Well Said, but Still Unconvincing
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS LONG, BUT IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND FURTHER TO MY CHALLENGE I SUGGEST YOU READ IT. IF NOT…WELL, THAT’S RATHER BORING.
You bring out some valid arguments and make a good show of reasoning, which I applaud, even though I still ultimately find your logic to be unconvincing.
I accept that you believe that Moses wrote the Bible. There are strong arguments to be made against it, however. The results of extensive research in early Biblical scriptures shows that the likelihood of a single author is very slim, if not at least physically impossible. I have come to believe this version, and that the numerous writers who eventually wrote down the scripture over time were very intelligent in that they made a very flexible text.
In my opinion, the 'vague' nature was intended as such--to tell simple stories with meanings that could apply to more than just one age--however, I suppose that in this case it is simply a matter of science conflicting with belief. I never knew Moses or his true story, and thus I cannot say absolutely that you are wrong and I am right.
I can say, however, that the passage you cited is a misconception of what the book of Peter was truly trying to say about scripture. To state absolutely that there is no room for interpretation flies in the face of the logic that brought you to derive the morals you cling to from the Bible.
Once again, I use the same simple ideas: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Let us extrapolate a bit. If there is no open-ended interpretation, then I love my neighbor...namely the person(s) in closest proximity to me. With no open-ended interpretation, I need not love anyone else. To say that Peter meant that there is solely one interpretation of a writing in scripture is entirely illogical. Christianity survives because it is flexible--it can change with the ages, because of its openness to interpretation. A simple 'reductio ad absurdum' makes saying otherwise...well, absurd.
Of course, your 'reductio ad absurdum' of my argument is also well-phrased. Yes, taking such a simple statement as 'love your fellow man' to an extreme would shrink morality to an infinite zero.
Therefore I will clarify myself. What I meant is that when interpreting a religious text (more accurately, trying to figure out the original intent of the author) your deductions must follow sound rhetoric.
The Biblical passages defining certain moralities such as idolatry, adultery, etc., even if widely interpreted, point in a general direction that is in line with Jesus’ original message. This hence generates the shape of Christian morality. People will disagree on the technicalities, but the proof that idolatry is indeed a sin in respect to the Christian faith is very convincing, perhaps most of all because it is in agreement with such over-arching principals as 'love your neighbor as you love yourself.'
However, the case against homosexuality—I’m sure you and I both know most of the passages, but if you later demand a detailed exegesis I can give one—is based off deductions and interpretations that are not in line with the perhaps the largest theme in the Bible. This does not in itself disprove the case, but it does put the burden of proof on the party making the case.
And it is here that the proof is inadequate. It is here that passages with a wide scope and vague language—I do not say ‘vague’ to be demeaning to the Bible, I simply wish to make a point—are stretched in order to justify the fears of many people against homosexuals. And when I mean wide scope and vague language I mean that the meaning is very foggy and open to endless interpretations. To make sound conclusions on such vague passages you must deduce carefully. But the deductions made here by Christians who claim homosexuality is a sin are poor, as they do not lie in agreement with the greater themes of the Bible. The conclusions made are strained and it is made painfully obvious by their contradiction to Jesus’ ideas of love and an end to persecution.
The Bible marks a great many things unjust, some more clear than others. It is in these unjust acts that ‘love your fellow man’ stops, and you must, as you said, ‘hate the sin and love the sinner.’ But the Bible only marks homosexuals as sinners if you twist it, strain it. The Bible marks idolatry and other sins as sins with no effort at all.
To say that the Bible is not vague and open to interpretation is a joke. If it were so, everyone would agree on what it says. And that is certainly not the case. Furthermore, to insist on such would make Christianity applicable to only one era, and rather impotent in the modern world, which it is certainly not.
You have reasoning there, yes, better than most I’ve seen on this board, but you still remain unconvincing. I welcome you to continue this debate, but if not I at least thank you for your thought out reply. A battle of wit (though perhaps that is an over-glamorous name for our argument here) always provides food for thought.
I apologize for the length. I’m rather long-winded, as is readily observable, which is both a blessing and a curse.