tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840843.post-1127294230186594632005-09-21T09:54:00.000+01:002005-09-21T17:45:49.030+01:00The great thing about living with an academic historian is that you get to read the Times Higher. The bf mentioned to me over tea this morning a nice little article by Olga Wojtas that I thought would be interesting as a supplement to <a href="http://desperatekingdoms.blogspot.com/">this great post on Pope blogging </a>on winter's personal blog. Twenty two academic theologians have gone and got themsleves involved in the homosexuality-is-a-sin row by spending considerable time and effort combing the gospels for evidence.<br /><br />Guess what they found?<br /><br /><div align="center">"Niether god nor Jesus can be accused of gay bashing. The same could hardly be said for many of their devotees" (Philip Kenedy. senior tutor of Mansfield College, Oxford)</div><div align="center"></div><div align="left">The article goes on to say that;</div><div align="center">"only six bible verses could be read as opposing homosexuality", but that there was a significant amount of homoerotic material" (Lisa Isherwood, Professor of feminist liberation theologies at the college of St Mark and St John, Plymouth)</div><div align="center"></div><div align="left">This is another example of how the bible, or any text can be used to back up pretty much any position. Many church groups that preach religious hatred against homosexuality have latched on to a few passages in the bible that justify their cause and convieniently sidelines others that don't. I find this all deeply saddening, there is a lot of good to be said for what is contained between the covers of the bible. Unfortunately organised religion often uses that material to try and control what other people think and do. Like the bully of the play ground they are not happy until everyone is marching to their interpretation of the text.</div><div align="left"></div>Naiadesnoreply@blogger.com