What's clear is that the author is perfectly prepared to attribute to Jesus a far more systematic theology of sexuality than is actually present in the Gospels. There is a circular argument going on - it is possible to derive something like current Church doctrine as consistent with Jesus' sayings AND the Church's teachings are divinely kept in line with Jesus' teachings THEREFORE Jesus's sayings are the same as current church doctrine.
What is of course absent from Jesus' teachings is any statement that homosexuality is an especially bad sin. It is all very well for him to cite those penitential manuals which treat it as equivalent to heterosexual fornication, but it is also highly disingenuous given that for most of the history of Christianity it has been regarded as the sin of sins and punished accordingly.
The idea that there is some sort of moral equivalency between LGBT militants using harsh language and bullyboys kicking people to death or hanging them with the active or tacit support of their preachers is profoundly dishonest and hypocritical.The churches have two millennia of violence to repent before there can even be a conversation.
He is also being selective in his position in respect of the question of spiritual pride. Jesus was harsh on Pharisaism, as he termed any doctrine which encouraged people in moral smugness and feelings of superiority to other sinners. That is clearly present in his argument and not repented of in any serious way - as is evinced by his attempt to claim moral equivalency.
I suppose I should go over there and say some of this, but he clearly has a little chorus of cheer leaders and I don't see any point in going there to be shot at.
And I find his attitude to women quite staggeringly an example of how male sexists put women on pedestals in order to regard them as inferior.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-10-19 11:11 am (UTC)What is of course absent from Jesus' teachings is any statement that homosexuality is an especially bad sin. It is all very well for him to cite those penitential manuals which treat it as equivalent to heterosexual fornication, but it is also highly disingenuous given that for most of the history of Christianity it has been regarded as the sin of sins and punished accordingly.
The idea that there is some sort of moral equivalency between LGBT militants using harsh language and bullyboys kicking people to death or hanging them with the active or tacit support of their preachers is profoundly dishonest and hypocritical.The churches have two millennia of violence to repent before there can even be a conversation.
He is also being selective in his position in respect of the question of spiritual pride. Jesus was harsh on Pharisaism, as he termed any doctrine which encouraged people in moral smugness and feelings of superiority to other sinners. That is clearly present in his argument and not repented of in any serious way - as is evinced by his attempt to claim moral equivalency.
I suppose I should go over there and say some of this, but he clearly has a little chorus of cheer leaders and I don't see any point in going there to be shot at.
And I find his attitude to women quite staggeringly an example of how male sexists put women on pedestals in order to regard them as inferior.