As they say, you can use the Scriptures to justify (or ban) pretty well anything at all.

Still, I liked the style of writing in this "tongue in cheek" essay! .... And "yes" I did mean the double-entendre! :-) LOL

Go away and don't come back until you have compensated all those children and their parents and others whose lives you disfigured or terminated with the product of your ugly vile unnatural filthy habits .

According to the Bible David swung in either direction:

Samuel 2 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

A great many Australians today have turned their backs on a church marriage, opting instead for a civil marriage.

Garum Masala:

'until you have compensated all those children and their parents and others whose lives you disfigured or terminated with the product of your ugly vile unnatural filthy habits'

You're talking about the Catholic Church, yes?

talk to any honest doctor and he/she will tell you how unhealthy sodomy is. The author twists and ignores Scriptures that state that

' Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others. (1Co 6:9-10)

Thankfully all are given an opportunity to repent.

Alan has obviously learnt how to cut and paste from liberal çhurches'websites. Nothing however can turn such unnatural acts into natural.

'Gay'marriage is an oxymoron. Along with homosexuality, fornication, lying and adultery will prevent people from entering heaven. Thankfully millions around the world have repented of these things rather than try and pretend their is nothing wrong with them. Christ Jesus is willing to forgive people of their filth.

David G totally perverts the scriptures in order to back his view.

Clownfish , unfortunately yes , but I have to inform that I have no affiliation with any religion .
Might I add that you have surprised me .

What always amazes me about these type of articles are the READER'S COMMENTS! Many of them are absolutely vile, homophobic, myopic in their spectrum - theologically and sociologically. You will often find that even websites purporting to offer a Christian insight can vehemently spew letters of hate and non-acceptance of others who do not agree with their position! Pathetic!

Rather than present "ad hominem" vitriol, I wish that those with differing viewpoints would intelligently present contrary arguments. Ultra conservative viewpoints should also be respected - but not when they come forward with negativity and hate. C'mon! a fair-go for all please...

OK runner. I'll bite.

>>David G totally perverts the scriptures in order to back his view.<<

Which of the excerpts are the "perversions"??

I personally found most of them fairly straightforward. To me, they demonstrated the manner in which various religious groups interpret the scriptures, specifically, in order to promulgate their own sect's beliefs.

But I'm willing to learn.

Great article - witty, well informed, and pointed.

Scriptures demand time and again that we should be tolerant and inclusive; it's a shame we're so often the opposite.

runner - there's plenty of evidence of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, so why do you say homosexuality is "unnatural"?

Rhian

runner - there's plenty of evidence of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom, so why do you say homosexuality is "unnatural"?

animals do all sorts of things that are unhealthy and unnatural. We happen to have a conscience. Animals don't. Have you ever watched monkeys eat each others waste at a zoo.

No, runner, that’s not an entertainment I’ve ever experienced.

Unhealthy, probably. Unnatural? Can animals act contrary to nature? Or are you using “natural” in a normative sense on how animals SHOULD behave? And if so, who’s to decide?

Runner said....

"animals do all sorts of things that are unhealthy and unnatural."

Yes I agree runner, just the other day I saw two wombats doing lines of coke with a rolled up twenty, and then proceeded to rob four banks and rape a Tassie devil.

What can I say runner, its a changing world:)
lol

BLUE

Rhian

Can animals act contrary to nature? The topic is not about animals. It is obvious that body parts for humans were designed despite the pathetic attempts to explain otherwise. Sodomy is not only unnatural as the anal passage is obviously designed to pass waste. Many diseases have been passed on and spread through the un natural act of sodomy. On the other hand the female and male were obviously designed for each other.

Dear runner,

David G has not commented on this thread. I did. I did not pervert the scriptures. I cited them exactly although it was a translation from the original. The quote indicates that David was attracted to Jonathan more than to women. That doesn't mean he was strictly homosexual. He was apparently bisexual and attracted to both sexes but more to Jonathan. Of course he may have been complete fiction as much of the Bible is. Those who wrote the Bible were creative story tellers.

It is also apparent that our bodies were not designed but evolved. There is much evidence for that. Our ancestors if we go back far enough were four legged. We get backaches and some foot problems because we are descended from four legged creatures and weren't designed to stand upright. Our appendix may be a vestigial organ which our ancestors used to digest cellulose. Some of us believe in such primitive nonsense as a virgin birth because shared superstition was a bonding force for tribal people. Some of us are bigoted against people who believe in different religious mumbojumbo since suspicion of the outsider also was a bonding element in our ancestry. With your stock of religious superstition you are evidence for its binding force.

Rhian,

You are correct when you say that ..
"Scriptures demand time and again that we should be tolerant and inclusive; it's a shame we're so often the opposite".

However, a complete reading of the Bible would reveal that the God of the bible is a God of both love and justice. While he created humanity and loves us as individuals, he is also holy and cannot tolerate rebellion (aka sin).

God solved this problem in sending Jesus to meet his requirement for justice by showing undeserved mercy ... for those who want to receive it.

Too Runner and maybe Hasbeen and all the other homophobes. Hasbeen has a son a the Armed Forces:) Yes people, I have a gay sister too. I know ( tears are falling from my eyes ):) So when war breaks out, and gay personal save your life, I guess all you can do, is light a fag and thank your lucky stars. What is it with you people? You would think they were coming around your house, and anal-sexing your cat! Pleasezzzzzzzz.lol...Ive meet these normal/very-day people that hold very high and powerful positions in the community, and they don't mind if you don't understand, But One thing you should not do...... don't Piss them off.:)

Here is a clip that some might remember dancing to in their youth.

Enjoy.

http://tinyurl.com/4dbgfa

As David.f has noted, You might want to have a good look at Greek methodology and others:) Thank God for the bible! I wouldn't want to go back to our dirty, filthy, past now, would we runner and friends:)

BLUE

Dear Runner.

A priest once told me, " if you cant sink the pink, go for the brown.lol, of course he was talking about snooker:)

BLUE...lol

Oh dear:)

Deep-Blue,

What having a gay relative has to do with whether the bible permits perverted sex is irrelevant. Someone who has committed adultery could well save your life. Of course I would be thankful. That does not make adultery right. I to have someone who has chosen to be gay in my family. They are actually a very nice person. Their behaviour however is disgusting.

My apologies to David G. I should of written David F. With a nonsensical belief such as evolution every sexual perversion can be made permissable. Your twisting of Scripture re David is deceitful. There is absolutely no evidence that David and Jonathon engaged in perverted sex.

God solved this problem in sending Jesus to meet his requirement for justice by showing undeserved mercy ... for those who want to receive it.
Posted by Matt 548, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:53:00 PM

All that means....Horses for courses.....Matt 548, I found this. I hope you are not offended. http://tinyurl.com/2bauks

BLUE

What is new Peter? Of course the Bibles have been open to all different connotations and perceptions through generations. When a Minister or Priest reads from the Bible [New Testament], they are quoting Versus as you have, with most Ministers and Priests leaving it to their parishioners to decipher and interpret their own messages.

Most of the versus in the New Testaments that the majority of churches extract, generally reflect their original Commandments.

Similar to Muslims interpreting these days [in this generation] their own versions of the Koran. The terrorists interpretations of the Koran differ greatly to the elderly Muslim followers of the Koran. Some older friends who become upset with some of their young interpreting the Koran's versus and commandments in negative ways.

I have never bothered 'following' or being influenced by Priests, Ministers or any other person's beliefs and interpretations of the New Testament, and avoided the Old Testament like the plague....God's wrath revenging sinners etc.

