It always amuses me when people feel the need to use scripture to justify something. If you can ignore the fact that the text is usually thousands of years old and has gone through a number of translations with the translator's attitude, opinions and general take on life all rolled in; than I truly do admire your faith.
Leviticus 18:22 is the old testament verse usually used to show that homosexuality is an abomination. Unfortunately, back in those days, God spoke mostly in Hebrew, a language I can't read so I'm blindly relying on translations. There are a few different translations (interpretations?) floating around and some talk about it being an 'abomination' others say 'detestable' or 'enormous sin' all of which can mean different things. The original bare faced translation would be 'ritually unclean' which, I'm sure you would agree, clears things up.
The general gist of the verse is “don't lie with a man as you would with a woman” and again the Hebrew is interpreted in many different ways. Some say it refers to male-male anal sex, some say it's male-male sex, specifically, in a woman's bed others say it refers to male pagan prostitution in a temple. Most seem to think it refers to homosexuality which, given that there was no literal translation or the fact that the word didn't exist until the 19th century, proves the writers of Levi were years ahead of their time.
The big problem is that it doesn't stop there, the countless interpretations and translations lead to vastly different actions, judgments and philosophies; this is just from a single verse! Each and every line of the old testament (and King James and new English and new testament, don't get me started) can be given the same treatment so I can't see how anybody can quote scripture and stand by it with a straight face.
This all came about from a recent email entitled “Why can't I own a Canadian?” but I remember seeing it, years ago, in an episode of the west wing (love the writings of Sorkin). Make a point, share an opinion but please, for the love of God, don't regurgitate something written for a bygone age.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(118)
-
▼
June
(17)
- Witless Racist
- The Longest Read
- Leviticus 18:22
- Ear In My Car
- Thank You For Smoking
- High Maintenance Lunch
- Yak or Yak-Like Creatures
- Without Music, Life Would be a Mistake
- Sunday Afternoon
- Soho! A Fox!
- There We Are Then
- 120 Mile Goal
- Unpretty
- The Lone Krishnan
- Minutes at Midnight
- Would You Marry a Size 24?
- Zen and the Lack of Bicycle Maintenance
-
▼
June
(17)
6 comments:
Great post, Josh.
Thanks! =)
Hey, I'm glad you chose to write about this. I know you've had a lot of abuse since you 'came out' (sorry, I don't know why but I hate that phrase) but you've been very brave throughout it.
Kia x
Kia, Thanks for the comment, I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard! Seriously, for the record (as you well know) I'm not gay, but if I was I'm sure I would be fine as I have a group of close and supportive friends I can lean to, friends that don't needlessly judge me, friends that would stick by me regardless, it's for this and countless other reasons I'm proud to call you a friend!
The act specifically prohibited and sentenced to death is anal intercourse "miskhav zachar" between men. Of course if this act is prohibited any other sexual acts beteen men are also prohibited but may not be as severe as the first. Every sin has a degree.
Thank you Anon, as my knowledge of these things are limited and I obviously don't know any Hebrew, you might be able to clear up a few more things; why does the text specifically compare this "abominable" act to laying with a woman? Does this mean that anal intercourse with a woman was the norm back when this was written?
Also, I would have to disagree, I can't see how even if anal intercourse with a man is a capital offense (and do remember that the jury's still out on this), I can't see how you can extrapolate that to "any other sexual acts between men are also prohibited". That is completely unfounded!
Post a Comment