Re: Helping a Gay Man; Just What Did Jesus Do?

[BruceChris]

Mathew 8:5-13 - I suspect that this may have come up here before, but just before my time.

Are there any biblical scholars out there who can help translate?

From Crosswalk.com, a concordance:

Matthew 8:5-13
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." 7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." 8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." 10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

From Boston.com:
"They also offered a different interpretation of a story that appears in both Matthew and Luke, in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal a man who is typically identified -- misidentified, says Miner -- as the centurion's servant.
That story's often preached about in straight churches," said Miner, but "nobody bothers to mention that the Greek word used to describe the sick man is the word used in the ancient world to describe your same-sex partner."

Now I know that just bringing this up will give the CC's the Screaming-Meamies, but it just might make a great thread.

Party Time, well, not exactly. Bruce Chris

[andrewlittle]

In doing a quick look at this and the other places the word appears, it does seem that there is some variation in how the word is translated.

The exact word, transliterated pais, appears nine times in the NT. Other forms of the word - paidone, paidos and paisin - appear 5, 1 and 1 times respectively.

At various times they are translated as servant or slave (male or female), child, and boy or girl.

I will dig deeper into other Greek writings to see how the words are used. Initially, I would question the validity of the servant/slave connotation, and put more veracity in the child/boy/girl interpretation.

While the word is used in this story in Matthew, Luke and John (similar enough to be assumed the same story), and is translated as servant in each, it is also the word used when Matthew reminds the reader about Isaiah's prophecy in 12:18, "Here is my servant, with whom I am well pleased ...". Also, it is used in Matthew and Luke to describe the child, Jesus.

So, initially at least, I would lean to a more correct interpretation being child, not servant.

This makes Miner's interpretation less interesting, I guess, but doesn't necessarily rule it out.

The problem, sometimes, is that people use classic Greek to translate Biblical Greek. While the language was essentially the same, the difference in timing (300 to 1000 years) and culture (Greek as opposed to Greco-Roman-Hebrew) does affect the meaning substantially, especially in regard to slang or idioms.

An example of this in modern language would be the cultural understanding of the word "boy". Most people would hear "male child", while an African-American might hear a disparaging reference to slavery. In other circles, it could have many more meanings, some even being sexual or provocative. How was it used in slang three hundred years ago in England - I don't have a clue, but I'm not sure it would be relative to how it's used in the U.S. in 2006.

I will look further to see if there's anything I can add.

[Steven E. Webster]

Andrew is correct about the ambiguity of the words used to describe the Centurion's servant/slave in Matthew 8 and Luke 7. Matthew uses the word for "boy," (Greek "pais") but Luke uses two words--the narrator in Luke refers to the Centurion's "slave" (the Greek is "doulos"), but when Luke's Centurion speaks he refers to "my boy" (using the Greek "pais"). Also important is Luke's description of the "slave" as being "dear" (Greek "entimos") to the Centurion. The words "boy" and "slave" are somewhat interchangeable, but Luke's context suggests that the Centurion uses the word almost as a term of endearment.

I suppose that the Greek word "boy" could also mean "same-sex partner," just like our English word "boyfriend" means "same-sex partner"--but it is ambiguous. "Same-sex partner" is definitely an interpretation of what is really ambiguous Greek. Miner goes too far if he suggests that "pais" can only mean "same-sex partner."

There are biblical scholars who think that the slave really was the Centurion's boyfriend, and I think that is very likely for a number of reasons. The trouble is, you will never prove anything to homophobic scholars who will simply rule out that interpretation. Same story as the love between David and Jonathan--gay folks can see it, but anti-gay homophobes will read the same story and insist that there was nothing homosexual between David and Jonathan.

Scripture is ambiguous--that's just how it is. We can't really prove anything by Scripture (and neither can the other side), but at the same time we have the same privilege as anyone to read the ambiguous Scriptures through our own eyes and our own experience. I believe it is legitimate to believe that Jesus knew that he was healing the beloved boyfriend of the Centurion and that he viewed the Centurion as a man of faith and not just a "sinner" to be disparaged.

The Gospel of John, written much later than Luke or Matthew seems perhaps to be embarrassed by the story, because the Centurion becomes the "ruler of the Synagogue" and the "slave" or "boy" becomes the ruler of the Synagogue's son. John removes all the ambiguity from the story that allowed for a homosexual interpretation.

I wrote a paper years ago arguing that the story also appeared in an early version of the Gospel of Mark (from which Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily). Some scholars believe there was an early version of the Gospel of Mark called "Secret Mark" which was suppressed because of other homoerotic content, and I argued that the story of the Centurion's boy was also deleted from Mark for the same reason.

(The standard scholarly theory is that Matthew and Luke got the Centurion story from a common source which is now lost called "Q," but I argued an early edition of Mark was more likely.)

This kind of speculation about the origin of our Scriptures isn't looked on kindly by Fundamentalists, obviously--but I believe a plausible case can be made for my theory.

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

Steven,

Great post. You've given some food for thought, as well as a kick in the pants to get back to studying this.

And you are a church administrator, to boot. I was (am?) an administrator for ten years before going to seminary.

Anyway, more to the point. You said:

There are biblical scholars who think that the slave really was the Centurion's boyfriend, and I think that is very likely for a number of reasons. The trouble is, you will never prove anything to homophobic scholars who will simply rule out that interpretation.

and:

This kind of speculation about the origin of our Scriptures isn't looked on kindly by Fundamentalists, obviously--but I believe a plausible case can be made for my theory.

I know I have pulled these quotes from two different sections of your post and that are not directly related, but I think they speak volumes just the same.

Fundamentalists make a number of erroneous assumptions:
What they actually take "literally" are the translations and/or interpretations of other people. The "inerrant" Word of God is almost always English - God , of course, being just as WASPish as us Eurocentrists. It is quite obvious to the Fundamentalist mind that, despite scripture existing for eons in one form or another and in various languages, God's Word was not actually truly revealed until 1611.
A necessary outcome of literalism is the formation of absolute and concrete scriptural interpretations. The values derived from these interpretations depend on one and only one way of interpreting scripture.

Setting aside any attempt to "convert" the truly homophobic or Fundamentalist as impractical and unlikely, that leaves the great multitude who base their theology on the certainties propogated by such people.

Progressives or liberals - or whatever label we'd like to attach to ourselves - don't have to "prove" anything. We just need to show that there are plausible arguments for viewing scripture in other ways - for viewing the Word of God as somewhat ambiguous - as something revealing the mystery of God. We just need to shake the absolutes - not prove they are wrong.

The task is to caste doubt, not doubt in God, but doubt about the surety of the "one and only one right way" to read the Bibles's message that has been promoted by fallible humans - to caste doubt on the interpretors of the Word, not the Word itself. The value of Miner and others, who in all fairness don't seem to want to replace one absolute with another, is that they fuel the doubt.

The more this kind of discussion goes on, the more likely that some - not all - more reasonable people will question the traditional interpretations.

It goes along with an e-mail I got from Mel White in which he said:

I don't debate the passages any longer with anyone, but I do believe in teaching the passages to GLBT people who are victims of biblical misuse. You might find a real ministry in opening up the passages in a fresh new way to the gay men and lesbian women who have struggled to understand them.

I think the venue is a little broader than that and includes straight people who are, at least, confused over the apparent contradiction of using God's message of love to beat the crappe out of LGBT people.

[Steven E. Webster]

Besides the linguistic evidence in the text of the "Centurion and his Boy" (my title for the story found in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10), the historical context is also suggestive. From library research, I discovered that Centurions were rather well-paid members of the Roman military establishment (note that the Capernaum Jews in the Lukan version credit the Centurion with "building their synagogue.") They were front line officers critical to military operations. Many of them were stationed by the Roman Empire in places far from home and they seem to have been legally forbidden to marry.

