Friday, July 07, 2006

Xtians and Lesbians

Okay, today is all about bugging the crap out of Grant. That's what this post is about.

Actually, ~Deb sort of tricked me yesterday. She said, "Hey, everybody, you have to read this." Don't click on the link – it is a freakin' Christian trap. It truly is. And they sucked me into the discussion.

I know, I know. We only have so many synapses, and I had to waste several firing in this issue. The rest of you can leave, because this post is for Grant. Not that he is a lesbian, but he hates this discussion. Xtians, you know.

This is all about lesbian love. And with Dani and ~Deb, you know it will be a love-fest. First, let's get the Leviticus passage out in the open. It is sitting there, like the elephant in the room that few really talk about.

Revised Standard Version (RSV): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

New International Version (NIV): "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

King James Version (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

English Standard Version (ESV) : "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."

New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

I knew an extremely bright person in college. He learned Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in college, mostly so he could read copies of the original texts and discern their meaning for himself. At the time, I thought he was fairly egocentric, believing he could upturn truths that have been studied by scholars for millennia. Anyway, I know so much less than this man – and no, you perverts, I did not sin with him. But we are really trying to say that this is a sin or not.

I have read the Leviticus passage (not in the original text, though I have seen it and cannot even read the letters very well), and I am puzzled as to why some focus on this passage. The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts (okay, I got this from somewhere else, because I can't read the original texts). By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." The latter behavior (lesbian sex) is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. A hint for us really stupid Christians: whenever the word "homosexual" or "All Terrain Vehicle (ATV)" is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text. So we are on shaky ground to start with.

Actually, some believe that this rule is against some form of anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual – one specific type of anal sex. Now, I could not find any sketches of this Pagan temple ritual, but my research is not complete. All I can say is that I have enough reverse cowgirl pics to fill a hard drive!

The term "homosexuality" has two meanings in English: (1) sexual behavior (what some people do) or (2) sexual orientation (what some people are). Actually, the Catholic Church is concerned with behavior, not orientation. I don't know how many reverse cowgirl pics the Vatican has on their hard drives.

Leviticus mentions two types of sins: (1) moral sin and (2) ceremonial uncleanliness. The male anal sex sin is a moral sin, whereas eating shellfish is an example of ceremonial uncleanliness. Incidentally, one type of sin was not necessarily less severe than the other type. Some ceremonial uncleanliness sins actually carried the death penalty. Furthermore, I am puzzled why people don't rally against shellfish with as much fervor as they rally against lesbian sex.

What continues to bounce around in my brain is the following:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
--Matthew 22:37-40

It occurs to me that Jesus was alluding to the fact that for many years, Jews would bicker over which sins were worse than other sins. Sort of reminds me what I see from both Dani and ~Deb, two Christian women who spend time daily, meditating, reading, and learning from the same book – the Bible. Dani harps on ~Deb's lesbian sex acts (I think she just likes thinking about lesbian sex) and ~Deb talks about loving thy neighbor. Actually, the neighbor thing is much more well-defined in the Bible.

I am not a lesbian (don't even play one on TV) – but that does not make me without sin. I committed some horrible sins against God and my husband, sins which I am still mending. So don't tell me not to cast any stones. I understand that. I am crude, and rude and sometimes joke about my religion (see above). Well, let me continue to meditate about lesbian sex. I am sure it is what the conservative Christians would have me do.


Grant said...

I think one of the worst things xtians do is hide behind technicalities. Technically, the bible only says men and not women. Technically, the ten commandments only say "Don't lie to your neighbor" - they don't mention people two doors down. Technically, the bible doesn't specifically say I can't use a chainsaw to cut off people's arms, as long as I leave them alive.

But I agree with the xtian assertion that there should be no lesbians, especially not Asian hotties. Gay males, on the other hand, are fine with me. Anything that frees more women for my use is a good thing. Lesbian = bad. Marriage = bad. Not finding me attractive = bad and possibly fatal.

Heather said...


Very interesting post...

Tony said...

I'm scared to comment. I'm worried about grant's comment in that 1.) he doesn't say anything about "Homosexual = bad" and 2.) I don't find him attractive. This would leave me to think that 1.) since he doesn't have a problem with homosexuals and I'm not gay and 2.) I don't find him attractive, I may be putting myself in harms way.

Nice post Leesa. I agree with you that Jesus knew we'd be bickering over semantics for years to come. There are too many different ways to word the Bible to make it fit any one individuals particular needs. I hate it when people take a particular verse and use it as a base for an argument without doing the research to note what time frame and the verse pertains to. That is to say, what public laws, customs and cultural activities played a part in creating the writing. I also hate it when individuals continue to press on in an argument. My wife can beat a dead horse back to life, I've seen it. At some point an individual needs to say, "Look, this is my belief in the matter, based on what I've derived from the scriptures and you're desire to view the scriptures incorrectly is your business. I've pointed out the facts, the decision is now yours." and end the argument. To go on and on only increases the divide thus lessening the chance of a reconciliation and further growth.

Reverse cowgirl. This was a new one for me. I had to look it up. "All I can say is that I have enough reverse cowgirl pics to fill a hard drive!" So, Leesa in a reverse cowgirl pic. Now THAT fires the imagination. On that happy thought I think I'll go meditate.

Video X said...

i'm just not one for religious debate...because i kind of gave up analyzing the bible during my undergrad. i had taken a "great books" class based on the bible. being catholic-raised in catholic schools, i figured the course would be a no brainer. on the contrary, i found it quite upsetting and very difficult to deal with on a personal level. so now, i just try to not worry about it.

but i still like to read your thoughts...but that's because you actually make sense! put a happy ending passage there and i liked it!

Leesa said...

grant: actually, when I read the scriptures, I look for the big picture, not focusing on every little passage.

heather: the ATV thing was my favorite line, too.

tony: I learned reverse cowgirl from Heather (really). And I looked it up just like you!

VX: thanks. Next Monday's post - if I don't chicken out - will not be a very good post.

Edtime Stories said...

For me I am always upset when someone simply quotes the Bible and doesn't think about context or connection to other parts.
The Hebrew Bible valued and railed against many things that do not seem to register for people. Dietary laws are among them. But somehow Homosexuality has stuck as something important to Christians.

Your Jesus quotes were similar to one of his contemoraries, a great Rabbi named Hillel who said all of the law was "that which you find hateful do not do to your neighbor, all the rest is commentary, go and study". The love your God with all your heart is directly from the Hebrew Bible and is the central affirmation of faith of the Jewish people.

Remember the Hebrew Bible was a document of cutural historical myths and a blueprint for building a society. It was always meant to be interpreted for the age it was read in.

Leesa said...

ed: wonderful comments. Love the Hillel quote!

Perttu said...

The point in word homosexual might be the same as if example a group of people in market research is homogenic/heterogenic? :o

Homo-same hetero-different. Lesbianity just being a sub-gategory..

mal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mal said...

I get so frustrated with the whole intolerance schtick.

It seems to me that if you are not creating problems for your neighbors (trampling the flowers, stealing the car or building WMD's in the basement) Then what business is it of theirs or mine what some one else does? It seems a good bit of sin is associated with acts that "offend" others rather than causing actual damage or pain.

Anonymous said...

crazy idea i know but how do u think credit cruch affected porn?