Taking a cue from carlanime

[camwyn]

in this particular post:

Yrs. truly is straight. I should know. I've spent thirty-one years in this body and I've been to an all-girls Catholic school for four of them, plus several years of membership in my local YWCA. Last time I took any kind of test or assessment to determine where I fell on the Kinsey scale, I came out at something like 0.2.

Right now I'm a Roman Catholic, although I'm seriously considering joining the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America instead. Christian denominations, both of them. (No, I don't care what you think about Catholicism and its positions on Mary or the saints. It's still a Christ-centered denomination, so get over it.) Neither one's known for fuzzy thinking or foo-foo feel good handwaving of doctrinal standing.

So understand me, please, when I say this: I don't give a tin-plated fart if you, personally, are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, heteroflexible, celibate, furry, xenophilic, vegisexual, any of those things. Really, I don't. I'm fine where I am, you're fine where you are, all's well on that front as far as I'm concerned.

But if you, personally- you who are reading this now- are a homophobe, or one of the 'God hates fags' people, or believe that AIDS is some kind of divine punishment for immorality, or can argue with a straight face that it's better to take an adopted or foster child from a stable home with two gay parents and put that child in an unstable home that happens to be captained by two straights who're likely to divorce each other or get violent, or to put that child in the foster care system in general... any of those things?

Bugger off, okay?

Your point of view is unwelcome, and cruel. Yes, you may well point to segments of the Old Testament indicating that one is not to lie with a man as one lies with a woman on pain of quite a lot of rocks. That's in the same book as the rules about not eating shrimp, the rules about no wool/linen blends in fabric, and the rules about the horrible things you're supposed to do to the daughter of a priest if she dishonours her father before marriage. Mind if I go through your closet and your refrigerator? You know, just in case.

We will now pause for an edited interjection: this is directed at those who self-identify as Christians. I'm not Jewish. Never have been. I was a member of Hillel House at college but that was because I went on their initial tour- they had nice stained glass windows- and they made us all fill out membership cards before they let us leave. I've studied the religion as part of a religion major at the university level, but that does not make me Jewish, and it certainly does not give me any kind of authority or licence or even personal experiential viewpoint from which to address questions pertaining to the Jewish faith. The point I am trying to make in the above paragraph is not a strike at those who adhere to the Book of Leviticus. It is a strike at those who think they can pull out sentiments from Leviticus to back themselves up, but then turn around and ignore everything else in the book. That's not how it works, and it cheapens the beliefs and efforts of the people who do follow the whole thing.

Back to the original body of the rant.

Look, if you're so hot on Christianity, find me one place- one- where Jesus himself said anything at all specific about gay people or homosexual anything. He had other things on his mind. You know. Feeding the hungry. Giving drink to the thirsty. Clothing the naked, uprooting the unjust social order. Forgiving the sinner-

Oh, yeah, that one. Forgiving, see, this is not the same thing as hounding and yelling at and protesting. Jesus wasn't so big on the 'you're bad you're horrible you're awful' approach to sin. He was more of the 'okay, lady, you did things that were wrong, I see that you're very sorry, so I forgive you, but don't sin any more'. He saved His wrath for hypocrites and for members of the social order who considered themselves upright and just while the rest of the country went to Hell in a handbasket.

Jesus came to the tax collectors- extortionist little bastards that they were- and the prostitutes. He touched lepers and he shared His wisdom and forgiveness with a Samaritan woman who had been married multiple times and was living in an extramarital relationship. He even- and this one is important- extended healing to the household of a Roman centurion who approached him in faith and humility. A Roman. You know. One of the people who were sort of oppressing the crap out of Israel? The ones who were ruling the Jews and installing kings of Israel as puppet rulers? Yeah, those Romans. He had pretty nearly every reason possible to tell the guy 'piss the frell off', but nope; the centurion sent messengers to plead the case of his slave and said he was not worthy to have Jesus under his roof, but please please please could he help oh please I know you can do it, sir, only say the word. And sure enough, Jesus healed the guy's servant.

He wants humility, guys. He wants faith. He wants people to reach out and embrace each other in kindness and forgiveness. He wants us to do for other people what we want done for ourselves- to set things right through kindness to those in need, and truth to those in power, and examination of ourselves for the purpose of changing that in our hearts which is sinful and atoning for what we've done.

He does NOT, to my knowledge, have the SLIGHTEST bit of interest in screeching our damn fool heads off at people who score higher than a three on the Kinsey scale.

You try using His name or His Father's name as a means of backing up your desire to see the homosexual population of the Earth go quietly into that good night, and I don't want to hear from you. Ever.

That's all.

Comments

[truebluespark]

I love you. That is all. *hug*

[weasleyqueen.livejournal.com]

*stands up and delivers huge round of applause with much hollering of appreciation*

You are so ace. I have a gay friend who's going into hospital on Wednesday for an operation on fissures on his 'boy vagina' as he likes to put it. He is (rightly) incredibly scared of the procedure (there's a chance he may have to wear diapers forever if it goes wrong) but the thing he's most afraid of is telling his family- who are not only overly Christian and gay-phobic, but there's a good chance they'll tell him 'this is his punishment for being gay.' Really- they would.
So thank you very much for this little 'rant' - if it's okay, can I send it to him?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_geekie_/]

As a Lutheran who goes to a church that teaches that the Word of God is available to anyone that wants to hear it, that Jesus was a friend to any who might seek his company - and that means EVERYONE - THANK YOU.

I made a similar post the day before I was baptized. I made it clear to my friends list that just because I was a Christian that it did not mean that I was suddenly going to become homophobic. Those people? Bob Jones and Faldwell and all of them? They aren't on my side. Not at all. They're so far from my side that I can't see them anymore.

Word. <3 Great post. You're my hero of the day.

[camwyn]

Go right ahead. And my sympathies to him- fissures are no fun at all, from what I hear. (Never had one myself, but briefly had a fear of one a few years ago. Turned out to be something else entirely, fortunately.)

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I could not possibly have said it better. You nailed it perfectly.

[dragonwhishes.livejournal.com]

*FUCKING APPLAUDS UNTIL HER HANDS ARE SORE.*

[dragonwhishes.livejournal.com]

I do love that "Dear Humanity; QUIT IT. Assholes." part of your icon.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Thanks. So do I. I also like the "It actually DOES say 'Adam and Steve.' That's what you get for reading the translation" bit. Oh, and the icon is by judebennett, by the way.

[camwyn]

Something in a similar vein:

Spamusement.com's take on the spam subject line 'an email from God'.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Heh! Thanks, I like that!

(And I love your Arrogant Worms map of Canada icon.)

the world is full of doorknobs

[sundre.livejournal.com]

HUZZAH!

And I followed links back to angry_biscuit and on to source material. Seriously, God hates Canada? What the hell?

[jeditigger.livejournal.com]

Amen.

[zakkati.livejournal.com]

Very well said. I couldn't agree more. Who is this God of those Christians who hate gay peopl so much? It ain't any God I recognise.

[sookail.livejournal.com]

Wonderfully said :)

[impactbomb.livejournal.com]

This is just one of the many reasons I love you and your journal, Cam.

Sadly, it's also one of the reasons I don't like going to church anymore, and likely won't attend services when I'm off at college and finally have a choice in the matter.

[janewt.livejournal.com]

Hell yeah.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Except that it really doesn't. And saying it does won't work on people who don't use translations.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

That's in the same book as the rules about not eating shrimp, the rules about no wool/linen blends in fabric, and the rules about the horrible things you're supposed to do to the daughter of a priest if she dishonours her father before marriage. Mind if I go through your closet and your refrigerator? You know, just in case.

Trouble is, that argument doesn't work so well on people who don't eat shrimp, or wear wool/linen mixtures, or touch their spouses at those times of the month, etc.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

PS: This particularly came up a few years ago, when that email thing was circulating, attacking Dr Laura on these lines (the one that ended up getting quoted on West Wing). The problem was that, at the time, she did take all those laws seriously, so all the email thing did was show up the author and the people who circulated it as ignorant fools, and actually served to reinforce her legitimacy.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Oy vey. I KNOW that it really doesn't. But as far as I know, all Bibles are translations. Some of them are pretty bad translations, too.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Er, no. All Bibles are not translations (at least if we're talking Genesis, which is where Steve would have to be, if he were there at all). What language do you think the original was in?

