剛看見這消息的時候，還真是讓人有些詫異。然後，詫異的心情轉為高興。終於，終於，有個腦筋清楚的基督教牧師站出來說了些頭腦清楚，邏輯思路清晰的話了！而更讓人意外的則是這個牧師還是浸信會的呢！
這封在十一月二十日發表於USA Today上的文章「When Religion Loses Its Creditbility」是由Oliver ‘Buzz’ Thomas所署名。文章內容其實非常清楚而且淺顯易懂（當然還是有一些腦筋不甚清楚的豬女是怎樣教也教不會…），文章之中用伽利略的例子來提醒那些「宗教領袖」：以前，伽利略說太陽不是繞著地球轉，教會也是百般打壓，之後科學證明教會錯了。那麼，關於「同性戀到底是不是違反神的意旨」這件事情有沒有可能最後教會也是錯的呢？
之後，他提到了，如果是以「聖經怎樣說，我就怎樣信，就是這樣，沒錯」的看法來信基督教的信徒，應該就要全面接受所有聖經上寫的、規定的。沒有兩套標準，也不要光揀自己愛的遵守，自己無能遵守的說那是過時的規定。換句話說，如果你要用利未記來說同志怎樣怎樣，利未記說你不能怎樣怎樣的話，你就也要一併概括接受。也就是說，利未記不是自助餐啦！不是你光揀你喜歡的愛和遵守就可以的！
另外給喜歡用創造論說事情的信徒們，創世紀，神按照祂的形象造人，祂造的祂都視為美好。那麼，是哪個笨蛋會造出一個同性戀出來然後告訴他，這樣很糟糕哩？不要跟我說那個笨蛋叫做耶和華。
到了新約，保羅給的批評有其時代背景。他批評的是在當時蔚為風潮的羅馬成年男子常常在家裡養著年輕的男孩作為性奴隸之類。這種情形，在現代已經不被法令所容許，而且那種行為又跟兩個同性別的人因為愛而願意有誓盟要相知相守一輩子完全不一樣。
然後他又說到耶穌會怎樣做。耶穌很愛教訓人，這是眾所皆知的事情。四福音之中，教訓是一篇接著一篇，簡直到了碎碎唸的程度。你想，如果這個那麼愛碎碎唸的耶穌舉凡金錢、慾望、報復…都要唸上一遍，那麼如果真的同性戀是什麼天殺的大罪孽或是道德威脅，他會不小心忘記拿出來唸一唸嗎？但是，偏偏四福音裡面就是關於同性戀的教訓是一個字也沒有看見。
耶穌最重要的教訓是：「你要愛人如同愛己」；「不要評斷人」。所以，當別人因為他無法自我控制的、天生的性傾向而受到歧視，因此而失去了工作或是應享有的權利；甚至在自己愛人發生緊急事情的時候，卻被所謂社會的正義阻擋在一旁…將心比心，這是愛人如同愛自己嗎？這是不要評斷人嗎？那麼到底誰在說耶穌的教訓很寶貴，但是又棄之如蔽屣呢？
教會歷往以來對於同志們的壓迫早就無法估計其傷害程度。但是，要不要好好修補？要不要併棄陳見，去將現代社會科學研究的結果考慮近來，然後尋求一個真正「公平正義」的立場則是事在人為。
我大致把文章的內容草草說了一下。重點是，無論是不是基督徒，我想這篇文章都提供了一個很重要的訊息。人非聖賢，更不是天仙。那麼這種幫別人貼標籤的行為到底是應該反省修正還是繼續無限上綱託稱奉承天意，則是每一個人都可以，而且應該細細思考的。做人處事的原則不能夠選擇自己愛的適用，自己不愛的就不去理它。
When religion loses its credibility
Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon.
Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
這封在十一月二十日發表於USA Today上的文章「When Religion Loses Its Creditbility」是由Oliver ‘Buzz’ Thomas所署名。文章內容其實非常清楚而且淺顯易懂（當然還是有一些腦筋不甚清楚的豬女是怎樣教也教不會…），文章之中用伽利略的例子來提醒那些「宗教領袖」：以前，伽利略說太陽不是繞著地球轉，教會也是百般打壓，之後科學證明教會錯了。那麼，關於「同性戀到底是不是違反神的意旨」這件事情有沒有可能最後教會也是錯的呢？
之後，他提到了，如果是以「聖經怎樣說，我就怎樣信，就是這樣，沒錯」的看法來信基督教的信徒，應該就要全面接受所有聖經上寫的、規定的。沒有兩套標準，也不要光揀自己愛的遵守，自己無能遵守的說那是過時的規定。換句話說，如果你要用利未記來說同志怎樣怎樣，利未記說你不能怎樣怎樣的話，你就也要一併概括接受。也就是說，利未記不是自助餐啦！不是你光揀你喜歡的愛和遵守就可以的！
另外給喜歡用創造論說事情的信徒們，創世紀，神按照祂的形象造人，祂造的祂都視為美好。那麼，是哪個笨蛋會造出一個同性戀出來然後告訴他，這樣很糟糕哩？不要跟我說那個笨蛋叫做耶和華。
到了新約，保羅給的批評有其時代背景。他批評的是在當時蔚為風潮的羅馬成年男子常常在家裡養著年輕的男孩作為性奴隸之類。這種情形，在現代已經不被法令所容許，而且那種行為又跟兩個同性別的人因為愛而願意有誓盟要相知相守一輩子完全不一樣。
然後他又說到耶穌會怎樣做。耶穌很愛教訓人，這是眾所皆知的事情。四福音之中，教訓是一篇接著一篇，簡直到了碎碎唸的程度。你想，如果這個那麼愛碎碎唸的耶穌舉凡金錢、慾望、報復…都要唸上一遍，那麼如果真的同性戀是什麼天殺的大罪孽或是道德威脅，他會不小心忘記拿出來唸一唸嗎？但是，偏偏四福音裡面就是關於同性戀的教訓是一個字也沒有看見。
耶穌最重要的教訓是：「你要愛人如同愛己」；「不要評斷人」。所以，當別人因為他無法自我控制的、天生的性傾向而受到歧視，因此而失去了工作或是應享有的權利；甚至在自己愛人發生緊急事情的時候，卻被所謂社會的正義阻擋在一旁…將心比心，這是愛人如同愛自己嗎？這是不要評斷人嗎？那麼到底誰在說耶穌的教訓很寶貴，但是又棄之如蔽屣呢？
教會歷往以來對於同志們的壓迫早就無法估計其傷害程度。但是，要不要好好修補？要不要併棄陳見，去將現代社會科學研究的結果考慮近來，然後尋求一個真正「公平正義」的立場則是事在人為。
我大致把文章的內容草草說了一下。重點是，無論是不是基督徒，我想這篇文章都提供了一個很重要的訊息。人非聖賢，更不是天仙。那麼這種幫別人貼標籤的行為到底是應該反省修正還是繼續無限上綱託稱奉承天意，則是每一個人都可以，而且應該細細思考的。做人處事的原則不能夠選擇自己愛的適用，自己不愛的就不去理它。
When religion loses its credibility
Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon.
Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
全站熱搜
留言列表
流浪到他方 Bryan On A Shoestring (3)
