I've always wondered why people use religion and the Bible as a basis for condemning homosexuality. I'm a spiritual person, a Quaker by choice, and I'm not OK with hatred in general, especially hatred based on religion.
I've read some of the bible, but I don't know enough about what it says yet.
anyway, straight to the point here. I read an article recently in Friends Journal that sheds some light on the biblical/theological basis for discrimination against homosexuality. and as it turns out, there is none.
Here's a link to the full article, unfortunately it's not on the Friends Journal site, and I haven't reread this whole page to know if it's exactly the same as what I read, but, here's the link
To summarize:
There's the New Testament and the Old Testament (Torah) in the Christian bible. The New Testiment is based on the life of Jesus and his teachings, it's the more Christian part, we're supposedly following Jesus Christ, hence the term 'Christ'ian. according to the article, homosexuality is only mentioned 3 times in the New Testiment, all of them by the same author, the apostle Paul.
I think I'd better quote the article here:
These homophobic remarks can be found in Paul's letters to the Romans (1:26-27), to Timothy (1:9-10), and to the Corinthians (6:9-10). That's it. I have found no other support for the Pope's homophobic position in the entire "new testament" other than these three short anti-gay comments made by a single Christian leader about 20 or 30 years after Jesus' death. It should also be noted that Paul's comments were made in angry response to some early Christian communities that did not support his homophobic views and, by his own report, actually included gays and lesbians as full and respected participants in their congregations.
The core theological question here, then, is what authority in our lives and religious communities are we to give to these three particular statements attributed to Paul? Are these three statements products of a historically-conditioned, culture-bound, patriarchal worldview not fully left behind by Paul or are they a deep revelation of the wisdom and way of God, the loving and liberating Spirit so fully embodied in human terms by Jesus of Nazareth? These three remarks by Paul were certainly never sanctioned by any recorded comment by Jesus, so this seems like a fair question. Even Paul says, "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good, abstain from every form of evil."
And as much as I am deeply moved by so much of what is written in Paul's letters, and as much as I appreciate his efforts to organize and spread the radical Jesus movement in his day, I do see some of his remarks as violations of the best in Jewish and Christian wisdom and practice. For example, Paul also argues that women should not speak in church, that followers of Jesus should always obey governmental orders, that there is nothing wrong with slavery, that slaves should always obey their masters. He even once said that it was sinful for women to wear their hair in braids or to not cover their heads in church...
Furthermore, it must be remembered that Paul was not a close disciple of Jesus. He did not join the Jesus movement until after Jesus was crucified. He had never known Jesus intimately, or traveled with Jesus day in and day out, or discussed his own perspectives and confusions with Jesus at any length.
Kinda makes you go hmmmm
as for the old testiment, there are 5 refferances..
In total there are five additional passages that I have found in the entire Hebrew scriptures that might be legitimately considered anti-gay, or view gay and lesbian behavior as a sin, perhaps even a major sin. These passages are Genesis 19, Leviticus 19:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:17, and Judges 19-21. I say "might" here, however, because three of these passages are not even evaluating the moral worth of loving, committed gay and lesbian relationships at all, but actually speak out instead against male-on-male rape, or against men consorting with male or female ritual prostitutes, a practice that was common among some non-Jewish cultural traditions of the time.
The only significant theological support in the entire bible for the Pope's homophobia is found in Leviticus, which clearly says in one passage that gay male sexual behavior is a sin and an abomination before God and then goes on to another passage that says it is a moral imperative on the part of the faithful to kill all men who engage in homosexual behavior.
Regarding the 613 'laws' in the Torah...
Whether or not you agree with the murderous homophobia of these two laws attributed to God through Moses, one might be tempted to say that they do at least offer a firm theological support for the current Pope's homophobia. That would be true, however, only if the Pope actually supported all 613 of the religious laws listed in the Torah as legitimate commandments from God and as perpetual statutes to be followed by all generations of Jews and Christians. The Pope doesn't believe this, though--and neither did the Jewish prophet Micah, or Paul, or Jesus. If the Pope did believe everything that is said in all of the 613 laws attributed to the prophet Moses, he would order animal sacrifice as a core religious practice within the Catholic Mass and he would oppose Catholics eating shellfish or wearing cloth made from two types of fabrics. He would also demand that all Catholic men get circumcised. Indeed, he would demand that all faithful Catholics kill every child they know who has ever talked back to their parents, and demand that they also kill every woman who is guilty of adultery.
All of these actions and prohibitions are included among the 613 laws of Moses. Is it any wonder why Paul called the slavish following of all these religious laws "a curse" and warned people to stay faithful to the underlying spirit of the Law, but not the detailed letter of each one--as many of them are based on mere cultural convention and some are even rooted in deep human prejudices and cruelty.
Fascinating stuff right? I thought so. I'm interested to learn more about Jesus. Found a couple articles within Friends Journal that give context to his life like this one, I plan to read some gospels. Like Mark, and the newly discovered ones are very interesting to me. There were 12 disciples, but only 4 had their gospels included in Constantine's official bible, which is the basis of our current Bible.
Quakers are a Christian religion, and a diverse one, but I think we're more intent on following the path of Jesus, living up to his revolutionary ideals. Following and emulating the spirit of Jesus' life. Striving to create a 'beloved community' on Earth. Not worshiping, or idolizing him or the Church. And certainly not blindly following any Church's 'laws' without context.
This article was written in response to the pope's comments on homosexuality.. "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was as important as protecting the environment."
Full Article Again
just wanted to put that out there.
(e:ajay), you're right that many people who would be entrepreneurs are too scared to drop their only affordable, reasonable health insurance option. My clients, small business owners, can't afford health insurance for themselves or their employees at $500/mo/person and $1200/mo/family. Why should bad health insurance (what you get at $500/mo is really crappy) cost more than your mortgage?
It pisses me off to no end that the US Chamber of Commerce opposes any universal option. National Federation of Independent Businesses also opposes a true public option. :::link:::(FINAL).pdf (PDF of their "principles". :::link::: PDF of small biz & healthcare stats) It makes no sense to me why they can say it's a major challenge - and in my experience it is a HUGE challenge - but be unwilling to address it with cost-effective public solutions. Thanks for posting, (e:dcoffee).
Big business doesn't want a public healthcare system. Health insurance is one of the major reasons that many employees stick to dead-end jobs, instead of branching out on their own.