*

+
    A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS/1
            - A review of 'The Bible and Homosexuallity' -
           [from www.religioustolerance.org]
.
/ Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 12March99 /
.
        1. General Overview & Introduction
.
 So you're a homo! Congratulations. Now the first thing you'll want to
do is gain divine approval and sanction for your social, spiritual, and
sexual madness. But how to do this? If you want to be a Christian, you
have a big problem. The Bible takes a dim view of perversion, and
there's just no getting around that. Or maybe there is? One possibility
is to join one of the many liberal and enlightened post-modern churches
that give much lip-service to the scriptures, but only accept those
portions of it that they find congenial to their vanity (4X: the Church
of the Poisoned Mind and Twisted Heart).
.
 OR you could approach the Bible in such a way that the truth of things
becomes so blurred and obscure that the only thing that remains certain
is the Lie. So how do we do this? Well, first we have to understand that
the Bible is a collection of ancient patriarchal documents of little relevance
to post-moderns, and that the people who wrote these books were very
stupid and ignorant, and did not even know what homosexuality is. Thus
the first fact to bear in mind is that the words 'homosexual' and 'homo-
sexuality' do not appear anywhere in the original language texts of the
biblical books. So of course, they had no knowledge of non-exploitive,
consensual sexual activities within the context of homosexual partnerships.
And, of course, all homosexuals are non-exploitive, consensual sweethearts
who wouldn't hurt a fly even if their life depended on it; and the idea that
most homo's are promiscuous whores and sluts is only a myth generated
by homophobic bigots afraid of their own latent homosexuality.
.
 Well, now that we have our facts straight (and we certainly don't want
*them* to be twisted, now do we?), we are ready to destroy ... ummm,
sorry; I mean: to examine what the scriptures have to say about our
collective orientation; which is genetically determined at conception,
and "cannot be changed through prayer, religious conversion, aversion
therapy or counseling, any more than race or gender can be changed."
Of course, all of these ideas are lies; as the existence of bisexuals
(genetically determined to be oriented to both genders, perhaps?) and
those who have changed their patterns of sexual behavior clearly
demonstrates.
.
 Moreover, the Wicked One (Darcy K.) was not genetically determined to
her promiscuous "freedom" and her vile "sexual liberation", but was,
rather, conceived through incest, and nurtured on the approving madness
of a corrupt and perverse Woman-Church that justifies its hatred of all
*man*kind by claiming that their grossly favored Lesbian-christians are
vulnerable and oppressed incarnations of Christ ... When the truth is
that they are monsters of spiritual death, abominations of desolation,
and faithful daughters of their true father (the Father of Lies; who
was a murderer from the very beginning).
.
 As to the modern English versions of the Bible, it is apparent that
the translators are biased homophobes who deliberately distort certain
verses so as to favor their hatred and fear. Hence we have the KJV of
the fundies, and the NIV of the evangelicals. So 4X the KJV wrongly
translates Deut.23:17 so as to condemn 'sodomites' rather than 'male
prostitutes'. Liberal Christians, however, recognize that the Bible
contains "many translation errors", and understand that these passages
"relate to customs of a long-past era that cannot be applied in today's
society." These verses are safely ignored or discarded.
.
 So whereas fundies and evangelicals view the sinfulness of a sexual
act as being defined by the act itself, liberal Christians know that
"whether a sexual act is a sin or not is defined by the participants'
relationship, not by the act itself." Of course, the Bible in no way
justifies such an interpretation of the texts; but that's OK, since
it would be inappropriate to allow the sacred scriptures to influence
or determine the way we think about things! Thus, since the Hebrew
scriptures condemns specific immoral behaviors (eg. sex in temples),
rather than homosexual acts in general, liberal Christians conclude
that safe "homosexual sex within a truly consenting and committed
relationship is not sinful." Now isn't that nice?
.
 Thus there are "biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual
behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence,
idolatry, promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within
the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry,
promiscuity and exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex
sexual behavior" ('Response to the Judicial Charge' by Jimmy Creech).
.
 In other words, if you lie down with dogs, don't be *too* surprised
when you get up and discover yourself to be with fleas!
.
 In the same way, Paul was clearly ignorant of consensual, committed
homosexual relationships, and therefore: "Perhaps Paul's criticism of
homosexuality (if that was his intent) is no longer valid today."
But actually, there's no 'perhaps' about it. That clearly *was* his
intent; and yes, the Word of God does indeed remain valid for all True
Believers (even today) ... Despite the idiocy of liberal Christians,
and all false and deceitful psychobabble to the contrary! Praise be the
Lord, who preserves us from the lies, deceptions, and double-minded
hypocrisy of evil minds and hardened hearts!
.
               Next Up:  2. The NT & Games With Words
x

+
              A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS/2
.
             2. The NT & Games With Words
.
 Now 'The Bible and Homosexuality' by www.religioustolerance.org is a
quite sizable online essay made up of the following nine sections:
.
     (1) Summary and Caution
     (2) Biblical References to Same-Sex Activity
     (3) People's Beliefs Regarding the Bible
     (4) Specific Verses From the Book of Genesis
     (5) Specific Verses From the Rest of the Hebrew Scriptures
     (6) Homosexuality in the Bible: New Testament - All Views
     (7) Same-Sex Relationships In the Bible
     (8) Conclusions
     (9) References.
.
 Now to be honest, I didn't actually go through each and every section
(I just don't have the stomach for that much drivel), but I did study
the main sections (ie. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8). So the chapter on the New
Testament is easily the most significant for our purpose here, and
it is actually quite interesting in various ways. Thus the best way to
understand what homo-hermeneutics is all about is to observe how it
actually works; ie. how it actually treats the following verses:
.
     Matthew 5:22; 8:5-13; 19:4-5; 19:10-12;
     John 3:16; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9;
     1Timothy 1:9-10; and Jude 7.
.
 Now, unfortunately, the many and various constraints imposed on
newsgroup postings (eg. the shorter, the better) do not allow me to
examine the treatment accorded to all of these citations (although I
would dearly love to do so), but I can hardly do right by the Reader
if I do not offer a detailed analysis of at least two of these
references. Therefore, I must beg your pardon for the excessive
length of this series of articles. I trust that your patience will
be rewarded if you elect to carry through to the end.
.
 Now the core feature of the homo-interpretation of the above
references hinges on what can only be called 'playing tricks with
words'. Thus in Mt 5:22 "raca" means something like "effeminate homo",
while 'moros/fool' means something like "homo shark" (ie. the homo
opposite of raca). So v.22 is thus made into a condemnation of
homophobia. In Mt 8:5 "pais" means something like "boy-toy"
(ie. young sex-slave); and in this case there is some substance
to the argument that the sexual connotations of the word have been
suppressed by translators.
.
 In Mt 19:4-5 it is supposed that the "them" of 'made them male and
female' refers only to married couples, and so has no relevance to
homosexuality at all. Now this interpretation is incredibly deceitful
and underhanded, and deliberately misses the point that Jesus is
making here. But then, that is precisely the point and purpose of
homo-hermeneutics; to draw attention away from the truth by focusing
on peripheral matters and secondary details, or (failing that) by
willful and deliberate misinterpretation.  And so it goes.
.
 The two passages, and their interpretation, that I have selected for
your edification are 1Corinthians 6:9-11 and the Epistle of Jude ...
.
          Up next:  3. These Will Not Inherit the Kingdom
x

textman
*