[camwyn]

Well, hey, if they take 'em all seriously, more power to 'em. I can deal with that. Consistency in your strict beliefs is something I can appreciate; it's harder than it looks. It's like a friend of mine who had a lot of problems with Pope John Paul II and his rather strict ideas about the roles of women in the Church, birth control, etc.; my friend couldn't stomach that about the Pope, but did at least acknowledge that the man was being consistently firm across the board about the dignity of human life, albeit from a rather different angle than most Americans could swallow.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

It doesn't make homophobia any prettier, it just means that you have to confront it with the right arguments, and not use ones that will just backfire. The problem is that the author of that "Dear Dr Laura" email, and all the people who circulated it, operated from the assumption that nobody takes all of Leviticus seriously, that nobody could possibly think that the Creator didn't want them to eat shrimp or wear wool/linen, and so anyone who quoted Leviticus as an authority must be a hypocrite, who can be shown up by simply quoting those other laws. Which is stupid, because it's not as if the religion that does take those laws seriously is at all obscure, and it's not as if it was a secret that (at the time) Dr Laura proclaimed her adherence to it. So if you're going to use the argument against someone who you think it might not work against, better have plan B in your pocket. And if you're going to use it publicly against a specific person, do your research in advance.

PS: the unstated but clear assumption that nobody could possibly take Leviticus seriously is rather insulting to those who do, and tends to get their backs up, even if they actually agree with the point you're trying to make.

[camwyn]

Gimme a second to edit the rant to make it clear that this is pointing at those who self-identify as Christians. A sizable chunk of my friendslist is composed of observant Jews of varying divisions of the faith, and the unspoken assumption I was trying to get across was 'Christians who fall back on Leviticus as their grounds for attack had better be prepared to live according to the entirety of Leviticus or risk looking like fools'.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I think that Genesis was in either Proto-Hebrew or Ancient Hebrew. Neither's the same as modern Hebrew. (And the Adam and Steve thing is a joke, which you obviously didn't get. It's something a bigoted Southern politician said once, justifying his hatred of homosexuals--that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.)

As for Bibles being translations--yes, they are. Languages change. Meanings of words change. Interpretations change. Take a look at the different ways one verse comes out in a host of different Bibles:

King James Bible: Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities: all is vanity.

The New English Bible: Emptiness, emptiness, says the Speaker, emptiness; all is empty.

The Jerusalem Bible: Vanity of vanities, Qoheleth says. Vanity of vanities. All is vanity!

The Holy Scriptures Bible: Utter futility!--said Koheleth--Utter futility! All is futile!

The Living Bible: In my opinion, nothing is worthwhile; everything is futile.

The Good News Bible: It is useless, useless, said the Philosopher. Life is useless, all useless.

The New International Version: "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."

Want more? Compare these verses, used in the Living Bible and in the King James Version:

Genesis 13.17: Hike in all directions, and explore the new possessions I am giving you. (TLB, American Edition)

Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. (KJV)

[I can just imagine God telling Abram to go on a hike. Not.]

Isaiah 41.24: But no! You are less than nothing and can do nothing at all. Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head examined! (TLB)

Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you. (KJV)

[There is no comparison.]

Jude 1.16 : These men are constant gripers, never satisfied, doing whatever evil they feel like; they are loud-mouthed "show-offs," and when they show respect for others, it is only to get something from them in return. (TLB)

These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. (KJV)

[You can murmur without griping--doubts or rumors can be murmured, for instance. And doing whatever you feel like doing seems very different from pursuing lusts. And doesn't speaking in great swelling words sound as much like pompous pedants as it does like loud-mouthed show-offs?]

Luke 10.40: But Martha was the jittery type, and was worrying over the big dinner she was preparing. She came to Jesus and said, "Sir, doesn't it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here why I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me." (TLB)

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. (KJV)

[You can be encumbered with a lot of work and not be jittery.]

Mark 12.17: "All right," he said, "if it is his, give it to him. But everything that belongs to God must be given to God. And they scratched their heads in bafflement at his reply.(TLB)

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him. (KJV)

[As from the butchery of a very famous phrase, marveling at something implies surprise and approval more than bafflement. Many things are marvels, but not all marvels cause confusion.]

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

So, in conclusion, just the alteration of one word can change the entire meaning of a verse.

And since the homophobes under discussion are, in the main, Christian fundamentalists who are reading English translations, and who are using said translations to back up their bigotry, I think that's rather the point.

[camwyn]

Side note: none of my religion professors at college would allow the use of the King James Bible in the classroom, and that included the one who had his doctorate from Harvard School of Divinity. Said it was a lousy translation- a lovely work of English literature, but a horribly inaccurate translation- and that we were to use either the New Revised Standard Version or the New American Bible, unless we had another translation that met with the department's approval.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

So I've been told by my theologian friend. And there are a lot of inaccuracies and problems with words in there. From Leo Rosten's Treasury of Jewish Quotations:

"The King James version uses a late sixteenth century idiom (already somewhat archaic by the time that great Bible was printed) that lends glory to the text--and discombobulating ambiguity: What on earth is meant by "Ye are not straitened in us"? Or "We do you to wit of the grace of God"? Or take the misleading references to money: a "penny" was not a trifle to the Hebrews; it was the going rate for twelve hard hours of work. Or take the fallacious impressions of time: "the third hour" leads a modern reader to think that what is meant is 3 a.m. or 3 p.m.; but what "the third hour" meant was the third hour after dawn: i.e., 8 or 9 in the morning.

"In many unhappy cases, the original meaning of a word is precisely OPPOSITE the meaning we derive from it in the translation by King James's reverent scholars. The phrase "by and by" meant, to the Hebrews, not "in a little while," but "immediately." And to the King Jamesians, so apparently simple a word as "comprehend" signified not "comprehension," as we today assume, but "overcoming an obstacle."

So yes. Great work of literature, but not particularly accurate. And this is the Bible that most of the fundies use.

The Italians, recognising how many errors occur and last in translations, say, "Traduttore traditori"--translators are traitors.

[lots42.livejournal.com]

I wonder what Jesus would think of furries. Probably 'Cool'.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Genesis is in Biblical Hebrew. I suppose there might exist somewhere a translation into Modern Hebrew, but the original text is much easier to find, and 99.99% of Hebrew texts will be the original, spelling and all. So while you might claim that someone's misunderstood a word, you can not claim "that's what comes of using a translation", without coming off as a fool.

As for Bibles being translations--yes, they are. Languages change.
Meanings of words change. Interpretations change.

Yes, languages change, but the original text doesn't change with them. Shakespeare is still published in the original language, you just have to work harder to understand him now. Unless your English comes from reading Shakespeare, in which case it's modern English newspapers that you have to work to understand.

Your translations of Ecclesiastes 1:1 are all very interesting, and they all seem to me to be saying exactly the same thing, in their respective languages, but none of them change the fact that the original is Havel havalim, amar Qohelet; havel havalim, haqol havel. And that anyone using a Hebrew Bible will quote it that way, and will understand it perfectly, and cannot be accused of using a translation. You seem to imagine that the original text can only be found in obscure libraries, in dusty manuscripts examined only by scholars, when that is simply not the case.

Same with Genesis 13:17. The two translations you give are exactly the same: in modern English, a long walk in the country is a hike (and He tells him to "hike", not to "take a hike", which, as a speaker of modern English, you know perfectly well are two very different things, even if it might confuse a reader 300 years from now). But neither is how I'd quote it. To me, it's qum, hit'halech ba'aretz, le'orkah ulrochbah; ki lecha etenenah. And hit'halech means more than just "walk", it means more like "take up walking", which is consistent with "hike" in modern English.

Similarly for your 3rd example: KJV claimed to follow as closely as possible the words of the original, and it did a fairly good job at it, whereas TLB says it's not trying for literal accuracy but for a colloquial rendering. So you have to expect TLB to wander from the original. But the original is hen-atem me'ayin, ufo'olchem me'ofa`, to`evah yivchar bachem. And the KJV rendition seems pretty much spot on, though I'm not familiar with the word ofa`, and the English word "abomination" has somewhat shifted in meaning in the past few centuries, which is why TLB renders it differently.

The rest of your examples are from the sequel, about which you're probably right, that the originals were in Aramaic, and have been lost. But given what the two translations you present are respectively trying to achieve, I don't think they're nearly as far apart as you seem to think. But not reading Greek, I can't really comment.

[lots42.livejournal.com]

Jesus hung around with twelve guys and a groupie for most of his recorded life. Don't tell me that somewhere in the group there wasn't a little handholding

[lots42.livejournal.com]

IIRC, Leviticus also advocates murdering misbehaving children. I really don't think Laura follows THAT.

[camwyn]

I should probably point out at this stage that if discussion on this journal degenerates into name-calling or gratuitous digs at people, I'm gonna lock it against further comments. This line of discussion, and the furry one, could put some serious hackles up and I'd rather not have discussion get uncivilized if that could at all be avoided.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

You don't RC. And Dr Laura's religious views have changed significantly since this whole affair happened.

[lasa.livejournal.com]

Wonderful post.

I just graduated from seminary, where there were a fair amount of gay and lesbian students. The winner of the award for biblical interpretion in my class was lesbian.

Anyone that identifies as gay or lesbian and follows a call to seminary despite all the stupid rhetoric in many churches has my deep respect. These students were among the most committed and strongest in their faith. It is inconceivable to me that God would not respond in anything but love in return to them.

