| September
2002
In search of absolute truth - Leviticus, Corinthians & Romans
|
|
|
Please read the Foreword to grasp the context. I start with posting no. 562 on page 57 of
the thread:
Yawning Bread Why did Leviticus say what it said? It's bad enough that some assert that ''all major religions condemn homosexuality'', without ever providing supporting details. The only details we've seen have been the literal, fundamentalists Christians' frequent citation of Leviticus and the example of Sodom & Gomorrah from the Old Testament. I've been doing a bit of research, and I've found from checking Christian websites, that biblical scholarship seriously doubts this even! This is what I learnt: Leviticus (which means ''Law'') was a legal code which included lots of prohibitions. Today, almost everything is ignored, except for one sentence which is construed as against homosexuality. Why the selectivity? It sure looks like prejudice came first, and then justification was sought wherever it could be found. Look at these other passages from Leviticus. Why don't the same fundamentalists make a big fuss about those who flout these injunctions? Lev. 21:16-23 ''The Lord said to Moses ' Say to Aaron: For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No person who has any defect may come near: no one who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no one who has a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.'' Thus, Leviticus states that for all generations to come those who are physically handicapped were to be banned from attending church services and from being part of the religious community. Lev. 27-28 ''You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks on you.'' Thus all those people today who have tattoos, short hair, or who shave would be in violation of the Law. Lev 11:6-8 ''The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cut it is unclean to you.'' Thus, one should not eat pork, nor rabbit. But instead, this sentence is always quoted: ''You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.'' Wait a minute. Look at the fuller passage wherein this sentence is buried, in order to see context: Lev 18:21 ''You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself and neither shall any woman give herself to a beast. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things for by all these the nations I am going to drive out before you become defiled.'' Who, what is this Molech? A pagan god. A detestable practice of ancient cultic rituals that the early Jew encountered was the burning of children to the pagan god Molech. Associated with the worship of Molech was the painting of one's body - thus the prohibition of tattoos in Leviticus. Over time many of the followers of Molech decided that he would be just as satisfied with the sacrifice of male sperm into a fire in place of children. Thus, the rituals evolved to naked males dancing around the fire while masturbating. The rituals were slowly modified to include homosexual acts. These homosexual acts were part of the ritualistic pagan worship. Taken in context, this injunction in Leviticus appears now to be focussed on the manner of worship. The main concern here is not to recognise any other god but YHWH, the Jewish/Christian God, and even then, not to worship this God by the old cultic ways. The injunction isn't a generalised injunction against homosexual orientation or same-sex relationships. n any case, as I said above, today Leviticus the Law is considered obsolete. Because when Jesus Christ came, the promise was that there would be salvation through His grace. What does the term ''New Testament'' mean? The word testament means ''a spiritual agreement.'' The Old Testament or spiritual agreement was replaced with the New spiritual agreement or Testament. Romans 10:4 ''For Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified.'' Galatians 2:21 says ''...if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.'' Galatians 3:23-29 ''Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under the restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.'' So stop quoting Leviticus. It's not absolute. It's obsolete. * * * * * creative01 Sep 2002 11:56 pm Why did Leviticus say what it said? Yawning Bread, thank you for doing the research! I am so impressed. Amen! As a Catholic, I do not focus on narrow issues and try to quote the Bible out of context. To me, the Bible is out of date on many things. I no longer have the fear that if I say this, it will mean hell for me. God loves us as we are - heterosexuals, gays, bisexuals, sinners, non-believers or whatever. It is the zealous Christians who try to convert as they believe it is their mission. Even if they die trying, they believe they are ''dead right''. * * * * * Page 58:
