<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7655.1">
<TITLE>RE: [Vision2020] Alternative Biblical View of Homosexuality</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Visionaries,<BR>
<BR>
I believe that my last post contained an unfortunate bit of phrasing. When I spoke of the "queer" scholar (his name is Michael Carden) at the University of Queensland in Australia, I meant a scholar of Queer Studies, which is a legitimate field of study. At that time Carden was working on his Ph.D. in religious studies. He does also happens to be a gay man. I regret the infelicitous way of putting my point.<BR>
<BR>
Nick<BR>
<BR>
A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.<BR>
<BR>
-Greek proverb<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: vision2020-bounces@moscow.com on behalf of Nicholas Gier<BR>
Sent: Tue 5/15/2012 9:17 PM<BR>
To: Art Deco<BR>
Cc: vision2020<BR>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alternative Biblical View of Homosexuality<BR>
<BR>
Hi Wayne,<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for posting one of the best biblical analyses of the issue I've<BR>
read. For those who have not seen it, I repost my column on the topic and<BR>
attached the full version with endnotes. While on sabbatical at the<BR>
University of Queensland in 1995, a queer scholar in religious studies led<BR>
me to the point that in the ancient middle east the top male had the<BR>
presumptive and sometimes legal right to penetrate any human below him on<BR>
the pecking order.<BR>
<BR>
For those who don't have time to read what is below here are my concluding<BR>
paragraphs:<BR>
<BR>
The God of the Bible appears to have, as liberation theologians have said,<BR>
a "preferential option" for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and those<BR>
who are different. The word "sodomite" should be reserved, if we should use<BR>
it at all, for those who use sex to dominate, humiliate, and terrorize<BR>
others.<BR>
<BR>
We should preserve and dignify the word "homosexual" for people who love<BR>
others of their own sex, and our liberal democracy should protect their<BR>
right to do so with the same tenacity that we do with any other fundamental<BR>
human right.<BR>
<BR>
Yours for equality marriage,<BR>
<BR>
Nick<BR>
*<BR>
*<BR>
*The Real Meaning of Sodomy*<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
By Nick Gier<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
"Sodomy" and "sodomite" are some of the ugliest words in the English<BR>
language. They of course are derived from the Canaanite city of Sodom,<BR>
whose destruction along with Gomorrah is related in Genesis 19. Most<BR>
people assume that homosexuality was the grounds for divine retribution and<BR>
that this is the reason that gay men have been branded "sodomites."<BR>
<BR>
Interestingly enough, Jesus did not interpret the story in this way. First,<BR>
Jesus says nothing specific about the sin of homosexuality anywhere in the<BR>
Gospels. He does of course speak of sexual sins, but all of us, regardless<BR>
of our sexual orientation, commit a few of these. Second, when Jesus<BR>
instructs his disciples to preach in the towns of Israel, Jesus warns that<BR>
those who do not receive them peacefully will be judged more harshly than<BR>
the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10: 5-15).<BR>
<BR>
Jesus joins other ancient authorities in viewing the sins of the Sodomites<BR>
as the abuse of strangers, neglecting the poor and needy, and the<BR>
stigmatizing of outsiders. For example, Ezekiel says that the people of<BR>
Sodom and Gomorrah "had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but<BR>
did not aid the poor and the needy" (16:49-50); and the Wisdom of Solomon<BR>
says that they "refused to receive strangers when they came to them"<BR>
(19.14).<BR>
<BR>
The narrow sexual interpretation known today comes from an ancient minority<BR>
report from thinkers such as Philo of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo.<BR>
The former condemned the Sodomites for "forbidden forms of intercourse" and<BR>
the latter for "lewdness between males." The odd point about this charge<BR>
is that the object of Sodomitic lust is not male humans but sexless angels!<BR>
<BR>
Today's conservatives appear to follow Augustine's untenable position,<BR>
struck down in the recent Supreme Court decision, that only sexual acts<BR>
between people of the same sex count as sodomy. The Texas law was<BR>
particularly insidious because in 1973 the legislature legalized<BR>
heterosexual anal and oral sex (even including bestiality), but<BR>
criminalized homosexuals who performed the same acts.<BR>
<BR>
Thomas Aquinas ranked sodomy as the worst crime second only to murder<BR>
itself, because it essentially amounted to wanton destruction of a<BR>
potential person. As the only proper place for the male seed is the female<BR>
womb, those who masturbate, engage in oral sex, and, yes, even those who<BR>
use contraceptives are all sodomites. If the sin of sodomy is the practice<BR>
of nonprocreative sex, then every sexually active human being is a sodomite!<BR>
<BR>
Protestant theologians generally joined Catholics in making sodomy a<BR>
unique and unredeemable sin. It is interesting, however, to note that John<BR>
Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, does not define the Sodomites' sin as<BR>
homosexual acts. Instead he prefers the social meaning of sodomy, reminding<BR>
his readers that the Sodomites were "in the habit of vexing strangers,"<BR>
whereas Lot had offered them shelter and a meal.<BR>
<BR>
The men of Sodom come to Lot's house and demand that the two visitors be<BR>
handed over to them. The Sodomites' intentions were overtly sexual ("so<BR>
that we may know them"), but these men were no more homosexuals than are<BR>
the bullies in our prisons who rape newcomers and weaker prisoners on a<BR>
daily basis. Although sexual in nature, these attacks are essentially acts<BR>
of aggression against the "other," those who are weaker and those who are<BR>
different.<BR>
<BR>
Prison rapists are carrying on an ancient patriarchal tradition where the<BR>
dominant male has the right to penetrate anyone subordinate to him--women,<BR>
lower men, boys, and slaves. Arno Schmitt states that in the ancient world<BR>
it was "the right of men to penetrate and their duty to lie on top" and<BR>
that the raping "of one's slaves . . . was not only sanctioned by public<BR>
opinion, but by some jurists as well." Needless to say, medieval<BR>
Christians were compelled to declare that the "woman superior" sexual<BR>
position was also, incredible though it sounds, a form of sodomy.<BR>
<BR>
The point of these stories, however, goes beyond the destructive hierarchy<BR>
of "top males." The message for our time is that those who embrace those<BR>
different from themselves, such as Abraham and Lot, are blessed, while<BR>
those who discriminate against them, such as the Sodomites and Gibeans,<BR>
should be despised. I will let readers apply this biblical doctrine to<BR>
contemporary America and discover to which group they belong.<BR>
<BR>
The God of the Bible appears to have, as liberation theologians have said,<BR>
a "preferential option" for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, and those<BR>
who are different. The word "sodomite" should be reserved, if we should use<BR>
it at all, for those who use sex to dominate, humiliate, and terrorize<BR>
others.<BR>
<BR>
We should preserve and dignify the word "homosexual" for people who love<BR>
others of their own sex, and our liberal democracy should protect their<BR>
right to do so with the same tenacity that we do with any other fundamental<BR>
human right.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For thirty-one years Nick Gier taught philosophy and religion at the<BR>
University of Idaho. An expanded and fully documented version of this<BR>
column can be found at<BR>
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/sodom.htm<<A HREF="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/sodom.htm">http://www.class.uidaho.edu/sodom.htm</A>>.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios@gmail.com>wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality<<A HREF="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/</A>><BR>
><BR>
> *Editor's note: Daniel A. Helminiak <<A HREF="http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/">http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/</A>>,<BR>
> who was ordained a priest in Rome, is a theologian, psychotherapist and<BR>
> author of "What the Bible Really Says about homosexuality"<<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-about-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X">http://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-Really-about-Homosexuality/dp/188636009X</A>>and books on contemporary spirituality. He is a professor of psychology at<BR>
> the University of West Georgia.*<BR>
><BR>
> By *Daniel A. Helminiak*, Special to CNN<BR>
><BR>
> President Barack Obama's support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the<BR>
> water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts<BR>
> separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command<BR>
> this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion<BR>
> and, above all, the Bible.<BR>
><BR>
> We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the<BR>
> whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just<BR>
> a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose<BR>
> homosexuality.<BR>
><BR>
> In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in<BR>
> preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the<BR>
> male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood<BR>
> homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions<BR>
> about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.<BR>
><BR>
> CNN's Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories<<A HREF="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/</A>><BR>
><BR>
> Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own<BR>
> terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical<BR>
> context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless - as with<BR>
> heterosexuality - injustice and abuse are involved.<BR>
><BR>
> That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose<BR>
> experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites<BR>
> wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city,<BR>
> welcomed in hospitality for the night.<BR>
><BR>
> The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for<BR>
> the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to<BR>
> guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing,<BR>
> injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in<BR>
> those days, the use of another man's property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).<BR>
><BR>
> But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended<BR>
> gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover<BR>
> to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence,<BR>
> Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31);<BR>
> and "By this will they know you are my disciples" (John 13:35).<BR>
><BR>
> How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals<BR>
> and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to<BR>
> sacrifice the social safety net in return.<BR>
><BR>
> The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their<BR>
> women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also<BR>
> the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with<BR>
> passion for one another."<BR>
><BR>
> The Greek term *para physin* has been translated *unnatural*; it* *should<BR>
> read *atypical* or *unusual*. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic<BR>
> philosophers did use *para physin* to mean unnatural, but this term also<BR>
> had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs<BR>
> Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.<BR>
><BR>
> Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies<BR>
> the term *para physin* to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish<BR>
> people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice!<BR>
> An unusual thing to do - atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural"<BR>
> hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.<BR>
><BR>
> Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: *<BR>
> dishonorable* (1:24, 26) and *unseemly* (1:27). But for Paul, neither<BR>
> carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even<BR>
> he was held in *dishonor *- for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words<BR>
> merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.<BR>
><BR>
> In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus<BR>
> 18:22, the "abomination" of a man's lying with another man. Paul sees<BR>
> male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness - in other words,<BR>
> "abomination." Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright:<BR>
> "God gave them up . to impurity."<BR>
><BR>
> But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity - varied<BR>
> cultural traditions - do not matter before God. What matters is purity of<BR>
> heart.<BR>
><BR>
> "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what<BR>
> comes out of the mouth that defiles," reads Matthew 15. "What comes out of<BR>
> the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the<BR>
> heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false<BR>
> witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed<BR>
> hands does not defile."<BR>
><BR>
> Or again, Jesus taught, "Everyone who looks at a women with lust has<BR>
> already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Jesus<BR>
> rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.<BR>
><BR>
> In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms<BR>
> to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly<BR>
> condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he<BR>
> never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.<BR>
><BR>
> As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The<BR>
> Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth<BR>
> and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.<BR>
><BR>
> The Bible's *Song of Songs* is a paean to romantic love with no mention<BR>
> of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors,<BR>
> although he did heal the "servant" - *pais*, a Greek term for male lover<BR>
> - of the Roman Centurion.<BR>
><BR>
> Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter <<A HREF="http://twitter.com/cnnbelief">http://twitter.com/cnnbelief</A>><BR>
><BR>
> Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end.<BR>
> Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked<BR>
> sex and procreation.<BR>
><BR>
> Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would<BR>
> not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. "Liberty and justice for<BR>
> all," marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these,<BR>
> alas, are true biblical values.<BR>
><BR>
> *The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel A.<BR>
> Helminiak.*<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> --<BR>
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR>
> art.deco.studios@gmail.com<BR>
><BR>
> =======================================================<BR>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>
> <A HREF="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
> <A HREF="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>
> =======================================================<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>