Then, as now, not being married was not a barrier to having sex (despite what the Fundamentalists would like to believe). Centurions could own slaves. Slavery in the Roman Empire was very different from American slavery, but one way they were perhaps similar was the fact that slaves were assumed to be sexually available to their masters. Single Centurions stationed in the provinces might have slaves or concubines who satisfied their human need for companionship.

Interpreters of the story point to the Centurion's wish that Jesus NOT come to his home, but heal his "boy" from a distance. It may be that the Centurion simply realizes that he is a "gentile" and that his home might be "unclean" to a Jew, but, as Paul's letter to the Romans (chapter 1) suggests, homosexuality was viewed as a "typically gentile" thing to do.

Another point I should also make--the Greek word for "boy" ("pais") does not necessarily mean "child." I do not interpret this story as describing what we would call "pedophilia."

I guess I should get back to that old paper I wrote on this subject while I was earning an MA in Religious Studies at Edgewood College (a liberal, Roman Catholic, Dominican school in Madison, WI that has a very ecumenical constituency in their graduate Religious Studies program). I have many more arguments for the homoerotic interpretation of this story. Alot of my argument has to do with "source theory"--where did Matthew, Luke (and John, who greatly changes the story) get this story? Why isn't this story in Mark? Does it really come from the mysterious source "Q"? "Q" is a "sayings source" shared by Luke and Matthew and scholars like to assign anything common between those two authors that does not come from Mark to "Q." However "The Centurion and his Boy" is a narrative and not a saying like other "Q" material.

My argument why this story is from a now lost early edition of Mark, and my speculation about its precise location in that Gospel were also parts of my paper--all that is too much to share here.

Part of my speculation is that there were early Christians, perhaps including Jesus, who were tolerant of gay people in the faith, but that sometime early on there was a homophobic movement to suppress "gay friendly" Christianity. Christianity had some kind of early fight between "libertines" and more "straight-laced" types, and the "straight-laced" won the fight. I put those words ("libertines" and "straight-laced") in quotes because these are not the words these folks would have used to describe themselves. (In other words, what I consider "freedom" you might consider "libertinism.") From some early Christians' perspective even Jesus and Paul were "libertines" and the "straight-laced" didn't like it one bit. Early Christianity made a shift from being the faith of subversives and outsiders to becoming the religion of "respectable society."

Steven Webster

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Mathew 8:5-13 - I suspect that this may have come up here before, but just before my time.

Are there any biblical scholars out there who can help translate?

"They also offered a different interpretation of a story that appears in both Matthew and Luke, in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal a man who is typically identified -- misidentified, says Miner -- as the centurion's servant.
That story's often preached about in straight churches," said Miner, but "nobody bothers to mention that the Greek word used to describe the sick man is the word used in the ancient world to describe your same-sex partner."

» Thom says: ☛I am not exactly a Bible Scholar. I do have my Greek Canon in one hand, Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary in the other, and a load of cultural and historical education to guide my answer. Let me plow forward and see what kind of mess I can make.

παīς :: (Matthew 8.6, 8) Child, son, daughter, descendant; boy, girl, youth, maiden; servant, slave

I might point out, that in Greek culture, it was acceptable for a man to take on a youth into his company, to educate him in many things including sensual matters. I don’t think it applies necessarily to homosexuality as we understand it today. Reading into the culturally accepted practices Greek Culture that would have allowed this Centurion, chances are the youth was his valet (personal servant) who he was grooming for adulthood, as would be his responsibility if he were a Greek.

[andrewlittle]

What Thom says is quite plausible, as is what Steven says. It is all reasonable, and it continues to throw doubt onto the collective pile of biblical certainty.

Will we ever know absolutely what the relationship was between Centurian and "boy/servant/protege". No, we won't. We don't have to. We just have to show that it doesn't necessarily mean "servant" in the context that literalists would have us believe.

May God bless us all for being curious about the Word.

[BruceChris]

But is an old question, as I might have suspected. It raises reasonable doubt, but most CC's do not recognize reasonable doubt.

Andrew, I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I am somehow a church administrator. I am on the church council, I am representitive to the Building and Grounds workteam, and as things are at the moment, I am most of the B&G workteam. I may make myself useful, but in my small but very dedicated church, there are a lot of members that do much more work than I do. It is very energising and inspiring to be a part of this church.

Andrew, Steven: Well, of course anybody who knows anything knows that the Bible was written, 7500 years ago, by the hand of God himself, in modern English!

And when you volunteered to come to my church to help out, I at first assumed that you still lived in town. MUCH appreciation for your offer, but we do have a group of inner city UCC churches that often help each other out.

Oh, well, Peace and Love, and God STILL loves all 6 Billion of us. BC

[andrewlittle]

Bruce, I was responding to Steven when I made the comment about church administration. I may have gotten my posts mixed up - that happens at my age.

Bruce said:

But is an old question, as I might have suspected. It raises reasonable doubt, but most CC's do not recognize reasonable doubt.

I agree to some extent - it is indeed an old question. I would caution against the belief that CC are allergic to reasonable doubts, however.

I am, or maybe I should say have been, CC and I was in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" camp. This, as you know, translates to, "THOSE people scare the hell out of me."

I began listening to discussions about reasonable doubts. I wanted to know what they were based on. Eventually, after realizing that bias had been injected into translations, I was even prompted to attend seminary.

Also, Cathy in her thread showed that movement is possible. I think "reasonable doubt" can have a distinct and lasting effect - it will just be slow and steady, and it will come with backlash.

I'll roll up my sleeves with the rest of you folks - if you'll have me.
Andy

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

What Thom says is quite plausible, as is what Steven says. It is all reasonable, and it continues to throw doubt onto the collective pile of biblical certainty.

Will we ever know absolutely what the relationship was between Centurian and "boy/servant/protege". No, we won't. We don't have to. We just have to show that it doesn't necessarily mean "servant" in the context that literalists would have us believe.

May God bless us all for being curious about the Word.

Andrew, I agree with you 100%. Thom, I only agree with you about 95%. In keeping with my argument for ambiguity, the word "pais" does not necessarily refer to a child or even a teenager. It could refer to a servant of any age. We do not know whether the Centurion is a Greek or a Roman. The Greek and Roman social views of same-sex relations differed. The Greeks practiced an age-differentiated version (e.g. the pairing of an older lover with a younger beloved). The Romans focused more on social status-differentiation (e.g. the pairing of a free man with a slave). In the recent past in Europe & America we tended towards gender differentiation (butch and effeminate partners), but now we have moved into a more egalitarian, gender-blind mode.

I agree that we must be sensitive to interpreting differences in culture--but I also am an "essentialist" believing that there always were same-sex attracted persons much like us in every culture. There is a biological basis for homosexuality, and there is also the cultural/social overlay or interpretation of the phenomenon. For instance, in Roman culture it would have been assumed that the Centurion would take the active "male" role in sexual relations with his slave, and the slave the "feminine" passive role---however, when the doors were closed and the lights were out we have no real idea who was "on top."

I would like to imagine the Centurion and his slave as being very much in love with one another, both adults about the same age, and neither abusing or taking advantage of the other. I believe the ambiguity of the text (and the ambiguity of the real world) allows me that interpretation.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

My remarks above about cultural assumptions also applies to things like the book "DaVinci Code."

DaVinci, when he painted "The Last Supper", followed a very long artistic tradition of depicting the Apostle John as young, beardless and even effeminate. This is testimony to a very long tradition that Jesus and John had the kind of relationship celebrated in Greek Culture of the love between and older male "lover" and a younger male "beloved."

The modern author of the fictional work "The DaVinci Code" is heterosexist when he argues that DaVinci is not depicting the Apostle John, but Mary Magdalene.

