God and God’s wrath are commonly used as either warning or proof that [fill in the blank] whiuch is happening culturally, is opposed by God. Often these same Bible thumpers point to stories like Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God using His wrath. Here’s the thing. This is a win/win for the Bible thumpers. They can point to anythibng and say it is proopf of whatever, because there is no real way to refute it. God doesn’t speak from the sky and say, “No, that is just the Weather.” So, fior the thumpers, it is a perfect waepon to use and fear mongering technique. If the devastation happens to them, it tells them that they aren’t fighting hard enough for God’s Will. If the devastation happens to others, it is proof that God hates whoever was devastated.

The problem is it paints a picture of a God, no sane person wants rto worship or trust. That God who can devastate anyone, no matter how hard you are trying to be a good Christian, is a pretty mean and unjust God. Additionally, it is a picture of God that can not be reconciled with  New Testament theology. Either Christians believe in the God of the New Testament, or they really aren’t Christians at all. That N.T. God sacrificed His Son so that all human beings have eternal life. The N.T. God is one who places self-sacrifice and forgiveness above all else. The N.T. God is one of unconditional love, and a God that does unbelievable things like virgin births and resurrections. It is a God that displays power through surrender and compassion.

This is why Christianity is fighting so hard to survive, and thinking people are leaving Religion inb droves, because the God these folks claim to believe in is not the same God of their Faith heritage.

The storm killed five people and injured more than two dozen in and around Woodward, a town about 140 miles northwest of Oklahoma City, but it was the only tornado that caused fatalities. Many of the touchdowns raked harmlessly across isolated stretches of rural Kansas, and though communities in Iowa and Kansas were hit, residents and officials credited days of urgent warnings from forecasters for saving lives.

via Tornadoes Damage Midwest Towns, Residents Struggling To Recover.

So we sought to contribute another perspective that we believe can be helpful on this subject. The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to’ebah, translated in English here as “an offensive thing” or in older translations as “an abomination.” This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. In both of the contexts in Leviticus (chapters 18 and 20), male homosexuality is the only act to be called this. (Other acts are included broadly in a line at the end of chapter 18.) So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts.

The question is: Is this term to’ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to’ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative — meaning that something that is a to’ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to’ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to’ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another — in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change?

When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they’re cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don’t eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don’t find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.

 

The authors have written a book, and this post is both a response to a critique, as well as an explanation. I think this is a book, I’d enjoy reading and will be looking for it.

Very true: the Bible isn’t going away, nor is its role or the way it is used by people who believe it to be “the word of God.” So, the more we can understand about it, the better. On the other hand, does this old text really deserve the force given to it? Is it really relevant today, or do those who seek to keep it relevant do so out of their own human motives?

Theologically, what does it say that a God who is al powerful, all knowing, and all loving stopped communicating with human beings some 2000 years ago? How is it that this book is supposed to contain the fullness of the revelation of god’s word?

As we seek to understand the Bible, isn’t it also time to put it into perspective and see it as a history of the faithful (or not so faithful) and their quest to understand the Divine? Is it possible that if we stopped claiming that these translated (sometimes poorly) words from so long ago are the only revelation of the Will of the divine, we might actually start to find the divine?

 

 

 

via Richard Elliott Friedman: Are Biblical Laws About Homosexuality Eternal?.

There is a photo on my other blog, of one of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) crazies and their signs. I look at it everyday, and it got me thinking about the notion of “Nation” and if it is applicable in any way today. Most any of the Far Right anti-gay Christian Bible thumpers are caught up in the Old Testament using Leviticus mostly to support their self-righteous judgementalism. The WBC stuff comes from the Old Testament too. This is fairly insane given that it misses the whole point for the coming of The Christ, and how the death and resurrection fit into the whole of God’s plan. But that is the subject of another blog post. Here I want to think about this notion of “nation.”

Nation, in the Old Testament sense of the term is best represented by the Hebrew Nation which had 12 tribes. These tribes grow from a family lineage and have a somewhat geographic meaning in that each tribe was settled in one area or another, but the blood lineage is far more important than the geographic organization of the tribes. Nations in this sense means that everyone is alike because to some degree they are related, and most Importantly, all members of the nation are of the same Faith.

That doesn’t sound anything like a modern understanding of a nation where the boundaries are decided along geographic lines, made up of people of many lineages and bloodlines, and where, at least in the sense of our nation, are of no one Faith but represent many Faiths or no faith at all.

It can be argued that God has never destroyed any nation, even in the Old Testament because of sexual orientation. But we can clearly see where God expected all to worship only Him. From the Old Testament perspective, therefore, if anything would doom our nation, it would have more to do with the acceptance and respect for all Faiths including respect for no faith at all.

There is a connection between sexual orientation and the concept of lineage that is worth mentioning. Those who play the Queer Hater card, most always are referring to gay men exclusively when they talk about homosexuality. It is as if lesbians don’t exist or matter. This is because the family linkage of a father to his heirs/ children is all that matters. Even Jacob, the father of the the 12 tribes had 2 wives and 2 concubines who produced these 12 sons and a daughter. Not 13 tribes mind you, but 12 for the 12 sons.

