It annoys me when I read articles about what the Bible says from people who don't really know what the Bible says. I read an article by Katherine Feeney on SMH who "is a blogger, multimedia guru and entertainment reporter", and has decided to write about what the Bible says about sex. A little bit at least. She's really just using it as a spring board to get people to talk about how they make moral decisions on sex. None the less she speaks authoritatively about things I'm pretty sure she doesn't know about.
I'm sure it annoys scientists when I talk about science and molecules and nuclear atomising and stuff.
Aside from the fact that I was annoyed, it intrigued me that in the article she says this:
If the Bible is actually more erotic, more ‘liberal’ or socially progressive than otherwise assumed, does it deserve more credit as a contemporary reference point for our love and sex lives?
It's interesting that for her the way you decide if the Bible should have an influence is if it is erotic, liberal or socially progressive. She's not concerned if it's right, or true, or God-given. If the Bible is those things, it'll be those things because it's socially progressive. Eroticism, liberalism and social progression are the test for relevancy, authority and contemporary reference points.
That doesn't make much sense to me, I'd have things the other way around, but then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment