Question about New Testament (with OT)

[Grey Wolf]

Kathryn Cawte wrote: 
> Some christian churches say that homosexuality is a sin because the
> bible says so. Well the bible also has (as far as I know) verses
> saying that growing two crops in the same field is a sin, that
> working on a Sunday is a sin, that 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to
> live'. Most mainstream Christian churches do not now consider these
> to be sins (although some do still try to prevent people working on
> Sundays - although don't all vicars work on the Sabbath anyway?) but
> homosexuality is. Why? What makes one part of the Bible absolute
> whereas other parts can be discarded as and when people feel like it. 

I discussed this point in my two previous posts (not that I can blame 
you for missing it - they're slightly chaotic), but in essence, it 
says: Bible has two books, Old and New Testament.Old has many laws, 
which in theory should be followed strictly by jews (That was the case 
in the middle ages, at least. I am absolutely ignorant about modern 
jewish interpretation of Korah and will not make a statement - maybe 
joywitch can). New Testament has only one rule, and a lot of examples 
of conduct. 

Thus, in priciple, christians should follow that one rule, and ignore 
all the others, interpreting every circunstance in light of that one 
rule. In practice, christianity is divided. Catholic canonic 
interpretation is passed down from the Pope. Everyone else is entitled 
their opinion, as long as it does not contradict a statement by the 
Pope made under Truth of Faith. In Protestant Churches, IIRC (please 
note, this isn't necessarily true nowadays), interpretation is entirely 
in the hand of all the clergy, and they're allowed to contradict each 
other (one of Luther's reforms, IIRC). I've no idea how this works in 
Orthodox Church or any other I might be missing, sorry.

Finally, we come to the modern day Pharesees. These are the ones that, 
for some reason, find certain acts "evil", and find a passage in the 
Bible that supports their thesis... and use it as a battering ram to 
attack other people. Normally ignoring other problematic verses about 
not throwing stones if you're a sinner yourself. I've been checking the 
archives of Ozy and Millie (the comic linked by Melody) and I invite 
everyone to read the next few comics beyond the one linked, which are 
still about the same idea. In particular, I like:

http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20000817.html

But as I say, all the ones in between (and also the next one) are good.

> Also the CofE attitude towards gay clergy is slightly odd - it's OK
> to be homosexual provided you're not a *practising* homosexual. The
> guy who was forced to withdraw from trying to become a bishop here
> was gay and in a relationship (long-standing) but celibate, which 
> apparently made it OK.Heterosexual clergy aren't required to be
> celibate but homosexual clergy are
> 
> K

Ummm... I can explain where the logic comes from, but once again, I 
want to first state that I'm *not* agreeing with it. First, let me say 
that the Catholic Church recently had a document published telling 
Catholic gays to stay celibate, since having sex would be sin for them 
(*any* sex - even with a woman). It was published by a high-ranking 
priest (archbishop, I think), but, luckily, it is not the Pope's word - 
so it is just an interpretation.

The logic is this: gay sex is sin, because it is not reproduction 
oriented (fundamentalist Catholics believe that all sex must be for 
reproduction purposes only). In fact, *being* gay is considered 
"unnatural" and "a desease", and while anyone sick is entitled 
compassion, the document stated they should prevent "passing it on". 
They seem to understand that being gay is transmisible. I won't comment 
on the details of my opinion of those views, just will say that I don't 
agree with them.

At any rate, from this PoV, I assume that CofE is thinking in more or 
less the same lines: the gay priest are not allowed to have sex, not 
because they are priests, but because *any* gay sex is sin, and they 
should, as guides of comunity, provide guidance and avoid sin.

I have to say, that, in a certain way, I do agree with this - but does 
depend on how sin is defined in each church. In the Catholic Church, it 
would make more sense, since all priests take a vow of celibacy. No-one 
forces them and so if they break it, they should be retired of their 
position. Thing is, *as long as officially, their act is sinful in 
their religion* a priest should not do it, no matter how ridiculous the 
sin is. They can, of course, lead a campaign to "un-sin" it, by 
interpretation of their religious texts.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who wants to insist yet again that he finds nothing morally 
wrong in gay sex, regardless of what the more conservative parties of 
his Church say.