I married way back when I was 23 well I do forgive her,but the fact is I told her If I hade ever heard of her Cheateing on me we where done. I will divorce her.she claimed it was a joke that she never cheated.My words to her was ,but you disrespect me.I am not at all Controling at 23 yes there was a lot I hade to learn. She told me she was going to her grandmother house to visit her. the weather was bad so I was checking to be shure she made it her mom was driving no answer on her Phone so I by chance hade her grandmother phone number. I called in a matter of respect. Ask if she was there her grandmother said no I told her thank you.knowing how to block a number some guy answered said he messing with my wife ya I went off I won't repeat what I said or he said am 37 it was not nice nor was it Christian. But yes men did write the Bible and was seven churches that decided what was allowed Revolution almost never made it into the Bible also I think Matthew was another one so I do wonder about the Bible also something to take to note is the Bible is Wrote a in matter that Christian Should pray for the gift of understanding I think God wants us to ask Questions.Also the King James Bible as Been wrote in a matter to Protect it from those that would have rather see it destroy.
Great post, but one small error: The story of Adam and Eve is not "midrash." It's right there in the text. Midrash isn't a synonym for fiction or myth; it's a form of sacred commentary practiced by ancient rabbis who invented stories to illustrate and flesh out the stories in the Torah (you'd say Old Testament). Abraham smashing the idols in his father's shop, for instance, is midrash--it's not in Genesis. But the Adam and Eve story is right there in all its glorious weirdness.
Having grown up as a fundamentalist Christian who piously struggled with every regulation (and mostly succeeded), I left the church at age 22 and became a devout agnostic/atheist. Because sex and alternative relationship styles had been forbidden fruit, I was curious to explore it, eventually embracing non-monogamy and polyamory.
Even as someone who rejected Christianity, the life of Jesus is still compelling to me and I subscribe to your interpretation of his priorities (battling greed over, say, sexual purity.)
But the Apostle Paul clearly condemns fornication and homosexuality as "the fruits of the flesh" and mandates that Christians avoid them. I do find it oddly selective that so many purity-focused Christians focus on the homosexuality part while minimizing the fornication part even though Paul did not differentiate between those.
What I am curious about is how you reconcile Paul's clear commands with your adopting of the rest of the Christian mantle. As an apostle, was Paul not speaking for Jesus? If so, how can you cherry pick some Biblical commands and not others? I'm just curious about the reasoning not because I condemn your life choices (they are similar to mine), but why you believe Jesus would have no problem with it.
By the way, I make the same challenge to fundamentalist Christians who ignore Jesus' commands to shelter the poor while ignoring his commands to be "no part of this world."
I'm definitely not interested in literalist Christianity with the Bible as the ultimate word of God, and while Paul added value over a millennium ago to the specific churches he wrote to, I don't necessary find him relevant now in modern contexts. God still exists; God is still speaking. I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of Jack Shelby Spong's teachings on this, and "cherry picking" is exactly how the Bible -should- read imo, in 2021. Also, Paul wasn't an apostle, and if he was, a lot of churches are certainly ignoring his orders that women shouldn't speak in church. Biblical literalism is heresy in accordance to not just modern contexts, but the Jewish midrash contexts in which they were written. I've already done the bulk of my faith deconstruction so I'm definitely not interested in endless "what about the Bible..." discussions with fundies who view things as literal that I never will. But if you're interested in that, Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines can offer more scripturally based discussions on homosexuality and the Bible. I'm a big fan of Queer Theology, who also has seminars on polyamory and other aspects of sexuality. The more you study theology, the more you appreciate these biblical contexts and understand them while being able to also comprehend how inapplicable it would be to modern times. The way people view sexuality now is incredibly different from how -anyone-, even the "progressive" mythos religions, viewed it in the past. Christianity is not a sex-positive religion in and of itself, and neither are most religions, and I don't speak for the entire religion. I just am what I am. I love more than one person, and I believe in God and the tenants of Jesus Christ's message to the world -- which is why I'm also a hardcore leftist. I'm nobody's spokesperson. I'm just a polyamorous person who is also a Christian in my own interpretation of it. If people don't like it, they can come hang me or burn me at the stake or whatever, or God himself can strike me down.
It's an interesting question around taking religious texts literally versus metaphorically or holding that they are unchangeable versus evolving. One of the reasons I rejected Christianity was that I felt Jesus' teachings were diluted and dampened by everyone who came after (most recognizably the pragmatic Paul, but also the more political Councils of Nicaea).
Fundamentalist Christianity typically views John 3:16 as the most important scripture, which is presented as a demand to "bend the knee" to Jesus. But Jesus himself said that the whole point of the Law and the Prophets was "to love God and love your neighbor" (Matthew 22:40). Your philosophy seems to reflect that.
By the way, found you because Andrew Sullivan gave your recent poly post a shout out on his latest newsletter. As a gay Catholic, I imagine he would give the same answer you did.
Wonderful, when are you going to do a Bible study with this!