Anti-gay Why did Leviticus say what it said? Yawning BreadAh - the master deceiver is now getting into theology besides philosophy while he has still not justified his hypocritical lifestyle, viz that of owning a gay joint preying on the lusts of perverted men! Leviticus is a part of the Old Covenant system. That system was a temporary system to usher in the New. When the system was replaced, certain practices were no longer in force such as animal sacrifices etc. But certain principles were retained - one of which pertains the holiness of the Law-giver before whom it cannot be assumed that all have access to unless he has been made holy. In the New, Christ makes men holy. It is a fallacy to think that because the Old system was replaced that there is now no law. Gal 6:2 is one place that speaks of the law of Christ. 1 Cor 7:19 speaks of the importance of keeping God's commandments. And you, via your typical deceptive methods chose to ignore all the UNEQUIVOCAL pronouncements against homosexuals in the New Testament
1 Corinthians 6:
God's law in the Old pertaining to homosexual perverts was carried right into the New. And watch v 11 - SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU!!! You cannot be a true Christian and yet remain gay. Contradiction! Hypocritical!Though you know nothing of the Divine word yet you would not hesitate to use it to ''prove'' your perverted objectives. Careful: The word of God warns of a more severe punishment! But the path to repentance is still open to you - and you can still have hope. * * * * * lriws02 Sep 2002 02:12 pm Thank you. Oh, the Absolute Truth again. Throughout history, blood had spilled for this thingy called Absolute Truth. And yet even now no two person can agree on what is in fact the Absolute Truth. In fact, even the issue on whether there IS an Absolute Truth is debatable. So what's the use of bringing it out time and again? Remember, this is not a church's discussion board, in this context, this is a social and secular issue. If you are discussing this with your fellow religionists, please by all means quote from the holy book and invoke the concept of Absolute Truth. It really does not matter whether religions condemn homosexuality; some do and some don't. It doesn't matter what your Absolute Truth says about gays; you have your version of Absolute Truths, and others have theirs. What's important is that we do not condemn other people because of what we think is wrong, worst, what our holy books written 6000-1000+ years ago wants us to think. Does it harm your that gays live their lives? I suppose not in a fatal ways. To condemn them simply because they do not think the same way as you do is like saying all non-Christians be chased out of Singapore because the Bible condemns non-believers. Please remember always you live in a multi-religious society. * * * * *
Yawning Bread Reply to Anti-Gay's post of 2 Sep, page 58 Anti-gay agreed that ''Leviticus is a part of the Old Covenant system…. When the system was replaced, certain practices were no longer in force such as animal sacrifices etc. But certain principles were retained….'' In other words, it has historically been subject to interpretation and revision. On this is based Absolute Truth? Tell me, has this next one been expunged yet?
Leviticus 25:44 – 45 How about this one?
Leviticus 20:10 --
Anti-gay mentioned I Corinthians 6 : 9 -
11 The last sentence there is a kind of own goal for your side. Read it again please, slowly and carefully. This passage was from a letter Paul sent to a small church in Corinth. He was saying the converts there had dubious backgrounds, but once they put their faith in Jesus Christ, they were ''washed'' and ''sanctified''. So Paul was stressing here an inclusive Church, not the exclusionary one the homophobes here are trying to represent. The other thing that leapt out at me from this passage was the word ''homosexual'', but NOT for the reason that we're discussing this topic. The reason it leapt out at me was because ''homosexual'' is a very modern word, invented by German psychologists in the late 19th Century. No European language had any word to denote such a class of people prior to that, mainly because they never saw sexual orientation as a classifier or as identity. The fact that such a modern word is sitting inside a passage that claims to be 2,000 years old, immediately raises suspicion of mis-translation. Did the original text say ''homosexual''? The original text was in Greek. Before coming to the word ''homosexual'', let me deal with the first problem, with the word ''unrighteous''. Other translations use the word ''wicked''. Textual analysis has shown that at other places where the original Greek word was used, it referred to unbelievers, people who rejected the new religion. Why are they then associated with the sentence about fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc.? Clue: notice the word ''idolators'' among them. Because the previous cultic religions had such activities as part of their rituals. Thus what Paul was saying was that it didn't matter if people had practised the old cultic religion in their old cultic ways before, so long as they accepted the new faith. Now, about the word ''homosexual'' in I Corinthians 6 – a very modern word inserted into an old text. The original Greek word used in Paul's letter was ''malakoi''. The root of this word was ''malakos'', which literally meant ''soft''. Our current English word ''malleable'' comes from malakos, and means bendable. The Greek word malakos was used three other times in the New Testament: twice in Matt 11:8 and once in Luke 7:25. The word malakoi cannot be found in any text written before 1 Corinthians (note Matthew and Luke were both written after 1 Corinthians even though they are placed prior to it in the Bible.) Translators have a difficult time knowing what Paul was trying to convey with the word malakoi. He seemed to have coined the word himself for it had no prior usage. In Matthew and Luke we find that the word was used to describe soft or fine clothing. Speculation is that the word was used by Paul to mean effeminate; however, not all gay men are effeminate and not all effeminate men are gay. Alternatively, he could have meant malleable, or bendable, or spineless. This would describe a person who was unable to stand up for his own beliefs. Two words Paul could have used were ''philerastis'' and ''pederastis'' to convey the meaning of men who engaged in sexual acts with other men or boys for pleasure. Other words that Paul could have used to mean same-sex acts were ''canadi'' and ''exsolete''. But Paul did not choose any of these common vocabulary. Why not? It would seem that he didn't mean to talk about same-sex acts in general. Intriguingly, St Jerome described ''arsenokoitai'' as a person who used the services of a malakoi. This suggested that malakoi meant a temple cult prostitute, which was very common in the pre-Christian cultic religions. (Please refer to my earlier post about Molech, the pagan god.) Thus a more careful analysis suggests that what Paul was referring to in this passage were those people who engaged in sexual activity as part of worshipping a pagan deity. That's a hell of a lot more specific than the broad-brush word ''homosexual''. -- Please don't think that I am arguing for the above to be the absolute correct interpretation. I'm just showing how other interpretations are possible, and how a simplistic use of the modern English translation is riddled with errors. You have asserted that the Divine Word condemns homosexuality, and on this basis of this Absolute Truth, you are justified in preaching hate, contempt, and exclusion. All I need to do is to show human fallibility, reasonable doubt about this so-called Absolute Truth, and it cannot be absolute anymore. * * * * *
Anti-gay Reply to Anti-Gay's post of 2 Sep, page 58 You see how deceivers like Yawning Bread try to do playing with words, trying to mislead people to think that ''homophobia'' is a modern phenomenon. And so he twists the words to suit his agenda and what he has tried to do here. Just as it is warned in 2 Peter 3:16. Yawning BreadFirst gain your CREDIBILITY by defending your ownership of gay joints to prey on the lusts of men! Read what the same Author of 1 Corinthians has to say in a separate place, Romans 1 (I've already quoted this before): 26 For this reason God
gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the
natural use for what is against nature. PS: I have been using the term ''Absolute Truth'' as if it were some impersonal entity. No, I mean it to refer to God - the Giver of Truth. The Truth - God - either sets you free or it condemns you to an eternal and agonising hell-hole. Gays, repent and escape the wrath of God! * * * * *
StraightGuy Reply to Anti-Gay's post of 2 Sep, page 58 Yawning Bread's arguments are much more reasonable and convincing with facts. While what Anti-gay displayed was just scholastic naiveness or it could be explained by his prejudice against homosexual people. * * * * *
|
|
|
|
Anti-gay Reply to Anti-Gay's post of 2 Sep, page 58 Oh excuzzzz me StraightGuy, I knew the PAP is elitist but I didn't realise only scholars are deserving of any hearing on this forum!!Romans 1:22 ''Professing to be wise, they became fools'' 1 Corinthians 3:19 ''For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.'' * * * * * Gary03 Sep 2002 12:39 pm getting back to the point Yawning Bread's argument is not new, it serves as a mean to an end. The end, of course, is legalisation of homosexuality in Singapore. Beware ! * * * * *
stray_cat getting back to the point Well, of course that's the aim. So far, Anti-gay is not sounding very convincing about why homosexuality should be illegal in Singapore. * * * * * Page 61:
kelvinw getting back to the point Gary, But of course, isn't those people in the ''anti-gay'' also working to meet your ends? However, in working to our ends, at least we are able to pull out supporting evidence and have rational and logical rebuttals one after another, but all the ''anti-gay'' camp every succeed to do is to state biblical text (rather than biblical facts) as if only there is only 1 religion in the world. At the same time, they refuse to accept any evidence that we provide, calling them tricks and deception, but a lot of those reports are by people and academics who are not gay at all. Yet, even when the scriptures they quoted has been refuted and supporting evidence has been shown, they did not refute nor provide their own supporting evidence but simply brush it aside as deceptions and tricks. * * * * * Page 62:
Yawning Bread Reply to Anti-Gay's post of 3 Sep, page 60 On page 60, Anti-gay quoted from the Bible again, this time Romans chapter 1. I've already demolished his reliance on Leviticus, and his simplistic interpretation (and very dubious translation) of Corinthians. Now he wheels out his (mis)understanding of Romans for punishment. Masochistic or what?
He quoted verses 26 to 28: Immediately, one suspects it has been quoted out of context, because the opening words are ''For this reason….'' For what reason? This must be quite crucial in setting the scene, don't you think? Moreover, who is ''them'' - the sixth word in the passage?
So, let's back up a bit and start from
Verse 18: ''For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with woman and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossipers, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.'' (This version of the Bible has a different phrasing from Anti-gay's, but the differences are minor.) This is indeed a mouthful, but much clearer now. Once again, however, we need to understand why these words were written by Paul and to whom. This passage was part of a letter Paul wrote to a tiny group of early Christians forming an underground Christian cell in Rome. Now at that time, Rome was the centre of the mightiest empire in the Western hemisphere. The power of the imperial government was at its peak, especially in the capital city, and the underground church needed much encouragement to withstand the might of the state and its religion. You could therefore say, the letter had a political purpose, of stiffening the determination of the small congregation against the might and seductions of the Roman state. The ''them'' of that letter refers to the adherents of the Roman state religion (the majority of the population). It does this by painting the adherents of the state religion as black as possible, sort of like the way chauvinists of one race exaggerate and ridicule the so-called failings of another race in order to cement racial solidarity. You can also see from the preamble that the passage was mainly focussed on the fact that the majority Romans denied the Christian God, and worshipped their own gods instead. And that as a result of this denial, Paul said, the Christian God gave them over to ''all manner of wickedness''. But note: the listing of these wickednesses - towards the end of the passage I quoted - somehow omits same-sex acts. It's got murder, deceit, boastful, heartless… but it ain't got no homosexuality. (Note also, Anti-gay chose to omit the listing in his version of the quoted passage, leaving us with the impression that Paul's focus was on homosexuality.) As a whole, Paul was really talking about non-believers, not about homosexuals. Quite understandably, because in its early days, that was indeed the main concern of a new religion – how to differentiate itself from the status quo. Another context that one must be aware of, in order to understand this passage, was the nature of celebrations and rituals in Imperial Rome. It's well known that things were pretty sordid and barbaric. They had their circuses, gladiators and gluttonous feasts. They had orgies in their temples, as part of their rituals. And this is where Paul's mention of sex comes in, related to the question of worship. Why did he use the phrase ''against nature''? It's difficult to know, or there could be a problem with translation. It has been pointed out by historians though that most participants in temple rituals, like most people in any population, would be heterosexual by inclination. Yet, in the course of temple rituals, they participated in same-sex activities. So, in that sense, ''their women EXCHANGED the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, LEAVING the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another,'' If one is by inclination heterosexual, doing same-sex must surely feel unnatural, just as gay men find the idea of vulvas and vaginas totally gross. Because it runs against the individual's nature. But bear in mind the entirety of the passage: it's about non-believers, not about homosexuality. -- P.S. you'll also notice that Anti-gay cited (also on page 60) ''Professing to be wise they became fools'', again out of context. The full sentence, as seen above, was ''Claiming to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.'' Anyone who is a non-believer is classed as a ''fool''. Anyone who is a believer is ''wise''. It's got nothing to do with intelligence, reason or for that matter, real wisdom as we generally understand it. * * * * * Page 63:
Yawning Bread And now, to the Alamo I am not going to let this retreat go unremarked. Anti-gay said on page 60: ''PS: I have been using the term ''Absolute Truth'' as if it were some impersonal entity. No, I mean it to refer to God - the Giver of Truth. The Truth - God - either sets you free or it condemns you to an eternal and agonising hell-hole. Gays, repent and escape the wrath of God!'' You guys have been insisting that the Bible is the Divine Word which reveals the intentions of the Christian God – why else would you be quoting passage after passage? Now that we've shown how interpretable and reviseable Biblical passages can be, suddenly, it's not really about what's in the Bible after all. Instead, Absolute Truth is none other than the Christian God himself. This is an indefensible position – because without the text, how are you going to demonstrate what your God intended? Merely insisting that it’s a God is not good enough. Or are you suggesting that what you say God intended is indeed what God intended? Wouldn't that make you a kind of prophet? -- Don't misunderstand me, I'm not castigating Christianity. I'm castigating the way you hijack the faith for your hate-bearing agenda, and thereby cause immense disrepute and damage to what should be a great humane religion. I also castigate the way you plant hurt and conflict in persons who are gay AND Christian. * * * * *
Anti-gay And now, to the Alamo Oh it's you philosopher, theologian, and now Bible scholar Yawning Bread. Or is that just the wicked gay joint owner who has yet to justify his profiting from the lusts of men???As I wrote, deceivers will TWIST and turn the word of God to suit their agenda. And this is one clear cut example. According to Romans, one reason why men are plagued by the gay curse is because in the very first place they have rejected God, and they have turned to ungodliness. In spite of God's wrath revealed from time to time against them, they have resisted repentance. As a result, God plagued them with various depravities - including homosexuality. This letter may have been addressed to Roman Christians, but it sure has universal application. After all, the Romans letter is what led Martin Luther to launch the Reformation. The Bible is subject to interpretation and revisable? Again it simply shows his ignorance that the Bible is the most unique book ever to exist in the history of the world - having survived all kinds of attempts to destroy it. It surely deserves attention. As for his ''interpretation'' of wise and fools, it is yet another indication that even the most obvious meanings will be rejected just so that he can keep his gay agenda. Don't be deceived by Yawning Bread. It is clear he knows next to nothing about the Bible and yet he dares to spout twisted interpretation. Anyone picking up a decent commentary on the book of Romans will know what he wrote concerning Romans is utter rubbish - in trying to narrow its scope so that it does not apply to gays today. The fact that Yawning Bread owns a gay joint and profits and preys on the perverted lusts of men is evidence enough of the ungodliness that Romans speak against. Psalm 11:5 The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. My hate-bearing agenda?? Your preying on men and deceiving men - isn't that wickedness?Oh yes, he'll go to the Alamo indeed, but he surely will not go down a hero. BUT the love-bearing message is that he still has the chance to repent. He can still be saved while there is still time. * * * * * kelvinw04 Sep 2002 08:27 am And now, to the Alamo Anti-gay ''This letter may have been addressed to Roman Christians, but it sure has universal application.'' So here you are saying that as long as we don't believe in the Christian God, he will punish all of us, this will include, Muslims, Catholics?, Hindus, Buddhists and all other religious in Singapore and around the world? ''The Bible is subject to interpretation and revisable? Again it simply shows his ignorance that the Bible is the most unique book ever to exist in the history of the world - having survived all kinds of attempts to destroy it. It surely deserves attention.''
Duh! The same claims are done by the
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists about their scriptures and text too. So
what is so unique about the Book again? © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda
|
|