Now the artistic tradition, relying as it does on Greek cultural norms, doesn't really tell us anything much about the actual relative ages of Jesus and John or whether John had a beard or not. It doesn't even prove that Jesus and John were lovers--but it does suggest that there is an ancient tradition that viewed them as lovers. This begs the question: who were these folks that viewed Jesus and John as lovers and created this ancient tradition? There were gay and proud Christians even way back when!

Steven Webster

[andrewlittle]

I have a general question that is related to this thread.

I have spent a great deal of time, along with many, many other people, debunking the claim that there are prohibitions against homosexuality in scripture.

Is there an inherent problem trying to find places that COULD or MAY indicate the existence or even acceptance of same-sex, loving relationships in the Bible?

Since the scriptures are ambiguous, at best, are we better off letting scripture be silent as to GLBT relationships, or find acceptance?

Do we open a door that will slam shut on our hands, or is it the best thing to do?

I am just curious what others think. Thanks.

[BruceChris]

But I wish to address you a couple of posts back. When I say "CC's" I of course wish to focus on those who, variously, (A) are driven by fear, to be rigid in their thinking, stressing biblical literalism and judgement, for the purpose of controlling others, (B) have a high public profile, (C) are judgemental or unaccepting of any or all less popular minorities, (D) often make it very clear just who they believe are or are not true Christians, or are saved, or (E) have NO doubts, at least that they would be willing to admit publically.

I of course do not mean anyone like Cathy, although clearly we have very different ideas of what "conservative" means.

There are, of course, many low profile people who are conservative, but may not think very much about what that means, and rarely speak out. I might suggest that that itself is a sin, but not one for discussion here.

Now this is what I mean by CC's. If you have any modifiers that you would like me to use, please tell me what they are.

For the rest of you, please go back and re-read Andrew's last question. -- BC

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I have a general question that is related to this thread.

I have spent a great deal of time, along with many, many other people, debunking the claim that there are prohibitions against homosexuality in scripture.

Is there an inherent problem trying to find places that COULD or MAY indicate the existence or even acceptance of same-sex, loving relationships in the Bible?

Since the scriptures are ambiguous, at best, are we better off letting scripture be silent as to GLBT relationships, or find acceptance?

Do we open a door that will slam shut on our hands, or is it the best thing to do?

I am just curious what others think. Thanks.

Andrew,
Good questions. I would agree with the view that the Bible does not really address what we would call same-sex loving relationships in a direct way. In fact, scripture rarely addresses sex in direct ways. In the wedding ceremony that joined Jim and I in legal marriage in Toronto last September I made use of Ecclesiasties 4:9-12 which I take to speak of same-sex love, and to be a text full of sexual puns and innuendo (e.g. "If two lie together, they are warm. . .") In fact, our wedding rings are modeled on the "three-fold cord" referenced in that text.

Often folks on the far-right try to make an issue of the fact that "nowhere does the Bible approve of same-sex relationships." We're kind of damned if we do and damned if we don't in our struggle with the Fundamentalists, but let's just forget the Fundamentalists for now. As far as I'm concerned if I can't see myself anywhere in Scripture, then I am excluded from Scripture in an important way. Just as it is important to African-Americans to see their struggle for liberation from slavery and racism in the Bible, and it important to feminists to see "uppity women" like the Hebrew midwives in the first chapter of Exodus, or the Prophet Deborah and many others, so it is also important for LGBT persons to see themselves in Scripture.

Now that doesn't say anything about the "battle of the Bible" with Fundamentalists--I don't think our relationship to the Bible is determined by whether we score points in that battle or not. Our relationship to God and the Scriptures is not ultimately under the control of the Fundamentalists and our other adversaries.

Steven Webster

[BruceChris]

Acceptance will or will not be found in scripture. Probably both. But what I am looking for, is acceptance in law, and in society, and ultimately in most religions. I am hoping/trying to create a world in which less fear, and more communication, education and understanding will lead to more acceptance of everybody.

"Religion is not about what you believe, it is all about how you treat other people."

Dew Drop offers us one possibility.

http://www.philipslater.com/

The gradual acceptance of the findings of science is another. Did I miss something in your question?

P&L, BC

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Is there an inherent problem trying to find places that COULD or MAY indicate the existence or even acceptance of same-sex, loving relationships in the Bible?

» Thom says: ☛ Are you looking for some passage that says, “David and Jonathan had sex, and it was divine?” you are not likely to find it. Even the Secret Gospel of Mark is promising; but he never really says, “Jesus slept with the youth in the Garden” (In reference to the youth who mysteriously escapes with nothing on) any sooner than the Gospel of Mary Magdalene says she was married to Jesus. I don’t even know of any core religious documents that do in any Culture of Faith. And I don't know of any where sex is the fundamental message of the document (eccept in the ear of an acoustikoi).

I am afraid you are left with the argument, “Where does it say that” ready to counter any answer they have with other scripture.

Problem, you are not likely to change their minds. Hate stops thought, and prejudice is a dearly held form of both hate and jealousy (the shadow of greed, in turn the shadow of death’s anxieties). The best I guess we can hope for is to keep those on the fence from falling over, and keep the religious fascists from gaining fundamental political power. Oh, and to do that without being the bad guy has got to be the gift of a god.

[andrewlittle]

Thanks all,

Very good responses to my, kind of, ignorant question.

The question WAS based more on avoiding backlash from the Right by not giving up the argument that GLBT relationships are not addressed in scripture - even in the six or so passages they love to quote. It was almost like asking, "do we gain one foothold even as the other foot is whacked off."

Steve, you gave me an answer I can fully comprehend. I appreciate just about all forms of Liberation Theology with which I am familiar, so your answer was quite insightful. It is essential for everyone to find themselves in scripture, as well as to set aside the "colonial" theology that fabricated their exclusion to begin with.

Personally, I see a great many things in scripture that fully describe many of the GLBT folks I have been blessed to know. Those places don't necessarily deal with the sexuality involved, as was pointed out, but each and every one of us is far more than what we do with our genitalia, anyway. Thank God for that, because otherwise I would always fall short. (pun intended)

Thank you all for the responses. I hope my questions didn't offend.
God bless.

[Steven E. Webster]

Andrew,

Be assured that I took no offense at you questions. I understand where you are coming from. I tend to agree with a paper Mel White once wrote asserting that "the debate is over" and refusing any longer to argue scripture with Fundamentalists.

I've really been into Liberation Theologies since the 1970's. I read Paolo Friere and James Cone back then. Too bad the right-wing demonizes Liberation Theology--to me it's just the Bible!

Steven Webster

[zimnah]

Hi all:
I just went back and read all of the posts in this thread, as well as grabbed the New American Catholic Bible. I am currently majoring in both Psychology and Religious Studies at Marywood University, which is also a Catholic university run by the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, or IHM...I am one of about 8 Jews currently studying there. :-)

Andrew: I think it would be very hard to find validation in the New Testament, mainly because those scriptures are ambiguous on purpose. While the miracle that Christians believe in is not just that Jesus became flesh and blood, but also that he returned to G-d in the Resurrection. I have heard of the secret writings, but I also do not give them much credence. I do believe, however, that much of what Jesus experienced while in the flesh was left out so that the reader might focus on his holiness and purity. He had to appear different from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. They were flawed, as any human can be, and their flaws were out there for anyone to read about and know. Jesus had to be seen as different from them.

I think that looking to the Pentateuch will lead to more fruitful discussions about the validity of homosexuality...but have a Hebrew text and a Hebrew dictionary. Also, you made a very valid point with using Classical Greek to translate Biblical Greek. The same applies to Hebrew, perhaps even more so as Hebrew as it is today is a revived language. For any that have studied Hebrew, stick to the root words when translating: the context will define the root in its correct usage.

