tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1890042402739853351.post3504811307693981511..comments2023-05-31T08:29:45.921-07:00Comments on Musings From Hedon: Church And State Caught Fucking Behind Taco BellPenny Marie Sautereauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03954378927871092503noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1890042402739853351.post-64153536960247862902010-05-04T07:08:07.865-07:002010-05-04T07:08:07.865-07:00PART II
QUESTION 2
Sodom and Gomorrah
Yep, you ...PART II<br /><br />QUESTION 2<br /><br /><b>Sodom and Gomorrah</b><br /><br />Yep, you get that one just right.<br /><br />QUESTION 3<br /><br /><b>Lesbians and Trans people in the Bible</b><br /><br />Book of Ruth - sure, it may have been platonic, but the relationship between Ruth and Naomi could also have been lesbian. The two longers love stories in the Bible are the David and Honathan, and Ruth and NAomi stories.<br /><br />Trans people?<br /><br />Deuteronomy 22:5 isn't about trans people, it's about the sort of thing one might find in a story by Boccaccio - men dressing in women's clothing to gain access to a harem. (Which seems suspiciously like what the religious right idiots seem to do when it rails about the New York GENDA bill by calling it a "bathroom bill" that would allow "crossdressing male sexual predators free access to women's bathrooms.")<br /><br />There are three passages that deal directly with trans people - they are found in Isaiah 56, Matthew 19:12 and Acts 8. And they are all related to each other! I grant that the term eunuch is used - but Jesus himself makes it clear that there are different kinds of eunuchs, and the definition appears to be inclusive.<br /><br />The early Church Fathers misapplied MAtthew 19:12 as calling for priestly celibacy, as a symbolic rather than actual eunuch "fort eh sake of the kingdom of heaven" where anyone who can relate back to Isaiah 56 knows that this was a reference to those eunuchs who hold to God's laws, for whom there is a place in God's house and a name better than children. (This, perhaps the first reference to what would eventually develop into a theology of a heavenly afterlife, rather than to the promise of eternal life through one's progeny as was promised to Abraham).<br /><br />I can and will go toe-to-toe on sacred scripture with any pharisaiacal right wing Judaeo/Christian religionist. They are the ones who are blind to their whited-sepulchre hearts, and who for their treatment of LGBT people and their misogyny will find themselves numbered among the goats on the day of judgment (Mt. 25 - assuming one believes in the scenario depicted as being accurate).Joann Prinzivallihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08273374659694014340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1890042402739853351.post-7568484455077404122010-05-04T07:07:30.173-07:002010-05-04T07:07:30.173-07:00Okay, this is a subject that, if you visit my blog...Okay, this is a subject that, if you visit my blog, I tend to spend a lot of time on. Perhaps it is from spending three years in a Roman Catholic seminary studying for the priesthood. The Catholic Church threw me out ten years ago because of transition. I shook their dust from my sandals. At first I decided that the Mystical Body of Christ stayed with me, thus making me the <i>papessa</i> - I even took, tongue in cheek, the name Pope Joan II. On a more serious note, I do still sometimes sign myself as <i>serva servarum deiae</i>, since that's how I see myself. Theologically, I had been a cafeteria catholic for a long time, having rejected the evil immoral teachings of Catholic "moral" theology as it relates to things like masturbation, homosexuality, women and trans people. But then I unraveled the faith side, discarding all the parts that required that I "suspend my disbelief" to believe. And then I discovered that Thomas Jefferson had apparently done the same thing with te Gospels, and then I discovered Unitarian/Universalism.<br /><br />With that as prologue, let me constructively criticize your essay:<br /><br />Question Zero:<br /><br /><b>I dare any Christian/Catholic/Muslim/Jew/Other to give one ONE SINGLE VALID REASON BASED SOLELY IN FACT THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN ANY RELIGIOUS BELIEF WHATSOEVER why GLBT folks should be denied their human rights.</b><br /><br />Okay, I am being a wiseacre with this one. But let me try to answer this, with a limited societal application. For a small ethnic patriarchalist group struggling to live a semi-nomadic life in a desert area, every uterus becomes important, and to the extent possible, producing offspring becomes a priority. It might be possible that one might develop a cultural preference for heterosexual expression as a means of preserving the people. To bring in a religious reference only as an example - Namoi and Ruth may well have had a lesbian relationship - but culturally, Naomi sets Ruth up to marry Boaz, for the purpose of producing offspring.<br /><br />Not that any of that reasoning should apply today . . . <br /><br />QUESTION 1:<br /><br /><b> Leviticus 18:22</b><br /><br />My take on this is that at best it is a prohibition that is related to the misogynistic rape of strangers that seemed to prevail in some middle eastern cultures - beat an enemy in battle, and then anally rape him to show that he is "less than a woman." In places like Sodom - show strangers that the locals are the real he-men and that the visitors are "less than women" by using them the way they would use women.<br /><br />The Hebrews were probably prohibiting this sort of inhospitable behavior.<br /><br />Interpreted slightly differently, it may relate to the religious practices of the agrarian goddess religions, which involved religious practices that included sexual activity with male priests, and female and trans priestesses. Hebrews were cautioned to not participate in goddess sex-as-sacrament type religious rites.<br /><br />Forthat matter, it'spretty clear that David and Jonathan get married and have sex - it's all over 1 Samuel, and culminates in 2 Samuel, where the bisexual David (married first to King Saul's son Jonathan, and then becoming Saul's son-in-law "a second time" with Saul's daughter Michal) laments the death of Jonathan with, "the love of Jonathan was better than the love of a woman."<br /><br />Moving on toJoann Prinzivallihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08273374659694014340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1890042402739853351.post-91882490118355026982009-09-13T23:13:05.280-07:002009-09-13T23:13:05.280-07:00But... disagreement, even passionate disagreement ...But... disagreement, even passionate disagreement is not hate. Don't get suckered into thinking that it is. There is room for legitimate debate and you're establishing excellent ground rules for just such a debate. Stick to your guns because you're right. Just don't get confused about why our opponents in the debate are wrong.Tristan Berryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04136593877063481944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1890042402739853351.post-89242963194695514452009-09-13T06:14:27.691-07:002009-09-13T06:14:27.691-07:00There's also the fact that the New Covanent th...There's also the fact that the New Covanent that Jeshua (Jesus) made refined the rules and laws YHVH put forward. The materials of the Old Testament were not abolished and still have their own purpose but the law that Christians are expected to follow is no longer the old law but the Law of Agape and Jeshua's philosophies of love charity and peace.<br /><br />And not only that but the Romans quote used does not explicitly condemn anything but idolatry and then uses enforced homosexuality (literally an entire population no longer able to breed) among other things that were concentrated on more (unnamed unnatural acts, that homosexuality was separated from) as the response to idolatry.<br /><br />The worst someone could get out that is homosexuality is the glow of the fire. Not dangerous in and of itself, but a sign that there's trouble on the horizon.<br /><br />And the sin list in Corinthians is some of the most poorly translated Koine Greek I have ever seen. They misinterpreted a word made up by Paul, which has more connection to describing pedastry (men having sex with boys in mentor relationships) then it does homosexuality. But of course, the idiots calling it homosexuality because its literal meaning was a combination of man and bed.<br /><br />Because obviously, transliteration is always the best way to translate something. *eyeroll*<br /><br />So yeah, Christianity has a shit basis to discriminate, even within their own religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com