During my life journey its been interesting to observe that those people most firmly shouting 'anti-gays' either hold a fascination for wanting to be gay or later on follow a gay journey including religious bretheren.

We all commit sins, no-one is a 'better' human being than any other, and it all reverts to being honest with ourselves.

Sorry runner, I just had to comment following this:

"There is absolutely no evidence that David and Jonathon engaged in perverted sex."

Evidence?!? Your kidding me right? For as long as I've been reading OLO you have never used, cited, responded to, or understood anything resembling 'evidence'. Define evidence.

As for the article, it focuses on Scripture and it's interpretation. Runner, do you know your Scripture? If so are you able for formulate a valid argument? Time to put up or shut up.

Matthew 548,
Jesus had not a single thing to say about homosexuality, but an awful lot to say about love, forgiveness and mercy. He also warned against judging others.

I’m guessing you’ve taken your tag from the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5:48: “be perfect, as God is perfect”. It’s well to remember the Lucan parallel to this saying - Luke 6:36: “be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate.”

Runner,
As you describe homosexuality as “unnatural” I think it’s a fair question to ask how you distinguish the “natural” from the “unnatural”, and I propose a definition of “natural” as including “that which occurs in nature”. So the behaviour of animals is entirely relevant

I enjoyed this satirical article. And I simply can't fathom why some people feel that the right to be Christian gives them the right to poke their noses into other people's private lives.

War

Rape

Murder

Poverty

Equal Rights For Gays

Guess which one some people are protesting?

Why is it that, as a culture we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

The Church does not understand the problem of sexuality. A well-known visiting priest asked to be allowed to celebrate mass one Sunday having been sent by the powers that be.
It was on sexual deviation. The church was full. Everyone hoped for directions. The church has all the anwers, or so they were being told time after time. At the end of the sermon he tested the congregation.
"All those who have been guilty of he-heing please leave the building now."
half walked out guilty as hell.
"And now , please also leave the building if you've been she-sheing."The other half walked out. There remained one solitary soul. The priest gave God the glory forsuch a good man.
"Thank God,son, for you goodness."
"hold on father You've got rid of all the he-he'ers and the she-she-ers but you havent said anything about the me-me-ers."
There you go!!

socratease

(1Co 6:9-10)

runner, Tues, 8 March, 12:15:02 PM

The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Although "homosexual" is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:

If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. So there is no way that "arsenokoitai" could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul's condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.

Truth is best.

Any religious limitations on marriage do not matter in this question. No one is suggesting that the churches be subject to civil law on who they will marry. That can be decided by the religious institution itself.

It doesn't matter what the Bible or any other religious text says since the marriage regulations will apply only to civil marriage. Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious groups simply have no business deciding who should be married under civil law. That puts them in the position of specifying marriage qualifications for people who don't share their beliefs. That is none of their business.

Rhian
'As you describe homosexuality as “unnatural” I think it’s a fair question to ask how you distinguish the “natural” from the “unnatural”, and I propose a definition of “natural” as including “that which occurs in nature”. So the behaviour of animals is entirely relevant'

We are talking about homosexual behaviour between humans not animals. The apostle Paul could not of made it clearer.
' For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed 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 toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

I know the author of the arguement has twisted this passage to say what it does not but it could not be much plainer. What bit don't you understand. Forget about animals who have no conscience. It nis natural for them to kill each other.

You can argue with God's word about what is natural and what is not. My view is that He has the right to decide.

David f quotes Scripture wrongly and then decides it does not matter anyway.

Paul gives specific intructions to husbands and wives throughout the new testament. Peter does likewise. Nowhere does he address a man being married to a man or a woman a woman.It was unthinkable to the writers of Scripture.

By all means if the majority of Australians want civil ceremonies let them have it but don't pervert marriage.

Dear runner,

You want us to forget about the other animals? We are just another kind of animal. Animal mothers can love their babies. No conscience? Did you ever see a cat or dog slink around when they know they have done something wrong? What we call conscience is just a feeling of having done something that we shouldn't, and we are not the only animals with such feelings. What other animals don't have is your superstition. Humans don't need it either.

You wrote that I quote scripture wrongly. I quoted it exactly as it is written. Please cite any instance where I misquoted it. I draw different conclusions from it than you do. That could mean that you really don't understand the meaning or don't want to recognise the meaning. However, you cannot prove your interpretation is anything more than your interpretation. I get the idea that you really are so filled with superstition that you can't understand what scripture clearly says.

The nature of marriage changes. King Solomon had a number of wives in addition to concubines. Did he pervert marriage? Was he breaking the law? No. Marriage in ancient Israel was defined differently from the way it is in today's Australia. In Muslim countries men can have more than one wife. They are not perverting marriage either. They just define it differently from the way you define it. King Solomon, Muslims and you differ on the definition of marriage. There is no hard and fixed definition. It is defined differently in different times and places. It was changed before in our society. It can be changed again. That doesn't mean that your superstition has to change it. However, your superstition has no right to tell others how they should define marriage.

Runner

Read the article. Paul’s words need to be read in context, both of what he was saying (which has more to do with the respective failings of Jews and Gentiles than an attack on any particular behaviour), and of the culture and practices of the time. At the very least, surely you recognise this passage can be interpreted different ways.

And even if Paul was attacking the same kind of stable and loving homosexual relationships under discussion in this forum, this does not necessarily mean that God agrees with Paul. Christians do not take scripture to be verbatim transcripts of divine instructions, but the writings of people inspired by the encounter with God but subject to the same prejudices, foibles and cultural blind spots as we are. We don’t take Paul’s instructions as definitive on women’s dress and silence in church, any more than we take literally the instructions in the Pentateuch on disobedient children, wearing clothes of blended fabric and destroying buildings with mouldy walls.

Paul’s word is not necessarily God’s word.

David f

'You wrote that I quote scripture wrongly. I quoted it exactly as it is written.

You are right. My apologies again.It is your interpretation that is clearly wrong. It contradicts the rest of Scripture and is a classic case of twisting a meaning to fit a view.

You write that the nature of marriage changes. I disagree. God allowed polygamy for a period of time due to the hardness of man's heart. His orginal intention was stated clearly in Genesis and endorsed by Jesus.

Rhian

you write 'Paul’s word is not necessarily God’s word.'

You may pick and choose what is God's Word but I won't. Again whenever instructions are given by Paul or Peter regarding marriage it is addressed to husbands and wives.

You also write
'At the very least, surely you recognise this passage can be interpreted different ways.

Scripture has always been interpreted in different ways. I am in no way hoping any homosexuals go to hell anymore than I would hope any fornicators or adulterers go to hell. One however has to twist the Scriptures that comes to any other conclusion. Thankfully Christ hung on a cross for sinners. We all have the opportunity to repent. Refusing to call sin sin blinds one to the need of Calvary.

Good morning. Interesting discussion. Thank you. Just a few questions.
Rhian, is there anything else in Paul’s New Testament writings besides women’s clothing and silence in church which you think may not be inspired by God, or not consistent with the message of Jesus?
Runner, would you agree that the Church throughout history has often misunderstood the intention of the writers of Scripture and the Spirit that inspired them? And that the work of the Church in each generation has been to correct past errors of translation and interpretation?
David f, would you agree that the accounts of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi suggest possible same-sex relationships but don’t actually confirm them definitively?

Dear runner,

You wrote: "God allowed polygamy."

That is absolute nonsense. The morals of a particular people at a particular time allowed polygamy. That is not the word of God.

Equating your superstition with the word of God is rubbish.

To take a book full of ancient myths and legends and say it is the word of God is merely superstition.

Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bahai'is and others all claim to have the word of God. Why prefer your superstition to the other superstitions?