Some very good points were made regarding the culture in the time the scripture portrays, and I agree with them 100%. I did have a thought about the Centurion, though...could the servant have been Jewish, which would explain why the Centurion sought out Jesus in the first place? Jews in the Diaspora have often found themselves in servant/slave-like positions, once out of the protection of Israel. I also would like to think that the servant was well loved, which seems to be obvious given the fact that the Centurion was concerned enough about him to ask for help in healing.

I have read and reread the listings in Leviticus as to whom we should not "lie with" and have come to this conclusion: In the first part of the listing, the phrase used is "uncover their nakedness." In the one that is used to torment LGBT's, it is only translated as "lie with a man as one lies with a woman." Lev 18:22 Just using the English translation (I prefer JPS translations for this, as it is most true to the Hebrew), one could only lie with a man as if he were a woman if one had been with a woman. Given that there is an entire section dealing with a woman's "impurity" during her menses, and the laws regarding touching her or anything she lies upon, she has at least 7 days in which she is not to be touched. The Talmud has added another 5 days to that, bringing the total time each month that a man would not be permitted to touch her to twelve days. For just under half the month, he is not permitted to have sex with her (makes sense to me). Leviticus lists the other women he may not touch, which in the period of the times include the women he would have access to. The Talmud also forbids him from simply using slave girls. If he slept with his neighbor's wife, they would both be stoned to death...so that leaves his fellow males. I believe that this particular verse specifically tells a man not to replace his wife in her infirmity with a male (as he lies with a woman) just to satisfy his lust. The Talmud has defined how often, according to profession, a man should endeavor to pleasure his wife. The Kabbalah goes so far as to provide instructions on how to ensure a woman achieves pleasure. Sex is secondary in marriage, as most of us know through maturity. What we have been taught through the family purity laws in Judaism is that you have to be able to have a conversation with your spouse, first and foremost. Eve was created for Adam to be his companion and partner, so that he would not be alone.

To conclude this incredibly long post (sorry about the length, folks), the writings as well as the scripture all point to G-d's love for us all, and they tell us to deal with each other with love and respect. The one thing G-d did not define on Mount Sinai is whom we should love. If the Fundies want to take the bible literally, then the argument could successfully be made that they need to go to the original language in which the verses were written. Interpreting something that has already been interpreted leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

One last thought: it made sense then for G-d to pair up Adam with Eve, as His goal was to populate the earth, and that was the most efficient, low-tech means of achieving that goal. But passed down from them to us now is the responsibility of Tikkun Olam, or Care of the World. In a time when so many of us are at war, and live with violence and death at nearly every turn, it behooves us to find our soulmates and change the world. As I see it, G-d is the only one who is permitted to label an action "sin." It is His judgement that we await in awe. And it is His opinion that we should concern ourselves with, and no one else's.

(To borrow from BruceChris) Peace & Love, all!
--Dawn

[zimnah]

PS: We were all created with free will. G-d cannot choose whom we love, any more than we seem able to. For one thing, I would be happily ensconced with a curly brunette with long hair and enormous brown eyes...except for this man who came into my life and loves me for who I am, bisexual and all.
Secondly: I have always wondered about people who can quote alleged anti-gay verses in Leviticus with impunity while bacon-double cheesburger grease drips down their chins. If they can interpret the Bible literally with some issues, why not shoot for consistency and go "whole hog" (pun intended!) Pork, not clean. Meat and milk mixed, not clean. Catfish (no fins AND scales), not clean. Either the Bible is literal, or it is not.
I agree with Mel White in that there is no point arguing chapter and verse...but sometimes, it just feels right. It feels good to have a sense that maybe, just maybe, G-d really does understand us, and He loves us, and we'll all survive the journey.
On that note, good night and G-d bless. I love you all, and cannot tell you just how much I value this forum.
--Dawn