I married way back when I was 23 well I do forgive her,but the fact is I told her If I hade ever heard of her Cheateing on me we where done. I will divorce her.she claimed it was a joke that she never cheated.My words to her was ,but you disrespect me.I am not at all Controling at 23 yes there was a lot I hade to learn. She told me she was going to her grandmother house to visit her. the weather was bad so I was checking to be shure she made it her mom was driving no answer on her Phone so I by chance hade her grandmother phone number. I called in a matter of respect. Ask if she was there her grandmother said no I told her thank you.knowing how to block a number some guy answered said he messing with my wife ya I went off I won't repeat what I said or he said am 37 it was not nice nor was it Christian. But yes men did write the Bible and was seven churches that decided what was allowed Revolution almost never made it into the Bible also I think Matthew was another one so I do wonder about the Bible also something to take to note is the Bible is Wrote a in matter that Christian Should pray for the gift of understanding I think God wants us to ask Questions.Also the King James Bible as Been wrote in a matter to Protect it from those that would have rather see it destroy.
Great post, but one small error: The story of Adam and Eve is not "midrash." It's right there in the text. Midrash isn't a synonym for fiction or myth; it's a form of sacred commentary practiced by ancient rabbis who invented stories to illustrate and flesh out the stories in the Torah (you'd say Old Testament). Abraham smashing the idols in his father's shop, for instance, is midrash--it's not in Genesis. But the Adam and Eve story is right there in all its glorious weirdness.
Having grown up as a fundamentalist Christian who piously struggled with every regulation (and mostly succeeded), I left the church at age 22 and became a devout agnostic/atheist. Because sex and alternative relationship styles had been forbidden fruit, I was curious to explore it, eventually embracing non-monogamy and polyamory.
Even as someone who rejected Christianity, the life of Jesus is still compelling to me and I subscribe to your interpretation of his priorities (battling greed over, say, sexual purity.)
But the Apostle Paul clearly condemns fornication and homosexuality as "the fruits of the flesh" and mandates that Christians avoid them. I do find it oddly selective that so many purity-focused Christians focus on the homosexuality part while minimizing the fornication part even though Paul did not differentiate between those.
What I am curious about is how you reconcile Paul's clear commands with your adopting of the rest of the Christian mantle. As an apostle, was Paul not speaking for Jesus? If so, how can you cherry pick some Biblical commands and not others? I'm just curious about the reasoning not because I condemn your life choices (they are similar to mine), but why you believe Jesus would have no problem with it.
By the way, I make the same challenge to fundamentalist Christians who ignore Jesus' commands to shelter the poor while ignoring his commands to be "no part of this world."
I'm definitely not interested in literalist Christianity with the Bible as the ultimate word of God, and while Paul added value over a millennium ago to the specific churches he wrote to, I don't necessary find him relevant now in modern contexts. God still exists; God is still speaking. I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of Jack Shelby Spong's teachings on this, and "cherry picking" is exactly how the Bible -should- read imo, in 2021. Also, Paul wasn't an apostle, and if he was, a lot of churches are certainly ignoring his orders that women shouldn't speak in church. Biblical literalism is heresy in accordance to not just modern contexts, but the Jewish midrash contexts in which they were written. I've already done the bulk of my faith deconstruction so I'm definitely not interested in endless "what about the Bible..." discussions with fundies who view things as literal that I never will. But if you're interested in that, Jen Hatmaker and Matthew Vines can offer more scripturally based discussions on homosexuality and the Bible. I'm a big fan of Queer Theology, who also has seminars on polyamory and other aspects of sexuality. The more you study theology, the more you appreciate these biblical contexts and understand them while being able to also comprehend how inapplicable it would be to modern times. The way people view sexuality now is incredibly different from how -anyone-, even the "progressive" mythos religions, viewed it in the past. Christianity is not a sex-positive religion in and of itself, and neither are most religions, and I don't speak for the entire religion. I just am what I am. I love more than one person, and I believe in God and the tenants of Jesus Christ's message to the world -- which is why I'm also a hardcore leftist. I'm nobody's spokesperson. I'm just a polyamorous person who is also a Christian in my own interpretation of it. If people don't like it, they can come hang me or burn me at the stake or whatever, or God himself can strike me down.
It's an interesting question around taking religious texts literally versus metaphorically or holding that they are unchangeable versus evolving. One of the reasons I rejected Christianity was that I felt Jesus' teachings were diluted and dampened by everyone who came after (most recognizably the pragmatic Paul, but also the more political Councils of Nicaea).
Fundamentalist Christianity typically views John 3:16 as the most important scripture, which is presented as a demand to "bend the knee" to Jesus. But Jesus himself said that the whole point of the Law and the Prophets was "to love God and love your neighbor" (Matthew 22:40). Your philosophy seems to reflect that.
By the way, found you because Andrew Sullivan gave your recent poly post a shout out on his latest newsletter. As a gay Catholic, I imagine he would give the same answer you did.
Whoa! I can’t believe he shared it. Thank you for letting me know!