March 8th, 2004

(no subject)

i posted this in response to someone's bible-based claims that god is not down with sodomy....which, as an atheist, doesn't concern me much. but, my life as a reformed jesus-freak has to be good for SOMETHING, and what if not quoting the bible in support of my sinful lifestyle. too bad there's nothing about gendertrash (in its modern construction). anyway, in case anyone's interested in arguing with christians, i thought i'd post it here:



as a fundamentalist christian turned radical queer, i thought i'd throw in my two-cents to one of the few respectful exchanges i can locate anywhere on lj :). just a couple points/questions to consider:

1. the bible is mute on lesbians (sex at least--try the book of ruth for girl/girl love and commitment).

2. about the translation thing--LOTS of things were translated according to the mood of the times, particularly in the king james version. for example, king james wasn't a big fan of women with power, so he put in/mistranslated all that stuff about women not being able to be ministers. that was NOT in the original. along that line, the bible has been subject to CENTURIES of interpretation, involving people with various agendas deciding how to translate stuff, what to emphasize, and what to include.

3. since i mentioned emphasis, an important thing to look at is the context in which the laws in question are given. looking at the old testament (paul talks about it in the new testament, but i have many problems with paul which would be a WHOLE other post so for now i will talk about the old testament, particularly leviticus), it is clear that it was specifically the JEWISH PEOPLE who were instructed to refrain from gettin' it on homo-style. there were a lot of laws set down for them, with the intent of keeping them separate (i.e. don't get it on with the gentiles, either) and keeping them alive (heterosexual sex = reproduction = survival of the race). there are plenty of other laws listed along with the man-on-man one that are distinctly ignored. how about touching the carcass of a pig? ...football, anyone? how about wearing cloth woven from a mixture of materials? ...check your labels, sinners...cotton/polyester blends are hellbound! so yeah, there's a lot in the bible from which one can pick and choose.

4. the 'sin of the sodomites' was NOT homosexual sex. it was gang rape. these two are different. sodom and gomorrah was filled with violent mobs running amok. lot's house was surrounded by the men of the town, who demanded that lot send out the (male) heavenly messengers so they could assault them. instead, lot offered up his virgin daughters to the mob. he was allegedly the only righteous man left in the city, which is why he was allowed to escape before all the fire and brimstone rained down. so, what's the message here? raping strange men is wrong, but offering your daughters to be raped in order to protect these strangers is righteous? to me, those things both sound pretty much not ok. the mob ended up not raping the daughters, but when they escaped into the mountains, they ended up doing it with their FATHER, in order to continue the line (lot's wife gets turned into salt on the way up). so...THESE are righteous people in god's eyes, worthy of saving over all others? the whole story seems kind of problematic to me.

5. two of the greatest and most detailed love stories of the old testament are between members of the same sex--ruth and naomi, and david and jonathan. the latter even get an in-text kiss! ooh, sexy.