Monday, July 16, 2007
Sure, this is common expected behavior from homophobes. And you all know I am very liberal when it comes to gay rights and religion. But I've re-read the passage, and the arguments presented by yawningbread.org in the article 'Indiana billboard vandalised' seem forced at best. I mean, it's one thing to argue "would Jesus discriminate?", which i wholly support, than to attempt a precise interpretation of the bible, specifically Matthew 8:5-13 as evidence of gay couple affirmation. Just because the gospel of Luke talks about the marginalized and Jesus challenging established temple/church rules, it does not necessarily follow that therefore the centurian and his servant were getting it on in the bedroom.
As CS says "Why would a centurion be so concerned about his servant? Why would a centurion say to a Jewish teacher that he is undeserving of that teacher coming into his house? Unless of course one begins to wonder if the servant and the centurion had a special relationship which was common in Roman times (i.e. a homosexual relationship). If that is the case then the Jewish elders were using his helpfulness to the community as a justification for why he deserved their help, despite his "unacceptable" relationship with his servant. "
Is that the only possibility? Sure, it's possible, but the logic is far-fetched. In this case, the generality and vagueness of the church's interpretation, that is the Centurian thinks himself unworthy in the presence of this miracle man, Jesus, understanding/believing in his higher authority (as the Centurian clearly states in the chapter), is 100 times more believable.
