I have often been concerned about the tendency to connect pedophilia with the LGBTQ community. There's no credible evidence that pedophilia is linked any particular sexual preference or gender identity, and many convicted pedophiles are heterosexual. Mischaracterizing the demographics doesn't help curtail the actual problem at all. If anything, if such views were widely adopted, it decrease the likelihood of apprehending heterosexual pedophiles because law enforcement wouldn't be looking for them.
It's also concerning when arguments are made that are illogical, unsupported by evidence, or both. Of course, if such fear mongers did start naming names, they could get hit with defamation lawsuits. But if they fear such lawsuits, it means they know, on some level, that their claims can't be supported by evidence, since truth is a defense in such cases.
Like you, I believe that the best way to deal with big problems is to get the help of as many people as possible. In times of crisis, uniting people of different faiths makes far more sense than trying to divide them.
The community in which I taught was very diverse, both culturally and religiously. The students were predominately Jewish, but there were also fairly large Muslim and Christian populations, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, and even representatives of much rarer faiths, such as Zoroastrianism. Their parents represented more fifty different countries. For the most part, they didn't fight over their different beliefs and traditions, working on the principle of mutual respect instead. Any other course of action would have made it impossible for the school to function.
Anyway, I find efforts to hijack Christianity, turning it into a hate group, to be concerning as well. Though I'm not personally a Biblical literalist, I'd argue that even literalists need not believe that members of the LGBTQ community are sinners.
In my experience, literalism is often applied very selectively. The "literalists" ruthlessly apply that kind of analysis to anything that they agree with but are perfectly willing to treat as figurative anything they disagree with. The very people weaponizing the words of Leviticus and Paul aren't selling all they have and giving the proceeds to the poor, as Jesus suggests a true disciple should do. (Matthew 18) Nor are they putting all they have into a common pool, as the early Jerusalem church is described as doing in Acts (and praised for it a little later in the book). I don't know exactly what economic system a modern nation trying to follow the NT literally might construct, but it wouldn't be capitalism. One might also cite Jesus's pacifism, demonstrated numerous times. A Biblical literalist would seemingly have to assume that the Second Amendment is fundamentally unchristian, though I've yet to see any literalist make that argument.
One must then ask, if it isn't necessary to apply the words of Jesus literally, why is it necessary to apply other biblical texts literally? One would think if there were criteria for making a determination of what was meant to be literal, the words of Jesus would be favored by such criteria over all else. (Spoiler alert: Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about LGBTQ issues and a lot to say about loving your neighbor.)
The truth is that some of the provisions of the Bible are situational, not universal. Every Christian realizes this on some level. If that weren't the case, we'd all still be following the Mosaic law. Instead, many of us eat unclean meats, even though the author of Leviticus denounces that, just like penetrative sex acts between males, as an abomination. Yet the Council of Jerusalem and the writings of Paul uphold the idea that what was once the law is no longer required of Christians.
So why cherry-pick that one condemnation in Leviticus and hold onto it as if our lives depended on it? Because Paul seems to extend that prohibition to Christians. But consider the language in Romans. Paul explicitly says that same-sex relations are a consequence of sin (idolatry in this case) rather than the sin itself. (Romans 1:18-32). Paul is not as clear on this point elsewhere, but unless we want to acknowledge that Paul contradicts himself, we have to assume that in the other references, Paul is talking about such relations as the consequence of sin, using them as a symptom of sin rather than the sin itself.
Keep in mind that, as in so many other cases, there is context to consider. Paul wasn't aware of any same-sex relationships that were loving relationships between equals. The verbs he uses are predatory in nature, and there is certainly evidence that in Roman society, male slaves were sometimes abused by their masters. We all condemn slavery, and we would all condemn rape. If Paul was only aware of such instances, and of the earlier practice of punishing male prisoners of war by raping them in this way, then it's easier to see why Paul would so vigorously condemn such things. It is likewise easy to see why ancient Israelites, surrounded by enemies who often greatly outnumbered them, would have wanted their men procreating as much as possible.
But we live in far different circumstances now. Same-sex relationships exist outside the context of rape and punishment for prisoners (and pagan rituals, probably another reason they were condemned). And if anything, the world is overpopulated. "Be fruitful and multiply," made much more sense a few thousand years ago than it does now.
Paul was no stranger to the idea that contexts make a difference. For instance, compare his absolute statement in Galatians 3:28 ("There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus"), an unambiguously egalitarian statement, with the three different formulations of the role of women in I Corinthians. Unless Paul is contradicting himself, we have to assume that the statement in Galatians is a general principle, while the more nuanced statements in I Corinthians are situational in nature.
That, I think, is the key to helping literalists to a better understanding of the role of the LGBTQ community in Christian teaching. We must distinguish general principles from situational exceptions, just as Paul presumably does. For instance, "Love your neighbor," is a general principal, and, as the parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear, everyone is our neighbor. Statements that seem to contradict such general principles, when the context is considered, must be regarded as exceptions, not as rules in and of themselves.
Sorry, I didn't intend to go on so long. As you may have gathered, this issue is one of my pet peeves.
Thank you for your thoughts! I do suspect that the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia (and on that note, the conflation of transgender people with gay people) is the basis for Samara's reasoning. It is very frustrating to watch many Christians make this mistake. As for what the Bible says about homosexuality (and the important point that Jesus never brought it up) I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I've seen strong arguments on both sides, but I've mostly chosen to stay out of the debate because of my personal bias (I am gay). You are completely right, though, to put emphasis on "Love your neighbor." Even if someone believes with all their heart that homosexuality is a sin, they are still explicitly instructed to love their gay neighbors. I personally think this is the greatest failing of the modern Church--Jesus said we'd be known by our love for one another, but we are instead known for our hatred of the LGBT community. It is such a sad reality, and part of the aim of my books is to challenge the Church on that failing.
I looked up Liberty Magazine and it appears to be a title used by more than one publication. It may be wise to distinguish that the Liberty Magazine you are referring to was launched 6 mos ago by Samara. The Liberty Magazine launched in 1906 by the Seventh Day Adventists is different.
Excellent article. A few minor points where I disagree with the interpretation. First, their language isn't about restricting travel but figuring out who is sensible to travel for the purpose of a sting operation. Second, with no evidence to suggest otherwise, I wouldn't suggest they're putting children at risk for these operations. I think they're usually text based, standing a meeting with an adult pretending to be a minor. Minor points though because I fully agree with the article otherwise.
I had a few more paragraphs to go before. I think my last disagreement would be intent. The result of their actions is exactly as you say, but reading your article, I'm afraid they're full believers, bought into the hatre-speech and not cynically using it. This is the natural outcome of where conservative dogmatism has brought us, and I wonder what they'll do when they people they catch, if any, are other conservatives and not drag queens.
Good pushback, thank you. I may have been overreacting with some of those points. And intent is very difficult to demonstrate—we can never truly know for sure without being in their minds.
I have often been concerned about the tendency to connect pedophilia with the LGBTQ community. There's no credible evidence that pedophilia is linked any particular sexual preference or gender identity, and many convicted pedophiles are heterosexual. Mischaracterizing the demographics doesn't help curtail the actual problem at all. If anything, if such views were widely adopted, it decrease the likelihood of apprehending heterosexual pedophiles because law enforcement wouldn't be looking for them.
It's also concerning when arguments are made that are illogical, unsupported by evidence, or both. Of course, if such fear mongers did start naming names, they could get hit with defamation lawsuits. But if they fear such lawsuits, it means they know, on some level, that their claims can't be supported by evidence, since truth is a defense in such cases.
Like you, I believe that the best way to deal with big problems is to get the help of as many people as possible. In times of crisis, uniting people of different faiths makes far more sense than trying to divide them.
The community in which I taught was very diverse, both culturally and religiously. The students were predominately Jewish, but there were also fairly large Muslim and Christian populations, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, and even representatives of much rarer faiths, such as Zoroastrianism. Their parents represented more fifty different countries. For the most part, they didn't fight over their different beliefs and traditions, working on the principle of mutual respect instead. Any other course of action would have made it impossible for the school to function.
Anyway, I find efforts to hijack Christianity, turning it into a hate group, to be concerning as well. Though I'm not personally a Biblical literalist, I'd argue that even literalists need not believe that members of the LGBTQ community are sinners.
In my experience, literalism is often applied very selectively. The "literalists" ruthlessly apply that kind of analysis to anything that they agree with but are perfectly willing to treat as figurative anything they disagree with. The very people weaponizing the words of Leviticus and Paul aren't selling all they have and giving the proceeds to the poor, as Jesus suggests a true disciple should do. (Matthew 18) Nor are they putting all they have into a common pool, as the early Jerusalem church is described as doing in Acts (and praised for it a little later in the book). I don't know exactly what economic system a modern nation trying to follow the NT literally might construct, but it wouldn't be capitalism. One might also cite Jesus's pacifism, demonstrated numerous times. A Biblical literalist would seemingly have to assume that the Second Amendment is fundamentally unchristian, though I've yet to see any literalist make that argument.
One must then ask, if it isn't necessary to apply the words of Jesus literally, why is it necessary to apply other biblical texts literally? One would think if there were criteria for making a determination of what was meant to be literal, the words of Jesus would be favored by such criteria over all else. (Spoiler alert: Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about LGBTQ issues and a lot to say about loving your neighbor.)
