GASP! Same-sex relationships in the Bible.

[Solon]

And a possible marriage!

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

Good argument to cause fundies heads to explode. ;)

[kayell]

1. I was really fond of the Ruth and Naomi story as a child

It took me a long time to figure out why. ;-)

[AlienGirl]

7. Ruth and Naomi

Anyone who can't see that that's a Great Love Story must be oblivious...

Tucker

[tom_paine]

19. Color me oblivious...

"Wither thou goest, shall I go."

Not sure I agree with that interpretation.

But still, it WOULD cause Fundy Heads to explode to contemplate it.

:evilgrin:

[Piperay]

37. I'm oblivious too because

the "wither thou goest" is always used to "encourage" wives to follow their husbands, the fundies always use that as the biblical reasoning for women being subservient to men.

[Piperay]

36. I thought that Ruth and Naomi

were mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. :shrug:

[stopthegop]

2. GASP! the site is (IMO) pathetically unconvincing..

the term 'grasping at non-existent straws' comes to mind...

I love the parts that say there is no 'proof' of a sexual relationship..maybe because there's no evidence at all of one

[Offshore Bush]

4. I agree with you.

At first I thought it was a Christian site satirizing us as Biblical revisionists. It didn't convince me. I support gay rights, but let's be realistic here: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

[Solon]

8. Remember one thing...

The Bible is a compilation of various sources, that derive from oral history, of about 1,000 or more years. Plus it has been interepreted for 2,000 plus years. This includes individual and group prejudices. A blanket statement saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality is awefully broad.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. And also impossible to prove either way.

Which is one of the reasons why the bible has survived for so long, it's ambiguity.

[Offshore Bush]

14. Leviticus 19:22 and 20:13 isn't too ambiguous.

I have very ugly memories of being a teenager a couple years ago forced to go church (Southern Baptist) with my parents to hear references like those to justify bigotry. I personally don't want to hear about that book of fairy tales that's been used to slaughter billions of people for roughly 5600 years.

[sangh0]

25. Leviticus is not the Bible

It's just one part of the Bible. There are other parts that seem to contradict Levuticus

[Solon]

26. Actually it is....

Leviticus 18:22 states: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" <--Literal translation

KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

OK, I can think of a couple of translations right now, the term "lay LYINGS of a woman" could mean on a woman's bed. In other words gay sex is only forbidden when conducted on a woman's bed. Another interpretation which is probably closer to the truth is in the original Hebrew: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The word "toeyvah" is usually translated as "enormous sin" or "abomination", however that is incorrect, the proper word is "zimah" which is not present in the passage. Also this passage may only refer to ritual sex in temples, as is laid out in the beginning of the chapter: Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Ritual sex both gay and straight were common in both countries. This argument is strengthened by the word "toeyvah" which is a form of "to'ebah" which means "ritually impure".

The other passage have the same problem, referring to a "Ritually unclean" activity that has a punishment of death.

[Offshore Bush]

28. I don't know

Last time I checked, ancient Hebrew society was pretty conservative. I don't see any reason why the dominating viewpoint of the time - that homosexuality is a sin - would not be included in the Scriptures.

[Solon]

29. Actually the terms conservative and liberal have no bearing...

on societies 2 thousand years ago. Would you label the Greeks as liberal for accepting homosexual relationships yet had slaves?

The point is that many of the passages in the Bible were "contemporized" by later translators, to fit with the norms of that society, for example England 17th century. KJV

[Offshore Bush]

31. There's no evidence to suggest that

ancient Hebrew society allowed homosexuality. The conservatism of Christianity was a result of the spread of the teachings of the Old Testament after Jesus. I've read English translationg of the Torah by Jewish scholars, and it's the same there.

[kiahzero]

13. Let's be realistic here

Let's be realistic here: The Bible also condemns seafood.

Let's be realistic here: Jesus never mentions homosexuality.

Let's be realistic here: Many people thought that tht Biblical story of Onan forbade masturbation - it is now read as forbidding birth control.

Let's be realistic here: The Bible most are familiar with is extremely badly translated. Original texts are far less condemning.

Let's be realistic here: Paul, from what I remember of Biblical scholarship, never even met Jesus. The reason that the variant of Christianity most practice nowadays is Pauline Christianity is because after the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed (and the Church of Jerusalem, led by Jesus' brother James, along with it), Rome later converted to Pauline Christianity and eliminated all other forms as heresy.

[library_max]

16. Well, let's be specific.

The Apostle Paul and the lawgivers of the Pentateuch condemn homosexuality. The Apostle Paul admitted that not everything he wrote was from God (1 Corinthians 7:25). As for the lawgivers, many of the strictures of the Pentateuch (the kosher laws, the endorsements of slavery, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") have been considered struck down by Jesus's "new covenant." And certainly Jesus Himself said nothing to condemn homosexuality. He did, however, command us to love one another and not to judge.

[Solon]

11. Actually the relationship between Jonathan and David

Is rather graphic, if you go to original sources (Hebrew). Is that a strawman?

[stevedeshazer]

3. I think Jesus was gay

What's up with those twelve apostles? All guys? Washing each others feet and drinking wine? No female significant other, just his mom and friends. Not close to his dad. In fact, Joseph must have got a really raw deal. His son, who was born to his virgin wife, via God, was gay?

Not intended to inflame Christians, just an observation.

http://www.whosoever.org/v2Issue2/apostles.html

[Cleita]

9. Some Christian clergy even believe Jesus's favorite John may

have been his significant other although they don't say it out loud among the laity. I think that's why there is a big push in the fundamentalist Churches to paint Mary Magdalene as possibly his wife. I guess the lesser of two evils is for Jesus to be married to a whore than be considered gay.

[stopthegop]

12. I think you're mistaken...about Mary M..

where have you seen a push among fundamentalist churches to paint her as His wife? seriously...That's Da Vinci Code gibberish...

[Cleita]

17. Here's a couple of links.

Unfortunately, my best link has been scrubbed, an article about some churches who are trying to restore Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife because they claim the early Church fathers omitted the passages in the gospels referring to this.

http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides3/mary_the_magdelane1.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene#Wife_of_Jesus?

[stopthegop]

18. I'll look at them..Thanks!!

[Cleita]

21. Ignore the Reading Group's one.

The book is fiction. There was a couple of non-fiction books on the subject but I guess the link got lost and this came up instead. Sorry. The wikipedia link has other links about it.

[stopthegop]

23. saw that..thanks

[shimmergal]

35. Hey, the bit about Jesus and apostles being gay, and about Mary M as

his wife, neither have much official acceptance in Christianity, at least not yet. That could change, of course.

There is however, a lot of new scholarship based on the discovery of other gospels, which indicate that Mary Magdalene was much more important -- to Jesus, the disciples, and in early Christianity--than we've been led to believe. I'm currently reading "The Gospel of Mary of Magdala" by Karen L. King, which I recommend to anyone who's interested in pursuing this subject further.

But it's been known since the 1950's at least, by Biblical scholars (except for the fundies, who knows what direction their "scholarship" goes) that Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute. That impression comes only from the first mention of her in Luke (8:2) directly following passages (Luke 7:36 and beyond) in which a prostitute comes to Jesus and annoints his feet with oil (and her tears). It's sort of a "guilt by rhetorical propinquity" which has been stuck on Mary
Magdalene for centuries. (Just like the Bushies' constantly conflating "war on terrorism" with the Iraqi venture.) Speculation is that some of the early church fathers encouraged this, in order to justify a subordinate position for women. They didn't want to let any woman appear as deserving as the male disciples.

I'll check out those links. Mostly by accident I've gotten further into the topic than I ever expected during the past year. Personally I like the idea of Jesus and Mary M. having been married, but I don't think there's enough evidence to justify it at this point. I do think it's quite likely that Jesus _was_ married, possibly during those years from 18 to 30 that we know nothing about, because almost all Jewish men of his time were. Possibly his wife died, and he began his ministry after that. ('Course those last two sentences are pure speculation on my part. This theory does, however, help explain his harshness toward divorce, if he lost a wife he loved and saw how other men divorced their wives just to get a new model, so to speak.)

[Kat45]

27. Mary Magdalene was not a whore

She was a woman from whom Jesus expelled several demons. One of the popes way back when compiled the stories of several women in the Bible into one story, a composite woman if you will, Mary Magdalene. This got carried on through the centuries, thus Mary Magdalene was thought of as the whore. But the woman who the crowd wanted to stone in the well-known Biblical story was NOT Mary Magdalene; that woman's name was not even given.

[Eureka]

5. Here's another

This, is the transcript of the head of the Anglican church in Australia (from Aus public TV)

He is effectively saying that
a. Stable monogomous homosexual relationships exist in real life
b. Loving 'homosexual' (no judgement on whether they actually had sex) relationships exist/were sanctioned in the bible, and as such should be considered for sanction in real life
c. The church doesn't pry into the bedrooms of same sex couples, so why pry into the bedrooms of homosexual couples.

So without saying exactly as much, he was indicating the church in Aus should consider treating ANY loving monogomous relationship as valid, and should stay out of other peoples bedrooms.

[Touchdown]

6. This is explained much more in a book I read a few years ago.

"Jonathan Loved David", written by an episcopal priest. He also goes into the 5 passages that are supposed to condemn homosexuality, and debunks the biblical literalist theories. Good book on it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664241859/qid=1079559728/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9899398-3778340?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Supormom]

15. The fundies would dismiss it.

You cannot reason with a religious fundamentalist. You would just be wasting your time.

[tom_paine]

20. And I disagree with their assessment of David and Jonathan, too

In those days, it was not uncommon for men expressing friendship for other men to use terms which, translated to our language, are suggestive in this day and age.

The "your love surpassed the love of women" comment by David is echoed by many a straight man today. Those who would rather spend time with the pals than the wife (which is to say, 95% of hetero guys) could easily say that, though again the King James version is suggestive.

I'm not buying it.

I don't know anything about Danie ans Ashphenaz, so I can;t comment on that.

This site is interesting, but I am unconvinced.

[Offshore Bush]

32. I would say the same thing myself.

Close friendship and affection for another man does not translate automatically into homosexuality in my book.

[tom_paine]

38. Exactly. And in the old days they spoke differently.

On a side note, and I am not trying to be "politically correct" (I hate that sh*t) nor tell you what to do, but the Confederate Flag isn't exactly the symbol of DU.

Just thought I'd mention it. You are, until the Busheviks give this site a dose of Liberal Internet Kristallnacht, free to post whatever avatar you choose.

I just wanted to tell you, if you didn't know already, that your avatar won't win you any chums around here.

tom

[Bigfoot]

22. Marriage is unconstitutional.

Marriage has been, as far back as recorded history can take us, a religious function. The only reason it is in our civil code at all is because we imported it from British Law, which, as you know, didn't have a clear division of church and state at the time.

Who is our government to tell me if I am MARRIED, gay or straight. Same sex, three partners, what ever.

The only union a civil authority can grant is a civil union. Government sanctioned marriage is as unconstitutional as government sanctioned baptism.

Adding more groups to an already unconstitutional construct is not the answer.

[pacifictiger]

39. formal marriage was always

more about property rights and wealthy/political family alliances, and that had everything to do with the church because the held enormous sway over wealth and politics. Of course in those days too women were mere chattel.

Handfasting was more traditional for the average person in love in the british isles and parts of europe. Ben Franklin, the only man to have had input into all the founding documents of this country, never officially married his wife in a church ceremony.
-----------
Handfasting at one time was the only way that couples could be engaged and/or get married because the church let the civil government of the period take care of these matters. In the British Isles, Handfasting was the old pagan ritual of marriage and it remained legal in Scotland all the way up to 1939, even after Lord Harwicke’s Act of 1753 declaring that marriages in England were legal only if performed by a clergyman. After Lord Harwicke’s Act, the Scottish border town, Gretna Green became a mecca for eloping couples from England who fled there to perform their own Handfastings. In those times, the couple themselves performed the Handfasting before witnesses. It was also used in Scotland for the engagement period of a year and a day before a wedding was proved.

The very word handfasting got it's origin in the wedding custom of tying the bride and groom's hands (actually, wrists) together. In some versions, this is only done for as long as the ceremony lasts, but in others, the cord is not untied until the marriage is physically consummated.

Handfasting is the marriage rite used toady by many Heathens, neo-Pagans and Wiccans. The term itself comes from the custom of shaking hands over a contract. It is a custom steeped in old tradition.

