The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Final briefing on same sex marriage > Comments

Final briefing on same sex marriage : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 8/3/2011

This transcript is just in from the Pearly Gates. Our source, Alan Austin, has dreamed a dream.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
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.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 16 March 2011 7:43:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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'.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 17 March 2011 9:35:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Thursday, 17 March 2011 1:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 17 March 2011 6:24:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Thursday, 17 March 2011 10:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.”
Posted by david f, Thursday, 17 March 2011 10:17:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy