Religion
Related: About this forumStop twisting the Bible: There is no message against same-sex marriage
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/12/stop_twisting_the_bible_there_is_no_message_against_same_sex_marriage/Id like to begin our conversation about homosexuality and the Bible by inviting you to think with me about what precisely Moses had in mind when he commanded that a man who lies with a man as with a woman must be put to death.
There is no record in the Torah of two men seeking to share their lives together as companions and lovers. There are two instances in the Torah of men lying with men as with a woman. It seems likely to me that when Moses commands the death penalty for a man lying with a man that he was addressing these practices that are described in two separate passages in the Torah. Lets consider each of these two passages.
In Genesis 19, we read the story of Sodom, from which the terms sodomy and sodomite are drawn. In this story, two angels (in both Hebrew and Greek the word angel means messenger) came from God, and visited the town of Sodom. Lot, Abrahams nephew, invited the men to lodge with him for the night. Heres what Genesis says: Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomboth young and oldsurrounded the house. They called to Lot, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, No, my friends. Dont do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But dont do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof (Genesis 19:48, niv).
Once again we see the strange patriarchal world in which the Bible was shaped, as Lot offers his two daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom rather than giving up the strangers hes just met (a story virtually identical to the one that occurs in Judges 19 with the Levites concubine and the men of Gibeah).
Silent3
(15,223 posts)Yes, I know, maybe arguments like this in the quoted article might help with people who are bound and determined to insist that the "truth" is in the Bible -- but probably not, and it's the insistence that what the Bible says matters at all that's the real heart of the problem.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He's arguing that when Moses decrees in Leviticus that if "a man lieth with another man as with a woman" they've both done something terrible and must be put to death, that he can only be referring to incidents that are specifically described in the Torah, and not anything that was known to commonly happen in everyday life. That's not only laughable on its face, but also ignores the fact that many, many other decrees in the Law prohibit things that are described nowhere in the actual text of the Torah.
How about just making the argument that the Bible and those who wield it should have no moral authority whatsoever, and that there is no reason to obey them or enshrine their decrees into civil law?
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)People get their sense of the ethics and morality from all kinds of sources, including family, friends, TV shows, and books including the Bible. When it comes to civil law, it shouldn't matter the origin of the your ethics and morality, it is simply a matter that everyone has a voice and a vote.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)as if it were true is an uphill and pointless task. It's an explicitly conservative book. No amount of dishonesty or "interpretations" stand up to the much more honest and realistic argument that the claims of the Bible are not true, and the moral precepts in it are not absolute.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)(and probably with women too, though the wording is a bit ambiguous for them), and thus disproves his own point:
No, those are not ritual sexual encounters tied to pagan worship/idolatry; it's explicitly about passion for each other. Paul (or whoever wrote those words) is clear about his feelings: he thinks male passion for male is 'unnatural', and says the women are doing something 'unnatural', though doesn't spell out that is with other women (but 'in the same way' does point to that).
It's not a major part of the bible, but it should be faced that when same-sex relationships are mentioned in it, they are condemned. Like it should be acknowledged that the bible is OK with slavery.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)bible in a literal way to justify a political or social position.
It's just vague enough to leave itself wide open to interpretation and there is never enough historical context to understand what some of the issues of the day may have been.
He goes on to say that this may have been addressing prostitution by both women and men in the temples and that pederasty was an issue. Perhaps that is what Paul thought was "unnatural".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)"men ... consumed with passion for one another". Not one a child, and not one doing it for money or as a religious duty.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You can read into a text anything you want. The intent is clear if one takes the 'literal' meaning, which you chose to treat as somehow the wrong approach, as if understanding what the author(s) actually meant was a mistaken approach to reading a text.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)rather than being some universal, timeless guide.
edhopper
(33,587 posts)What about eating shellfish??!!!!!
xchrom
(108,903 posts)Ingredients
1 cup olive oil
1 large clove garlic, peeled and sliced
1 large dry red hot chile pepper, chopped and sliced thinly with seeds
2 pounds fresh white shrimp, shelled
Pinch salt
Directions
Place the cazuela over a medium flame. Add the olive oil. When hot (steam comes off the surface, do not burn the oil, you will know because it will smell rancid) add the garlic. Sizzle until golden in color, about 1 to 2 minutes. Add the chiles and leave for 1 minute.
Turn off the heat just as the garlic starts to turn brown. (If the garlic turns brown you have over cooked it and will need to start again.)
Add the shelled shrimps and leave for 2 minutes. Add a pinch of salt.
Serve with some fresh bread.
