Homosexuality and Scripture
I wish I had the luxury of a belief in the total infallability of scripture, it certainly would make life easier. Perhaps on some high level I can agree that it is infallible, if infallible means that it was inspired by a belief in God and is a human attempt to glorify Him. Clearly the justification for infallibility is:
2nd Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Of course the problem here is the definition of "scripture" and "profitable". At the time of the writing of 2nd Timothy, the only thing that could rightly be called scripture would be much of what we today call the Old Testament. What we call the New Testament was put together later in order to separate the Church from the Gnostics.
Even this however results in some thorny issues, like:
Genesis 6... the Noah story... God's justification for committing genocide is that we became wicked... Why couldn't he forsee that we were going to be wicked and simply not create us? Does having free will mean that even God cannot predict our behavior? If not, then why would he be so mean spirited as to create something only to destroy it later, knowing full well what its nature was, and what it would do? While the Noah story is a pleasant children's story, it leaves open a very huge question for me.
Deuteronomy 7, Joshua 6, Joshua 10, Genesis 19... more examples of the genocides of various groups...
Genesis 22.... the Abraham/Isaac saga.... why would God test Abraham? Did he not know his heart? Again we're left with the idea that an omnicient creator couldn't know ahead of time what his creation would do, and therefore he does something unethical (orders a man to kill his son as a test that he already knows the result of).
Exodus 7 & 12.... mass murders of the first born... why would God actively murder innocents?
2 Kings 2... the murder of the children who teased Elisha... again, why would God murder children who behave just like all other children in the world who tease someone who they think looks funny?
Joshua 7 & Numbers 31... again, the murdering of innocents...
Psalm 137:8-9... the Psalm praises the murder of Babylonian babies...more murdering of innocents...
1 Samuel 6.... murdering someone for trying to save the Ark of the Covenant from falling down...
Genesis 19... murdering Lot's wife for looking backward at Sodom... what was God's point in ordering such a command? Again, why the test when he has all the answers?
Exodus 20... punishing the descendants of someone who commits a sin... why? Again with the punishing of innocents...
Leviticus 15.... what's with the cleanliness laws? If you take this literally, women cannot come to church when they are menstruating (Leviticus 15 : 28 ), and they must ask forgiveness when they're done menstruating... Why would God create creatures to naturally do something, but we must ask forgiveness for that natural activity? It would be like asking forgiveness for seeing, asking forgiveness for sleeping, asking forgiveness for eating...
Here's a test for the infallibility idea that I've yet to hear someone respond definitively on. Now, supposedly all scripture (meaning current ideas of the Old and New Testament cannon) is infallible. Now, this means that if I decide to copy a Bible verbatum, I will be unable to make a mistake--I will mystically be transformed into a photocopy machine, and I will be incapable of making a mistake. If this is not true, then why do we presuppose that every human being who has undertaken to copy scripture from time immemorial has been perfect in their duty? Now I've heard some people respond to this argument by saying that scripture is infallible "in its original form". Well, since it's impossible to have every bit of scripture in its original manuscript, why do we presuppose that my nice shiny "New Revised Standard Version" of the Bible is infallible? It clearly cannot be.
These examples are why it's difficult to look at Romans 1 and other parts of scripture and use them to justify the strong reactions we tend to have regarding homosexuality. Almost anything from the cleanliness laws is up for discussion, since we obviously don't make women ask forgiveness for menstruating and all the other cleanliness rules...homosexuality in Leviticus is viewed relative to the cleanliness rules... Certainly Paul had a problem with it in Romans 1:28, but he was referring back to the Sodom and Gomorah story, and that story is somewhat ambiguous with what exactly Lot was protecting the angels from... was he protecting them from the "homosexual threats" of the evil crouds at Sodom, or was he protecting them because of tribal hospitality rules from the Old Testament? I think a Biblical scholar can rightly interpret this either way. We must also look at homosexuality in its historical context. Based on the "copy machine" idea above, is it totally unreasonable to think that monks and others might have vilified this particular sin for their own (historically justified) purposes? I guess I'm a centerist on this whole discussion, because it seems reasonable that God might have a problem with us doing something alien to his design for procreation. The problem is, we do all kinds of things in unnatural ways--did you turn on a light switch when you came in the room? How natural is that? Getting back to the cleanliness discussions, women are probably dealing with their flow problem by utilizing "unnatural" means... yet for some reason we don't seem to have as much problem with this as we do with homosexuality... I mean, there's really not supposed to be a "sin meter"... all have fallen short of the glory of God--the tax collector and the murderer alike...
Anyway, I think God meant for us to wrestle with our beliefs... after all, that is the essense of faith, is it not--believing that which you cannot justify with rational argument? Otherwise, it's certainty... not faith.