Well, I too revile using sex as domination, unless everyone involved is into that sort of thing.
Oh. Should've read downblog before commenting. Sorry.
Very interesting. I wish I had religious impulses that extended further than "peace is good" sometimes.
I've long wondered if the delay in the appearance of "Reform" Islam in America is due to the defensiveness engendered by hostility, one of the motives of headscarf-wearing, or other factors, such as the difficulty of creating new styles and traditions today, compared even with the 19th C. Too many people watching and commenting.
The latter fact is probably exacerbated by Reform Judaism's lucky emergence at a time when "sincerity" was almost totally ascendant over its companion, "authenticity." Today those relative values are reversed, and it impacts every cultural phenomenon.
Trilling's terminology and insight; I hope you know what I'm talking about.
That kind of seriousness and care with a text is downright poignant.
Why is finding a new interpretation that allows the believer to do what he wants to be understood as "seriousness and care"? I don't understand the application of "seriousness and care" to interpretation as a general rule, unless it's being used to signal something about like-mindedness. It's doubly puzzling to me when previously undiscovered or well-outside-the-consensus interpretations are painted as made with s&c. (Indeed, sometimes it appears that s&c claims are being supported by pointing to the unexpectedness of the interpretation.)
Since the primary Koranic verses used to condemn homosexuality also suggest male rape, the progressive reading is that the verses revile using sex as domination, said Scott Kugle, an American convert and university professor who specializes in the topic.
This exact same argument is made by liberal christians with respect to the bible.
One thing I'm curious about: where in the Christian or Jewish bibles does it say that abortion is murder? I can't find it, and in I think Leviticus it more or less directly says that abortion is not murder (the penalty for killing an unborn baby is just a fine).
6: Liberal Christians, at least those of a particular stripe, also tend to take rhetorical advantage of the supercession of the old covenant by the new, i.e., Our L.&S. J.C. ("The Bible? What a preachy book! Everybody's a sinner. Except this guy...."). I think it can be tricky to reconcile this line of argument with anti-antisemitism, though.
Why is finding a new interpretation that allows the believer to do what he wants to be understood as "seriousness and care"?
Because religions like Islam are, broadly speaking, interpretative. As far as I understand Islamic religious structure, not just any old interpretation will do---there are various hierarchies of interpretative authority in the Sunni and Shia branches, just for starters---but the beginning of any change in the religious culture would be for scholars to begin to argue for a different textual reading, which will then compete among the authorities for legitimacy etc.
Peevish wrote what I was going to say, as Peevish so often does.
With the caveat that I am a member of what some would definitely term a cafeteria religion, a position with which I wouldn't really argue, I fail to see the value in people choosing to live in self-conflict. Does it make them more thoughtful about their religion? Maybe, but not necessarily so and current American politics are rife with examples of people whose professed religious beliefs, in opposition to their discovered actions, have led to dangerous secret lives coupled to public performances of rage and self-loathing. I would rather see them joyous at having beliefs compatible with their personal experience than see them suffering in self-denial.
This exact same argument is made by liberal christians with respect to the bible.
Yes and no. There are four basic arguments the liberals make.
1. The prohibitions in Leviticus are, like everything else in the Old Testament, superseded by the teachings of Jesus. God doesn't care about sodomy any more than he does about eating shrimp.
2. Some of the New Testament prohibitions (e.g. 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Corinthians 6) are interpreted in the way lol describes. I don't know any New Testament Greek, so I'm not in a position to evaluate these claims, but they seem awfully tendentious to me at times.
3. Where the New Testament prohibitions are uncomfortably unambiguous, some of the more adventurous liberals deny the canonicity of the text. IIRC this argument is brought out frequently against the Epistle to the Romans.
4. As an ultimate backstop, liberals can always fall back on the position that no Gospel attributes any such sentiments to Jesus directly; it's all in the epistolary texts.
Nah -- the idea that abortion is murder is pretty late in Christianity, though it was always down on infanticide, in distinction to the pagan cultures around it. ("Always" meaning that you had strange mediaeval phenomena like "overlaying", when you accidentally squashed the baby while sleeping in the same bed. But that waas always accidental. Of course)
Aquinas thought that Aristotle was right, and ensoulment took place about 40 days after conception. Can't remember whether he also took over the idea that it took place at 800 days for girls. The idea that life begins at conception was a pure historical accident. It came from the desire to define Mary as free from sin all through her life -- which is that the Immculate Conception is about: nothing to do wqith Jesus' birth. It was pretty obvious what counted as the end of Mary's life on earth. But where had it started? At this point some bright spark had the idea that, obviously, it was at the moment of conception. Formalised in 1854.
Only in America, as they say, is it widely believed by otherwise educated people that Christians believe what's in the Bible, and nothing much else. Catholics are at least honest about the fact that they have rules for making shit up developing doctrine.
I fail to see the value in people choosing to live in self-conflict
I don't think they set out to choose self-conflict, but that they believe that it's best to live by a set of principles, and those principles sometimes conflict with their desires. Particularly for people born into a religion that they take seriously, this can be a tough problem.
7 - I think that's one of the reasons that abortion was considered a Catholic issue by conservative Protestants before Roe v. Wade.
I admit I have little patience with people who treat religious texts with this kind of seriousness and care, whether they're supporting traditional bigotry or pushing for positive change. I know that's just the way a lot of religions work, but isn't asking permission a really odd way of relating to a text?
This exact same argument is made by liberal christians with respect to the bible.
This seems like a tough argument to make, since you basically have to support the rape part with no direct textual evidence. At least for the verse in Leviticus; maybe there's something in the NT that's more amenable to this reading.
One thing I'm curious about: where in the Christian or Jewish bibles does it say that abortion is murder? I can't find it, and in I think Leviticus it more or less directly says that abortion is not murder (the penalty for killing an unborn baby is just a fine).
That is correct, and the traditional Jewish attitude has been that it isn't. The Christian anti-abortion attitude is justified with an extremely tendentious reinterpretation of that verse.
12: Yes and no.
No: it's yes and yes. Sure, the other arguments you mention are made, but 2 is thought by many to stand on its own. And to apply to the new and old testaments, both. There's pelenty of scholarship on this, almost none of which I can point you to off the top of my head. But as one example I know, the arugment is set out pretty clearly in the relevant chapters of this book.
I know that's just the way a lot of religions work, but isn't asking permission a really odd way of relating to a text?
Not if you believe it's the word of God and contains the answers to every conceivable question. Which, admittedly, is also a weird way of relating to a text. It's not just a religious attitude, though; constitutional law is the same way, at least in the US.
I've often thought of earlier doctrine against abortion as condemning property crime.
If you are willing to stretch the boundaries of credulity, you can find a patchwork of scriptural references to oppose abortion (e.g. Psalm 139:13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."; or Psalm 22:9-10 "Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. /From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.")
As a general rule of scriptural exegisis: if you're reduced to poking around the psalms for scriptural support, you're on pretty weak ground.
22: The fuck talk is in the other thread, teo.
14: They do choose to remain conflicted, however. I was born into a much more traditional religion than I have now and took it seriously enough to eventually tend towards destructive behaviors as a release valve for the tension between my experience and my beliefs. The healthy choice for me was to let go of the beliefs because I could in no healthy way let go of my experience. That said, my choices aren't right for everybody. The cafeteria-religion part of myself is eager to remind me that failing to see the value is not the same thing as there being none at all.
Also, are all these new commenters or did everyone change pseuds as part of Ogged's grand experiment? Christ.
isn't asking permission a really odd
No, asking permission and restricting the right of interpretation to the learned few is necessary to avoid schism after schism. We already have latter-day saints, Christian scientists, and Baha'i. After identity amnesia, will the novelty treadmill inspire other innovations?
On abortion: a lot of people stake their position on Psalm 139:13. (Well, that plus Leviticus and the other bits.)
Fuck, I was pwned by Knecht not only with my scripture reference but also with my slip in anonymity!
Some people are using changed pseuds some of the time, McP.
By all the exclamations following those who use their names, I have figured it out. Fine, fine, be stripped of your identities at ogged's whim.
The healthy choice for me was to let go of the beliefs because I could in no healthy way let go of my experience.
This is how I approach religion, too. I had to get out of a fairly nasty one because it would have forced me into tremendous unhappiness.
I think for a lot of these gay Muslims (and gay Orthodox Jews, and others in really intense, traditional faith communities, where the faith pretty much defines the boundaries of the community and the community is strong enough to essentially be their entire social world), leaving the faith just doesn't seem like an option. So they have to wrestle with texts and with themselves. It's poignant, but it seems like it's not a good position to be in.
They do choose to remain conflicted, however.
I wonder if any of them ever tries to characterize the conflict as a paradox, in the mode of Fear and Trembling.
As a general rule of scriptural exegisis: if you're reduced to poking around the psalms for scriptural support, you're on pretty weak ground.
Agreed. They are fascinating, though, both in content and form. I've been paying quite a bit of attention to them recently.
