“Mom? Dad? Meet my very close friend… er, roommate… um, travelling companion! Yeah, that’s it!”
Did it ever occur to you that Samuel, or whoever wrote/transcribed that chapter, might have been sympathetic to their love and therefore played down the fact that it was same-sex love so it would actually be palatable?
As an historian friend of mine often says, unless you don’t go back and read the original texts (i.e., the Greek), then you’re not working from a first-hand source; all you’re working from is interpretations, which is all fine and dandy as long as you don’t call them anything else but. And, let’s face it, the Bible has certainly been interpreted thousands of different ways through the ages…
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
As someone else had posted, David is reamed out for the affair with Batsheva and for the census. Regarding the census, about which Polycarp said:
The reason (if I recall correctly) is that the Torah commands that when a census is taken for whatever reason (and David’s reason was considered frivolous), it is to be taken by using objects as proxies, not by a direct head-count. The reason for that has to do with the mystical “evil eye.”
Polycarp:
The Torah’s definition of sin is purely the physical act of penetration (sorry to be so vulgar), and is a far cry from an average American High-Schooler’s definition of “gay,” (especially considering that the average American High-Schooler’s definition of “Kansas City” is “the capital city of Kansas”). Also, the kind of friendship described could also relate to the kind of camaraderie amongst soldiers in a battalion, which, with the exception of the ancient Spartans, seldom involves homosexuality. David’s and Jonathan’s love for one another was such that they’d be willing to risk or sacrifice their lives for one another’s sake, something neither expressed a willingness to do about any woman.
So in other words, you’re agreeing with my statement about David and Jonathan…just questioning whether or not the passage in Leviticus refers to all (male) homosexual sex or only to homosexual sex as related to idolatry.
Two points to make on that score (ignoring the Talmud for now, and concentrating only on the actual text of Leviticus):
The context, from which you pull the Baal (actually Molech) stuff, is completely about the sex act and not idolatrous intentions. Or are you suggesting that the Torah forbids having sex with one’s mother, father’s wife, sister, aunt, mother & daughter, two sisters (while both are alive), a woman married to another man, a menstruating woman, an animal, etc., only while doing it as part of Molechite idolatry?
The verse itself says a man should not lie with another man “the layings of a woman.” This would seem to imply that the verse prohibits homosexual sense in any way analagous to heterosexual sex…not only in idolatrous situations.
Ever learned Talmud, buddy? There’s no way to read “too much” into a Biblical passage.
No, you’re confusing it with one of three things:
a) There’s an uncleanliness (not a prohibition…just don’t handle holy stuff) invloved with carrying the flesh of an improperly-killed kosher animal.
b) There’s an uncleanliness involved in touching the flesh of eight creeping creatures. Don’t recall the full list offhand (the Hebrew names include “Chomet” and “Tinshamet”; I think the usual translations of some of them are mice, chameleons, moles and some others), but pig (“Chazeer” in Hebrew) is definitely not one of them.
c) There’s a verse in Deuteronomy that says “Do not eat any abominable creature (presumably including abominable smowman),” and then the succeeding verses proceed to recount the laws of kosher again. But that’s eat, not touch.
Er, um, what’d I say? I was just quoting someone else. He has a point - we’re all just dealing with interps, and everybody interps a different way. I don’t have a problem with that…
But I’ll run. Just in case.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Poly, thank you. I am aware of the other translation, and point it out to people who quote Exodus at me. However, Adam does seem to be of the bend to insist that the particular translation of the Bible he reads is the only correct version, and therefore, the word “witch” stands as written. Under those circumstances, I’m trying to pin him down and either:
A) Admit that the KJ version of the Bible is not the end all and be all of the holy scriptures, and he’s not bound to kill me because I’m not a poisoner (inveterate baker of chocolate chip cookies and fudge, yes; poisoner, no.)
OR
B) Come to terms with the fact that he is picking and choosing which decrees of the Bible he wants to follow, and in doing so, admit that maybe his argument against homosexuality isn’t as strong as he likes to think it is.
Just between you, me, and the rest of the board, I expect he’ll keep dodging the question.
Please. Even I wouldn’t deliver a cheap (you know us Jews :)) shot like that…
Esprix:
“Mom? Dad? I’m back from Vietnam…Meet my best buddy in the whole wide world…he risked his life to warn me of Charlie approaching from the side and saved my life…I’d do anything for him.”
Sorry, but no. Samuel demonstrated throughout the book of Samuel that his allegiance was to enforcement of G-d’s laws, not to saving the behind of any human individual. As pointed out earlier, David gets hit with a number of exhortations later on (although those chapters were, I’ll admit, not written by Samuel). But it’s all part of the same book. If the compiler was motivated by an affection for some human being, either David, Jonathan, or Samuel (i.e., a student seeking to hide the fact that his teacher was not perfect in enforcing G-d’s word), you’d expect consistency in that regard. And that consistency exists if you don’t insert your 20th-century American ideas into text that says nothing about sex.
Wow, Chaim, you can reductio ad absurdam with the best of them! Thanks for the response.