In most Pagan traditions today it may mean a non-state registered wedding or one in which a marriage license is filed. For some it is a year and a day, renewable "so long as love shall last" and for others a commitment to be together through many lives.

There are probably as many rituals for this as there are people who have joined themselves together.

The hands are generally bound with a cord as part of the ritual.

One custom is that while facing each other, the couple placed their right hands together and then their left hands together to form an infinity symbol while a cord is tied around their hands in a knot. Another custom is that the man and woman place their right hands only together while a cord is used to tie a knot around their wrists.

The ritual itself might have been led by a respected non-church affiliate such as a Chieftain, Leader, Priest, Priestess, Shaman, or Elder of the community while the couple took turns reciting their vows of promise to be engaged for a year and a day in front of witnesses. On the last day of “the year and a day promise” they would then make a promise for infinity repeating their promise to each again. A cord is tied in a knot around their hand while the ritual takes place. This is where the term “tie the knot came from” when referring to getting engaged or married today.

In days of old, records were not kept who got engaged, married, had kids, and died. Today the Sacraments of the church has the responsibility of taking care of these things. Before the church took over these duties, these things were overseen by the whole community and therefore were set in law by their witnessing what happened between the couple making the promise.

If a handfasting was performed with the two left hands together without the tying of the knot, as was the custom of rich and influential German nobility, it meant that the woman was a mistress and would not be able to claim the name, inheritance, property, etc. of the real wife and was only in the protection of the man. But her offspring would be taken care of as legal heirs second in line to the man's legal and first wife. Having lots of children was once the only form of "Social Security" in one's old age. The previous combinations were all considered legal and binding in an engagement or marriage except for the “left hand ritual.”

The Handfasting gesture seems to have been derived from one of the ancient Indo-European images of male-female conjunction, the infinity sign, whose twin circles represented the sun (female) and the moon (male) or in some of the southern Mediterranean traditions it was sun (male) and moon (female).

Two-handed Handfasting still constituted a fully legal marriage throughout Europe whether the blessing of the church was sought or not. Clergymen, of course, recommended that newlyweds attend church as soon as possible after the signing of the contract and the Handfasting. Marriage is now one the Seven Sacraments that had been ignored by the church for centuries. Only the very wealthy and affluent could afford church marriages. Handfastings were under the jurisdiction of common law rather than canon law. In the 16th century in Switzerland, if couples were seen in public drinking together they could be considered married.

[treepig]

24. a website with information possibly pertinent to this thread

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html

[0007]

30. Jays'us christ I get dizzy reading all that bible stuff

I'll take their word that nothing has changed sexually in the last five thousand years and God loves everybody regardless of their sex orientation.

[regnaD kciN]

33. They miss the most obvious one...

Matthew 8:5-13
Luke 7:2-10

In this story, Jesus is approached by a Roman Centurion, asking that his "servant" be healed. Jesus complies at once.

Now, in the Lucan passage, the Centurion's "servant" is described, in most English translations, as something like "one he valued highly." However, if you look at the original Greek (which hasn't been worked over by translators concerned with "cleaning up" the text), you'll find the term used for "valued highly" is entimos, from which we get the word "intimate," with exactly the same connotation there as here. Thus, it seems highly likely that the "servant" here mentioned is the Centurion's lover (it was common in those days for an army officer, following the Greek fashion, to take a younger soldier as both romantic partner and "aide," to groom him for a later career as an officer). It is notable that Jesus heals the "servant" without passing judgement on the Centurion or the relationship.

[pacifictiger]

34. check this piece

out for gay relationship church info

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm
--------------------
When marriage between gays was by rite

RITE AND REASON: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.
-----------------

[Raster]

40. I'm not christian, jewish or muslim...

...I don't give a rodent's rectum for the judeo-christian-muslim theologies and their easily manipulatable teachings. None of them is valid and current today. Science is my religion.

I was raised mormon and thankfully, escaped and consider ANY attempt to shove any of those middle east gutter religions down my throat an act of personal war. Further, I consider the concept of gods and supreme beings so last millennium.

On edit: Too bad my postings count didn't hit 666 with this one. heh heh heh.