Tuesday, August 10, 2010
'Solemn roll call of the damned'
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really wonder if these people understand anything at all, beyond their own petty hates.
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". ;)