The Far Right's Anti-Gay Campaigns

[BeachOfEden]

I have been and am open to the possiblity that the owner of the G0y website suggests, that is, that it is quite 'possible' moder day translations of the Bible 'may' have been ALTERED' in their orginal Greek and Hebrew words...to try and give the (the modern day) Bible the impression of being against homsosexuality. I am open to the possiblity because being a str8 gal who has done indepth research into Bible translation alterations..and finding that orginal Greek and Hebrew words HAVE been ALTERED regarding the word HEADSHIP in regards to men's relationship with women..in order to try and justify a sexist agenda in the church...has been verified to me...

 

and the FACT DID yank vauge Scriptures out of context to try and justify their inslavement to blacks...

 

 

Then because of all of this...I think it 'could' also be possible that Bible translators might have done the same thing in regard to passges in the Scriptures that speaks against same gender attraction.

[Ani-man]

I have no doubt this was the case, either accidental, naive translations or by subversive design

 

As you noted, it has been used to justify slavery as well as subversion of women, it has been used for a lot of negative things including justification of cold blooded murder- the Salem witch trials come to mind as do thousands of hangings and other blood-shed. So too does the Rev Weir case and others like it

 

I still find it amazing how people or groups of people can justify "x" or "y" (including cold blooded murder and brutal slaughter of animals) based on an old collection of writings assembled into book that was translated from obscurity, has no verified written proof of origins, which is clouded in mystery and written in pecululiar style, with metaphors and all the rest

 

If it comes from the dead sea scrolls or is supposedly verified by them- I have seen photos of these scrolls, and much of the original leather used for the "paper" is rotted away or otherwise missing, trying to read these scrolls which are in Hebrew I guess are like trying to read a chinese language Miriam Webster's Dictionary after it has been blasted by a shotgun repeatedly, soaked with gas and burned, and then run thru a paper shreader- huge blocks of text are totally missing and what is there is full of holes.

When you consider that altering ONE word on a page of text can change the meaning of the entire page, and that something as simple as lack of or incorrect addition of commas or punctuations can do the same, who really knows what the original REALLY said.

 

Even if we knew what the original said, where is the proof of it's origins and why it was written?

"Inspired by" is NOT the same as "written BY", "inspired by" is like reading a 2005 autobiography written by Joe Smith about President Washington's life birth to death, "written by" is Washington's directly penned journals passed down thru his own family with verifications all the way as to where it was and in whose hands each transfer.

 

Which one is more accurate?

 

We can't even get accurate records and information about Christopher Columbus, a new set of findings has revealed a number of inaccuracies and totally wrong history and this was only 600 years ago not 2000!

 

The Bible has rabbits chewing their cud and insects walking on four FEET, in addition a number of dates of events are even wrong to the point where one book contradicts another, with blatant errors on things so easy to confirm, I can't help but wonder what else is wrong, could it be "no" was once yes but changed? Could it be "man lay with man as man lay with woman is an abomination" have been "man lay with man as man lay with woman wont produce babies"

 

As far as sexual issues go, in the entire book there is only ONE reference I found that says anything about bestiality and it's in Leviticus, yet homosexuality supposedly has several.

Supposedly the violator AND the animal were to be killed, in light of the fact that animals cannot possibly produce offspring as once was feared- then killing the animal was ludicrous, but then God would have known no"monsterous" offspring could result so what would the point be of killing the animal

 

Following that logic then one could conclude homosexuality was worse than bestiality?? how much sense does that make?

 

Here's a photo of one scroll;

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/images...es/commun-b.jpg

Edited January 30, 2005 by Ani-man

[des]

Well some translation "errors" I think had to do with "agenda" perhaps and some where just errors. They get passed along, repeated, something like the game telephone. As a matter of fact, to quote some person that lived a long time after the book itself was written (and it wasn't even written as a book-- the way we think of today), telephone is perhaps an apt analogy. It was all word of mouth and oral tradition.

 

One thing that Spong points out in "Rescuing the Bible..." is the saying about the rich man entering the Kingdom of heaven, that "its harder than a camel going thru an eye of a needle". He points out that that's quite a wierd metaphor. Even tiny camels don't go thru needles, so the probability is that it is a translation error where "camel" is very close to the word "cord" or "rope". Ropes don't go thru needles either but it is a better metaphor.