Dear Alan,

Yes, I would say that. Same sex relationships are suggested but not confirmed. The suggestion in the case of David and Jonathan is very strong.

Alan you ask

'Runner, would you agree that the Church throughout history has often misunderstood the intention of the writers of Scripture and the Spirit that inspired them? And that the work of the Church in each generation has been to correct past errors of translation and interpretation?'

By and large the work of the church is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Essentially it is to present and offer to people salvation and forgiveness for their sins through repentance. Changing the definition of what the bible clearly calls sin leads only to deception.

Where error has been in the church it should be the work of theologians to bring correction. It is also up to true believers to defend the faith and not allow perverted men to corrupt what is plain. It is what men know that they need to be concerned about not what they don't know. The gospel message in itself has been and always will be very simple except to those who deliberately corrupt it. Unfortunately much of the mainstream 'çhurch'has a lot to answer for simply because they have ignored the plain teachings of Scripture larely due to sin and unbelief.

Thanks, Runner. I actually agree with every substantial point in that post.
I certainly agree that ‘Changing the definition of what the bible clearly calls sin leads only to deception.’
Where we disagree is whether or not same sex marriage is ‘what the bible clearly calls sin’. I have recently joined the growing numbers of believers, including theologians (which I am definitely not), rethinking this.
In my youth, I fervently believed blacks were inferior, suicides could not have a Christian burial, a divorcee could never remarry, drinking a glass of wine with a meal was evil, women could never teach men, baptism by immersion was essential for salvation, all Catholics were bound for hell and Anglicans were mostly in serious error. All based on clear Biblical passages I could readily recite.
Before my time, the church condemned Galileo as a heretic for claiming the earth revolved around the sun. It burned alive Giordano Bruno for claiming that the universe is infinite. Thousands of unfortunates with mental illnesses were tortured or killed for demon possession. Alfred Loisy was excommunicated for teaching that the Genesis creation stories were not literal history. All these actions were based on very clear, simple, straightforward texts. Every one.
Yes, the passages you have quoted on homosexuality seem to be clear. But so do those declaring the sun rises and sets. And those that speak of demons. Science forced the church to rework its interpretation of certain passages - in astronomy, mental illness and various other fields. This is happening now in human sexuality.
As Rhian posted here last December after another article, ‘modern understanding is that homosexuality is not a choice, is not a reversible condition, is not harmful, and most of all is as integral to the being and person of gays as heterosexual orientation is to straights. This means that past prejudices against homosexuality were ill-founded. It is no sin to be who God made you.’
This fresh insight from science is forcing scholars to look at the texts again. In theological halls around the world we are increasingly hearing ‘Oops!’

Alan

I think all of scripture is inspired by God, but that not the same as saying it’s the word of God is the sense of conveying a permanent and comprehensive record of God’s opinions and instructions. Scripture was written by real people who interpreted their encounter with God through the lens of their culture, values and experience – as do we. We disregard large chunks of Old Testament law as no longer applicable or relevant, despite Matthew 5:18.

Dear Rhian,

To participate in this discussion and others I keep a Bible next to the computer so I know what the contents of the passage referred to is. I like your statement "Scripture was written by real people who interpreted their encounter with God through the lens of their culture, values and experience – as do we."

However, you also wrote: "We disregard large chunks of Old Testament law as no longer applicable or relevant, despite Matthew 5:18."

Does that mean you accept the New Testament in toto? Couldn't the miracles cited in the NT be included in the narrative as the story to be accepted in the culture of that time required the inclusion of such wonders?

Hi David

No, I don’t accept the NT in toto. My reference to Matthew was intended to draw attention to the inconsistency of those who claim that they do, but them feel free to disregard large chunks of the Torah despite Jesus’ apparent insistence that his followers should do no such thing. In my view this passage reflects Matthew’s highly Jewish worldview and is not found in the other gospels, but those who claim to treat the whole bible as a divine instruction manual need to explain their disobedience of this particular command.

Like the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament was a product of its time and culture, and was mostly written many decades after the events of Jesus’ life and death. I agree that miracle stories reflect a worldview that is very different from our own, for example with illness and misfortune attributed to divine displeasure or demonic activity, and the distinction between the “natural” and “supernatural” drawn much less sharply than we do today. The bible also contains many different genres and narrative styles, including myth and parable, that were never intended to be taken literally. The crisp modern distinctions between fact and fiction, story and history would be alien to the bible’s authors.

That’s why I believe that biblical literalists who insist, for example, that Jesus really did walk on water are not in fact being authentic to what was meant and understood by the biblical authors and their audiences.

It is also why I think we should take the essence of Jesus’ message – love, forgiveness and inclusion – and interpret them in the context of our own culture. That’s why I think it is Christian to accept homosexuals and support their right to marry, but not to condemn and marginalise them

Dear Rhian,

Well put. The Bible was cobbled together in 400 AD (or so) by various churchmen - you think they didn't re-write a few things to represent their world view? Another thought - when you think about it, isn't it remarkable that a religion should adopt an instrument of torture and execution as its sacred symbol, often worn around the neck. Lenny Bruce once quipped, " If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." Do those people who hold up the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it - and even worse, that they should bossily try to force (whether fact or fiction) all this on the rest of us? Freedom of religion - Or freedom of prejudice?

Fair question, Lexi. Fair comment Tuesday too.
Do those who hold up the Bible as an inspiration to moral rectitude have the slightest notion of what is actually written in it? Yes, most certainly. Most evils Bible-believing Christians oppose are clearly evils – deception, greed, theft, murder, oppression. Remember it was Bible-believing Christians who first challenged slavery (Wilberforce), started the union movement (Tolpuddle martyrs), organised battlefield medical services (Nightingale), stood between the Australian Aborigines and murdering settlers, started the flying doctor in Australia, started most aid agencies and so on.
To the powerful people these Bible bashers were opposing in all these fields, no doubt they seemed very bossy indeed.
Unnecessary problems have certainly arisen, however, when Christians have bossily forced on others values which are not actually Biblically-based. Fortunately this is nowhere near as bad as it once was.
Where it persists today, church members are actively working through the questions of Biblical content and social applicability. Hence this article.
But you are right, Lexi (and others), we still have a way to go.

Hi Lexi

Most if not all of the books of the New Testament were written in the first century, but they circulated as independent texts for some time, along with a variety of other religious writings which didn’t make it into the final canon of 27 books. Our oldest NT papyri are from the 2nd century, and although most historians date the formal canon to Athanasius in the 360s, earlier collections of books containing most of our NT and regarded as distinctively authoritative were circulating much earlier. So it’s not quite true to say the bible was “cobbled together” in the 4th century, and I doubt very much any of it was being re-written by then – the texts would have been too familiar, too respected and available from too many independent sources. Plus, modern scholars are fairly adept at spotting later edits in the text, and there’s no evidence of this from as late as the 4th century.

However, there is evidence that the gospels and especially Paul’s texts were edited and conflated in their early years, and incorporate some introduced material. The longer endings of Mark are later additions, and the last book of John may be also. Some of the Pauline letters and parts of letters are believed to be written by later authors in Paul’s name, a practice that seems shockingly dishonest to us but was quite common and accepted in ancient times.

Lenny Bruce’s quip is less offensive to Christians than you might think. The death of God on a cross IS a scandal and a horror, and the paradox that the cross is also a symbol of hope and triumph is at the centre of the Gospel message. It’s good to be reminded of that, as the familiarity of the cross can cause us to forget how vile and grotesque crucifixion was, and what and extraordinary reversal the resurrection represents.

