I’ve been thinking about religion a lot
lately, which is unusual for me. I believe in God, know a fair amount of the
Bible, but I do not, as a general rule, go to a place where people congregate
for shared ritual. I don’t know if that makes me a bad person or not, but I
have an awareness of God and a sincere hope that I will one day get to know the
answers to some of my questions. When I was young and hot headed, I used to
tell myself that I would insist on those answers, demand them in fact, but I
have mellowed a bit with age.
A few months ago, I engaged in a lively
discussion with some amateur scholars about, among other things, Leviticus
18:22. The King James translation gives this to us as:
“Thou shalt not lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Even this wording is a little bit stilted;
either that or it is stunningly progressive. Mankind, as I have been taught, is
a word that, politically incorrectly perhaps, encompasses the whole human race.
Identifying Womankind separately strikes me as odd, but I am sure this is a
matter of interpretation.
In any case, this phrase is one commonly
quoted by those who define homosexuality as immoral. This interpretation would
run as follows:
“If you are a man, don’t have sex with men.”
That’s an interpretation of a translation.
Also, the term abomination is an interesting word choice. Is it sinful? That
would seem like a simpler word. Abomination, despite its impressive bearing as
a word could mean something as simple as “societally frowned upon” or the more
extreme “thing which could render you unclean.” At any rate, to put it in
perspective, here are a few other things that have been placed under the header
of abomination:
- Eating pork
- Lying
- Cross-dressing
- Usury – the loaning of money at interest.
Of the above list, Usury is one where the
term abomination is used as a translation for the same term. Apparently
homosexual men are no worse than bankers, if no better.
Please understand, I am not picking apart the
original text, I am questioning translation and interpretation. For your
consideration, I ran across an alternative translation which gives this little
passage a significantly different meaning:
“And
with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a
woman's bed; it is an abomination.” (http://hoperemains.webs.com/leviticus1822.htm)
It
seems to say something similar, if not the same. However, the specific
reference to “a woman’s bed” means something a little different today. We might
to take it as a somewhat poetic metaphor for having heterosexual sex. However,
when this was written, “a woman’s bed” was a very specific thing. A woman’s bed
was her property and presumably the only place that a married man and woman lay
together. I don’t think many of us would argue that having sex with someone
else in your spouse’s bed is a pretty bad piece of behavior.
It
is also worth noting that this and other verses I have heard used to define
homosexuality as taboo behavior in Christianity deal exclusively with male
homosexuality. This could simply be gender bias of the time or simply an oversight,
but a reading of the rest of Leviticus does not support this. There are some
very specific portions on the proper method and content of burnt offerings. Moses
seems very thorough, specific and not metaphoric.
In
any case, judgment belongs to God and no one else. From my semi-informed
perspective, male homosexuality may or may not be explicitly frowned upon, but
even if so, it is just that and not a sin. There is no commandment dealing with
this.
I
have other issues regarding the organized practice of religion and what it
motivates us to do and will hopefully be able to bend your ear about them in
the future, but for now, I’d like to leave you with a paraphrase of George
Carlin’s opinions about religion:
“Religion
is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just
don't ask me to wear your shoes.”
No comments:
Post a Comment