Re: I Am Homophobic

>>>>> "bijan" == Bijan Parsia <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]> writes:

  bijan> 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.

  bijan> Hmm. I don't particularly so believe.

Quite.

Especially since the point isn't whether there are specific sequences
of words in these texts, and *where* the sequences start and stop,
but, rather, what any of it *means*, and citations do nothing, in my
view, whatever to *settle* interpretive questions (even if they are
sometimes informative about particularl kinds of question; i.e., some
times it matters where a pericope comes from Mark or Matthew or
Luke-Acts or Gospel of Thomas, etc.).

After all, the entire selection-naming-query mechanism is a wholly
modern invention.

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

Heh. No doubt. "Destroy the -ites utterly" is a frequent refrain. :>

(However, I am leery of using the word 'genocide' specifically since
it's more or less a modern concept and given the Holocaust, it can be
politically ill-advised to toss it around freely re: the Hebrew Bible,
the historical veracity of which is very mixed.)

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

Indeed. I try always to distinguish in conversations between Xn
fundies I think will listen to other readings of the text and those
who won't. Different tactics work for different kinds of person. I
don't think specific scriptural cites works for either.

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

To the latter: not much. (Esp. since there are only about 3 or 4
places in the entire Xn scripture where one can even misread a
reference to homosexuality.)

As to the former, it depends. I've helped push wavering fundies over
the edge into a more decent pose. But usually something else,
something big, has to get them to waver.

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

Yes, the practical problem! Who the hell remembers or wants to look
that stuff up? Not me.

  >> the Koran in proper context, that is, his interpretations are
  >> appropiate based on the text.

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

Bingo. Recall that Martin Luther was not a systematic theologian (to
speak only a tiny bit anachronistically) nor was he a systematic
thinker; he was a professor of biblical interpretation, many of his 97
theses are about the interpretation of scripture, most of his extant
writings are scriptural interpretations, and so on.

It's absolutely the case that at the ideological level the Reformation
was a big fight about reading strategy, and this was very explicitly
the case. (There was more going on, to be sure.)

In fact, we get in the West the modern historical critical method
because the Reformation moved the Western Church, in part, off an
allegorical reading method and on to a mixed method, including a
literal mode. (Plus we get an egalitarian, democratizing impulse *of
sorts*, the explosion of European vernacular languages, and thus the
development of kinds of proto-national folk texts (and thus an
important precursor to national identities, hence states), and some
other stuff too. All things considered, it's a very mixed historical
development, without which we wouldn't be us.)

  >> 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.

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

Yeah, he just mistakes what 'expert' means. In the sense I meant
(professionals at historical-critical interpretation: yes and no; no
where 'base' means 'historical origin'; yes where it means
'contemporary social organization'), in the sense of institutionally
authorized interpreters, absolutely and always. (Precisely because
without an authoritative interpretive mechanism, the multiplicity of
readings are a powerful centrifugal social force, and it's hard, if
not impossible, to maintain a coherent social institution in the face
of that force. This is one reason, a la Rousseau & Bernard Boxill, the
perhaps once morally-neutral idea of "authoritative text" is a
*corrupting* idea that we're all better off without, *especially*
religious traditions.)

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

Imagine the horrors of media types plowing into the Qu'ran or into,
say, any of the gospels without *some* guidance... (Though given the
quality of "Middle East studies" experts the corpo media relies on --
see Edward Said's many destructions of, say, Bernard Lewish -- it
probably would only be *as bad* but in a different way.)

Kendall