This article is merely an attempt to obfuscate the religious origins of homophobia.

- but I hope the author of these words won't mind too much my quoting them here. Simply put, I can't imagine a more succinct, accurate way of expressing this:

"1- No one can really objectively declare their interpretation (of the Bible) superior to another. While there's a logical, secular argument for most social issues, arguing from scripture is a zero-sum game.

2- There are passages of the Bible for which historical context and interpretation are irrelevant.

The book of Leviticus commands homosexual men be put to death. There is no alternative interpretation of this passage that does not conclude "gay + male = dead". If we look at it in its historical context, we can conclude gay-hating was du jure in the Bronze Age Levant, that this wasn't outside the normative attitudes of the day, but that doesn't change the passage's meaning. It's a horrible passage, and like it or not, it is in the book. The argument, therefore, is not "The Bible is a good book, people just read it wrong", but "The Bible is a good book, if you ignore all the bad parts".

The same logic applies to virtually any work out there. Twilight, I am sure, is a terrific movie, if you ignore all the crappy parts."

The big question this raises for me, though, is why can't Christians simply accept the fact that "the good book" isn't so good?

is that it's twaddle. Ignorant twaddle.

but it's all this poor dead nag deserves at midnight after a full day in the studio.

I would add only that the notion that any interpretation of the Bible is no more valid than any other is simply silly. "But it's my interpretation!" is the wail of the student who's just gotten back his research paper with a big red F at the top.

Meshuga nails it. The Bible, like Shakespeare, has to be read in the context of its time and place. Some familiarity with the original languages helps--or failing that, recourse to commentary by someone who is expert in those languages. I suggest you read John Boswell on the subject of homosexuality and pre-modern society.

BTW, it's not plagiarism if you cite your source.

Tell me - is Hamlet meant to be sane or insane?

from the text, comparison with the larger body of Shakespeare's work and the Ur-Hamlet, and consideration of Elizabethan/Jacobean attitudes toward the uniquely horrible crime of regicide.

What can't be supported is, say, an interpretation that Hamlet's central theme is the tragedy of young lovers separated by a vendetta.

Not the right question to ask, given your dismissal of historic, social and even broader textual context.
Neither can you logically argue, as you have done, that any interpretation of a biblical text is inherently as good as any other while claiming that the one you support (gay+male=dead) is the only allowable view.

Read Boswell. His studies of historic Christian attitudes toward same-sex relationships remain the best n the field

Gay + Male = Dead isn't "the only allowable view." It's the only possible interpretation of Leviticus. Yes, you can place it in a broader context, but the message remains the same. In the same way that Hamlet can't be confused for Romeo and Juliet, the Bible can in no way be read as gay-friendly. As such, it will never be an effective tool in the fight for gay equality and has no place in the arsenal of a genuine progressive.

Boswell is interesting, but ultimately unconvincing. I'll stick with Tatchell.

You cannot logically claim that one interpretation of a biblical text is as valid as any other while simultaneously claiming that your interpretation is the only possible one.

Let's do the scholarly thing and back to the original text.

"2 - There are passages of the Bible for which historical context and interpretation are irrelevant."

This is because, as we know, the Bible - unlike Hamlet - is more than one book by more than one author.

So there are, indeed, bits that involve obvious metaphors... and are open to interpretation. As with Genesis.

..but there are also portions that are RULES and not open to interpretation. As with Leviticus.

What can be done... is, as we've already discussed, give some background and context. But that doesn't change the reality of what was being communicated. And, in the case of the LGBT community, what the Bible communicates is undeniably ugly.

«No one can really, objectively declare their interpretation (of the Bible) superior to another.» Which is exactly what you have done.

Laws are RULES, too, and the US and UK both have extensive court systems whose business is to interpret them.

It doesn't help your case.

Not true. First, the text does not say "gay+male=dead" because this biblical prohibition addresses an act and not the nature or sexual desire/preference of a person. Second, given the scholarship and the broader context one can come to the conclusion that the text addresses a pagan religious practice that was rejected and seen as abhorrent by the ancient Hebrew priests and people.

Again, that is not denying the fact that people use (have been using and will keep on using) these passages for ugly interpretation to attack and discriminate against the gay community in the context of today's world. But I prefer to counter their argument with scholarship than to enable their hateful world view by erroneously persisting that their interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you that viewing the text "as is" taking it in as the inerrant word of god is ugly and cannot have another way of interpreting it.