This is an aside, but how about that: 2 wives and 2 concubines! What does that say about the institution of marriage that must never be redefined?

We have nothing in today’s contemporary world that allows us to apply an Old Testament concept of nation in any way that truly make sense. Any attempt to do so, is an attempt to turn back civilization to a time before science, some 3000 or so years ago. Those who wish to do so, are really more interested in perpetuating a culture where women are meaningless except as receptacles for carrying babies, and men and sons are all that matter. How appealing is that?

14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

The above passage is from the Gospel of Mark, and seemed a fitting passage to talk about following the Rapture which happened yesterday. Sure, I can hear you now. “There was no rapture,” you say. But according to Harold Camping, it was guaranteed, so I’m taking him at his word, and the Rapture happened. It just wasn’t what some believers were expecting. Maybe it wasn’t what any believers were expecting.

In the late ’70′s, I worked for Buckeye Union Insurance Company in Columbus Ohio, and there were many evangelical Christians who worked there. I almost became one of them except that, they told that dancing was a sin, and I couldn’t buy into that. They were always talking about being “in the world, but not of the world.” Yesterday’s Rapture experience speaks to that also. The idea is that believers have been trapped here in this world, and the Rapture signals the Judgement which heralds the coming of the new Kingdom of God.

But given that we are all left here today following the [guaranteed to happen] Rapture, it means one of two things:

1. There were no worthy people to be raised up, either from the living or the dead.

    

    

2. The expectation of the coming Judgement and Kingdom of God are all wrong.

    

    

The passage from Mark suggest the second explanation to be the true one (although an easy post could be written about the first). There are a few things we need to understand about the passage from Mark.

Mark was written in Greek, and the word translated as “kingdom” is basilaea. A better translation is the wealth held in common, or commonwealth. Some scholars talk of this, as the wholeness of God, but it speaks more to a sense of possession than “wholeness” connotes. In this line of thinking, the Sovereign (in a patriarchal sense- the King) has all of an area and the people in that area and all of the resources of it. The King’s role is to care for and maintain that which belongs to the Sovereign- that which is wealth held in common. In this sense, God cares for all, not because they are subservient and have earned God’s care, but because by caring, all- including God, benefits.

The structure of the Basilica come from the same base word, but tends to shift the focus to a literal space with boundaries between the sacred and the profane. The commonwealth of God, is less about a space, but more about the fact that the value comes from the care of the whole.

But the really interesting part of this passage, is the next part.  What is translated as “has come near” is better translated as ” at hand.”

At hand: meaning right here, and right now. It is within reach. I can reach out and touch the commonwealth of God, which the whole of what exists around me. In other words, the whole concept of leaving this world is way off base. We are called to see and touch the commonwealth of God all around us. We are not supposed to separate ourselves from the world but rather touch and seek out the whole of God within the world. By loving the world, and all that is in it; by caring for all that is, we are both interacting with and co-creating the Kingdom of God. Or to use a less patriarchal term, the Kindom of God.

OK, I have to say something about the first statement above- that there were no righteous to be risen up into the clouds. On the one hand, I just don’t believe that, but on the other hand, I do believe that those who see themselves as the righteous, are oftentimes the ones who are the farthest from what God expects and seeks for us to be as followers. This fits well with the teaching attributed to Jesus himself about the coming:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.   34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

This passage speaks similarly to the notion of how we care for one another and all that is around us.

OK, you may be saying however, that this passage, as well as others clearly call for a Judgement, and or a Judgement Day. This may or may not be true, I think. It can be that each of us come to our own Judgement day a day of reckoning, rather than in a mass sense.

In reality, I don’t believe the Rapture happened. I don’t believe it will. I think the interpretation of the Bible to suggest there will come such a thing is a misunderstanding and a misuse of what the Bible can do best, which is help us today understand how others before us, sought to seek the fullness of God. It is a history rather than a prediction.

As they read this week’s Torah portion, Jews the world over are likely to come across a particularly harsh lesson in divine reasoning. Instructing Moses about the eternal laws he’s to deliver to the Israelites, God commands a fearful symmetry between punishment and crime. The words he uses have become famous: “an eye for an eye,” the Lord insists, “a tooth for a tooth.”

There’s much evidence to suggest that we could use such a shot of harshness. Everywhere, from American classrooms to American Idol, we see the culture of entitlement: Whether they can actually sing or dance or do math, Americans are certain that they can, ignoring signs to the contrary. In boardrooms and newsrooms and just about anywhere else, delusional souls seek fortune and fame, break the rules, and, all too often, get away with it. In both Wikileaks and the Tea Party, we see the hissing sort of disdain for authority that, at its most extreme, can result in fatalities. An eye for an eye is the antidote to all that; an eye for an eye reminds us, in the bluntest terms imaginable, that we are masters of our own fates, that our actions have consequences, and that rather than hiding in the thicket of excuses and justifications that is so much of our public discourse today we should take responsibility for our decisions and prepare to be judged for our deeds.

