Anglicans say gays are a-o-k!

Posted by Jesus on April 17, 2007

In what will go down in your brief and ignoble existence as a collective species on Earth as one of mankind’s most idiotic decisions, the head of a major religious organization has proclaimed that the common interpretation of the Bible which holds that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should be hated is wrong. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams believes that a key passage within Romans is misinterpreted by the majority of Christians. which is false. This church, the anglicans, seems to say somethign along these same lines every so often, and it really comes as little surprise that they have such a silly view on the matter. Still, it warrants just enough attention to need setting straight. As usual, Jesus to the rescue…

From the article:

“Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage,” Williams said on Monday, according to a text of his speech posted on the Anglican Church of Canada’s Web site.

“Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.”

Hmmm, I guess maybe I missed something. Let’s look at the passage in question, Romans 1:27. This is of course the single best passage you have in the Good Book for learning Dad’s views on Homosexuality. I think it’s pretty clear, personally.

From the Bible:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:27 (KJV)

Let’s break this down, shall we? “The men,” of whom all are of course males, left the “natural use of the woman,” which despite your modern attempt to redefine the roles of women in society means to have sex and to later have children and to obey their husbands; so the first part of the passage suggests that males decided that they weren’t going to use women for having children or enjoying sex anymore, that being their “natural use.” It then goes on to say that these men “burned in their lust toward one another.” So, um, how does this not equal men having sex with other men? Even if there is any little question there, the passage goes on to state that these same men were “men with men working that which is unseemly.” Now, you could argue that unseemly is a lot of things, from having monkey sex with another male, eating rotted eggs, throwing poo about, and even beating your children. In this case the term “unseemly” means man sex. I checked with Dad, just to be sure. He made a little sex motion with His pen and a closed fist and went back to His crossword. Case closed. Now, what does it say about those who have man sex? Of course they received “in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Not, “they were forgiven,” or “they were let off with a stern warning.” No, they got what was coming to em. If it’s not obvious in this one passage that God hates fags, we’re in trouble. And yes, Dad does His crosswords with a pen.

Now this Rowan Williams dude thinks this is misinterpreted, that this passage is actually about the “delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.” Well, to be fair, this whole blog is about those same delusions. The majority of so-called Christians out there are delusional about their own roles and requirments, but this passage does not lend itself even a little bit in that direction. If it said something like “leaving the natural use of all things, these men burned in thier lust for religious ignorance,” he might be on to something. Alas, this passage is quite clear - it obviously points out men who give up women and have sex with one another, and clearly indicates that they receive due punishment.

More from the article:

Williams said reinterpreting Paul’s epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favor neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism.

It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”

This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been “up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,” and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.

I’m not sure I understand this guy very well. First he’s saying that it’s misinterpreted, as if Dad didn’t really hate gay people, then he turns around and says that his supposedly more apt interpretation isn’t going to help him or those who believe the Truth. So why bother talking about it? Why is he making any sort of a deal at all if it’s not going to help either side with anything? I think part of his point, too, is that even if someone is gay, and even if Dad did hate fags, it’s not the place of Christians to pass judgment or spread hate. That is, from what I understand, the very meaning of his reinterpretation of this passage. Of course this is also wrong. One is certainly supposed to love their neighbor and their fellow man, but one does not have to tolerate such sins as these, particularly when they’ve become so prevalent in society. If gay people were quiet and stayed out of the public light it would be one thing, but they’re actively pushing for acceptance and protection from the very society from which they’re supposed to be hiding. Even Paul would have strong words for them, and he’s become about as liberal as one can get up here in Heaven City. If I were there I wouldn’t let anyone do any physical harm to gay folks, but I would do my best to counsel them and explain Dad’s plan to them. If all else, I’d just cure them of their demon-borne affliction. It doesn’t take a miracle to cure gay though, there are techniques available to you even now on Earth.

In the end it comes down to this: there is always going to be some person or another out there who claims to know exactly what I would do or exactly what Dad’s law suggests, and those people need to be scrutinized before they are taken seriously. In this case you have a man who has somehow risen to the top of a church community despite being very wrong about at least one topic. It is up to you out there to listen only to me and to question all those who are not me. Don’t fall for scams or for people pretending to be something they’re not. When it comes to issues of Biblical interpretation, you have a definitive source right here in front of you. All you gotta do is pray, check in here now and again, and dig deep, brother. Jesus needs a new roof.

Related Posts

• No related posts