My impression was that large portions of Leviticus, including the sexual passages in question and an assortment of “sinfuls,” “uncleannesses,” and “abominations,” (thanks for the distinction) were directly related to things the Canaanites (and other resident -ites) were practicing that Israel, to remain holy, was to refrain from. I was understanding it in that context. Would you be willing to discourse on what prohibitions are included on those grounds and what are otherwise? Needless to say, I have nothing like your grounding in Torah.
Yeah, I completely understand the Army-buddy interpretation, but c’mon…“And they kissed and embraced each other, until David exceeded.” Sounds pretty soft-core porn to me!
Phouka…You’re saying there’s a connection between chocolate chip cookies and homosexuality? Well, that explains a lot about my old college roommate!
cmkeller, your points about Samuel are well-taken, but my point is, and I still maintain that we are talking about interpretations over hundreds of years. If we can accept that slavery is wrong and women are not property, then we can accept the Bible might be wrong about other things.
I think the story of Jonathan & David goes beyond that, and for as many historians and biblical experts you can come up with that say it doesn’t, I can come up with just as many that say it does. Stalemate.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Rats! And OpalCat didn’t include a "Best reductio ad absurdam category in her awards! Cheated out of another one…
Well, the verses you’re thinking of, from the end of Leviticus 18 (amongst others), say that those acts are acts the holy land can’t abide…not because of their association with the Canaanites, but that the Canaanites are being expelled as a result of these practices, which are abominable (according to the Torah) of their own right.
There is a prohibition which says “Do not follow in the ways of those nations.” There are a number of practices that the Rabbis include under this umbrella. I’ll try to find the exact verse, and what prohibitions are included.
Did you feel the same way when watching Mafiosos kiss one another in the Godfather?
Granted, this is a bit more emotional than that.
Esprix:
Regarding slavery, the Torah does not at any point consider slavery to be a desired situation. It considers it a necessary evil, for war captives (in which the alternative, of course, would be slaughter), or for thieves unable to repay their debts.
Regarding women as property: the Torah does not accept that view. It is a misrepresentation of the Jewish view of marriage, perpetrated by the acts (or possibly the scriptures…I’ll leave it to our resident Christian scolars to answer that) of Christians who have incorporated the Jewish Bible with their own.
Really? Thirty years of gay-rights advocacy, which is hardly rampant in seminaries, has produced an equal number of Biblical experts and historians for this interpretation as thousands of years of religious scholarship? My, the Internet’s an amazing thing.
You may be able to interpret the text that way, but when it comes down to it, the text says nothing about sexual relations. Considering that the experts who insist on using this interpretation are usually amongst those who are extremely willing to throw out the rest of the Bible as old-fashioned and irrelevant to modern times (something you implied in the first statement of yours I’ve quoted in this message), I think I’ll stick with the experts who are concerned with interpreting the entire Bible, and not just the verses that could questionably be used support their political agendas and/or personal preferences.
Poly, Thanks for noticing that! I don’t have lots of time in the library when I post, and that got through without my thinking about it.
What I Really meant was, any Godly writings since the Bible was written won’t have God changing His mind all of a sudden about sins. I have a BoM, thank you.
But, here, I’m not being political about this. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I’m not out voting against it. In fact, the Domestic Partners thing was defeated here in my suburb, and only the officials voted on it.
I’d say - I didn’t see anyone “exceeding” with Marlon Brando.
From Walter Wink, a New Testament scholar at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City:
Also from Walter Wink:
Biblical scholars can’t be gay or gay-positive? {sniff sniff} Anybody else here smell Rousseau?
How sad that your faith is so fearful of interpretations that differ from your own.
For the record, I do not consider the Bible irrelevant to modern times; in fact, I find it to be quite useful, more to some than others.
And, also for the record, I do not dispute that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin; my problem is with the harsh and often extreme reaction to those statements, particulary when it comes to civil rights.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Dagnabbit, Tinker! You did some great research there, but totally ruined my point. I could just visualize Jonathan saying, “Darn it, David. You’ve gone and exceeded all over my best loincloth, and the stains will never come out!”
More seriously, there are several points that need to be brought back up:
[list][]Sexual activity is a very small part of what makes a love relationship work. Same-sex couples are doing a lot of things together besides having sex. And I could easily conceive of two people who were total Kinsey-6 gays but had Flinx’s standard of morality establishing a chaste household.[]We’ve several times touched on the question of laws regulating sexual behavior. Two questions ensue: What secular public ethic are we founding our laws on? Is it proper for some members of that society with a cognate religious ethic to influence the secular held-in-common ethic with their religiously-based ethic?[*]There is, despite the ridicule I received last time I asserted this, a clear and present danger to American freedom in the religious right. The book I cited above by Mel White gives some strong arguments for this assertion. The group to which he refers, which influences several of the religious right people with whom he worked, has a website here. I encourage you to look that over and comment on it here, Lib. and Adam in particular.
My favorite part of the website is on the homepage. One of the article headers is “New! Chalcedon Opposes Racism”. ROFL!
Bunch of scary bastards; if they can do half of what they claim they will, I’ll be forced to carry a cross and listen to Bible readings every day. How much political power do they really have, Poly? I haven’t heard of them before.
I dunno for sure, Gaudere, but according to White they are strong influences on Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the Family Research Council (Gary Bauer). And hence, to the extent that they influence them, and they in turn influence Dubya… You draw the picture.