I’m not sure where this is in the Torah. a quick search didn’t help me find it, but no matter where the reading resides, it is still worth talking about. Usually it is mentioned in two contexts. As a justification for handing out justice (or entitlement), or in terms of the New Testament scripture, where Jesus speaks against that idea. but I never thought of it as a warning to consider before taking an action against another, what are the consequences that you might face, and when those consequences are realized, do you take responsibility for them, or do you make a slew of excuses.

High Noon – by Liel Leibovitz > Tablet Magazine – A New Read on Jewish Life.

There is a Bible passage on the card I got for the shower (as per my assignment). Matthew 19:6, a common passage to suggest or encourage a long lasting joining of two individuals into one new being, a couple.

So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

It almost creeps me out to put that inside of a wedding card. LOL. And without getting too political (how can I help myself?) but why is it that the Religious bigots are so intent on keeping our relationships apart?

Brenda and Harriet have years of experience exploring the path of togetherness that works for them and makes them an amazing couple  in front of the Divine as well in front of all who stand as witness. Long Live Love!

This is an especially interesting passage, considering how the Bible is used as justification why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry. Imagine our society if every woman who was not a virgin was stoned to death, in front of her parent’s home. Is that what the radical Christian right is meaning when they want to protect the sanctity of marriage? There is little alternative to the interpretation: a requirement for marriage is that the woman is a virgin, and the Bible offers the punishment for a man who falsely accuses his wife as well as punishment for the wife is isn’t a virgin.

Why isn’t the National Organization for Marriage on top of this? They could be handing out the stones if they are so intent on protecting marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (New International Version)

Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Dan Leveille.

As editor Sidney Fowler said, ‘The Bible is not about beating you up, but lifting us all up.  It includes the seeds of liberation and justice.’ Be prepared to be transformed as well.”

It’s kind of like a week-by-week look at the Bible with a lens on LGBT spirituality.  And it highlights an ongoing trend between religiousity and LGBT rights.

Sounds perfect for anyone following my podcast.

The Bible is Not About Beating LGBT People Up (Gay Rights – Change.org).

I found this when I was looking up the wikipedia definition of “gay bash.”  The entry there talks about an idea presented in Byrne Fone’s book, Homophobia: A History:

The word Raca is often translated as “fool”, and sometimes refers to one who deserves to be spat upon, or was sometimes used to insult homosexuals. If this is the case, then Jesus is warning of hell fire for those who engage in verbal gay bashing as part of the Sermon on the Mount, and the warning is even harsher than Jesus’ pronouncement about murder in Matthew 5:21. The most common view is that Raca is a reference to the Aramaic word reka (see also Aramaic of Jesus), which literally means empty one, probably referring to empty headed, or foolish. The word translated as fool is Moros which has a similar meaning to the Aramaic reka, but it can also be used to mean godless, and so was a much stronger term. Some writers[who?] have argued that raca can mean effeminate and moros referring to a homosexual aggressor, and so Jesus could here be seen to be condemning homophobia. Halsall repeats this argument but concedes that it is less than conclusive.[1] Dr. Ralph Blair discounts this theory writing, “Biblical scholars say that the term probably means “empty headed” (Argyle, deDietrich, Filson, Gundry), “hollow head” (Luz), “blockhead” (Jeremias), “imbecile” (Hill) “brainless idiot” (Barclay), “idiot” (Guelich).” He goes on to write, “The editors of the New Revised Standard Version call it “an obscure term of abuse” and elect to render the text: “if you insult a brother or sister”.”[2]

This is interesting for numerous reasons. We know that there is no scripture where Jesus addresses homosexuality at all. This lack of any condemnation by Jesus can’t really be understood as an affirmation of homosexuality, but it is telling none the less. That Biblical scholars have denied that this passage could have anything to do with homosexuality isn’t the least bit surprising. People tend to see in scripture what they want to see.

Gay bashing – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This week’s lectionary readings:

• 2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19 or Amos 7:7-15
• Psalm 24 or Psalm 85:8-13
• Ephesians 1:3-14
• Mark 6:14-29

This week’s QP:

• Reading from the Hebrew Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) 2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19:1Rainbow (A very little bit Gay)
• Reading from the Psalms: Psalm 24 or Psalm 85:8-13 1Rainbow
• Reading from the Epistles: Ephesians 1:3-14: 1Rainbow (Not Gay at all!)
• Reading from the Gospels: Mark 6:14-29: 21Rainbows (Not Gay at all!)

Overall QP: 1Rainbow. Not very Gay overall

Notes or References:

Book: Jonathan Loved David, by Thomas Horner

Book: What the bible Really Says about Homosexuality, by Daniel Helminiak

? Both of these books have been around for a while and are good resources. I have met Daniel Helminiak and he is a great guy.

Next Week’s Readings:

• 2 Samuel 7:1-14a or Jeremiah 23:1-6
• Psalm 89:20-37 or Psalm 23
• Ephesians 2:11-22
• Mark 6:30-34, 53-56