Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Christians who oppose “gay marriage” because it isn't "Biblical marriage"... (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I replied to this diary in advance (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RudiB, kyril

    a couple of days ago...
    Link

    •  The short version (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Batya the Toon

      Biblical interpretation of the short posted in this diary is just as much fundamentalism as the fundamentalism it opposes.  Opposing reactionary, anti-modern readings of the bible with reactionary, anti-modern readings of the bible is not going to get you far.

      •  I disagree, RainDog2 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        athenap, RainDog2, Ishmaelbychoice

        Having some experience with the "fundamentalist" world (I grew up/was indoctrinated in/escaped from it, and some of my family is still in it/married into it), I've found that to many people there is only one thing that matters.
        The Bible. Period. The best argument in the world for marriage equality is our constitution. But it doesn't matter to many fundamentalists. "Who cares what that says, what does God say?"
        Fundamentalists, not all but many, take the Bible at face value, period. Many American Christians believe the Bible is exactly what it is meant to be, with no need for "softening" or interpretation: it says what it says, and that's that. (Thus we have science books that teach that human beings literally walked with dinosaurs, since the world is "only 6,000 years old"...again, I was taught from those books).
        During my transition from indoctrinated zealot to thinker, the first thing to shake me was that much of the Bible was cruel and unjust. If the Bible was to be taken at face value, as the pure and preserved word of God, then God didn't like women; God didn't like the vulnerable; God didn't like non-believers; God didn't like most people.
        Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a Christian and gleaning the wisdom from the Bible while ignoring the rest of it. But unfortunately there are a lot of very hardcore Christians who pretend to themselves and others that they do not and never would discard pieces of the Bible, but instead embrace it wholeheartedly. It's not that they love it, warts and all, but that it has no warts.
        And, finally, there are a lot of less informed Christians, the sort of "scroll past the user agreement and click 'I agree'" believer, who hears religious arguments like the "Biblical marriage" one, and nods along. "Yes, that's true. God wouldn't want that. The Bible says so!" It is instructive for them to know, if they are going to accept the fundamentalist version of things, what goes hand-in-hand with it.
        That's who this argument is tailored to, and why I formulated it. It's not meant to say that there is and should be only the fundamentalist view of things; but if you take it, this is what you're in for.

        •  Thank you for the thoughtful reply (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Batya the Toon

          As I elaborated in my own diary, reading the passages you discussed as divinely-ordained and cruel misogyny has no basis in the history of either Judaism or Christianity.  That is why I call it fundamentalism.  It's a very closed minded and limited reading of the text, done with an ideological goal in mind.  I'm glad that these sorts of readings helped you break out of another fundamentalism.  But I am afraid that they are deeply damaging to those of us who would like to promote liberal and progressive religiosity.

          •  Glad to discuss. :) (0+ / 0-)

            I agree with you that it is fundamentalism, but in my experience you will almost never reach fundamentalists with progressive religion -- at least not until you have successfully illustrated the flaws of fundamentalism.

            Also, to avoid the "you're simply interpreting that incorrectly" quagmire, I did try to stick as much as possible to events rather than laws (i.e. the raids and wife capturing, etc.) Knowing, though, the fundamentalist outlook on those laws, I did include both.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site