Subject:
|
Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:30:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
373 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
Interesting, but perhaps you can explain some inconsistencies with that
explanation. Not all Christian religions use the King James version of the
bible - certainly the Catholics don’t (and their views on homosexuality
differ little from most Protestants), and I would imagine that
Eastern/Greek/etc Orthodox don’t, either. For that matter, the King James
version of the bible I would imagine is not used by non-english speaking
countries. Thus, the set who depend on it are english-speaking Protestants.
So...how do all the other Christian religions view homosexuality and why,
since they are not depending on some mistranslation by the council that
produced the King James version? Or the same religions in different,
non-english speaking countries?
|
I can’t answer you question directly because I have not made an exhaustive
survey on the subject from the perspective of non-English Xtian faiths, but I
will answer it this way...
You can use books like Strong’s Concordance to get at a closer meaning of the
bible by cross-referencing passages and in many instances checking out the
meaning of the word in the oldest known copy of the work in question. For
example in the passage I lifted from that website the Hebrew word under
discussion is “YADA.” The meaning and history of the word is a known thing -- so
if the KJV translators took liberties with their work, and they took hundreds of
such liberties, then the resulting translation is at least partly faulty -- as
all translations ultimately are as they balance the twin arts of pure
translations against a certain kind of lyric readability factor. Sometimes a
translator takes liberties because it sounds better in English to say a thing a
particular way. At other times less noble motives may be at work.
King James is relevant to us as it is the primary text in English. It is not,
obviously, a flawless text from the standpoint of translation and that’s why you
have to access things like Strong’s Concordance if you want to understand things
more deeply. This is ultimately no different than if you looked up the meaning
of any English word in the Oxford English Dictionary -- the etymology of a word
is entirely the point, esp. when it comes to translating an ancient text.
We know that the ancient world of the bible does not mesh with known facts. For
example, slaves were not used in the building of the ancient Egyptian monuments
-- to the contrary, it was considered a duty and pleasure on the part of
Egyptian citizens to contribute to their collective culture by spending some
time building those very monuments each year. This work was not done by slaves,
not as I have understood recent archeological findings.
For that matter Moses, if indeed he was an Egyptian of a kind, was not the first
known monotheist in any case. There’s nothing revolutionary about Moses at all.
Moses comes after another Egyptian known as Akhnaten, the famous “Heretic”
pharoah and the first monotheist. If there is another predating Akhnaten, I have
not learned of it yet. Mosaic Law too derives from another source: the laws of
Hammurabi -- which is rather like contrasting a fictional advent against an
historical one. Maybe Moses existed, maybe not. We know from linguistic studies
of the first five books of the bible that there are several voices within those
texts. Often the biblical tales are repeated in such a way as to suggest that
some kind of pastiche of even older texts was made to form the Pentateuch,
probably politically motivated to appease competing factions amongst the ancient
Israelites. The two main factions in question were probably the followers of
Moses and the followers of Aaron. Go figure.
Those facts take nothing away from the intriguing story of the Exodus or of the
laws of Moses. In the main, the old testament is just a fictionalized account of
life in the ancient world. The ancient Israelites were themselves probably
pasturalist followers of the god Moloch. How do I know this? Because Mosaic
laws continually condemns the practices of the fire god Moloch. Why make laws
about things people aren’t doing? That’s right, you make laws about the things
people are doing. Of course...
And let’s not forget that there are many texts that are not part of any
“official” canons, but no one doubts the actual existence of these texts -- what
they question is the vailidity of those works. But why? Obviously, those more
“questionable” texts do not serve the needs of politically motivated organized
faiths. Really, it’s as simple as that. At the same time you won’t find a
Protestant claiming that the Nag Hammadi library doesn’t exist, it’s just not
part of the accepted canon.
You can build with Dave!’s clone DAT library, it’s just not part of LDraw canon,
right?
Getting back to the history of Xtian condemnation of homosexuality, what you
have is no more than an attempt to hijack “the word” of god to a specific
purpose. Why? I don’t know -- I suppose some people have a problem with
homosexuals. But I’ll tell you this: you don’t make laws about things that
people aren’t doing. When Xtian culture decided to condemn homosexuality you
can bet that there were plenty of homosexuals around. Given the flimsy evidence
in the original biblical cites I’d say it’s time for this particular witch hunt
to come to an end.
If you are a modern Xtian: Do you avoid lobster? Do you eat pork? Why, or why
not? Did Jesus condemn homosexuals, or did he actually save a Roman slave boys
life so that he could continue in his homosexual lifestyle?
from Matthew, Chapter 8:
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion,
beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy,
grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest
come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9
For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man,
Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do
this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them
that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not
in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west,
and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 And Jesus said unto
the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.
From Luke, Chapter 7:
7:2 And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and
ready to die.
7:3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of
the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
7:4 And when
they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for
whom he should do this:
7:5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a
synagogue.
7:6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the
house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not
thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7:7
Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word,
and my servant shall be healed.
7:8 For I also am a man set under authority,
having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another,
Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
7:9 When
Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said
unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great
faith, no, not in Israel.
7:10 And they that were sent, returning to the
house, found the servant whole that had been sick.
see: http://www.mabenterprises.com/gaychristians/religious_text/thebible.htm
As recorded in the eighth chapter of Matthew, Jesus is called upon to go to the
aid of a Roman Centurion of faith. The Centurion tells Jesus that his “servant
lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.” (Matt. 8:5-6 NIV). Normally,
the Greek word for servant used in the New Testament is “doulos” and is quite
clearly meaning slave or indentured servant. In this instance, the word used is
“pais,” which means beloved boy. Not son, which would be “uios.” There are some
scholars who believe that the person being described as the Centurion’s “pais”
is in fact his young, male lover. Again, the evangelical/fundamentalist mind
recoils at such a suggestion, because Jesus would never condone a homosexual
relationship, certainly not by healing an illness probably brought on by
detestable homosexual behavior. No, this is nothing more than a faithful Roman
officer who has a sick attendant or something like that, who Jesus heals. That
is all, they would say. We on the other hand hold out the possibility that this
Centurion, full of faith in Jesus, is asking for ministry for his beloved, as
any lover would do. And Jesus, who never uttered one word against homosexuals or
homosexuality in any clearly identifiable way, healed the boy and blessed the
Centurion. This is as it should be and great hope can be derived from the
telling.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
| (...) Any translation is subject to introducing error. Usually, though, Bible scholars seem for the most part encouraged that modern translations seem consistent any time they find a really old fragment. But I'm hardly enough of a Bible scholar to (...) (21 years ago, 8-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Saving the Xtian Church From Itself
|
| (...) Interesting, but perhaps you can explain some inconsistencies with that explanation. Not all Christian religions use the King James version of the bible - certainly the Catholics don't (and their views on homosexuality differ little from most (...) (21 years ago, 6-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