Read more at: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/gambas-ajillo-shrimp-in-garlic-recipe.html?oc=linkback
Read more at: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/gambas-ajillo-shrimp-in-garlic-recipe.html?oc=linkback
edhopper
(33,587 posts)simply wonderful. How could a good God oppose such a marvelous delight?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)There is nothing else to recommend in your screed.
K & R.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)I have developed a love of using liberal interpretations of the bible to make their heads explode.
My favorite is to abstractly mention how the bible says we have knowledge of good and evil and say I see nothing evil with homosexuality and then ask them who I should put my trust in? My conscience or some moldy book prone to mis-interpretation, mis-translation, and corrupt individuals using their position as preists to add in their own bigotry to it through the ages. Then follow it up by asking them if they think god is a bigot.
That usually drives them off the wall
Alternatively, I like to try and use the gospels to drive them crazy. When I do this my usual modus operandi is to say the OT is null and void and then link them this:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
If they bring up Saul or anything following the gospels, I usually remark on how they are so willing to take the beliefs of the a man who persecuted the early Christians over the actions of the man who they claim to worship as described in the Gospels. (Honestly, I don't see why more liberal Christians use the same tactic rather than trying to give his words a liberal interpretation)
Its a great tactic to watch their heads explode while generating a ton of likes and support amoung liberal christian. While I have seen a few conservative x-tians back way off after the first approach, I have yet to see the latter approach actually change anyone's mind about anything.
While I do get a lot of praise from people who already support the LGBTQ community, to everyone else it sounds like I am twisting things to support a particular position...and as I am a non-believer they would be abosultely correct. That is exactly what I am doing. I strongly support gay rights and marriage equality and if it will help my case I will argue against the bible and christianity itself one moment, and then twist every single word I can out of it the second it will help make my case.
I have no problem doing this I don't give a shit about the bible at all
While the person who wrote this article, unlike me, is a sincere believer I suspect this article would have a similar effect amoungst those who oppose LGBT rights or are on the fense as my arguments do. It comes off as doing gymnastistics to try and find an alternative interpretation. If the biblical god does exist I guess it is possible that this interpretation is correct, but I don't find the argument convincing.
I guess, just as with the argument between believers and us non-believers, it all comes down to learning who is right after we all die.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)Yeshua never said 1 word on homosexuality and it is arguable, as shown by the link I gave, that he affirmed a gay relationship.
Compare this with the epistles that conservatives love to quote:
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know Gods righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=NIV[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1&version=NIV[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Rather than doing a lot of interpretive gymnastics to make these sections look LGBTQ friendly why not just admit that Saul spent a significant amount of time persecuting the early christians and should be rejected entirely in favour of the Gospels and Yeshua who said this about homosexuality:
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Yeshua[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]...
.
.
.
.
And who affirmed a gay couple as shown in the link:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
Thus my comments on what appears to be a conflict between the actions of Yeshua and the words of Saul.
If you want to try and make Paul seem like an outstanding X-tian and defend him knock yourself out. But to me as a former catholic and a current liberal atheist who greatly supports gay rights, it seems like a waste of time and effort.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)opposition to them. Your other example yogis can't even stretch that far.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2014, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)
I specifically said actions.
Either way you have to do "yogis*" to make the case that any part of the bible is pro-LGBT. You just have to do less by axing out Saul and the OT from the equation.
With the Gospels alone you can make quite a nice case in support of the progressive/liberal position on gay rights/marriage with all the stuff about "not judging others", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "let he without sin throw the first stone," "give unto ceasar what is ceasar's and unto god what is god's" stuff.
Its when you get to Paul that things get....how best to put this....fucked up? Without Paul and the OT making the case for LGBTQ rights to Christians would be easy far far easier.
Or are you trying to argue against a liberal interpretation of the NT? That is surprising. I thought you were one of the big pro-religion supporters on this forum?
If that is what you are arguing I won't agree or disagree. My interest in this is solely about ways of advocating ways to support LGBTQ rights and marriage equality. If I can do that using the bible, I will. If I can best do that by arguing against Christianity and the bible, I will.
I have no belief or affection for the bible. If its an obstruction to gaining equality for all, I will find whatever way I can to discredit it. If I can find a way to use it as a tool to convince people to accept LGBTQ rights I will treat it with all the deference needed to achieve my purposes.
*by Yogis I assume you are referring to the practice of yoga and bending one's body and not a reference to a certain bear with a love of picinic baskets.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)This is after all a thread about using the Bible for or against same sex marriage not Paul vs Jesus and the central message of the Christian faith. Should maybe have used gymnast but Yogi and Booboo bring by memories of a less stressful time.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)Besides who doesn't like (best yogi voice) a pic-i-nic basket?
Except for maybe Ranger Smith, that jerk!