(I still like camels, I get quite a visual picture from that!)

So some of them just are translation errors.

 

I'm not sure about the way "sodomy" was translated as homosexuality. There was no organized (or other groups) of homosexuals, as there are today. I'm sure that it was quite rare to see it as it is done today, with two loving individuals in a committed relationship-- it just wasn't the way things were.

 

Funny thing is that the MORE normal and healthy the type of relationship-- towards monogamy and union, the more anti the right becomes. Hence all the bruhaha on homosexual marriage.

 

--des

[ArmadilloUCC]

Hi all,

I once heard a lecture (I believe it was by Will Willimon) about biblical humor. He said that one explanation of the "eye of the needle" verse was that there was a geological formation called "eye of the needle". It was supposedly a very narrow treacherous mountain passage through the rocks that camels went through one by one and only with great danger and difficulty. If that's true, then the expression would have made sense to people listening to Jesus at the time.

One other thing Willimon said about humor and translations. There is a parable about a landowner who has a non-bearing fig tree. The farm worker says "MAster, that tree hasn't born fruit in years. You want me to cut it down?"

The master says, "No, just throw little ###### on it and let it sit. Maybe it'll grow."

The actual word in the Greek was coprian (I don't know how to spell it) which is literally dung or feces but used in this way meant dung in a vulgar sense, like "######". Over the years, The bible has been translated so that word has been changed from ###### to manure to fertilizer. So sure, the parable is good with "throw some fertilizer on it", but it's a heck of a lot funnier with "######".

Jesus used a lot of humor and hyperbole in his parables. It makes a lot of sense. He preached and taught to sailors and farmers and shepherds. Working-class folks.

[ComradeInChrist]

One of the things that I find hilarious is the emphasis that the right wing puts on Leviticus. The same book has lots of rules that these same people would never think of following. So why is this one verse God's ultimate rule and the rest are not applicable? I haven't seen the death penalty applied to adultery lately.

 

What it comes down to is finding a scapegoat. The right has found an issue to distract the masses from the real agenda. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

[des]

I think some of it is scapegoating, and I think some of it really is fear. It isn't always homophobia as it is sometimes described (although I think there is some of that), but more fear of the "other".

 

I think there is also... I'm not sure what I would call it exactly, but I think that there is a sense of being surrounded by something that you dislike. (Never mind that you are also surrounded by divorce, greed, etc. etc.) You have Will and Grace and Queer Eye and so on.

(You might also have such dubious programming as Fear Factor, etc.) But, you know it's not Father Knows Best anymore. Maybe father never did know best and there was spousal abuse in the burbs but it was a nice illusion. The other thing, you know our presidents have been playing around since Jefferson-- but now it's on CNN. As I said it was such a nice sweet illusion.

 

--des

[Cynthia]

I agree that it is fear, but I think it is fear that has taken a nasty twist. (perhaps just because I truely resent the hijacking of my faith and country ) The mean-spiritedness of us vs them theology is, I think, an attempt to be safe. To be in the Book of Life (once saved always saved really gets you off the hook for any inconvenient hypocrisy), to check salvation and spiritual concerns off your list once you have been to the altar. I don't think that it starts out mean... it's just that spirituality is such a moment to moment affair requiring mindfulness, attention, and effort. Most people, esp. Americans, would prefer a quick fix, a salvation pill, a guarantee. That's what they get from this belief system. Add human nature to be superior, better than the other group, and ergo - a group of people who believe that they are safe and others are not. If you have strictly defined lines/rules to receive salvation, it is a whole lot easier. Just 'cause Jesus came to show the spirit vs the letter of the law.... to, according to somebody I read , coin the word hypocrisy (wouldn't that be great!!!), and to show that following laws was not enough.... oh well....

 

Grace with conditions is not grace.

 

Cafeteria style theology is choosing to wear mixed fabric clothes, eat cheeseburgers, work on the sabbath - but to hate homosexuality.... Leviticus....

not finding ways to God in many traditions.

 

The hope I find is in evangelical authors like Max Lucado and John Eldridge. They fall into the political camp on the right, but seem to have genuine compassion and the intellect to have read the entire bible and understand it. They both seem to be focusing on people waking up; living vs. existing; finding God as a real presence in day to day life. I recommend them to people who are identified with the right as a way to help them move towards the middle - or at least to see what I would consider to be the important issues as a christian.