Alan Austin wrote: Remember it was Bible-believing Christians who first challenged slavery (Wilberforce)

Dear Alan,

Why should one remember something that isn’t true?

The opposition to slavery existed in the ancient world before Christianity was invented, and the New Testament written. I have visited the pagan Greek shrine at Delphi. There are many inscriptions by Greeks telling how they had freed slaves. Leviticus 25:8-55 tells of the Jubilee year in which slaves were freed. That is in the Jewish Bible.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

The Christian Scriptures and Slavery

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other [New Testament] Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery.

Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861:

"Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave." 1

Paul's violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery:

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee."

“The Arrogance of Faith” by F. Wood tells how Christianity justified slavery.

“In West Africa, where the population was especially dense and from which the great bulk of slaves was secured, Christianity was practically unknown until the Portuguese began to plant missions in the area in the sixteenth century. It was a strange religion, this Christianity, which taught equality and brotherhood and at the same time introduced on a large scale the practice of tearing people from their homes and transporting them to a distant land to become slaves.” - John Hope Franklin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

The Southern Baptist Convention, largest Baptist sect in the world, became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a regional split with northern Baptists over the issues of slavery.

Thanks for the clarification, David. You are entirely correct. What I meant by the shorthand ‘slavery’ was ‘the legal practice of slave trading throughout the British Empire from the 16th to the 18th century’. Strictly, of course, Wilberforce wasn’t the first to challenge it.
The point being attempted was that it was his conversion to Evangelical Christianity which impelled him to pursue this particular political reform.

Alan you write 'It is no sin to be who God made you.’
Child molestors could argue the same thing. Sexual conduct is a choice despite the constant dogma that you are born that way. There are numerous who start out straight, have families and then go into a unnatural relationship. Personally I think you are deceived.

btw proper science has only confirmed the accuray of Scripture not diminished it.

Dear Alan

Thank you for your teasingly erudite article. I especially enjoyed the way you interleaved other biblical references throughout the main thread. A Bible study group would be extremely busy working its way through all the doctrinal issues to which you refer.

I have to admit that on one of my re-readings I imagined your article running as a short film… In that version your St Peter was a whimsical Peter Ustinov (it seemed a good fit with your article's tone of voice).

The God you presented reminded me somewhat of that in Terry Lane's book "God: the interview".

I wonder if runner's doctrinal certainty would change if he read the late Yale University Prof of history John Boswell's academically dense but rewardingly informative books "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" and "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the 14th Century"? In the former he includes translations of many of the manuscripts containing ceremonies of same-sex union still held in the Vatican.

Again thank you for your article which I am about to re-read... What effect would it have if I imagine it read by John Cleese…?

WmTrevor

Thanks, WmTrevor. Must find those two volumes myself. Haven’t heard of them before.
@ Runner, two good points again. Thanks for this.
Yes, agree with you science has confirmed the accuracy of much of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. But would you agree that good science has also led Christians to change their understanding of the interpretation and application of many passages?
Unfortunately Bible-believing Christians on the wrong side of science-scripture arguments have often done great damage before realising their errors.
Fair point also about child molesters. We could add rapists, men who abuse animals and other perversions. We must certainly condemn sexual activities where there is an unwilling participant. But would you agree that consensual sexual activities are less clear? And that Scripture can then be both helpful and problematic?
Should a married couple who have sex during the wife’s period be excommunicated? Does God allow rulers to have concubines? Must elders have one wife, but deacons and pastors have two or none? The Bible is quite clear on these: yes, yes and yes. But most Christians these days say: no, no and no.
On other questions, Scripture is frustratingly silent. When is it okay for an engaged couple to hold hands, kiss and make love? Is oral sex okay within marriage? (against the law in many US states.) What sex positions are permissible within marriage? (only the missionary position is legal in Washington DC.)
So would you agree, Runner, it can be tricky to determine what is actually meant by some passages that refer to sexual immorality? And that this is where we need scholarly exegesis, the insights of science, profound pastoral sensitivity and internet forums?

Dear runner,

Alan Austin's cleverly crafted article is a parable. Clever because he weaves examples of Biblically-referenced doctrinal inconsistency into his narrative - the proof's in the pudding, as it were.

The lesson I took from the article was that doctrinal certainty is illusionary.

I've re-read your comments and your criticisms can be summarised as, the Word is the Word and a sin is a sin.

The problem is that the verses in the Bible can be explicit, implicit, historic, poetic, worshipful, factual and/or fantastical.

In a second post I'll offer some suggestions on interpretation.

Rear runner, try this (simplified) thought experiment:

The easiest to understand verses in the Bible should be those that are most explicit. Of the explicit verses the ones quoting God directly should be the most privileged; especially if they have supporting evidence, such as an inscription written by God in stone… though for this thought experiment we will overlook the inconvenience of the disappearance of any divinely inscribed rocks.

Exodus 20 verse 13 (KJV) will serve as the example. "Thou shall not kill." Those four words, runner, are simple and clear. Unfortunately, it is impossible to follow God's commandment and be a living human since second by second your immune system kills microbes and in eating food you have killed animal, plant or other organisms. Your response might be that God obviously didn't mean microbes and in any event the proscription should only apply to conscious action.

My reply is that God said, "Thou shall not kill." He did not say, "Thou shalt not kill… (insert here all the exceptions, such as microbes, as well as conditional clauses)". Because if God had meant it any other way She would have said so.

You reply that I am being silly and and it is obvious what the verse means and I respond that no, it is obvious what it says but its meanings need to be interpreted and will always be conditional.

It logically follows that if the simplest example of an explicit biblical verse has to be conditional and interpreted according to circumstances then all of them have to be.

Finally, if you'll permit, you seem to have a problem in that despite the scientific, biologic, historic and social evidence for homosexuality you assert that you find it unnatural. The solution is simple… If you find homosexuality unnatural, then please stop doing it or learn to do it properly.

Alan thankyou for what appears to be genuine concerns. You do raise a number of topics.

You write
' Unfortunately Bible-believing Christians on the wrong side of science-scripture arguments have often done great damage before realising their errors.'

There is no doubt that biblical interpretation has led to atrocities and mis understandings. Fortunatley not nearly as many deaths as those who deny God. Marxism (the denial of God) is up with the worst. That is why today often it is those with Marxist ideology that are the most violent. In one year the murder of the unborn makes huge dints in those killed by bible misinterpretation of scripture. This is not an excuse just a fact. This is also justified by pseudo science. No honest scientist or doctor could deny what they are doing when they tear apart a baby. This is just one example of how wicked the heart of man is and how willing they are to use 'science'to justify every perverse act under the sun. So yes many have also been on the wrong side of science. Much racism has come from the pseudo science of evolution that taught that some races are more evolved than others. This led to our own aborigials being considered the missing link by scientist.

You ask or raise questions about a number of sexual issues. It is the issue homosexuality that you wrote on. I have stated many times that this sin is no worse than adultery or fornication. In many ways by allowing the recoginition of defacto relationships as being equal with marriage the law has opened the door to every evil. This sanctioning of same sex partners is just one more sanctioning of what the Scriptures call wicked. While I am convinced that oral sex is perverse no one is calling for it to be legalised and demanding it sanctioned. I heard recently on the news the increase in throat cancer being linked to oral sex. Why am I surprised

con'd

So you ask

'So would you agree, Runner, it can be tricky to determine what is actually meant by some passages that refer to sexual immorality? And that this is where we need scholarly exegesis, the insights of science, profound pastoral sensitivity and internet forums?

Yes I would agree with that statement. Again though we don't need 'scholarly exegesis'on what the Scriptures plainly show.

Don't you agree that if a person is heading to eternity in hell due to ignorance of Scripture and mis representation by liberal theoligians that it would be grossly wrong for believer not to warn them?

Dear runner,

You wrote: “Much racism has come from the pseudo science of evolution that taught that some races are more evolved than others.”

Evolution teaches no such thing. Humans are not more evolved than bacteria. They just fill different ecological niches. You make statements for which you cite no evidence. If you can find an evolutionary scientist who made such a statement cite your reference. No doubt Creationist websites distort evolutionary theory, but no reputable scientist has maintained what you cite. At least learn what evolution is.

Dear Alan,

You wrote, "stood between the Australian Aborigines and murdering settlers." That is largely true. Before Darwin published many scientifically literate people thought of the Aborigines as a separate species which were not entitled to protection as humans. Missionaries accepting the Biblical fables of Adam and Eve thought of the Aborigines as human and sharing a common ancestry with Europeans. Robert Kenny's "The Lamb Enters the Dreaming" tells about that period in his narrative about the first Aborigine converted to Christianity.

Dear Wm. Trevor,

The interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill." should consider the original. A direct translation from the Hebrew is “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is a crime defined by the state. Killing of non-humans, killing in war, killing in self-defence and other justifiable homicides along with other killing not defined as murder by the state are not violations of the commandment.

There are many other mistranslations from the original along with mistranslations from mistranslations. One example is the virgin birth.

The King James version of Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the original Hebrew an almah shall conceive. Almah means young woman with no implication of virginity. Young women frequently conceive. The Greek translation of Isaiah replaced almah as parthenos which does mean virgin in Greek.

The Bible in the original version in Hebrew and Aramaic is a collection of contemporary legends. Translations often add more misinformation.

Dear Alan and Rhian,

Thank You for your comments and inputs. I'm learning a great deal from this discussion and the various posts. Alan, you may be right about the Lenny Bruce quote that I cited earlier. However, the theology and punishment-theory behind it, I have a problem comprehending. I refer to the central doctrine of Christianity: that of "atonement" for "original sin." What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor? I question the Christian focus on sin, sin, sin, sin. God incarnated himself as a man, Jesus, in order that he should be tortured and executed in "atonement" for the hereditary sin of Adam. And Jesus has been worshipped as the "redeemer" of all our sins. Not just for the past sin of Adam: future sins as well, whether future people decided to commit them or not. My question is - if God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, without having himself tortured and executed in payment? (thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as "Christ-killers.")
It doesn't make sense, at least to me.

If we are talking about intricate, intimate HUMAN relationships then what the hell are we bringing religion,Church and Jesus Christ into it. Jesus loved women but he never got married. He spent 90% of his time with MEN. You really must pay more attention about what you read in the Bible, and how you read it.
I suppose you can't if you've been brainwashed.

socratease

davidf

Much racism has come from the pseudo science of evolution that taught that some races are more evolved than others.

you write
'Evolution teaches no such thing.

Oh really. The theology of evolution is interpreted in different ways by its disciples. Look at this quote from Lego when referring to another poster on the multiculuralism article by Graeme Cooke.

'Now correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read your last post, it appeared you agree with me that genetic variations produced by evolutionary forces have given some ethnicities advantages within the local environments that they evolved in. If you believe that, then you are tacitly admitting that some ethnic groups have genetic characteristics that give them superior characteristics in order to survive in the environments in which they evolved. '

A lot of rotton fruit has come from the pseudo science belief of evolution. The disciples are not all in unity.

Dear runner,

I asked you to cite a scientist to substantiate what you call evolution - not another poster on OLO who may be as ignorant of evolution as you are.

Science is based on observation, experiment and reason. Science follows where the evidence leads. The Bible is not a scientific, historical or moral guide.

A God who would consign a human to an eternity of suffering because that human was ignorant of scripture is a nasty human creation. You are probably ignorant of much scripture - Muslim scripture, the Koran, Jewish scripture, the Bible without the New Testament, Buddhist scripture, the Tripitaka, Hindu scripture, the Upanishads and others. A Muslim told me I (presumably along with you) was going to hell. He regarded it as his duty to save me from hell. He was a believer giving me a warning just as you are a believer giving those who do not believe in your superstition a warning.

The God you apparently believe in is nasty and vindictive.

Dear Runner,
Thanks again for your thoughtful responses. Seems we have just one major difference in understanding. That is whether the passages you have referred to – also commented on in the original article – actually condemn all homosexual activity.
We agree abusive same sex relationships are as abhorrent as abusive straight relationships. But what about faithful, life-long, committed same-sex unions?
I’m now persuaded by both Biblical scholarship and the experience of gay men and women in effective Christian ministry that the Bible condemns abuse, but not all homosexual liaisons.
Would it be helpful to look at specific texts? Happy to do so, if you wish. For example, you quoted earlier 1 Corinthians 6:9. Your version: ‘No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom.’
Your version renders the key word arsenokoitai as ‘behaves like a homosexual’. Other translations differ significantly. Many just say ‘homosexuality’ or ‘sodomy’ for arsenokoitai which is clearly wrong. There are other common Greek words for homosexuality in general, such as paederastes, which Paul declines to use.
Other versions render arsenokoitai more accurately as ‘abusers of themselves with men (KJV, ASV, etc.) Weymouth goes further: ‘any who are guilty of unnatural crime’.
Probably most accurate is the UK New International Version: ‘Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.’
By using arsenokoitai instead of paederastes it seems Paul intended to differentiate between normal, consensual, marriage-like gay relationships and those that are abusive, perverted or criminal. Just as he does with straight sexual liaisons.
Happy to consider other passages more closely if you wish.
Finally, on the experience of gay people in ministry, this might be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPZ5eUrNF24

Dear Lexi,
Yes, agree atonement is problematic on various levels. Theologians and Christian leaders are still exploring this, and there is no real consensus among them any more – if ever there really was. Certainly there are divergent views these days on original sin. Will leave you to google the discussion, Lexi, if of interest.
Most Christian traditions tend not to dwell too much on the philosophical problem of a judgmental God who demands human sacrifice, but emphasise God’s love in sacrificing his son.
Agree absolutely on the misplaced emphasis on sin, especially sexual sin. There are far more passages in the Judeo-Christian texts condemning oppression, greed and economic injustice than dealing with sex.
W Somerset Maugham in ‘The Judgment Seat’ has God saying: ‘I have often wondered why men think that I attach so much importance to sexual irregularity. If they read my works more attentively they would see that I have always been sympathetic to that particular form of human frailty.’

David f

there are alot more scientist than you would like to admit that know the 'science' behind evolution is fraudulent, untrue and deceptive.

About a thousand of them here

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22722

Dear Alan,

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not easily acquired. You do it so well. It's been a pleasure taking part in this discussion with you. Hopefully, there shall be more articles from you in the future - on this Forum.

Dear runner,

I read the article you referred me to. It is an example of distortion. The author of the article referred to Pierre Grasse as an opponent of Darwinism. That is true, but Grasse did not deny evolution. He denied Darwinian theory which is another matter. He supported Lamarck who explained evolution differently from the way Darwin did.

Look up Pierre Grasse in Wikipedia. Grasse who the article referred to according to Wikipedia "occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris, of which the two previous occupiers, Alfred Giard (1846–1908) and Maurice Caullery (1868–1958), were both also supporters of lamarckism. Only after Grassé's retirement did the chair become occupied by a partisan of Darwinism, Charles Bocquet (1918–1977)."

The author referred to 'the myth of evolution', and then for support cited a scientist who accepted evolution but not Darwinian theory.

It's dishonest to cite a professor of evoltionary biology as opposed to evolution. I looked up the the author of the article. He is a Protestant evangelist who is apparently not too scrupulous with facts.

david f

'He is a Protestant evangelist'

Oh so he can't tell the truth along with the numerous others who disagree with your faith.

I thought this forum was about same sex marriage.

Please tell me what religion has to do with the matter.

What is being proposed is a form of civil marriage, which I fail to see , has anything to do with any religion.

Many couples chose this form of marriage, because they do not wish to have any connection to any church or religion.

Dear runner,

Certainly Protestant evangelists can tell the truth, but that one didn't. That one lied. Calling science faith or theology is no argument, either.

The author of the article lied, and I pointed out where he lied.

You would rather believe nonsense like a virgin birth which is merely the result of a mistranslation. You are free to believe in nonsense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html is a website which tells how Pierre Grasse has been misquoted to support creationists. Lamarckism has gone out of fashion since we have found more about heredity. Lamarck believed in the transmission of acquired characteristics to offspring. However unless those acquired characteristics somehow affect the germ plasm they are not transmitted. There is a small possibility that it can happen, but natural selection is the main mover of evolution.

I wish you would learn something about biological science. It makes my life fuller, and you might find enjoyment in it, too.

Flo wrote: "What is being proposed is a form of civil marriage, which I fail to see , has anything to do with any religion."

Dear Flo,

You are absolutely right. Who churches decide they should marry is not an issue.

However, the Bible bashers chime in because they apparently want to control people's lives even though the people are not part of their religion. It has nothing to do with religion whether we have same sex civil marriage.

They spout nonsense about its effect on the institution of marriage. I am a man happily married to a woman. I can't see how any body else getting married affects that in any way.

Dear Flo,
Yes, the discussion started out on gay marriage, but we seem to have been sidetracked a little.
Religion is involved because much of the opposition in Australia and some other countries comes from people of strong religious faith – mostly Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Jewish – who believe their written texts condemn all homosexual activity.
If this is so – that the Bible, Qur’an and Torah do prohibit all gay relationships – then of course they must protest.
The point of the original article was to suggest that most, if not all, of the Judeo-Christian texts referred to by anti-gay people are in fact mistranslations or misinterpretations.
But because the anti-gay position has been held so strongly for some centuries now, it is naturally difficult for people to change. But change is happening. Churches and synagogues are increasingly accepting people in same-sex relationships into membership and into ministry. Christian and Jewish scholars are revising their understanding of the ancient texts. (How things are moving within Islam I don’t really know.)
In many countries here in Europe, the debate is over. Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Iceland all have same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. France and others have same-sex civil unions and will soon have full marriage rights.
On balance, the changes seem for the better. I’m pretty sure this will be true also in Australia – both for the religious organisations and the community as a whole.

Dear david f, I deliberately omitted any reference to 'ratsakh' lest it be misconstrued as a reference to a popular rodent poison. Thank you for recognising one of the points I was making and extending and amplifying the example. My experience has been that an open minded conversation is impossible if a participant doesn't perceive the difference between connotation and denotation and I was attempting to model one method of logical thinking and analysis. Unsuccessfully, as the later-posted sentence "Again though we don't need 'scholarly exegesis'on what the Scriptures plainly show" demonstrates.

Dear Alan (and others), social policy development has to cope with the baggage of society's history… much of that having been imposed and controlled by religion. So how best in modern liberal democracies to accommodate the religious on questions of public policy?

My glib but considered answer is not to. That is, social policy should be decided without religious input or presumption. Rational and considerate reasoning should be the basis of social consensus. If the resulting policies accord with particular religious views. Good. If not, then tough. Alan, it appears from a distance that the French have been following this approach for a while, does it seem to work? Are there better social policy models?

One candidate which might be acceptable to most people claiming to be religious, as well as to those who are not, is the ethic of reciprocity – the golden rule. Been around for a while (longer than most religions), mentioned or incorporated in many texts believed sacred, independently extant in many locations around the world and inherent to most secular philosophies.

Dear Wm Trevor,

The ethic of reciprocity and the Golden Rule are not the same thing. I think the ethic of reciprocity maintains one should return to someone what is done to you.

The Golden Rule is stated in different ways. One statement is 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' That differs from the ethic of reciprocity since the other is really not involved in your action. You have not paid attention to what they actually have done - just what you would like them to do unto you. They may not want the same thing done unto them that you want done unto you. In that sense practicing the Golden Rule is a selfish act since it does not consider what others want.

The ethic of reciprocity also is not always a good guide to behaviour. Someone may behave in a mean, spiteful way to you. If you behave in a similar manner to them you have demeaned yourself and have possibly hurt yourself.

Neither the ethic of reciprocity nor the Golden Rule is an adequate guide for behaviour in all cases.

Dear WmTrevor,
By all means advances in social policy should be pursued without religious input if they cannot be achieved with it. This seems to have been the experience in France which moved five years ago to recognise gay relationships with civil unions. Consensus here is the nation is much the better for the change.
There is still hope, however, that religious bodies in Australia can contribute positively in this area. After all, much social policy which currently benefits all Australians has been driven by religious conviction, particularly but not only, Christian. In addition to those reforms referred to in my post of Friday, 11 March 2011 6:05:04 PM, above, we could add the current social security system, most amendments to gambling legislation, most of the support for Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s and many refuges for asylum seekers today. There are others.
Does the French system work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The strikes here last October were extremely divisive, extremely costly and ultimately futile. So, yes, WmTrevor, I am sure there are better models.
Australia is actually pretty good, now I view it from this distance. You have a culture of accessible local members, responsive political parties, relatively respectful discourse (with the exception of a minority of extremist media and political players) and generally positive working relationships between mainstream churches and governments. (Substantiation: http://crosslight.org.au/2008/05/25/uniting-church-in-parliament/)
On the issue of same sex unions I agree the churches are lagging. But change is coming. Fr Frank Brennan SJ called for same-sex unions in Eurekastreet.com.au last week and has not been excommunicated. Well, not yet.
Golden rule? Absolutely.

Dear WmTrevor,
Regarding your mention of John Boswell's academic work, and his excellent scholarship - yes, Boswell's writings are indeed impressive. And he himself was stunningly beautiful. He was, as I recollect, given a professorship at Harvard as a very young man - maybe while still in his twenties, but certainly not out of his thirties.It's quite a while since I read his magnum opus on Christianity and Social Tolerance, so forgive any minor factual errors in this. The general picture is accurate. How tragic then that very early in this extraordinarily talented intellectual life and career, he died - of AIDS! His bio is provided on the back of the paperback edition of the book, excluding the mention of his death, which occurred shortly after publication.

Dear Rhian,

You said; "Jesus had not a single thing to say about homosexuality".

I offer Luke 17:34 "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

I am not trying to be flippant. It is obvious to me the writer of Luke was attempting to portray an unjudgemental Jesus.

Thanks, csteele. Most intriguing.
Are you aware of any other references to same sex relationships in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

Dear Allan Austin and csteele,

Luke 17:34 may not be about homosexuality at all. I looked up the passage. I think it refers to the power of God to decide on the fate of human beings. There were a series of vignettes of two people with God taking one and leaving the other.

The Bible was written before the existence of the modern hotel. It has been quite common in inns for people, even strangers, of the same sex to sleep together. I think of the tactic of the Goums in north Africa who would sneak into tents of enemy soldiers and slit the throat of one. The effect would be more demoralising than the slaying of both. It is horrifying to wake up and find your companion dead. Likewise it would leave the surviving man in bed in Luke 17:34 impressed with the power of God. God had decided to take his bedmate and not him. There are passages in literature which reflect the custom of an innkeeper putting two men in a bed with no connotation of sexuality that I could see. One is in 'Moby Dick' where Queequeg and Ishmael share a bed.

Csteele and David F

I agree with David on this one. I’m open to a sympathetic view of gays, but in context it’s clear this is not the intent of the passage. Nor can we read too much into its underlying assumption that there will be occasions when two men would be sharing a bed - as David says, sharing beds was much more common in the past (and still is in poor countries)

Would those who oppose same sex marriage feel any different if the consenting partners were de-sexed ?
Platonic love is highly desirable...and commendable.All religions endorse it.. It is how we express our highest emotion of respect and endearment. I have a male friend and I feel great affection for him and happily he reciprocates. We are both happily married with children. Our wives have a very deep love for each other,too.

Does the love we have for one another and openly demonstrate it make us disgusting or should we be considered sinners before God...whatever that may mean. We dont go to church. We are entirely seculars

You twisted, self-righteous objectors find it hard to cope with your latent homosexuality and take it out on us out of jealousy.

socratease

Dear socratease,

You have found a bit of happiness. Good for you. Grab it. One of the penalties of being 85 and in good heath is that one is left more and alone as friends die. May you, your friend and your wives live long and happy lives.

Dear Alan, davidf and Rhian,

I understand your position on the verse since this was my initial reaction as well, but let me state the case a little more fully, something I had done in an earlier thread.

We first need to look a the words of Jesus in the earlier gospel of Matthew:24 ;

 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Compare this to the later writings of Luke:17;

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
 32 Remember Lot's wife.
 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Dear Csteele, Rhian, and Davidf,
Yes, agree the Luke passage is not about same-sex relationships. So that leaves the curious references in John’s Gospel to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. Many regard this as an indication that Jesus was in a same-sex relationship. Any thoughts?
Dear Socratease, Yes, that is an excellent question. Often pondered that myself. The Leviticus passages which most anti-gay religious people use to prohibit same sex relationships actually only mention male penetration. Nothing to say about female gay activity, nor other male homoerotic acts. I suspect you are right suggesting most homophobia derives more from personal insecurity or fear than religious conviction.

Cont.

 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

So what are the more striking differences in Luke's presentation? First is the introduction of Sodom and Lot. To me the writer is broadcasting a change in emphasis from Matthew's message. While I concede the original story of Sodom and Gomorrah was relating the moral virtues of hospitality by the time the writer of Luke put pen to paper it may have gained some of its more modern sexual connotations.

Secondly while Matthew only mentions two women once Luke mentions three pairs of the same sex.

Next note the move from day to night through Luke's version. Two men in a bed at night we can understand, but two women grinding together and two men in a field in the dark? The imagery is not just in our minds.

Am I overemphasising 'women grinding together'? For all Luke's fleshing out this tale in true Midrashic fashion he omitted Matthew's qualifier – 'in the mill'. I am personally convinced it was intentional. Not only is there the sexual act of grinding together there is also what appears to be a time worn euphemism first expressed in Job 31:9-11,
9 If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbour's door;
 10 Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her.
 11 For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.
Do I think Jesus uttered Luke's words? No. However I think there is a solid argument to be made that the writer of Luke was putting the case for Jesus not being judgemental about same sex couples and may I say he does it very well.

Having been away for a couple of days. I hope that posting protocol allows the courtesy of acknowledging earlier comments.

David f (Monday 5:28 AM), I understand and agree with you. 'Ethic of reciprocity - golden rule' was clumsily trying to bracket the range of ideas which might be religiously acceptable as a precept for social policy debate when presented along the lines of: 'Equal treatment expected and extended' by individuals and the State.

Alan (Monday 6:27 AM), thank you for the insights and perspectives and for the generosity of time and thought put into them.

Veritas (Monday Tuesday 12:19 PM), your recollection is spot on. I'm certain that both Christian and secular history study is the poorer for not having had John Boswell's scholarship for the past 17 years.

Prompted by yesterday's comments – in conversations with the religiously bellicose I've found that introducing the question of the 'beloved disciple' instantly turns biblical literalists who use OT and Pauline quotations to justify their prejudice on homosexuality into harried scriptural interpretation.

Csteele, we can only play with the verbs God dealt us, so I for one don't think you're overemphasising 'women grinding together'.

Alan, you wrote:
"Yes, agree the Luke passage is not about same-sex relationships. So that leaves the curious references in John’s Gospel to ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. Many regard this as an indication that Jesus was in a same-sex relationship. Any thoughts?"

It's a far stretch to suggest that the phrase 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is indicating a same-sex relationship. The Greek word used for loved, agapaos, describes a deep, committed love. However, there's absolutely no reason to interpret it in a homosexual context. If it were relating to the sexual nature of their relationship, 'Eros' would have been a more appropriate word for love (I recognize that there's no Biblical precedent for this usage, although it's common in ancient Greek literature).

Theologians are often berated for twisting Scripture to fit their own presuppositions. Mr Austin, your article is doing this exact thing. You have preconceived ideas about what the Bible should be saying about homosexuality and you are reading this into the text. Proper exegesis and hermeneutic methods would help you to avoid this. Putting aside presuppositions and approaching the text with a fresh set of eyes would show that you have made laughable errors.

For example, you wrote:
"Okay. Yes, you holding up the King James Version? You are going to ask me about Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13, right? Well, if you are going to quote those passages, make sure you know the Hebrew: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee.

"and with male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman. abhorrence she." It's talking about threesomes! Two men and a woman in bed together. Don't pretend to be shocked, you over there with the ridiculous dog collars. Sex with three people."

Maybe it is you, Mr Austin, who needs to make sure he knows the Hebrew. It's obvious that you've tried to literally translate the passages from Hebrew to English, without regard to context or Hebrew grammar. Lev 18:22 is indeed stating that men should not have sex with other men.

I'm just giving you the facts, interpret them as you will into this discussion.

Dear Csteele, that is an extraordinarily provocative exegesis. Thank you. Not sure how many NT scholars you will find who agree with you. But you have certainly given us much to ponder further.
Dear WmTrevor, welcome back. Absence note accepted. Have had the same experience with the ‘beloved disciple’ passages as you.
Dear MaNiK JoSiAh, thank you for your observations. On the ‘disciple who Jesus loved’ you are quite right about ‘agapos’. But that fact that ‘eros’ is never used does leave the question unresolved. Don’t you hate that!
Do you remember lessons on Jesus being ‘despised and rejected’ from some years ago? I was often taught that Jesus knew every temptation and suffering known to man. If this is so, then it is consistent that he knew the frustrations, hurts and sorrows of an intimate relationship and also suffered the ignominy and persecution of being homosexual.
Unfortunately, again Scripture is exasperatingly silent. The hints and clues operate in both directions. But we do have to explain how Jesus had ‘a deep, committed love’ for just one of his close followers.
On the threesome suggestion from Leviticus, I now agree with you. I have since contacted a number of Hebrew scholars on this very question and now accept that the majority view is that this refers to male penetration. Only a minority claim the text allows for the ménage à trois.
Most scholars do not, however, find an argument here against homosexuality generally. The passage refers to just one homoerotic act. And in any event, they say, Leviticus cannot really inform our sexual ethics today because of the insurmountable textual, historic and cultural problems that entails.

Hi Alan, I remember well the teachings of Jesus being 'despised and rejected' (cf. Isaiah 53:3 - or the whole chapter for context). This is one of the key Messianic passages in the Old Testament. It gives us a good example of the Jews' expectation of the Messiah and His work. It was authored in approximately 680-700BC and harmonizes well with the New Testament picture of Christ. *

I believe the other Scripture you're referencing is Heb 4:15-16,
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help." (NKJV)

In His humanity, Christ faced the temptation that is common to all humans. He not only experienced personal pain, weakness, sadness, persecution etc; but "surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (IS 53:4a, NKJV). It simply isn't possible that Jesus was the victim of every single persecution known to man during His thirty-odd-years on the Earth, so your argument isn't water-tight. My understanding is that, in His divinity, Christ bore the sin and grief of mankind, as our representative.

As tempting as it is, we can't really argue anything in the Bible from silence. Let's not forget that the majority view is that John was the 'disciple whom Jesus loved,' and also the author of this Gospel. None of the reasonable scholarship I've looked at even hints at a same-sex relationship. Deep love is possible in non-sexual relationships (look at families for instance).

I agree that Leviticus cannot be cut and pasted into our context, but doesn't Pauline theology agree with this passage?

* Those who challenge the historicity of this book should investigate the scroll of Isaiah that was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Dear Wm Trevor,

Further comment on moral axioms. I am reading "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kauffman. He argues that life and the universe cannot be reduced to reductionism which is the current primary mode of scientific enquiry. He plays with a lot of ideas in cell biology, economics and the science of mind. He maintains that qualities associated with deity such as creativity, meaning & purposeful action are properties of the universe. It is not in the least mystical or new-agey but among other things seeks to integrate science and the humanities. I find it fascinating.

In the chapter ‘Ethics Evolving’ was this:

“Kant’s categorical imperative is the most brilliant effort to find a self-consistent deontological logic for ethics of which I am aware. But do we think it suffices? It is a routine question to imagine the following situation. A killer, intent on killing my wife, enters and asks me if she is at home. Should I tell the truth in this specific context? Kant would say yes. Most of us would say no. Most of us would conclude from this that Kant’s brilliant attempt at a logically consistent ethic fails. These kinds of examples have plagued the deontological strand of post-Humean moral philosophy. We seem to have, as Aristotle might have said, no single moral law, or set of moral axioms, from which all moral action, can be derived.”

I cant believe that in 2011 we are still trying to apply ancient scriptural authority that at very best are highly suspect and more importantly misunderstood and at best its like trying to hold new wine in old wine skins. So much guff from the Bible being quoted ad nauseum to find relevance for marriage in 2011.Just how ridiculous can you get. It is sickening.Please stop it.Relate to the modern dialogue.
socratease

Hi again MaNiK JoSiAh. Thanks for this further comment. I agree with every statement you have made there.
My answer to your question is Yes. There is great consistency between the Hebrew books and all those of the New Testament. I am now with those who claim both Old and New Testaments teach sternly against the perversions of same sex relationships, but not against all same sex unions. (A recent position shift, so still exploring some of the implications.) You may find the dialogue with Runner, above, of interest.
Happy to discuss further.

I find the philosophy expressed by Ira Gershwin attractive and applicable to this discussion:

The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so.

In all fairness socratease, quoting the Bible is relevant in the discussion of an article that quotes the Bible! I have challenged the translation and interpretation of Scripture, in response to the author's ongoing discussion in this forum,but haven't yet given my view on homosexuality.

You said, "Just how ridiculous can you get. It is sickening.Please stop it;" and then take the moral high ground against other intolerant folk. Fair go mate.

The messiah is pure myth with no basis in reality. After the kingdom of David and Solomon broke up into Israel and Judah the messianic myth arose. Originally he was cast as a military leader who would reunite the two kingdoms to reconstitute the kingdom of David and Solomon. The myth grew until he became a figure who would usher in the messianic age where ‘nations should study war no more’ and ‘swords would be beaten into plowshares.’ Since Jesus did not usher in the messianic age and was singularly incompetent in producing a peaceful world he was obviously not the messiah.

However, like the JWs and other religious groups who prophesy the end of the world and make a new prophesy when it doesn’t happen, the believers in the Jesus myth altered the myth so he would come back and at the Second Coming would be able to do what he couldn’t do the first time.

If I hired a mechanic who was unable to find and fix the problem with my car I would not hope that he would come back and do it right the second time. I would re-examine my belief in the mechanic.

Dear Alan,

I think I would get a better hearing from an OT rather than a NT scholar but it is not something that concerns me.

Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. 
Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. -Isaiah 47:2-3

I love the imagery of grinding millstones as a sexual metaphor. For those who enjoy extended, near static, sex it undoubtedly will have resonance.

However for every biblical metaphor to which we are still able to respond it is easy to imagine ten that have been lost to history. Once this is accepted then the vanity of expecting to flay each other with the 'truths' we purport to pull from this magnificent work is exposed.

For instance I would have little desire to place my arguments about Luke's take on the message of Jesus before a fundamentalist Christian in order to try and change his mind. 

We obviously desire different things from the scriptures and it is those desires that are the primary informers of our interpretations.

An understanding of this is the most I should expect from my fundamentalist.

Returning to my initial point it is interesting to note the latest American Revised Standard Bible omits the words holocaust and booty, and returns the Isiah verse about the virgin mother of the messiah to the original "young woman". Would we permit the same of a Shakespearian work?

I would hate to think grinding millstones might go the same way.

Dear csteele,

There is no definitive original for the Shakespearean opus. The plays were revised many times according to the audience response. Later printers got copies of the actor’s copies, collected them and printed them. Modern editions of Shakespeare take what they like from the different folios.

Likewise the King James Version is only one of many versions of scripture that came out about that time. It took much from Wycliffe and other versions.

The KJV is one of many versions of its time as the RSV is one of many versions of our time.

Dear davidf,

Granted but I’m not sure why that changes things.

When you think about it biblical literalists and rationalists are not that different, both seem bent on stripping things to basic black and white. The base truth is the primary objective of the rationalist and getting back to the original scriptures the goal of the literalist.

Colour and nuance are problematic so they are often dealt with by dismissing or ignoring them.

While the latest edition of the New American Bible (not the RSV as I had claimed) does change holocaust to burnt offerings, booty to treasure (because of the sexual connotations of the former), and cereal to grain it does make at least one concession to the poetry of the King James Version.

“The new edition will revert to more poetic versions of Psalm 23 to have it read, "I walk through the valley of the shadow of death," instead of "dark valley."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/new-american-bible-change_n_830398.html#

As you have pointed out on other threads there is a rich vein of explicit and non-explicit sexual content particularly in the Hebrew Bible.

For people to think the writers and translators of both testaments were unable to produce Shakespearian like nuances must leave only the drabbest of interpretations available.

While there is no proof that Shakespeare had a direct input into the KJV there is a good case to be made that the translators were influenced by his language which was prominent during that period.

It is teasing to think this may have been acknowledged in the 46th Psalm where the 46th word from the start and the 46th word from the end (excluding Amen) give us ‘shake’ and ‘spear’. Shakespeare was 46 at the time

Hi csteele, it's a generalization to say that "biblical literalists and rationalists are not that different, both seem bent on stripping things to basic black and white." I agree that some people approach the Bible in this way, but they are the poorer for it. Others feel comfortable navigating through the 'grey areas,' where dissonance accompanies your journey and conclusions. The temptation to simplify into 'black and white' isn't just confined to theology though, but exists in all other fields as well.

The original writers packed the Bible with nuance, which is possibly lost at times in the translation (maybe due to the limitations of the English language?). At other times it could be due to the translator's literary skills, bias, or unreliable source materials.

The changing of terms in the NAB seems more about political correctness than etymology. Thank Goodness that the P.C. brigade weren't about in the days of Shakespeare and the King Jimmy Bible, or we'd certainly be left with the "drabbest of interpretations available."