The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay

-"~ vera ~" <verasix@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote :
-
-> The Lord is not the shepherd of the gay. The devil is. He was their
-> shepherd in Sodom and Gomorrah as well... Those people were all deat
-> later on, with some exceptions.
->

<piggybacking since i have Vera killfiled>


In ancient societies where there were no hotels, no rapid transport and
little rule of law, cultural mores governing hospitality and respect for
sojourning strangers were essentials for survival, and therefore of the
utmost importance. In the mythology of Greece, next to hubris alone,
inhospitality provoked the greatest wrath among the gods and goddesses.
This was no less the case in ancient Israel.

Hospitality is a very important item in the Bible and is mentioned many
times:

Exodus 22:21; 23:9
Deuteronomy 10:19; 14:29; 24:14-22
Leviticus 19:33-34 •Matthew 10:5-15
Mark 6:7-11
Luke 10:3-12
Romans 12:6-15
1 Timothy 3:2
Titus 1:7-8
1 Peter 4:8-10

At the center of Sodom's greatest transgression was the violation of
that ancient code of hospitality. Jesus, in recalling the doom of Sodom
and Gomorrah, says nothing regarding any sexual improprieties. Instead
he speaks of these cities exemplifying the fate of those towns which
refuse to welcome the apostles.

And that little incident brings to mind another point: Harboring unknown
strangers within a city for the night was dangerous. The residents of
the city had great reason to demand to see Lot's guests. The Bible has
recorded an incident wherein a mere two people were responsible for
bringing about the total destruction of an entire city. (Joshua,
chapters 2 and 6.) According to that account, spies were sent to discern
the nature of the city and its defenses. They were sheltered by a lady
by the name of Rahab. And despite the fact that Rahab was a prostitute,
and that prostitution was a grave sin: a short time later, Rahab's
family was the only one in Jericho which survived Joshua's attack. Why?
Hospitality.

The lands of the Bible were -- and still are -- dangerous places, with
wars of power and conquest frequently breaking out; where entire
kingdoms came and went, sometimes in the span of a mere decade. (The
Philistines, Canaanites, Persians, Macedonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians,
Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, and -- of course -- the
Israelites didn't just happen to find uninhabited patches of land; they
all fought for the property.) Is it unreasonable -- in the light of such
an event -- for the residents to be a tad paranoid and angry? Do we not
seek out and punish spies even today?

City gates were closed at night expressly to prevent lawless or
subversive aliens from entering on unknown errands, and travelers
carried credentials because they might at any time be asked to prove
that they were abroad on legitimate business. Thus we might translate
"Bring them out to us, that we might know them" as "We wish to know whom
you are bringing into our city" or (in the vernacular of WWII German
movies) "Ve vant to see your papers!"

Now we see why the bringing of strangers into the city, at night, sans
the approval of the leaders of that city, was a punishable offense. Lot,
not being a resident of that city, was naturally not deemed trustable
enough to have that privilege. In essence: He insulted the city's
inhabitants with his flagrant -- and in retrospect, obviously dangerous
-- behavior. They were out to "learn him a little lesson".

Now, as a host, it would have been a grave offense against the
hospitality code to turn his guests over to the mob. However, that
refusal created a catch-22: He had no right to shelter his guests in the
first place. He was obliged to protect them as honored guests, yet they
were guests he should not have had... Their arrival had not been
sanctioned by the city elders. Furthermore, Lot's refusal to let the
town's people have a look see at his guests only served to further fan
the flames of suspicion: Perhaps Lot's "guests" really were enemy agents
sent to spy out weaknesses within the city...

The angels were probably about to be shown the tender mercies of the
fist; perhaps to their death. (If one can kill an angel. But, since the
townspeople knew not the supernatural nature of the "guests," they
likely assumed that they were mere mortals, and thus capable of dying.)

The residents had very good reasons to fear Lot's "guests". For all they
knew -- and this was actually the case, unbeknownst to them at the time
-- their very lives were at the mercy of the strangers. Only the truly
psychopathic and/or sociopathic are completely unconcerned with threats
to their own lives. (Which raises another point: If the residents DIDN'T
try to "teach Lot's guests a lesson," they would have truly been worthy
of God's wrath over their immorality. It would appear that the city was
doomed from the very start.)


