Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Genesis 2:24 (KJV) - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
A passage not even supportive of heterosexual marriage. Do Adam and Eve get married? No, they just shack up. At very minimum, it is not a passage condemning homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
"Abomination" is the Hebrew word "toevah." "Toevah" is meant to reflect ritual taboos. Despite the fact that Acts clearly abolishes all of the Mosaic Law, there are some Protestants who make the arbitrary distinction of "ritual law," and, under either definition, this passage would be thrown out. The condemnation of wearing multi-fabric clothing was also "toevah."
(And lest you think the King James Version is poorly translated, the English Standard Version, Living Bible, NIV, New Living Translation, and Revised Standard Version condemn homosexuality with AT LEAST as great a fervor.)
Almost all Bibles are poorly translated. None have been very good explaining verb subtleties. In French, for example, there are over 5 verbs for "to leave," and all five have different connotations. An incorrect verb usage would give the wrong connotation. That is what I think is wrong with here.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Once again, "abomination" = "toevah." Another ritual condemnation voided in Acts.
With key Hebrew words detranslated:
"Ish shall not recline with zakar as with ishah. This is to'evah."
If it
truly was a blanket condemnation of same sex relations, it would have stated, "Ish shall not recline with 'ish' as with ishah." "Zakar" is a very obscure word, and, combined with "toevah," it likely refers to idolatrous practices.
A better translation:
"A husband shall not recline with a male prostitute as with his wife."
It is an awkward translation, yes, but male temple prostitution was very common.
Likewise, a literal interpretation of Lv 8:12 would condemn Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, who were born of one of the "toevah" unions (Ex 6:20).
Matthew 19:4-6 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Yet another passage supportive of heterosexual marriage, but not condemning of homosexuals.
Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Same reasoning.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
"against nature" (also translated as "unnatural") = "para physin." Means "beyond what is ordinary or usual," but is not a term of moral condemnation. In Romans 11:24, God is said to act "para physin."
Greek terms "atimia" and "aschemosyne" ("unseemly") refer to social unacceptability, not moral judgment.
This passage is also taken out of context. St. Paul was using this as a hook to appeal to Jewish audiences, who were concerned with purity issues. Then, he turns the table and points where the Jews are sinful (2:1, 17). Romans 14:14 shows St. Paul's true intent:
"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean."
St. Paul is a very tricky writer. He hooked in the Jewish-minded Christians of Rome by appealing to their sense of morality in Chapter 1. Then he digs into their sense of morality in Chapter 2. By Chapter 14, he rejects their morality. With obscured translations, it is very easy to confuse his hooks as his true intent.
And Matthew 19:9-12 (Today's English Version, which is a bit clearer on these verses) - I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman." His disciples said to him, "If this is how it is between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus answered, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that Theway; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."
First of all, the "that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness" is horridly incorrect. It should be "unless the marriage is unlawful." "Unlawful" = "porneia," which refers to "unlawful blood mixing," with "unlawful" referring to Mosaic Law. Hence, it is a reference to incest. Hence, Jesus
always condemns divorce.
Secondly, it is more of an approbation to Judaism, which stated that a Jew without a wife was not really a man. In the context of the passage above, the Pharisees have approached Jesus testing him. He is *not* condemning non-heterosexuals; Jesus is, in fact, supporting single life. Jesus' discussion about those who "cannot marry" are a reference to eunuchs, castrated male servants ("men made them that way"), and those who choose not to marry, affirming their value and place in society. As expected, this infuriated the Pharisees, who saw them as worthless.
Certainly, the death penalty proscribed in the Old Testament does not apply today, particularly to a nation founded on religious pluralism and church-state separation. But while God (through Peter) freed Christians of Jewish dietary customs, it's NEVER implied that God changed His directives on things like homosexuality and bestiality.
God never had an opinion on either. All so-called references to homosexuality are taken out of context. It was usually a reference to idol worship with the male temple prostitutes, a detail accenting the true sin (Sodom and Gomorrah uses the device of homosexuality to accent the true sin of inhospitality to strangers; Gibeah mirrors the same story in Judges, but uses a female concubine), or just never meant to refer to homosexuals. Any translation that states so is taking everything out of context. The concept of a "homosexual" did not exist until the 1870s. Before that, it was just straight people doing same-sex acts.
And, speaking of that arbitrary "ritual law":
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood." -- Acts 15:19-20.
However, St. Paul quickly discarded this compromise between the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Antioch, and continued his steadfast belief that, through Jesus, the entire Mosaic Law was voided. The Church of Antioch became the Catholic Church and the Church of Jerusalem was eradicated. Those Christians who bind themselves to any part of the Mosaic Law would greatly displease St. Paul.
But no one ever brings up the passages that are
supportive of homosexuals.
Matthew 5:22 - "But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna."
No one has ever taken the time to translate "Raqa" (or "Raca"). The closest word is "Rhaka," which is Hebrew, is a word for "soft" or "effeminate." "You fool" is also a ridiculous translation. The word "moros" has an amply used connotation of being a "sexual aggressor," namely a "homosexual aggressor." Essentially, this passage could mean that Jesus was displeased with homophobic comments.
Matthew 8:5-13 -- "When He entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, 'Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.' He said to him, 'I will come and cure him.' The centurion said in reply, 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it.' When Jesus heard this, He was amazed and said to those following him, 'Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.' And Jesus said to the centurion, 'You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you.' And at that very hour (his) servant was healed."
This parable appears in both Matthew and Luke. Matthew, which was written before Luke, uses the word "pais," which means "boy" or "servant" or "lover." The word "pederasty" comes from "pais." Considering the Centurion's above average concern for a mere "servant," this very likely could refer to a same-sex lover. Why else, perhaps, would a powerful centurion see himself as unworthy ('Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.')? Luke knew this implication, and changed it to "doulos," which, more concretely, refers to "servant" or "slave."
Likewise, Jesus does not condemn the Centurion; He exults him for his extraordinary faith.
Essentially, the problem comes that any case for anti-gay passages within the Bible is weak. Pro-gay passages can be made as well. However, 2000 years of institutionalized homophobia have obscured passages, cementing traditional interpretations along the way, and making it difficult to figure out true intentions. It would be like taking Jacob's Ladder and translating it as Jacob's Escalator. Then, 2000 years later, we try to tell people that the escalator is really a ladder. They would never believe you.
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
[This message has been edited by melon (edited 02-27-2002).]