[goldjadeocean.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

I don't fall into either camp because I self-identify as bisexual and knew the church's stance when I got baptised and was willing to live with that- that I don't believe that homosexual activity is moral, any more than extramarital sex is or anything else forbidden by canon law. Because I made a covenant and I will not willingly break it and I believe in it with all my heart. But I'm still bisexual and it was one of the things that I very much had to question before I entered the church.

But it breaks my heart to see so many people perverting that covenant, turning the sacred to the profane, and turning instead an agreement, a belief, a sacrifice, something that should be entered into willingly and joyfully, into a scare-tactic and a form of moral slavery. There is no frelling way in hell that I can condone screeching-and-yelling evangelization because it's not spreading the Gospel at all. It's not telling people that they are holy and beloved beings. It's not telling them that their sin will be freely forgiven because they are loved so much. It's using shame and fear and everything that Jesus was against.

And I honestly cannot blame anyone who isn't willing to make that sacrifice of a happy, loving sexual relationship because it's how they percieve God's will to be. It's not my personal belief, but I can live with other churches allowing gay marriage. Because religion is, above all, a choice. Free will. Personal conviction. All that good stuff.

[quintus.livejournal.com]

=applause=

[lyorn.livejournal.com]

I know the e-mail, but I'm not quite familiar with Dr. Laura. So she did campaign for the abolition of shrimp in her show and told people not to play rugby without gloves?

I agree that the hypocrite-argument fails against someone who both preach and practise their complete canon.

[camwyn]

Nah, I think this was in response to her statements of 1998. Check the Snopes.com commentary on the letter for the original statements she made on the topic. She did, from what I understand, apologise for some of what she said- personally, I had not been aware of her original statements or of the apology until well after the fact, because I had never listened to her radio show.

[kaikias.livejournal.com]

*applauds with all the others*

*totally wants to live in your Empire*

[kitanzi.livejournal.com]

Yet again - you rock.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

No, there was no reason for her to campaign for the 'abolition' of shrimp, whatever that might mean. She believed at the time that it was wrong for Jews to eat shrimp, so she didn't. No need for a campaign (she didn't campaign against homosexuality either; when asked, she gave her opinion, in her usual abrasive (IMO) manner).

Rugby without gloves? Huh? What's that about?

[camwyn]

*sigh* You know you're me when your first response to a comment like that is to reach for your copy of That's Incurable! and look up the entry on 'scrum pox', a skin disease transmitted via mud and body contact during rugby games. oy.

[arabel.livejournal.com]

Yet another person adding to the applause, here.

[lwood.livejournal.com]

If your Empire ever needs a Chaplain Pastor of Muppets, you could do a lot, LOT worse than my friend urbanbard. Christo-Pagan seminarian with the UCC who walks his talk when his prosthetic's on the fritz, otherwise he's wheeling his talk. His last dilemma was whether to campaign for queer rights or for the idea that pagans might not eat babies. Big on the ol' social justice, you'd like him.

Just sayin'.

-- Lorrie, who personally lobbies for Evil Seidhkona, as that's got far fewer qualified applicants. ;)

[james-the-evil1.livejournal.com]

Except that Hebrew doesn't use vowels, and the works that form the Torah & Christian old Testament are given meaning as words by inserting vowels in pieces that could have different meanings if different vowels were used. In fact, some Judaic sects diverge on the meanings of holy books over disagreements on what the words actually are.

[james-the-evil1.livejournal.com]

The issue here is that Christians don't follow Leviticus strictly, if at all, and Camwyn was addressing Christians. The Christian argument is that Leviticus represents things needed to be done to remain in a state of grace PRIOR to the coming of Christ, but that Christ's coming represented a new covenant that negated the requirements to follow the old rules.
They pick & choose as they will, eating shrimp and shaving their beards while condeming homosexuality.
That is hypocrisy.
As an observant Jew you're not engaging in said hypocrisy, and the argument doesn't have relevance to you. However, it does have perfect relevance to the parties Cam was addressing and therefore was valid.
Your argument in the PS indicates that you're approaching it from a bias point of view, causing you to miss the point all together.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

The original post did not limit itself to Christians. It was addressed to people who justify their homophobia by reference to Leviticus, without distinguishing between those who take the rest of that book seriously and those who don't. Camwyn later updated her remarks, in response to my comment.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Nope. The words as originally written were obviously pronounced, and that pronunciation has come down to us. What Judaic sects are you referring to here?