However, if you take that mindset from the equation, the conclusions taken from the text are not as simple as you suggest.

if you don't believe there's any real god being talked about or quoted in the Bible. "God" as described in the Bible and believed in by Christians doesn't have a context of place and time unless he/she/it/they are completely a human invention. If they're real, they should have known that slavery and hatred of homosexuals is evil 2000 years ago just as well as we know it now.

to the discussion of a critical reading of the biblical or any other text. To take Plantagenet's example, the interpretation of Hamlet does not depend on whether there was actually a Prince of Denmark by that name whose uncle murdered his brother and eloped with the apparently merry widow.

doesn't depend one teeny little bit on whether the "god" described as the creator of the whole universe exists or not, and whether the Bible was inspired by them? Sorry, but that's just silly. It's the difference between (among other things), the book of Genesis being actual history or myth. And the difference between the moral principles laid out in the Bible needing to be interpreted in the context of place and time in human culture and history, or in the context of being the accurately recorded dictates of an immortal, omnipotent deity.

It's silly with Hamlet too, for that matter. Obviously you interpret and critique a story differently if it's pure fiction than if it's partly derived from historical fact.

employs form, source and redaction criticism to approach the meaning of a series of texts. It is not about the existence (or non-existence) of a deity and does not depend upon the existence (or non-existence) of a deity. That's a different question entirely.

And no, one need not critique The Scottish Play, Antony and Cleopatra or any of the history plays with a different set of critical tools than one would use with Hamlet because they are partly based on historical characters and events.

Does the interpretation of the Bible not depend at all on whether it is describing people's real interactions with an actual, physically existing deity? Does it not depend in the least on whether any of what are supposed to be the actual words of god were actually spoken by the being that created the whole universe with a wave of their hand, or whether they were just made up by some human trying to tell a good story?

Of course it does. And even more so when the Bible is being used as a guide to make judgements about morals and acceptable behavior. People would obviously regard the laws and moral dictates in the Bible quite differently than they do if they knew for certain that they only came from the human lawgivers in some Middle Eastern tribe or religious sect from a few thousand years ago, as opposed to the Lord of the Universe. Heck, quite a few people who believe that god really exists and dictated the Bible put his laws above the human-made laws enacted by their own lawmakers in their own time. If they were convinced that god didn't exist, their interpretation of the laws, prohibitions and mandates in the Bible would clearly change.

which is what the OP is doing, the identity or historicity of the author is irrelevant.

If a person reads this article (and does not stop at the title for counter arguments) he/she will see that the author is not arguing that the bible was never used for malevolent means and never used to discriminate against homosexuals. That use for the bible cannot be denied and it isn't being denied here. Instead, the author is using biblical scholarship to show that it is not so easy to come up with an "orthodox" interpretation since the bible does not address the nature of homosexuality and whether the nature of homosexuality is right or wrong.

What the bible does address in a few instances is that the act of male with male sexual intercourse is strictly prohibited. Prohibited enough to call it an abomination and prescribe the death penalty for those caught in the act in the same way the bible calls for the death of those Hebrews who are caught not keeping the sabbath.

Having sex with your wife while she has her period is also biblically prohibited. But I don't think the writers of this rule were after a class of individuals whose nature was to have period sex. In the same way that the writers of the "no male-on-male sex intercourse" rule had no beef with people whose nature was to be attracted with members of the same sex.

That is because homosexuality was not an issue back in those days. According to biblical scholarship, the issue was likely due to a rejection of local pagan practices that involved men having sex with other men as part of religious rituals. Thus, the harsh prohibition from the priestly class who wrote the text.

Explain this to someone who claims to have an orthodox interpretation of the bible and he or she will dismiss it as "interpretation." But what the author is offering is not religious interpretation. It is scholarship that should be used not only to question what is written but also to counter the hateful who claim orthodox interpretation to use the bible to discriminate against groups of people.

The author is not merely arguing from scripture like the quote you provide alleges. He goes beyond scripture by using arguments from scholars who study the bible for its historical context, looking for clues to answer question regarding context and motives in a scholarly way as opposed to religiously.

Biblical scholarship does not apologize for the bible. Instead, it shows that it is not the magically holy book as some may interpret it to be. It exposes myths and tries to explain them in the context of their time.

So the canned answer from the quote you provide does not really refute or address what the author is trying to say. And what the article has to say is actually a great way to dismiss those who use the bible as justification for hate.

But it is hard to use biblical scholarship to support arguments when people refuse to accept it and then (for whatever reason) dismiss it in favor of their own orthodoxy whether the orthodoxy is religious or not.

The bible, and the old testament in particular, is chock full of things that are reflective of the time and place in which they were written. They can't be taken literally and many need to be outright dismissed in the context of today's culture. Even the most fundamental literalist would not be able to embrace some of the things (see Letter to Dr. Laura).

While often used to criticize or attack, I have not problem with the idea that the bible should be read and used with an open mind. Some of it is good, some of it is bad.

I have a few biblical scholars in the family. None of them consider homosexuality a sin as far I'm aware. I wonder what they'd make of this piece? The author makes some decent arguments; his discussion of Paul seems a little weaker than his Old Testament commentary, but what do I know?

I know religious people on both sides of this issue and non-religious people on both sides of this issue.

IMHO, people can find all kinds of things to justify their positions in the bible, but the literalists tread on thin ice in regards to GLBT equal rights.