Re: I Am Homophobic

On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, benjamin a graffam wrote:

> 
> 	when making statements about the Bible I believe it is important to cite
> where in the Bible it says things like supporting slavery, child abuse,
> and banning mixed fiber clothing, etc and to put things into context. 

Hmm. I don't particularly so believe.

But support of genocide is easy enough to find. Check out Kings.

> some people may have a differnet understanding of what they read,

Er.. in general, I don't think actual textual disputes are going to matter
when debating fundies. Not *just* because "people may have a different
understanding", but because, generally, those people beleive that only
their understanding *matters*.

> otherwise if the passage is not cited by either party an argument based
> solely on personal feelings could occur.

But it into context. How likely is a 'dialogue' with homophobic
fundies? How much is that likelihood hurt by failure to cite passages?

>  the danger in this is as humans
> is that iron sharpens iron.  consequently not citing passages can be a
> hinderence to dialogue, that is many times when exchange is done mostly
> on an emotional level the volume in our voice increases but we are not
> necessarily heard or understood any better.

I've yet to see biblical citings turn down the heat in these cases, which
is why I gave up on it. I need pretty clear gains to suffer through
reading the Bible, and they just weren't there. Your miliage may vary.

>    A good example of this is
> the treatment of Islam by the mainstreem media.  they keep insisting that
> Islam is a religion of peace, have many 'experts' on TV who support this
> notion, but I do not hear them quoting the Koran to support this idea. 

You're probably not looking hard enough. I've run across plenty of such
quotes, not that they impress me any more than bible quotes do.

> For all i know Osama could very well be putting what he reads in the
> Koran in proper context, that is, his interpretations are appropiate
> based on the text.

Except, of course, no where is the text alone enough. There's *always* a
strong interpretative tradition. The Reformation wasn't about *shedding*
interpretative traditions *per se*, but adopting new ones.

>  in a way the mainsteam media is preventing dialogue
> by making statements and using 'experts' to back them up, rather then use
> the Koran which is the basis for Islam.  last i checked the bible is the
> basis for  Judaism and Christianity, and The Koran is the basis for
> Islam.  'experts' are not the basis for any religion that i am aware even
> exists. 

Er...kendall will supply the details, I'm sure, but Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam have experts woven into their bases.

Not, typically, TV experts and certainly not George Bush, but
authoratative interpreters are common (heck, let's start with the Pope).

Cheers,
Bijan.