interpret the Bible, you can't treat these two subjects equally.
The author implied strongly that Jesus didn't literally feed the 5000, was born of the Virgin Mary, etc. Doing so would strip Him of His most important aspect- His divinity.
Taiwan and Thailand are the only countries in Asia to allow same-sex marriage. The likes of Mainland China and Japan escaped colonisation. The Middle East adheres to Islam, not Christianity, which has the same moral rule regarding Homosexuality (if not made harsher under Sharia)
The justification of Homosexuality doesn't come from any objective standard of morality- just from culture.
While the verses in the Bible about Homosexuality couldn't be clearer.
Doing so would strip Him of His most important aspect- His divinity
Nope.
The likes of Mainland China and Japan escaped colonisation
But not westernization. Japan is a great example: it was a closed country until the Meiji era, in the end of the 19th century. Until then homosexuality was accepted, and it became frowned upon only after western influence grew. It's just racist to think that homophobia is normal outside the west.
While the verses in the Bible about Homosexuality couldn't be clearer.
Bible stance on homosexuality is nor clear nor central. It's your culture that impose this reading on the Bible. That's not taking the Bible seriously; even the contrary.
Romans 1:27 ESV [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV [8] Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, [9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, [10] the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, [11] in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Corinthians 6:9 ESV [9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Come on, the Bible is quite clear on this.
Your translation is. The Greek isn't.
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 1:27 TR1624 [27] ομοιως τε και οι αρσενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α΄ 1:8-11 TR1624 [8] οιδαμεν δε οτι καλος ο νομος εαν τις αυτω νομιμως χρηται [9] ειδως τουτο οτι δικαιω νομος ου κειται ανομοις δε και ανυποτακτοις ασεβεσιν και αμαρτωλοις ανοσιοις και βεβηλοις πατραλωαις και μητραλωαις ανδροφονοις [10] πορνοις αρσενοκοιταις ανδραποδισταις ψευσταις επιορκοις και ει τι ετερον τη υγιαινουση διδασκαλια αντικειται [11] κατα το ευαγγελιον της δοξης του μακαριου θεου ο επιστευθην εγω
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 6:9 TR1624 [9] η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται
Better? Or are you going to tell me that these manuscripts are somehow wrong, too?
None of these words can be translated by “homosexual” or “homosexuality”, if you understand homosexuality as “a loving and stable romantic and sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex” like the marriages blessed by this pastor.
The word αρσενοκοιται
αρσεν Male
κοιται Bed
It literally means "males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)"
As for Romans 1:27
The Greek and the English both make it clear that they "burned in their lust one toward another". Which describes a passionate, consensual relationship.
When talking about marriage, marriage is insituted by God. In fact, it's the first sacrament (if you see it as one) instituted.
Genesis 2:24 ESV [24] Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The marriage is between a man and a woman. It remains that way throughout the whole Bible, that it's between a man and a woman. The only time a sexual union is mentioned between two men or two women, it's condemned. A man and a man cannot get married, neither can two women.
The word αρσενοκοιται
αρσεν Male
κοιται Bed
It literally means "males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)"
And “butterfly” literally means “winged insect made of butter”.
An ἀρσενοκοίτης is a male who has homosexual relationships, but there's no certainty about which kind. Nothing permits to be sure that Paul thought there about all kinds of homosexual relationships, that's why I said and still say that these texts aren't clear.
We have two clues, however, that suggest this is not the case. The first is Romans 1:27, which does not speak of love but of lust. Nothing to do with today's romantic and sexual homosexuality. The second is Paul's context: in his time, homosexual sexuality existed mainly in the form of pederasty, that is, the rape of young boys by mature men. So when Paul writes about “males who bed with other males (in a sexual manner)” he has this image first in mind. It would therefore be entirely justified to translate ἀρσενοκοῖται as “pederasts” and not as “homosexuals”.
If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of “taking the Bible seriously.”
Ah yes, I'm sure "males who bed with other males" is referring to a butterfly.
Romans 1:27 speaks of "lust for one another". Mutual lust is an aspect of a sexual relationship. Are you trying to tell me that homosexual men don't lust after each other?
The word ἀρσενοκοίτης can be related to what's written in the Septuagint in Leviticus 18:22
"καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν."
There is absolutely zero mention of children when there could be. That's just a vague theory which isn't as probable as showing what the text actually says and has been interpreted to do so
If these texts seem clear to you, it is because you are injecting your cultural homophobia into them. This is the opposite of "taking the Bible seriously."
Where did my "cultural homophobia" originate?
And these "scholarly revelations" about the meaning of these verses in the Bible did not predate the LGB movement. They mysteriously popped up after. Isn't this not injecting cultural values into the text? Why can't we inject cultural Chinese values into the text and claim that the "eye of a needle" is actually a gate or some unfounded rubbish.