Tuesday, August 10, 2010

 

'Solemn roll call of the damned'

"Homosexuality in the Bible: One of the 'Clobber' passages" -- from www.religioustolerance.org.

1 Cor 6: 9-10.

I think idolaters, as in biblical literalists, and extortioners, as in bankers but especially credit card companies, and the covetous, as in most middle-class Americans, should be more worried than homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships, which are not mentioned here or in any other place in the Bible.

--ER

Comments:
There are more verses in the Bible condemning the rich and the gluttonous than there are condemning same-sex desire. There are more verses in the Bible condemning the oppression of the poor and the foreigner than there are those condemning same-sex desire. There are more verses in the Bible promising hope to those who live in love than there are hope to those who aren't gay and lesbian.

In short, this quirk of nature (not confined to human beings, by the way) in which some are not sexually or romantically attracted to members of the opposite sex but to those of the same gender, has been raised as a fetish (along with capitalism and the human fetus) that pushes out the central message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course, there is no percentage in the kind of bold humility the Gospel calls us to; it is so much better to find those who are outside the gates of the Blessed.
 
There is only one verse that condems male homoseuality. The women get off without condemnation.

Leviticus 18:22
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

As a student of the thing thought you might want to remember this one.
 
Well, is this verse just about plumbing, or is it is about "homosexuality." Did homosexuality, as a concept, exist in ancient times. I don't think so, at least not in the sense we mean it now.

OTOH, did heterosexuality exist then? Does heterosexuality need homosexuality to have any meaning? (I think so).

Further, did romantic love/relationships the way we understand them today exist then? I don't know, but I don't think so.

If women were considered chattel, how could it? So then, what exactly is the "abomination" -- the plumbing (probably, as an "unclean" act under the Holiness Code), or, and also, because it eliminated the dignity of man -- of men -- by reducing a man to the equivalent of chattel?

I do think about this a lot. Just as the Chinese say, "Only Nixon could go to the China," only a redneck Okie can swing wide the doors of the church to homosexuals in a certain way.
 
Along with those excellent questions ER asks, one has to wonder about the opposition to polygamy among conservative Christians, considering it was taken for granted, at least in the pre-exilic period. The Kings had plural wives, and of course concubines. Even David, who managed to rape Bathsheba and then proceeded to attempt to kill off her husband (finally successfully) managed to hold on to the LORD's blessing in the midst of being found blameworthy for that horrid crime.

I really wonder if these people understand anything at all, beyond their own petty hates.
 
Did they have "homosexuality" back then? Of course they did. They didn't have single catagory they had 10 or a hundred catagories for it. They just didn't condemn all of them because the sex itself was not a problem. The abomination was the lack of procreation. Procreation was economics, power, property.

Women's sexuality was not "wasted" when shared with another woman. Where as a man's was when not shared with a woman. The seed was not planted in ground in which it could grow.

Likewise a boy's homosexual endevores are not condemed. But once the "seed" is there then it is different.

It is not about "plumbing" it is about "planting".

Did love and relationships as we know them today exist back then. You've got to be kidding. What were they "cave men"? Bonding is bonding, no matter the cultural lable. Indeed we are animals and animals are first and foremost emotional. Mankind are just emotional animals that think more than most.

GKS, Kings are always the exception. Today, however they are called CEO's. God forgives and rewards his "chosen". ;)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?