The truth is that some of the provisions of the Bible are situational, not universal. Every Christian realizes this on some level. If that weren't the case, we'd all still be following the Mosaic law. Instead, many of us eat unclean meats, even though the author of Leviticus denounces that, just like penetrative sex acts between males, as an abomination. Yet the Council of Jerusalem and the writings of Paul uphold the idea that what was once the law is no longer required of Christians.
So why cherry-pick that one condemnation in Leviticus and hold onto it as if our lives depended on it? Because Paul seems to extend that prohibition to Christians. But consider the language in Romans. Paul explicitly says that same-sex relations are a consequence of sin (idolatry in this case) rather than the sin itself. (Romans 1:18-32). Paul is not as clear on this point elsewhere, but unless we want to acknowledge that Paul contradicts himself, we have to assume that in the other references, Paul is talking about such relations as the consequence of sin, using them as a symptom of sin rather than the sin itself.
Keep in mind that, as in so many other cases, there is context to consider. Paul wasn't aware of any same-sex relationships that were loving relationships between equals. The verbs he uses are predatory in nature, and there is certainly evidence that in Roman society, male slaves were sometimes abused by their masters. We all condemn slavery, and we would all condemn rape. If Paul was only aware of such instances, and of the earlier practice of punishing male prisoners of war by raping them in this way, then it's easier to see why Paul would so vigorously condemn such things. It is likewise easy to see why ancient Israelites, surrounded by enemies who often greatly outnumbered them, would have wanted their men procreating as much as possible.
But we live in far different circumstances now. Same-sex relationships exist outside the context of rape and punishment for prisoners (and pagan rituals, probably another reason they were condemned). And if anything, the world is overpopulated. "Be fruitful and multiply," made much more sense a few thousand years ago than it does now.
Paul was no stranger to the idea that contexts make a difference. For instance, compare his absolute statement in Galatians 3:28 ("There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus"), an unambiguously egalitarian statement, with the three different formulations of the role of women in I Corinthians. Unless Paul is contradicting himself, we have to assume that the statement in Galatians is a general principle, while the more nuanced statements in I Corinthians are situational in nature.
That, I think, is the key to helping literalists to a better understanding of the role of the LGBTQ community in Christian teaching. We must distinguish general principles from situational exceptions, just as Paul presumably does. For instance, "Love your neighbor," is a general principal, and, as the parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear, everyone is our neighbor. Statements that seem to contradict such general principles, when the context is considered, must be regarded as exceptions, not as rules in and of themselves.
Sorry, I didn't intend to go on so long. As you may have gathered, this issue is one of my pet peeves.
Thank you for your thoughts! I do suspect that the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia (and on that note, the conflation of transgender people with gay people) is the basis for Samara's reasoning. It is very frustrating to watch many Christians make this mistake. As for what the Bible says about homosexuality (and the important point that Jesus never brought it up) I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I've seen strong arguments on both sides, but I've mostly chosen to stay out of the debate because of my personal bias (I am gay). You are completely right, though, to put emphasis on "Love your neighbor." Even if someone believes with all their heart that homosexuality is a sin, they are still explicitly instructed to love their gay neighbors. I personally think this is the greatest failing of the modern Church--Jesus said we'd be known by our love for one another, but we are instead known for our hatred of the LGBT community. It is such a sad reality, and part of the aim of my books is to challenge the Church on that failing.
I looked up Liberty Magazine and it appears to be a title used by more than one publication. It may be wise to distinguish that the Liberty Magazine you are referring to was launched 6 mos ago by Samara. The Liberty Magazine launched in 1906 by the Seventh Day Adventists is different.
That is helpful to know! I'll edit the post to clarify that. Thanks!
Excellent article. A few minor points where I disagree with the interpretation. First, their language isn't about restricting travel but figuring out who is sensible to travel for the purpose of a sting operation. Second, with no evidence to suggest otherwise, I wouldn't suggest they're putting children at risk for these operations. I think they're usually text based, standing a meeting with an adult pretending to be a minor. Minor points though because I fully agree with the article otherwise.
I had a few more paragraphs to go before. I think my last disagreement would be intent. The result of their actions is exactly as you say, but reading your article, I'm afraid they're full believers, bought into the hatre-speech and not cynically using it. This is the natural outcome of where conservative dogmatism has brought us, and I wonder what they'll do when they people they catch, if any, are other conservatives and not drag queens.
Good pushback, thank you. I may have been overreacting with some of those points. And intent is very difficult to demonstrate—we can never truly know for sure without being in their minds.