Lets face it, the primary source of our discrimination emanates from this festering pile of lies, mistranslations, and fairy tales. So, in my opinion, the easiest way for us to fight for more acceptance in places like the U.S. (Canada...why can't we be like you?) , where we were || <== this close to an explicitly discriminate constitutional amendment, is to beat the religious crazies at their own game. There is a small group of "clobber" passages in the bible that are continuously chanted by conservative christians to justify their hate and bigotry because they have failed to take the time to scrutinize them more carefully. (All quoted passages, unless stated otherwise, are from King James)
If anything, this could serve as ammunition the next time any of you are confronted by bible-pounding homophobes.
Genesis 19, the story of Sodom
Points to consider: *** Genesis 19:4 says: "...the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter."
-- The verse first says "men of the city", while later saying "all people" -- The Hebrew phrase "anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" can be translated two ways: "men of the city, even the men of Sodom" or "the people of the city, the people of Sodom", so it is unclear whether the mob was all male or composed of men, women, and children. If the mob wanted to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels, the men would have left the women and children at home.
*** Genesis 19:5 says: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
-- The word "ya,da", meaning "to know (a fact)", is ambiguous in it's use here as it is unclear if the mob wanted to rape the angles or interrogate them -- If the mob did indeed want to have sex with the angels, than this passage still says nothing about consensual gay sex in a committed relationship
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
*** In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The first part of this verse literally says "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". The precise meaning of "lay lyings" is not understood. One possibility of by inserting two words: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman". This would imply that man-on-man intercourse is not permissible in the bed of a woman.
*** The two types of sin in the Mosaic Code are moral sins (a rebellion against god) and ceremonial uncleanliness (eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples). The use of the word "abomination" in the verse implies that it is a moral sin. However, it is a particularly poor translation of the original Hebrew word "toeyvah," which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "toeyvah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity (keep in mind that such transgressions are rarely considered applicable to modern standards). If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
This verse is very similar to Leviticus 18:22.
*** It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man 'as with a woman' insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property (a standard that is rarely upheld in modern christian practice).
*** If you look at the whole chapter (and the Mosaic Code in its entirety), a lot of things come in for capital punishment that not even a Southern Baptist would argue that capital punishment is appropriate for, so the readings of conservatives are a little selective.
Deuteronomy 23:17: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."
*** There is a severe mistranslation of the word "Qadesh" in the King James Bible and the Living Bible (the other versions use the word correctly). Qadesh literally mean "holy one".
*** (English Standard) "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute." Here, where the word "Qadesh" is used correctly, the verse applies only ritual sex as part of pagan ceremonies. So, in essence, this verse is just another verse to persecute pagans rather than ban of extra-marital or homosexual sex.
Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
*** Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on.
*** Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand, and a lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate.
*** The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" probably does not refer to "passion" or "lust" as they are thought of in modern term, but instead it seems to refer to frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. Again, this passage could just be another condemnation of pagan ritual sex orgies.
*** The phrase "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" implies that these were heterosexual woman (and men) who were forced (possibly by god) to have homosexual sex, thereby going "against nature" (as they were heterosexual).
*** The operative term in Paul’s original Greek (translated in the above passage as "natural") is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", or "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". So, he seems to be referring to the practice of homosexuality by these men and women who are "naturally" heterosexual as abnormal and "unseemly". Conversely, this can be used in defense of the LGBT community by pointing out that heterosexual activity by "natural" homosexual men and women would be "unseemly" as well, by Paul's comparison. "Christianity was the strangest religion ever set up, for it committed murder upon Jesus for the sin of eating an apple."
-Thomas Paine ('The Age of Reason')
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/08/25 22:03
By: Fickel_Pickel
Status:
Christian conservatives would never take the time to read that argument.
It is much easier to call them crazy and walk away.
But just in case any decide to read this I thought I'd add a little more knowledge:
-Women must pray with their heads covered, just like Muslims.
1 Corinthians 11:5 "every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head"
-Christmas trees are pagan and therefore forbidden.
Jeremiah 10:3 "the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails"
-Slavery is good according to God.
Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."
I guess after we ban gay marriage, and criminalize abortion, we should also return to slavery. Afterall, the Bible should be our nation's legal compass.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/08/28 06:01
By: the_bell_jar
Status:
You accuse firmly right wing Christians of interpreting the Bible in order to push anti-gay views, however in changing the translations around you are just reinterpreting it purely to justify homosexuality. Surely, doing so is hypocrisy? Also the argument: "This would imply that man-on-man intercourse is not permissible in the bed of a woman." is flawed and contradicted by your previous argument that the religion sees women as property, thus as property they would be rendered unable to own their own property.