I have a close female Muslim friend. She found that she couldn't deal with the tensions between religion and having a boyfriend and having sex. It was the religion that ended up going.
They are fascinating, though, both in content and form.
I chose this one to have read at my wedding, but only because the bride wouldn't allow me to pick this one.
Whoa, Psalm 69 is awesome. I wasn't familiar with that one.
36: And if your religious views are of the Matthew Arnold, science-and-poetry variety, as mine are, then a wonderful source of feeling and consolation.
And music. My temple choir did Bernstein's Chicester Psalms in the spring and for the HHolidays, and my university chorus is doing Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms now. Some of the best experiences I've ever had singing.
Has anyone seen Trembling Before G-d, about gay Chasidim? Utterly heartbreaking -- with a funny moment where a fellow explains to his rav that yes, he's gay, but he does not engage in anal sex, since it's actually that that is forbidden. The rav then asks, Well, what the heck can you do then? Oh well, says the guy, there's oral sex. Rav is dumbstruck and asks, You would put another man's schmeke in your mouth?!
26: & 34: I've a good friend who's both gay and a devout Southern Baptist. He's been through both "The Cure", hetro-marriage, kids, and assorted drugs too.
He's finally managed to reconcile it all by using his very own interpretations of the bible verses. It was a tough hike up a steep and treacherous road though.
He's finally managed to reconcile it all by using his very own interpretations of the bible verses.
Yeah, like Numbers 10:8. It's totally about sucking dick.
43: Pretty much like that, with references to the original languages and all sorts of elaborate interpretations.
It's lots of effort and silly from my POV but it does keep him out of the gutter or morgue.
Here's what I don't get. Let's say you squirm around with the language enough so you can get out of some of the Bible's creepier commandments. Okay, cool, now you can eat lobster and have anal sex. You're still stuck with a deity who heartily endorses genocide, so what the fuck?
Not seeing the relevant portion of 40, pox.
45: But you don't feel permanently ostracized from the only community you've ever known. So there's that.
48: That's overstating just a bit the experience of leaving a church, isn't it? Religious communities aren't the only communities to which we belong, at least in most of the world.
Re: 47
The relevant part is if your religious views are of the Matthew Arnold, science-and-poetry variety, as mine are, then a wonderful source of feeling and consolation
If you're kind of on the fence about whether the deity even exists, you can still find a lot of satisfaction/utility in belonging to a community and continuing 2,000 years (or 6,000 years, depending on your creed) of tradition.
That's overstating just a bit the experience of leaving a church, isn't it? Religious communities aren't the only communities to which we belong, at least in most of the world.
Depends on the religious community and its importance to, e.g., your parents and other close family members.
50: Yeah, but that wasn't the kind of religious believer I was talking about. I was addressing the kind of liberal Christian addressed in 12, for example - someone who assumes a reverence for the text but finds its religious commandments abhorrent and archaic, and so uses various theological interpretations to do away with them, while leaving the horrifying narrative of the text itself (God kills lots of people, and tells other people to kill lots more people for him) and all that it implies unaddressed.
So, just to clarify, you're talking about people who actively believe in God and revere the Bible, but rationalize away the parts of it they don't like?
people who actively believe in God and revere the Bible, but rationalize away the parts of it they don't like
In other words, all professing Christians at all times throughout history.
In other words, all professing Christians at all times throughout history.
Yes, those are the ones I don't get.
Ooooor, maybe the idea that *all* texts require interpretation is kind of an unavoidable fact.
Is this the part where we use the 'there's no such thing as authorial intent' bits to tell God to piss off? That'd be pretty sweet.
I've been wading through all this unbelievable
junk and wondering if I should have given
the world to the monkeys.
"4. As an ultimate backstop, liberals can always fall back on the position that no Gospel attributes any such sentiments to Jesus directly; it's all in the epistolary texts."
Now, I'm not a liberal Christian, but if I were, I think that would be my first position, not my backstop. As I see it, Jesus was pretty cool, whereas Paul was a complete dick. Call it the "Last Temptation" exegesis if you wish.
I wonder about the sustainability and inheritability of liberal religious beliefs. It seems to me that I'm one of the few people I know, outside the clergy, who combines love of religious tradition, knowledge of bible and liberalism, and was raised to it. Everybody else has become so after receiving their knowledge in much more conservative traditions, and those whom I know were raised as religious liberals like me are usually either no longer religious or simply don't know enough to fully participate.
61: Whenever I get to feeling that way, IDP, I read some Simone Weil.