Got to thinking the other day (which, as we all know, is a dangerous thing )…
From The West Wing:
This is based off of an e-mail letter that was going around a while back challenging Dr. Laura’s stance on homosexuality (it’s quoted in the “Dear Dr. Laura” thread). Now when someone brought this letter up here in the “Dear Dr. Laura-would she answer?” thread (and also here in the “Following the Bible(?!?!?)” thread), several people jumped in and refuted the letter point by point, attempting to knock down those counterarguments using various means (relativity to the times, parables, and whatnot - read the threads for details). I don’t want to argue each and every point, so for the sake of this discussion I will assume that those counterpoints are at least valid points of view, if not accurate Biblical interpretation.
Now, one of my favorite pieces of religious writing is the Rev. Dr. Walter Wink’s “Homosexuality and the Bible”. One of the reasons I like this is because he says, Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but it also says quite a lot of other things are sins that today we’ve wholly abandoned, yet we continue to see homosexuality as a sin.
So, here’s my point - in the article, he refutes the Bible’s admonitions of homosexuality (notably Rom. 1:26-27) very similarly (and just as educatedly) as the folks who refuted the points in the Dr. Laura letter.
Please tell me why, then, should we be expected to accept that the refutations to the points in the Dr. Laura letter are sound, but that Wink’s refutations are not? (NOTE: This is no way meant to malign any of the posters in the above-linked threads.)