A.K.A. the "misc." chapter.
Where would we be without such deep and enlightened syllogism as "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"?
Some would choose to claim God made woman for man, exclusively; some uphold the view that God created them gay. Neither argument belongs in a debate forum; both shall, in all likelihood, remain as unsubstantiated as the existence and precise identity of God. I know God exists, in the same way I know I didn't choose to be gay and it isn't wrong. Simple as. End of.
It has been said to me, that if one cannot take the Creation Account in Genesis as literal and exhaustive, one might as well discount the whole of the Bible and its authority. That is not a rational argument, but a plea; it is saying "My world view is founded upon literal acceptance of Genesis". Genesis could be infallible to the letter, or it could be a campfire tale concocted by many generations of an ancient patriarchal society. Good luck proving whatever you hold true and dear to your little heart. To say homosexuality is "against the order of original creation" and abhorrant in its "unnaturalness" stems from a warping/misunderstanding of Paul (as addressed previously). Also, common belief has been brought under debate after proliferous documented cases of animal bisexuality and homosexuality, both in the wild and in captivity48
Oh, and the Bible. Is. A. Collection. Of. Books. And. Letters. Written. And. Compiled. By. Men.
How people have gotten away with using unwarranted obscurities to justify discrimination for so long, is beyond me. There exists no "-ism" under the sun that is not susceptible to exoneration via religious intolerance.
Moving on, claiming the bible only documents heterosexual relationships is both asinine and questionable.
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 49
Make of that what you will. No proof of the platonic nature of their souls' entwining, nor evidence that they were humping like a pair of horny puppies overdosed on aphrodisiacs. Just a bit of suggestive wording.
And besides, the bible is not a sappy romance novel (outside of cheesy born-again slogans claiming that it is God's love letter to mankind....). As some are wont to persistently comment on, homosexual unions cannot produce offspring. So why would the bible mention such unions, when it is frequently concerned with documenting lineage?50 And why use homosexual unions to illustrate a point concerning "sinful behaviour", when the majority of the earth's population are more heterosexually-inclined?
Omission is not permission, but nor is it prohibition.
Paul talks of marriage as a condonable method to sate sexual desire and lust51. The institution of partnership had, and still has, much further-reaching legal and social implications than getting your rocks off, but that's another argument. Point is, if it's good for heterosexuals, why do those with homosexual tendencies need to "control their urges", "get fixed" or remain celibate? If even Paul can admit that humans have urges and needs, and very few people are gifted with the ability to control or suppress them, why do we try to deny people what is right for them?
Finito
5000 words. Well done, if you made it all the way. Why not go and treat yourself to a brew...?
2 comments:
I found what you wrote very interesting. I’m afraid my knowledge of the bible is very limited but I find the ambiguity of words a very interesting concept, in the sense that the bible (for my own point of view) is often angled towards certain views. In which the view comes first and the “source” is used to support that view.
It made me think about how the term natural, which I have often heard related to sexuality and which you bought up yourself is often used to indicate homosexual is “un-natural” but our culture (and that in a way includes Christian docterine) would not need to create rules/traditions (marriage) to prevent something if it was un-natural. An un-natural thing surely would not exist and would not require such strict regulation to prevent homosexuality.
I’m sure I could find you some very interesting essay’s relating to this, obviously less from a biblical persuasion but you might find it worthwile looking up Michel Focault’s history of sexuality – he has some rather useful insights onto the idea of confession.
Anyway speak to you soon :)
Claire
Very well done! *applause*
The phrasology of the bible is what would infuriate me when a debate pulled Leviticus or Corinth to the fray. Needless to say, attempting to explain that to those who bring them to the fray can be rather... taxing.
Of course, even though I agree that animals engaging in bi/homo-sexuality can be used as an argument (especially in Islam, where animals never 'sin' and only follow the word of god), I still fear that we, as humans, still would have to live by a seperate set of rules - after all, infanticide amongst animals or cannibalism amongst certain Melanesian tribes would not be generalisable as 'natural' to most of the Western world.
Also a hilarious read. I pat pat your leprechaun =D
Post a Comment