Exploring history:

The hospitality code regarding guests and practice of humiliating
enemies is well documented. From the Texts of Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit
from north Syria, circa 1400BC) we read that an ideal son is one "Who
would drive away any who would molest his night-guest." The parallel to
the Sodom story is not to be overlooked. Indeed, the editor of that text
(Winton Thomas) links the passage to the common practice among the
Bedouin AND Lot in Genesis 19.

J. Edgar Brun in "Old Testament History and the Development of a Sexual
Ethic" cites the practice of raping the defeated male enemy --
especially amongst the Egyptians -- as a form and symbol of domination.
He then links this historical fact to the later Hebrew prohibition of
male homosexual acts. He states:

"[The Israelites] too viewed sodomy [sic] as an expression of scorn; and
in a society where the dignity of the male was a primary consideration,
voluntary acts of a homosexual nature could not be tolerated. Both
parties would then be undermining the very foundation of a patriarchal
society; the one because he uses another as a woman; the other because
he allows himself to be used as a woman.

And so centuries passed, and generations of Jewish scholars continued to
understand the divine retribution against Sodom and Gomorrah to be a
lesson on arrogance and inhospitality. Only later did Church moralists
refer to the Sodom story in the context of sexual practices. (Such as
when, late in the first century A.D., the writer of the book of Jude
asserts that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave
themselves over to sexual immorality. (Jude 1:7)) Still, this is no
indictment against the homosexual orientation.


Graphology and semantics:

Some translations of the Bible speak of the Sodomites going after
"strange flesh" (Greek: "sarkos heteras"). The word "heteras" means
"different." (Thus do we get the word "hetero"sexual). As is made clear
by apocryphal Hebrew writings, Jude is referencing the Sodomites'
attempt to rape angels. It is worth noting that Jude is the only
biblical writer who connected the sins of the Sodomites to sexual
immorality and still was ambiguous regarding homosexuality.

The word "sodomite" occurs five times in the Bible: Deuteronomy 23:17; I
Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46; and II Kings 23:7. In all five cases it
translates the Hebrew word "qadesh" which means a male prostitute in a
pagan temple.

The part of the story in which Lot offers his daughters to be raped in
order to appease the crowd clearly demonstrates that there is NOT a
sexual ethic for the 20th Century in this story at all. It abuses the
dignity of women, and demonstrates that sexual _orientation_ was not an
operative concept at the time the story emerged.

But we're not done yet. The traditional concept of the sin of Sodom
arises from the fact that the Hebrew word here translated as "to know"
(yadha) is used by itself in ten places in the Old Testament to denote
heterosexual intercourse. In five additional texts it is used in
conjunction with "mishkabh" (in this context, "to lie") to mean the same
thing. But yadha appears by itself no less than 943 times in a nonsexual
connotation; meaning simply to "get acquainted with" or "learn of" in a
scholarly sense.

There is no Old Testament text in which yadha refers to homosexual
coitus, with the single exception of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah
found in Genesis. The less ambiguous word shakab, however, is used for
homosexual, heterosexual, and bestial intercourse. Shakab appears fifty
times in the Old Testament. If it had been used instead of yadha in the
Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable.
"Shkobeth" or "raba" could also have been used for their sexual
connotations, yet they weren't; lending credence to the theory that sex
wasn't what the men desired.

Moreover, even if people must insist (evidence to the contrary
notwithstanding) that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the
strangers, that's a matter of rape, not homosexual love. I think we can
all agree that rape is right up there on the list of big sins, and
further that it is an act of power, control, and violence, not of love
between consenting adults.


Some observations:

There's another Old Testament passage that is relevant. The story is
found in Judges 19:11-30. It bears a striking resemblance to the Sodom
story -- a traveler arrives at the city (in this case, Gilbeah). There
he meets an old man who is, like Lot, a resident alien. The old man
warns the traveler that he should not stay in the town square, and he
extends the hand of hospitality in accordance with Holy law, inviting
the traveler to share his abode for the night. And here too, the
permission of the city elders is not sought. So, the men of the city
surround the old man's house and demand that the traveler be sent out so
"that we may know him" (there's that "yadha" again). (It should be noted
that the traveler and the man in question were not related. A family was
allowed to provide shelter to its members without question.) The old man
refuses to send out the guest, but offers his virgin daughter and his
concubine to the mob instead. When the crowd rejects the offer, the old
man throws his concubine outside as a diversion, whereupon the "base
fellows" in the mob rape and abuse her all night, leaving her dying at
the threshold. When the Israelites learn of the abuse of the concubine,
they rise up against Gilbeah and, with God's help, destroy the city.

Here we have an instance almost identical to Sodom, except that this
time we have not mere attempted rape, but actual heterosexual rape
combined with murder. Yet no one uses this story to imply God's
condemnation of heterosexuality in general, do they? Likewise, it is
specious to suggest that the story of Sodom is instructional with regard
to homosexuality in general. Even if the original intent of both the
townsmen of Sodom and those of Gilbeah was homosexual rape, obviously
both stories are about heterosexual males who indulge in it as a sport
or game of dominance. Otherwise the offers of females as diversionary
sexual objects -- and the subsequent spurning of said offers -- in both
stories makes no sense. To extend such an offer to homosexual males
would be pointless because it would hold no interest for them. (A hetero
friend of mine has suggested that perhaps all the women in question were
overweight cows; and that, as such, the men could be forgiven for
sending them all back. His wife slapped him.)

I am reminded of a synagogue prayer recited by Jewish men which included
the expression of thanksgiving, "Blessed are you, o Lord, who has not
made me a woman." Women where chattel in these ancient societies. This
is why Lot was so quick to offer his daughters as a bribe. (BTW, had he
believed that the Sodomites were all homosexuals, why would he have even
bothered?) Lot did not want to bring dishonor upon himself. Similarly,
the Levite in Judges 19 allowed his own wife to be raped. He only got
upset when she died, rendering his "property" thus irreparably damaged.

Those who insist that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality are denying
the very Bible they claim to revere, and attempting to push a laden
camel through the eye of a needle. They are required to make five
outrageous leaps of faith:

1. Homosexual love is equal to rape;
2. "Yadha" meant homosexual acts only once or twice and something else
943 times;
3. All of the other references to Sodom's sins contained in the Bible
are in error, incomplete, or obfuscatory;
4. The strict codes regarding hospitality and the safety of travelers
were immaterial, and;
5. The concubine of the man of Gilbeah was a male.


The religious landscape:

We should also remember that the monotheism of Judaism was in strict
competition with many other religions of the time, some of which
practiced anal sex as a way to gain their god's favor. Specifically,
those gods were: Inana, Anath, Molech, Ishtar, Baal, and Asherah. These
gods had both male and female priests and having sex with those priests
was an act of worship designed to bring about the fertility of fields
and to ensure childbirth.

The Bible even records a specific instance of one of these fertility
practices: The use of "love-apples" (or mandrakes) to conceive. (Genesis
30:14-17 (Rachel bargains with Leah for the "love-apples" so that she
might spend the night sexually with Jacob.))

These Gods were popular. Molech is mentioned several times: Leviticus
18:21, 20:2-5; 1Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 32:35; Acts 7:43.

Baal, next on the "popularity poll," gets a few more mentions: Judges
2:11-13, 6:25-32; 1Samuel 7:4; 1Kings 16:31-32, 18:18&40, 19:18; 2Kings
3:2, 10:18-25, 11:18, 21:3, 23:4-5; 2Chronicles 24:7, 28:2, 33:3;
Jeremiah 2:8&23, 7:9, 23:13; Hosea 2:13-17, 13:1.

The most liked of all -- at least by way of mentions in the Bible -- was
Asherah, sometimes referred to as The Queen of the Heavens. She was also
called the consort of God or "Elat," which is the female form of the
Caananite's name for God: "El". She gets a direct mention in 2Kings
23:7. Her worshipers were called the Ashtoreths, and they and their
worship are mentioned a breathtaking number of times in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 16:21; Judges 2:13, 3:7, 6:28, 10:6; 1Samuel 7:3-4, 12:10,
31:10; 1Kings 11:5&33, 14:15&23, 15:13, 18:19; 2Kings 13:6, 17:10&16,
18:4, 21:3-7, 23:13-14; 2Chronicles 14:3, 17:6, 19:3, 24:18, 34:3-4;
Isaiah 17:8, 27:9; Jeremiah 17:2; and Micah 5:14.

So, what we have here is the authors of the Old Testament expressing a
demand that the Israelites give their loyalty and fealty to the ONE GOD
(ignoring the implied impressing of servitude in Proverbs 8:22 of
course), lest they face judgment. This was to be accomplished via the
Holiness Code; whose one major emphases was to protect the Israelites
from idolatry and help them distinguish between magical and faithful
thinking. This was indeed a problem, as can be witnessed by at least one
incident involving Jacob's wife and some terafim, or small idols, in
Genesis 31:33-35. Pagan influences can STILL be seen in Christianity
today. Ever ever wondered what Bacchus -- the ancient Greek god of
carnal pleasures and "partying" who is featured in the Bacchus Parade
held during Mardi Gras -- has to do with Christianity? Simple: He was an
influence who -- much like Mithras -- just could not be stamped out and
was thus "adopted into" this new, budding faith.

The Holiness Code had nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand
it today. The prohibitions against homosexual sex acts were meant to
keep the people in God's thrall -- and note that there are no
prohibitions against homosexuals themselves anywhere in the Bible.
Generally speaking, Old Testament proscriptions against homosexual
behavior are culturally bound, serving a distinct purpose whose time has
passed. They stem from the times of the Hebrew tribes wandering in the
wilderness and settling in Canaan. The Hebrews needed strict moral laws
governing social behavior, dietary habits and social interaction to
enforce their distinct uniqueness as a group of people. The laws
separated the Hebrews from the rest of the rabble. These proscriptions
were later codified during the crisis of the Babylonian Captivity, when
the Jews needed strict religious laws to insure their cultural survival
as a separate ("holy") people in an alien land, nothing more, nothing
less.

An example of this may be found in Deuteronomy 23:17-18:
"None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of
the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the
fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of
the Lord your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are
abhorrent to the Lord your God."

Many early gods -- Molech for instance -- had "temple prostitutes" which
one could obtain "blessings" from for a bit of coinage. There were both
male and female qadeshim available for different types of blessings.
Most of Molech's male temple prostitutes were young boys, since youth
was important. Most of the "customers" were heterosexual, and it was
easier to entice them with effeminate adolescents. Many fundamentalists
still remember that state of affairs, and try to accuse homosexuals of
being pedophiles, simply because they forget that it wasn't until God
arrived on the scene that it was suddenly immoral for men to be screwing
boys. And it would shock them to the core to travel back in time and see
heterosexuals dallying in homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:21 is a command not to "pass the seed through the fire,"
which is a prohibition against dedicating ones' child to be a temple
prostitute. For a man to seek the "blessings of Molech" with one of
Molech's male temple prostitutes was rather common. Bolstering that
admonition, we have Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 which read:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination...
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed
an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

The operative cultural bias here is that it is an abomination to treat
another man like a woman. Males were thought to be made in the image of
God; thus homosexual behavior would be seen through the heterosexual
majority's eyes as violating the image of God.

Furthermore, the "detestable" nature of lying "as a woman" refers to a
male's assuming the PASSIVE role in anal intercourse, which was held to
be an "abomination" since a male was taking on the inferior status of
women. Apparently it does not view the "active" role in anal intercourse
as an abomination, nor other homosexual acts. (I.e., fellatio, mutual
masturbation, and "sensual massage")

It's important to note that these verses, and all the others condemning
homosexual sex, are denouncing the act of male-male sex. They do not,
however, cast sentence on what we refer to in modern times as
homosexuality. Note the lack of any mention of two women having sex
being and act worthy of death for instance. People using Leviticus to
condemn homosexuality are missing the point. The verses in question are
chastising those who are male, and who choose to seek the blessings of
any deity other than God. (Thus ruining the concept of monotheism.) Now
since Molech was one of God's competitors, and since Molech had male
prostitutes, it is only logical that such items should be mentioned as
being "bad things." It is a prohibition against seeking blessings from
Molech, not a condemnation against seeking the love of another human
being.


Closing thoughts:

Has the point sunk in yet? The Holiness Codes, and similar systems that
are found in the Old Testament, were there to make absolutely certain
someone converted to Judaism and did not stray into pagan religions of
the time. Same-sex intercourse was practiced by some of the pagan
religions, and thus we see the Old Testament condemning that act because
of what it represents in the eyes of the authors: straying from the
fealty of Yahweh. Not only did the ancient religious leaders seek to
keep the Israelites from participating in temple prostitution, they
sought to eliminate ALL such pagan practices, regardless of orientation.
(It took the Israelites some 700 years to fully abandon their previous
religious beliefs and worship God alone.)

More to the point: the Israelites were instinctively concerned with
maximizing the probabilities of procreation. Religious laws governing
sexual practices reinforced that basic tribal concern. Centuries later,
when the Jews were enslaved in Babylon and the Holiness Code took the
form we know today, such religious laws reinforced the Jews' sense of
being a people set apart from the cultural practices around them. Today
we understand the dignity of women, human sexuality in general, and
homosexuality in particular in ways inconceivable to the ancient priests
who compiled Leviticus. As Christians, we are freed from the Law and
saved by grace (Romans 7:6; Galatians 5:4-6, Titus 1:15).

So, ANY unrepentant sinners -- violators of the Holiness Code -- will be
in Hell along with those "Sodomites" they so despise; unless one is
willing to concede the point that these are historical rules meant to be
examined in light of history. When Jesus came along and fulfilled the
scriptures, we see that he brought a message of unconditional love. So,
before one more person talks any more about how those fill-in-the-blanks
will burn in fiery damnation, maybe we should all bust open our
fun-filled copies of Exodus to discover why we might have first class
reservations in Motel Hell. (I know I do. I'm wearing a cotton/polyester
blend shirt, which is a definite no-no and I had a haircut last week
just before I went to Red Lobster for dinner. I am truly evil incarnate
according to the Holiness Code.)


Which brings up other questions:

- How come we never see people condemning those against immigration: as
Exodus 22:23 demands? (You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for
you were strangers in the land of Egypt.) I guess the Nativist Party is
going to Hell along with anybody against immigration.
- What about Exodus 22:2? (If a thief is found breaking in, and is
beaten to death, no bloodguilt is incurred; BUT if it happens after
sunrise, bloodguilt is incurred). All you need is a Timex to get off the
hook. Right?
- How about Exodus 22:25? (If you lend money to my people; to the poor
among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not
exact interest from them.) Hmm... Looks like the whole banking industry
is Hell-bound with those evil "Sodomites" too!
- And what of those who despise the President, or their local Governor
or Mayor? Exodus 22:28 (You shall not curse God, or curse a leader of
your people.)
- For all you graduates of "tough love" out there, may I present Exodus
21:17 (Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.)
- And for all you premaritals: Exodus 22:16 (When a man seduces a virgin
who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall pay the
"bride price" for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses
to GIVE her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the "bride price"
for virgins.

And what if this whole Sodom thing is merely an attempt to convince as
many people as possible to "join the party" with all the "believers" who
will also find themselves attending the eternal bar-b-q? What if this
entire "Sodom equals homosexuality" ploy is nothing more than a baseless
perversion of God's word? Perhaps something that was originally
well-intended, but which now has gone horribly awry. What of that?

We've seen the refutation of "Sodom equals homosexual" by the Bible's
own words. The prohibitions imposed against the Israelites were lifted
by both God and Jesus. (By Jesus in Matthew 6:25 and Mark 7:15. God
gives Peter a vision stating the same in Acts 10:9-15. And Paul echoes
those thoughts in Romans 7:6; Galatians 5:4-6, and Titus 1:15.) Those
seeking to vilify homosexuals and whom contend that they are sinful and
damned by God, simply because of a mistaken belief in ancient purity
codes -- which have been revoked by God and Jesus -- need to be
corrected. The perversion of God's word is punishable by eternal
damnation. (Revelation 22:18-19) Let us see to it that no more go to
Hell than need be.

The Bible has been manipulated and "edited" throughout time for
political gain and other less-than-holy objectives. Peruse a small essay
on the contents of the Bible or one which deals with some curious
"translations" and editings of Christianity's holy book if you like. One
doesn't need to dig too deeply to see that certain things are being
artificially placed into the Bible. A person with eyes and two working
neurons can see that some people are using distortions of the Word for
their own personal gain. The question is what to do about such things.

Let's set about correcting a dangerous myth before any more souls are
lost to the fiery depths of Hell. After all, Christians are charged with
spreading the Word, not some perversion of it...

------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

* A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and
Islam by Karen Armstrong. (Alfred A. Knopf, 1993)
* The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead by R. O. Falkner. (Brittish
Museum, London, 1985)
* The Dictionary of World Myth by Peter Bently, general editor. (Facts
On File, Duncan Baird Publishers 1995)
* The Holy Bible, 3rd Edition by White Harvest Software, Inc. (White
Harvest Software, 1995)
* The Larousse Desk Reference, James Hughes general editor (Larousse
Kingfisher Chambers Inc., 1995)
* The Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (versions 6.03 and 7.05) by
Grolier Inc. (Grolier Electronic Publishing, 1993 and 1995)
* The World of the Bible by Roberta L. Harris. (Thames and Hudson Ltd. 1995)

Peace,
• Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk

My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk

Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org

The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address