Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to A tough question for bigoted, gay bashing fundies
Sunnybeach7 - I agree completely with the following
"I don't think that anything written that far back can clearly be interpreted...as we don't know the lifestyle these people were actually living."
How pathetic are we as citizens of the modern world if we must rely on the social norms of primitives to dictate how we administer our own societies? They told us the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, that slavery was okay and that women were property. All of which (and more) we have discarded as either being false or immoral. Now the bible lobotomized amongst us want to tell us that these people had it right concerning homosexuality, when our own observations and common sense tell us different?
posted by
gomedome
on November 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
| link to this | reply
mousehop - Re: Original Wording
That is the million dollar question but there are a number of peripheral aspects to that particular Leviticus passage that render it at least questionable. The first aspect is the word "abomination" itself which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word: "to'ebah", which refers to the breaking of a ritual law. It might be better translated as "ritually improper," or "involves foreign religious cult practice." Both of these latter translations would be more in keeping with what we know were likely to be visible public practices within societies at the time.
This idea is further supported in context. The word "abomination" is also used to describe a number of other practices throughout the bible that today are viewed as insignificant prohibitions that virtually no one adheres to. Also within the context of the particular passage you use are a number of other passages that are redundant to the modern world. Things such as the death penalties for what are today considered minor transgressions.
When the bible was first translated to Greek, more issues such as this pertaining to what is seemingly condemning homosexuality arose. As I mention in this post; the words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" but more importantly the concept of a person pre-wired for same sex attraction did not exist at the time. The closest word that existed in ancient times was the Greek word "paiderasste" which describes a person that has sex with members of the same sex but without reference to orientation. But this word was never used. Instead words such as "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" were used. Respectively they refer to male prostitutes and perverts. Cultural bias in subsequent translations accomplished the rest.
I should add that I consider being able to so easily connect the dots is in itself a meaningless exercise. This can all be summarized by the fact that what is written in the bible and plucked from the midst of other redundant passages to utilize as a means of justifying prejudice is the actual point.
posted by
gomedome
on November 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM
| link to this | reply
mousehop...
I don't think that anything written that far back can clearly be interpreted...as we don't know the lifestyle these people were actually living.
We can only gather what we can from other passages.
Considering that Christianity...especially back then, meant that women were to be submissive to men, and men could do whatever they want to women...including rape.... that line could be interpreted to say that a man could not rape another man...ya know, because men are so high above women...like Gods.
Women in Christianity were nothing, so it was no sin to commit any crime against them. However, you could sin against men.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on November 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Original Wording
What, then, did the passage condemning 'lying with man as with woman' originally say and mean, in Hebrew or any other language? Granted, it doesn't use the term, homosexual, but the phrase always seemed pretty clear in connotations to me. And it is called 'abomination'. The phrase I remember is from the King James Version of the Bible, translated in the early 1600's, and from that time (perhaps earlier) through at least the early 1800's 'sodomites' were hanged in England. Unless they happened to be king (like Richard the Lion-Hearted, and his lover, Phillip II of France). But clearly the concept of men who preferred the company of men, even in the bedroom, existed.
Being a liberal myself, I like to study history.
posted by
mousehop
on November 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM
| link to this | reply
RITE2SPIN - there was no word used
The concept of same sex orientation did not exist prior to the introduction and development of this idea in the late 19th century. It becomes clear from this reality that not only are the words homosexual and homosexuality replacement words when they appear in modern English translations of the bible, they have also replaced the meanings of the original words used.
This notion is further corroborated when the original Hebrew text are examined. There are many words in Hebrew from the original text that do not have modern English equivalents. Of course fundies such as yourself will argue this until you are blue in the face but the reality is that any arguments used to suggest that your imaginary God condemns homosexuality that are derived from the bible, have been put there in the last couple of centuries.
Basically, the bigoted bible waving fundies amongst us are proliferating the prejudice placed into their religious text by historically recent editors.
posted by
gomedome
on November 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
| link to this | reply
my one question is this, what word was used for homosexual before this fancy word was invented.
posted by
RITE2SPIN
on November 16, 2008 at 5:20 AM
| link to this | reply