Comment regarding future podcast related to Homosexuality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2012, 12:26 PM
Comment regarding future podcast related to Homosexuality
I am looking forward to the upcoming podcast that Seth has referred to in the 'Religion and Sexuality' talk, but wanted to make a request. Oh, I hope I'm not going to work that day so that I can call into the show, but just in case here is my thoughts...

Seth, if you are going to dive into homosexuality and the Bible, there are several key passages that I believe you must acknowledge during the show. I'm no expert on quoting the Bible, so passages are approximate. I like how religious people can feel smart by recalling their brainwashed teachings chapter by chapter and verse by verse, and feeling so vain about themselves in the process. What's also more remarkable is the fact that they will smooth talk themselves or completely forget passages that don't reflect their own personal opinions.

1) Of course you have to mention Leviticus and how homosexuality is an abomination, but we have to call out the fact that it interestingly omits lesbianism. When it says, "Man shall not lie with another man, AS he lies with a woman," it clearly says only men lying with other men. There is a distinction that it doesn't say that womankind can't lie with womankind, as she would a man. I've heard a lot of apologetic arguments that when the Bible says MAN, God is referring to both men and women. I find that sooo confusing since the written text does clearly define the genders in the statment. Need we also say that Red Lobster is an abomination too, as well as shaving hehe. I always get a kick out of that one. I'll still say that the Judeo-Christian God is a pervert and a home-wrecker, after all he likes lesbians and runs off when he knocks up women lol. Where's Mary's child support?

2) Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to the population being inhospitable towards the guest angels, not homosexuality. Lot's daughters then get their father drunk and rape him? Family values indeed.

3) The relationship between David and Jonathan has to be looked into, as well as the relationship shared between Ruth and Naomi. Language, especially is key when looking into the Ruth and Samuels chapters. David and Jonathan found grace in each other's eyes? The eyes in those times, known also as the windows into the soul, symbolize intense feeling of connection and intimacy. David and Jonathan on numerous occasions professed their love for each other and even went so far as to call it a covenant. Marriage is a form of covenant. There is clearly something more than friendship here when Saul confronts his son Jonathan over why he'd choose to be with David and proclaimed him to be "confused to thy mother's own nakedness" (1 Samuel 20:30), Jonathan, a prince who disrobed himself in front of David, a commoner at the time (1 Samuel 18:4), and they even kissed one another (1 Samuel 20:41). This story is so gay that it could have been written by the Greeks, and it is such a beautiful story too. I clearly do not understand why conservative Christians turn a blind eye to David and Jonathan's love. Now, I know that David had wives, but in those days polygamy was a major thing. I believe that David was bisexual and Jonathan was a husband of his. "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

Now, David and Jonathan was one thing, but then there is Ruth and Naomi to deal with. Both of which had husbands, and were both widowed. "Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you! (Ruth 1: 16-17) In the lines preceding this honest statement of love, "Ruth [clung] to Naomi." The word clung is important since this same phrase was used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt towards Eve. Now it is also interesting to hear that Ruth would be more apt to be buried with Naomi and not her expired husband, or that they would share a house together, and that she'd adopt Naomi's people and religion as her own. Ruth 1:16-17 is actually the most commonly referred to passage used as wedding vows for traditional marriages (Go figure!). Do you think that a straight, conservative Christian couple would even acknowledge the fact that the vows they took "until death do we part," are actually the words used to profess the love between two women?

Now, why does the Bible do this? This is crazy for our opponents to use this text against us [by us I am more-so referring to the gay population and straight allies] when they themselves don't even know their own religious text. If "God" hated gay people so much, then why would he devote so much time in his book towards the love between two women and then again towards the love of two men? There are only 3 distinctive love stories in the Bible and the third isn't Adam and Eve, in fact the Bible doesn't really spend much time with Adam and Eve at all unless you read the "BANNED" chapter of Enoch. The other love story is found in the Song of Solomon, and Solomon is not even talking about his primary "wife" but a lesser contraband. In fact if you read the Bible front to back, you will not find a single "traditional" posterchild family that religious conservatives proclaim is the only option. Let's just ignore the amount of sex slavery and polygamy that goes on in the Old Testament. Adam and Eve seem to be a good candidate, but then you take in all the incest that had to take place, as well as the fact that their son Cain murdered his brother. Even Jesus' situation is not "traditional." His father Joseph is merely a stepfather.

4) Where in the Bible does it mention hermaphrodites or the intersexed? The closest was in a statement by Jesus, but the Bible doesn't really mention hermaphrodites at all. Jesus said in Matthew 19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." This more-or-less is talking more about sterile persons. Christians I talk to sometimes are completely ignorant to human sexuality and it just goes over their heads that some people are born both male and female. They think I'm making it up, they say it can't happen. And, those that acknowledge the existence of the intersexed would say that whatever is on their birth certificate is the gender at which they are to be because that is what the expert doctor writes. WHAT? Since when do religious people actually say that someone with a PhD [not in philosophy or religious studies] is an expert? Most Christians believe that intelligent people are the most ignorant of their dogma.

5) Mark 7:14-16 holds an interesting phrase, "Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” Even as an atheist, I understand the importance of this statement. Something that is of consent is not sinful or wrong, but it is sinful or wrong to do something without consent such as rape. Conservative Christians misunderstand the actual biblical statements regarding homosexuality by confusing consensual behavior with rape or pedophilia. Consensual sex and sex without consent are not the same thing, but Christians see them as the same. They need to grow up.

If you survived reading this long, I applaud you. My rant or sermon is over, so get back to your lives people and I hope to hear some of the points I made brought up during the podcast if possible. It would be great to hear some of these thoughts there because I find these 5 points to be key to the civil rights of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters fighting oppression from ignorant conservative Christian fools who don't even know their own text. Remember, it was the Bible that Douglas used as justification to keep slavery the law of the land during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Remember it was Helen Johnson who used the Bible as justification to keep women from voting. Remember it is people like Pat Robertson that are using the Bible against gay people and their rights. We need to use their own text against them in order to change minds and beat them at their own game. Good day. =)

PS: Quincy, Illinois has a nice little plaque and display of the arguments used for and against slavery in their downtown Washington Park. Quincy was the largest city of which Lincoln and Douglas debated. I'm not just saying this because I grew up there =p
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 12:28 PM
RE: Comment regarding future podcast related to Homosexuality
Not that these are bad ideas, but you should email Seth through his YouTube or Facebook pages. He doesn't come on this forum at all.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 12:33 PM
RE: Comment regarding future podcast related to Homosexuality
email Seth here:

editor@thethinkingatheist.com

[Image: StarkLord01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 02:12 PM
RE: Comment regarding future podcast related to Homosexuality
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand done lol. Maybe we should have a disclaimer or something.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2012, 02:30 PM
RE: Comment regarding future podcast related to Homosexuality
Perhaps add a note at the bottom of the rules section with Seths email address?

[Image: StarkLord01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: