The two arguments that challenged my views were reinterpretations of biblical texts that I had thought were conclusively against homosexuality, and an appeal to the evolving message of god which can take the form of experience and communal consciousness. I am not sure that these arguments have convinced me that I am wrong, but they at very least have made me look at things differently.
One of the most striking arguments I read for this assignment was the two different interpretations of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah presented in the Johns article. In this biblical section it is clear that God hold the actions of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah to be morally reprehensible – the language is explicit and the punishment very, very clear. But I had never previously considered exactly what aspect of the passage was morally reprehensible – to me it had always been about homosexuality and nothing else. But there are, upon reading the Johns article, a wide variety of ways to interpret this text. Here the sexual relationship is not a loving and committed one, but an incredibly violent one, and I hope that if the group was coming to gang-rape a woman the reaction of god and the bible would be just as negative. What is somewhat troubling about this passage is that Lot, who is held in this to be moral, being saved by God, offered his own daughters for the gang-rape, but this seems to be upheld by the biblical text. This has demonstrated to me that all biblical texts can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways,
This section of the text also ties in interestingly to the next argument, those based on lived experiences and adoption of a communal conscience, and made me recall the other things I know about Lot. Lot not only offers his own daughters, virgins who had never had sex, up to the gang to be abused in the place of angels, but also had a ...Show more