I feel this is slightly like looking for loopholes in a contract.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/02 13:41
By: touchztone
Status:
So why if homosexuality is all that bad would the bible contain the story of David and Jonathan, Read it - its interesting
Women were also seen as unclean for anything up to a week a month. If it is a cleanliness law then it makes sense; don't have sex in the bed that a women has bleed in! (sorry if thats too crude!) Since a man couldn't sleep in bed with his wife while she was on her period it stands to reason that he couldn't have sex in the bed of a women with another man for the same or similar reasons.
It may even have been early sexual health advice. I mean circumcision was clearly made compulsory in the covenent that between god and his people for sexual health and cleanliness reasons rather than any symbol of religion... why have a symbol of your religion that you can't even see? So its not unlikely that they had a few other sexual health laws in the mix.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/03 04:55
By: ich_bin_gut
Status:
ok peoples i dont wanna be crossing the line here, being a newbie and all, im gonna give my two cents now, going to church and attending a school with a christian fellowship meeting every friday and compulsory scripture every thursday meant i had to scourge the bible for every piece relevant to my innocence and whatnot. yes, its a case, the gays vs the christains now i'll get right into it and what i found was this. im serious
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
then lets contrast this with leviticus
blah blah blah you love a boy, lets stone you to death
then lets contrast this with the bible in a nutshell
for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son... blah blah blah
i think to myself. what if i loved my [potential] (im single guys! lol) boyfriend so much, that i was patient, that i was kind, that i will always protect, that i'll always trust, that i'll always hope... that he loves me. what sin have i committed?
the sin which i have committed is that which god himself has committed, for god so LOVED the world, that he gave his only son?
how can my love be an abomination? how can love be an abomination? how can kindness, patience, truth, hope... be an abomination? how can the greatest ( 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. ) of the three hope, faith and love, be an abomination?
then i think
and im serene
until i remember, that there will always be those who hate me
ok christians. fuck you. if love was a sin. then god is going to hell.
if your salvation came from god's love. then its worthless sin, so who are you to condemn me?
this is really fighting bible with the bible
theologists CANNOT refute this, because THIS is the VERY FOUNDATION of their faith
im not saying that the other parts of the bible wasnt fucked up, but the other parts of the bible can EASILY be refuted by theologists, and at the risk of me sounding like a conceited bastard, there you go
n.b i still go to church for kicks
edit: sigh, i wrote a short thing on this before... this re-write seems just so inelegant... still, i hope you guys feel moved by what i wrote, even if its not that good (midnight right now...)
if you do wish to "freind" me, SEND ME A PM FIRST so i know you aren't some stalking weirdo
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/06 23:48
By: SpikeyUK
Status:
Look
dont worry about what any body thinks about you. It's got sod all to do with them and dont forget, your talking about a religion that not that long ago burned, hung and drowned 'witches'.
personally i believe in god and jesus but i dnt believe half the things in the bible. if im going to hell for accepting myself, so be it. lol
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/08 12:03
By: periodical
Status:
Hey everyone,
Really interesting topic we have here. I would just like to add my few cents here.
Genesis 19 - The story of Sodom In the past, this story has been used to condemn homosexuality, and has even coined the term 'sodomite' for gays; however, Genesis 19 is not a valid argument against homosexuality--many Bible scholars would agree with me. The problems posed are as follows:
1) Angels did not have a gender. Although they were typically portrayed as males, most theologians would agree that angels aren't assigned a specific sex. Now, of course, the Sodomites exclaim "Bring out the men so we may have sex with them!" Very gay indeed; but that wasn't the point of the story, and Jewish Rabbis never proclaimed that.
2) The Story of Sodom is referenced several times throughout the Bible. The passages never state that their homosexual interests was their sin.
"Your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. You not only followed their ways, and acted according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. " Ezekiel 16:46-50
“And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 1:6-7
Josephus, a first century Jew and apologist, had stated that:
"The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance." Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5
The sin underlined by Josephus, as well as Ezekiel, was not homosexuality; it was their inhospitality and arrogance instead. And what about Jude? Well, you CAN speculate that going after "strange flesh" correlates to their homosexual behaviour, but "strange flesh" seems more supernatural--angels, in this case. That would make more sense, since, again, angels are not really considered male.
The Leviticus & Deuteronomy Laws When we read the Purity Laws, we see realllyyyyy bizarre rules: Don't shave your sideburns! Don't eat shellfish! Don't touch a woman during her period! All of these were deemed 'abominations'. What were these laws all about?
The Jews were really big on their ethnic identity. They despised their Pagan neighbours, and sought to make themselves as least Pagan as possible; that's why many of the rules seem quite strange.
Now, let's have a look at the abominable gay sex law. The verse clearly states that participating in same-sex activity makes you impure; but you need to consider socio-historical context:
The ancient Pagans of the Middle East were renowned for the sensuality of their practices. Both Priests and Priestesses would offer themselves up to the Gods as prostitutes; some priests would even castrate themselves. Sex was honored and celebrated. Most gay interactions occurred in this context, and gay relationships that we have today didn't really exist, or are not really mentioned.
Remember what I said about the Jews and their strong cultural identity. Also, consider the type of common homosexual behaviour exhibited: purely lustful. We can thus speculate that it could very well be a reference to male temple prostitution, which would fit the context of the Sexual Purity Laws (i.e. how to not have sex like a pagan). Afterall, the Sexual Purity Laws are introduced with God stating that "you must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you."
I know this is 'relying on the silence of the Bible'; however, I'm not EXACTLY doing that. I'm looking into the eyes of a Jew back then, and I'm making note of the things they'd see, feel, believe etc. etc. etc. Historical context is so important.
Now aside from that, how valid are the Purity Laws to a modern Christian? According to Christian beliefs, we had become free from them through Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus didn't destroy the Law--but he "fulfilled it": he took it's burden and completed it so that we would gain freedom from it. This is emphasized in Galatians, where Paul expands on the idea of living no longer "under law but under grace" in Romans. As stated by earlier posters, not many Christians regard the Purity Laws--if they did, they wouldn't be eating their shellfish! So, if we're going to use Purity Laws against homosexuality, we should use it against consuming shell fish, touching women when they're menstruating etc. etc. etc.
That's quite a long post! Sorry for the length. xD If anyone is interested in my perspective of the New Testament references, I would be happy to post it.
Hope all of you are well!
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/11 14:37
By: durlington
Status:
how come u guys know so much about the bible and their context! pretty impressive... did y'all go to bible school or something.
what about romans 1 and the 'homosexual offenders' part. Besides that i dont really see any other mention of homosexuality. Its just really confusing, I guess we can interpret things the way we want, but the cool thing about being a christian is getting to know God and his heart and trusting in his goodness and seeing his promises fulfilled over time.
So i guess im taking it one step at a time, and if he really wants me str8 he would do it or else its cool too, cuz theres nothing we can do that wud make him love us less or more right?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/11 14:37
By: durlington
Status:
oops dbl post
Post edited by: durlington, at: 2007/09/11 14:38
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Fighting Bible with Bible
Date: 2007/09/11 16:41
By: governorsguy88
Status:
Interesting topic, but your topics are always interesting, I guess.
Funny, my friend and I were just talking about this. I would never be able to quote the bible because I've read about a page, but... I'll toss in my opinion.
Well, first, the bible is laced with contradictions. Honestly, how can anyone deny that? (I guess that's understandable, though. When writing such a large piece of fiction, one is likely to forget some plot points.) A book that preaches love and understanding, and then on the next page talks about burning people alive for sinning; how nice, right? How can a Christian claim to "love thy neighbor" when they hate anything that goes against a few words in one book? Some "good christians" they are. The only thing the bible ever did was breed hatred and prejudice. The colonists used it as justification for slavery. The right uses it as justification for the banning of anything gay. Men use it as evidence women should be repressed. And what's is it good for anyway? Giving people hope? Because if a book so full of hatred and prejudice can give you hope and comfort, then there must be something seriously wrong with you.
I guess one piece of info would better illustrate my point. My aithiest friend was telling me about her evangelical camp her parents sent her to. They told her not to read certain parts of the old testement, because it did not mesh with their beliefs. How is that possible? How can you pick and choose parts of the bible and apply them to your religion, when the bible is supposibly the be all, end all. For a book that was supposibly "written" by God, there sure are a lot of "mistakes". It doesn't make sense to me.
Next point: personally i believe in god and jesus but i dnt believe half the things in the bible. if im going to hell for accepting myself, so be it. lol First of all, I want to say that I think it's cool your able to stick with what you believe in, but I think your reasoning is flawed. By saying you are Christian or Jewish or any religion for that matter, and rejecting the religious text, is pretty much rejecting the founders of your religion. You can't say you believe the early Christians' preachings of the miracles of Jesus, and then say they were lying about the bible. Once, again picking and choosing bits of a religion is kind of going against the point. For me, it's either all or nothing, and of course, I chose nothing.
Finally, um intersting bit of info, I guess. dont worry about what any body thinks about you. It's got sod all to do with them and dont forget, your talking about a religion that not that long ago burned, hung and drowned 'witches'.
We just learned about this in history. Actually, the Salem witch trials were more about land, money, and sex more than religion. Old widows were hanging around the puritan colony sitting on huge plots of much needed land. When this land became a nessecity, people saw it fit to accuse these women of being witchs just so their land would be up for grabs. Also, the church approved of these accusations not because they feared the wrath of God, but more because the burning of "witches" was scaring the young "immoral" crowd back to church. Finally, men kind of used witchcraft as a scapegoat to affairs. If he was caught with another woman, he wasn't having sex with, he was "bewitched" by her. So, I just thought that was interesting. God, I'm a dork. But I guess that's where AP US comes in handy.
Sorry if I rambled a bit, but I'm a lot better at speaking my points rather than writing them.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
still, i hope you guys feel moved by what i wrote, even if its not that good (midnight right now...)
But I guess that's where AP US comes in handy.