Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 21:06:01 EST From: Gabriel Subject: Concise Compendium of Biblical comebacks. Okay, here's a list of the kinds of arguments that work, more or less. They deal almost exclusively with Hebrew Bible ( that is, "Old Testament" for some of you) quotations, but some of the methodology might be helpful in New Testament argumentation as well. Note that I'm not saying that our rights depend on whether it's okay with Christianity (far from it), but that it is always helpful to show someone that their own basic belief system supports you, rather than to try to force them to change their basic belief system. There are basically 4 arguments we can/do use when combatting religious statements that homosexuality is wrong: 1. The Cafeteria Argument: The haranguers pick and choose from Leviticus, throwing some quotes against us but ignoring ones that restrict *their* lives. 2. The Flexibility Argument: Haranguers claim that their Bible never changes, but they have actually made major changes in the last few decades. 3. The Literalness Argument: Haranguers claim to take the Bible literally, but they actually make it less or more strict, depending on what they themselves need. 4. The Sodomy Argument: If Christians truly want to keep a Judeo-Christian tradition, and if "sodomy" means "the bad things the people of Sodom did," then it is sodomy to deny queer people their rights. DETAILS: 1. CAFETERIA: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do state that it is an "abomination" "for man to lay man the laying of women." (my own translation) But other nearby lines in Leviticus deal with shellfish, pork, heterosex during menstruation, etc., prohibitions which the haranguers don't abide by. This is a very popular argument. It has the flaw that Christians believe that Jesus made some of the Hebrew Bible no longer operative, including the dietary and menstrual statements. It still seems rather "convenient" even so, but it does weaken the argument. NOTE: DO NOT include the wearing of two-fibered clothes in your list of Levitical don'ts; this is an example of a different tack. In Hebrew, Leviticus bans only the wearing of linen-wool combinations, but the English translations are unable to render the word for the specifics (the word is "sha'atnez"). This is an example, instead, that shows how the Bible is constantly mistranslated. See below. 2. FLEXIBILITY. Haranguers "would love to change the Bible," but they're powerless to do so because the Bible is eternal. But a mere 30 years ago, many American Christians believed that integration was against God's Law, because it led to the mixing of seed. In fact, many states had laws that forbade "miscegenation," interracial marriage. Also 30 years ago, Jews were uniformly guilty of the death of Jesus, to follow the statement quoted in the gospels, that the Jews of Jesus' time accepted responsibility for his death upon them AND upon their children. Now 30 years is an eyeblink in eternity, but during that eyeblink those unchangeable doctrines have indeed changed. To go back a few more eyeblinks, we no longer believe that the earth is the center of the universe; it is no longer a burning-at-the-stake offense to say that the earth itself moves. Yet the Bible still shows Joshua at the valley of Ajalon, telling the Sun to stand still so that the Israelites can keep the military advantage. And Ecclesiastes still says that generations come and generations go, but the earth stands forever. Somehow, our religious friends have managed to change their beliefs in spite of themselves. 3. LITERALNESS: In fact, NO ONE takes the Bible literally, partly because the ancient words are sometimes so old that we don't even know what they mean. Orthodox Jews have never seen the Hebrew Bible as something whose words should be taken literally. And there are certainly examples where Literal-Truth Christians find ways to bend the literal truth. When it comes to queers the bend the truth by increasing strictness: Leviticus says nothing at all about Lesbian sex (and at least one mainstream rabbi believes that this is on purpose -- Milgrom in "Bible Review," Dec. 1993), but the haranguers are prepared to restrict what they believe God has somehow forgotten. If they were true to the literal text, they'd have no complaint at all with lesbians. On the other hand, when it comes to their own freedoms, they have been more liberal. Of the Ten Commandments, two are given especially long comments, running several sentences: Observing the Sabbath and Prohibiting Idols. In the Masoretic text (the Hebrew guide for pronunciation and chanting), these two commandments are marked in several ways to force the person chanting them in public to slow down. It is clear that these two commandments are of paramount importance. How do right-wing Christians deal with the literalness of these two commandments? Well, the Sabbath is out, because it's one of the commandments that no longer apply because Jesus has come. But that is surely not true of the Prohibition of Idols. Yet churches abound with crucifixes, statues, and paintings of Jesus and the saints. Yes, it is true (for the most part) that the congregants don't pray TO the statues or pictures, but a literal usage of the scripture here would ban them. Certainly, the Hebrew prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah and the rest would not be so liberal, and I really doubt whether Jesus himself would have liked the idea. NOTE: I'M NOT SAYING THAT CRUCIFIXES SHOULD BE CONDEMNED. Rather, permitting such statues and pictures means an INTERPRETATION of the Bible -- maybe a valid interpretation -- not keeping to the literal text. They will say "I'm not actually praying to other gods," and they're right, but it is still an interpretation. And it is a particularly important interpretation. Because there is some body of scholarly thought that says that the prohibition of male homosexuality, like the prohibition against images, is to stop the Israelites from participating in non-Israelite cult worship (we know that there were male temple prostitutes in some non-Israelite temples). Well, then, if our super-strict Christian friends are willing to bend the rules a bit because they know that they are not actually worshipping other gods, then they can be just as generous when it comes to my love life, because I am not worshipping other gods, either. (This argument is based on the fact that the word "abomination" that appears next to both the Levitical verses quoted above may have a far more specific, restricted sense than just "abomination." For example, bestiality (mentioned in Lev. 18:23, right after man-with-men) is *not* considered an "abomination;" another word entirely is used. When "abomination" shows up in the Hebrew Bible, it seems to mean "foreign cult practice." It is used, for example, to explain why Egyptians won't eat with Joseph's brothers.) 4. SODOMY. Jews had 1800 years to think about Sodom and Gomorrah, between the time of the cities' destruction and the appearance of Christianity. Many legends show up in the Aggadah and Midrash. Also, the term "middat Sdom" (the way Sodom's people think) shows up in the Talmud. The material seems to mention again and again that Sodom's principal flaws were lack of charity and lack of hospitality. For example, someone who says, "Don't give money to beggars, it only encourages them," is specficially condemned as being of "middat Sdom." Also, from Ethics of the Fathers, talking about the person who says "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours," we see the quote that "some say this is the middat Sdom." Someone who would fail to give away something that would cost him nothing is guilty as well. The example that comes to mind is that some people these days are unwilling to let us talk about the ways of preventing the spread of AIDS, not only the condom but the far safer, non-penetrating forms of sex or masturbation. Are these people not then guilty of "middat Sdom," sodomy? Is it not sodomy, then, to deny queers the right to safety, a job, a place to live? NOTE: The term "sodomite" that shows up in the King James Version of the "Old Testament" is in every case (I looked them up), a mistranslation of the term "qadesh," "male temple prostitute." The mistranslation is so off the mark that the Revised Version removed it. Martin Luther's German translation uses the word "huur" instead. I hope that this has been worth your reading time, folks. I've tried my best. Gabriel