[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Very good, Lush. I actually took Buddhist genyen vows, ordained in 1987, and have many close Christian friends (my best friend from high school is in seminary right now in a funny twist of fate). Sincere spiritual practitioners seem to see more in common than differences amongst themselves.

According to many friends, the bible itself is a little vague on the subject of homosexuality, probably due to the fact that it -as a classification- is a recent concept (the definition 'homosexual' is not a religious but a psychological term, from the DSM-IV, though it has been deleted from the DSM-IV since). Although one term associated with homosexuality which indicates what-many-people-have-an-issue-with comes from the name of those twin cities of infamy, Sodom and Gamorrah, that term actually refers to either a hetero- or homo-sexual practice. This linguistic leap is where most people get the idea homosexuality is condemned by the bible.

For devout Catholics, the current interpretation of the Bible, recently published by Pope John Paul II, concludes that homosexuality is by implication immoral (I apologize for any inaccuracy in the quote, I have not read his book). And that should be good enough for most Catholics.

For Protestants, it still varies, often from minister to minister, though the vast majority do not approve.

I myself am familiar with the vast numbers of religious disagreements between highly qualified and respected commentators in Buddhism; I've noticed the same in Christianity. I also bear in mind that many (still revered) medieval Christian commentators came to similar conclusions about the Jews, leading to unfortunate results in Spain in other places. So I'm cautious about interpretations and feel that most spiritual advisors would not oppose the suggestion that people read the bible and think about it themselves. Catholics shold refer to their catechism and/or ask their priest (though reading the Pope's book is probably more proactive).

I'm constantly surprised to find that many Christians have read less of the bible than I have, and can't tell me, say, what is in Leviticus and why it would caution us to always take the Old and New Testament together.

(For those of you who don't know, Leviticus details how to properly sacrifice a calf, removing the organs in a particular fashion, etc. Lesser offerings, such as grain and so forth are described as well. My point is that any religion has parts that when taken out of context will cause great deal of confusion. Buddhism has tantric texts that taken similarly out of context also cause a great deal of stupidity - I mean, confusion.)

Those picture books from Sunday school were a little thin, and shouldn't comprise ones entire religious education. Not if you're going to make grand sweeping statements, that you cannot back with book/chapter/verse quotes.

If you're going to quote the bible, read it.

-Maril

Oh, those of you who are curious, Buddhist texts don't ascribe any particular moral failing to homosexuality, except to specifically include abstaining from it among the celebacy vows of a monk or nun. Notwithstanding, culturally most Buddhist societies don't approve. The Ven. Kalu Rinpoche's interpretation of the subject is that it is neither good nor bad, but simply resulting from events in the intermediate state preceding conception. As anyone who's studied the Abhidharmakosha can tell you, results are neutral. Only causes can be negative or positive.

I tried to keep off the subject of religion, but you guys just kept bringing it up.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]