From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 10:38:56 MDT
On 24 Jul 2002 at 7:13, kharin wrote:
>
> "Homosexuality is condemned and slavery condoned in the JCIZ, but if these tendencies were reversed, it would not compromise the underpinnings of the theological structure; gay/lesbian rights identical to those of straights and white/nonwhite equality are no metaphysical threat to the integrity
of the system. The religious ramifications of feminism and environmentalism, however, strike it to its very core."
>
> I think my reading is rather different. The opprobrium regarding sexuality in these texts (naturally I can speak with more authority regarding the bible than the koran et al) relates to what could be called a morality of shortage (as opposed to what David Starkey calls the present morality of
excess) i.e individual preference (selfishness, greed) is regarded as being invidious to the interests of society as a whole (i.e. small populations suffering from diseases and famine could ill afford individuals engaging in non-precreative sex for much the same reasons as conceiving multiple
children on the expectation that some will die), which might be why the Aquinan interpretation of the bible placed so much stress on the go forth and multiply argument.
>
It has been conjectured that such sanctions were instituted to forfend
the ancient spread of the AIDS virus, but it is equally likely that it was
done so that succession and inheritance could be determined by male
rather than female lineage. Of course, most religions want to out-
multiply their competition and thus gain a percentage advantage within
the population as a whole.
>
> More to the point, the bible does not seem to me univocal on the issues of environmentalism and feminism you address. It is, of course, rarely univocal on anything, but the depiction of homosexuality would certainly seem to be one of them; the only non-condemnatory passage I can think of
regarding that is where a Roman Centurion asks Jesus to heal a male slave (the rather strained point being that most Romans couldn't have cared less whether their slaves lived or died).
>
The Biblical admonitions against homosexuality are indeed univocal on
the issue, but it is for JCIZ religions an ethical or moral issue and
matters not to the religions' metaphysical stance.
>
> "In the JCIZ, all deities are male, the first human is male, and any
> central prophets or saviors are male."
>
> Not quite, there are figures like the Virgin Mary whose own cult of mariolatry within Catholicism was extensive to say the least, and there are female saints. More to the point, a canon of that kind tends to be extremely flexible from the point of view of the worshipper. Certainly, studies
relating to figures like Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe often suggested that appropriation of female aspects of the christian canon was central to the carving out a feminised version of religious discourse (the survival of myths regarding Pope Joan being a case in point). The same applies to
those who repurpose the christian god as being female today. Regarding the purported feminine alienation in contemporary christianity, women make up a disproportionate amount of the Anglican church in the UK, whose acceptance of women priests was accordingly more of a survival tactic than a
theological revolution. The point regarding women in christianity is that they are simultaneously revered as!
> models of purity (Mary) and condemned as corrupt (Eve, Jezebel, Salome). While certainly a feminist issue, this seems to me more closely related to the issues of sexuality raised above.
>
Mary is revered not because she was a prophet or avatar, but simply
because she was the vessel God supposedly used to conceive and
bear His male Son; I believe "broodmare" covered this.
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by kharin to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25764>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:49 MDT