The Bible is Not a Collection of Clobber Texts
Paul B Halsall
become apparent that some posters have a little resource
of 6 to 8 Biblical texts which they use to "clobber"
pro-gay posters. The Levitiucs texts and Romans 1 are most
prominent, but some posters cannot let go of Genesis 19 [the
Sodom story] either.
To understand the Sodom story read Judges 19:22 on. The story, even
the word "to know" [Hebrew "yada"] is exactly the same, but the
story goes on to interpret the word as "the men wanted to kill
me" [Judges 20:5]. Also in this story the women are killed by the
men.
What posters fail to realise are that there are passages which
offer real support na d comfort to gay people.
Ruth 1:16-17 - which despite its use in so many Heterosexual
weddings is the declaration on one woman's love [certainly not
sexual] for another woman.
1 Sam: 20:30-42 - which describes David and Jonathan's love for
each other. They both had children, so they cannot be called "gay",
but their story resonates.
2 Sam: 1:26 - " I am very distressed for you, my brother Jonathan,
Very pleasant have you been to me;
Your love to me was wonderful,
Passing the Love of women"
Perhaps the best passage from the Hebrew Bible is this:
Isaiah 56:3-5
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
"The Lord will surely separate me from his people";
and let not the eunuch say, "Behold I am a dry tree."
For thus says the Lord:
"To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
who chose the things that please me and hold fast to my covenant,
I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters:
I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off"
....vs. 8
Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
I will gather yet others to him besides those who are already gathered"
I Take eunuchs to refer to sexual minorities in general. The passage might
also provide comfort to childless priests and to infertile heterosexual
couples.
I wonder if Diotima in the Symposium had read Isaiah :)
Paul Halsall
Christopher Monsour
>Reading over recent postings on homosexuality, it has
>become apparent that some posters have a little resource
>of 6 to 8 Biblical texts which they use to "clobber"
>pro-gay posters. The Levitiucs texts and Romans 1 are most
>prominent, but some posters cannot let go of Genesis 19 [the
>Sodom story] either.
>
>To understand the Sodom story read Judges 19:22 on. The story, even
>the word "to know" [Hebrew "yada"] is exactly the same, but the
>story goes on to interpret the word as "the men wanted to kill
>me" [Judges 20:5]. Also in this story the women are killed by the
>men.
>
>What posters fail to realise are that there are passages which
>offer real support na d comfort to gay people.
>
>Ruth 1:16-17 - which despite its use in so many Heterosexual
>weddings is the declaration on one woman's love [certainly not
>sexual] for another woman.
First of all, all kinds of love, not just sexual love, are needed in marriage.
It is absolutely appropriate to have a reading like this at a wedding. A
passage of 1 John that is also about love (but not sexual love in particular)
is also very common at weddings. (Gee--maybe because there are about 10 or so
approved passages for each of the 3 readings at a Nuptial Mass.)
Secondly, you yourself say that the love described in Ruth is `certainly not
sexual'. How does this passage support homosexuality, then?
>1 Sam: 20:30-42 - which describes David and Jonathan's love for
>each other. They both had children, so they cannot be called "gay",
>but their story resonates.
Yes. Heterosexual men love each other. Indeed, one of the most insidious
things about the current epidemic of open homosexuality is that many people
assume that close male friends are homosexual, and then gossip about
them and calumniate them.
>2 Sam: 1:26 - " I am very distressed for you, my brother Jonathan,
> Very pleasant have you been to me;
> Your love to me was wonderful,
> Passing the Love of women"
This implies that the `love of women' is naturally the stronger; otherwise,
there would be nothing left rhetorically of the statement in this passage.
>Perhaps the best passage from the Hebrew Bible is this:
>
>Isaiah 56:3-5
>Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
>"The Lord will surely separate me from his people";
>
>and let not the eunuch say, "Behold I am a dry tree."
>
>For thus says the Lord:
>
>"To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
>who chose the things that please me and hold fast to my covenant,
>I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name
>better than sons and daughters:
>I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off"
>
>....vs. 8
>
>Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel,
>I will gather yet others to him besides those who are already gathered"
>
>
>
>I Take eunuchs to refer to sexual minorities in general. The passage might
>also provide comfort to childless priests and to infertile heterosexual
>couples.
Please note the clause `who choose the things that please me' in what you
quoted.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Monsour
Paul B Halsall
texts I quoted from Ruth and Samuel. He ignored the Judges
ref though.
My point was clear, Biblical texts are polyvalent - they have many
meanings. Ruth 1 is really about a woman who has found a new
mother. It has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. It does
have a lot to do with one of the patterns for love between
women.
In 1 Samuel 20 david and Jonathon kiss each other [would this be OK
for gay men today Mr. Mansour?], and Jonathan destroys his
birth family for the sake of his friend. The passage has many
meanings: but is just as easily read homosexually as the Sodom
story. Again my point is about polyvalency.
Isaiah 56 clearly applies to sexual minorities and validates there
creativity and procreativity without children. Nowhere, as with
polygamy, does the Bible condem the making of eunuchs [which the
papal choir had until this century]. Nowhere do I deny that
sexual minorities must live a life of faith. All I deny is that
this life of faith's patteren should be set by essentially
secular social attitudes read onton God's will.
Paul Halsall
[usual apologies for typos]
John Rickert
I think this discussion started on the wrong foot. In the first
place, the subject line conveys a tone that is both provocative and
defensive. It causes discussion to start off in a charged manner and
it is not likely this charge will diminish, unless the subject is
dropped altogether.
Additionally, I think Mr. Halsell is clouding the issue. If you
want to talk about eunuchs or male-male friendships or female-female
friendship, fine. To say that a certain verse of the Bible applies to
all sexual minorities is just not valid. There is no way to assert
that kind of generality. The question we have been considering is
_homosexuality_. The other issues, eunuchs and such, are other
issues. Trying to bring these in as if they were necessarily
connected, and they are not, clouds the issue.
Finally, it seems strange to me that one would claim the Bible is
not a collection of "clobber" texts and then go on to produce texts
which appear to support his position. While I think it is wrong to
use the Bible as a curmudgeon, it is true all the same that the Bible
has things to _teach_, and we must try our best to understand and
defend the truth.
John Rickert
rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
Ted Schuerzinger
Paul B Halsall <df...@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU> writes:
> Christopher Mansour made the expected comments about the
> texts I quoted from Ruth and Samuel. He ignored the Judges
> ref though.
>
> My point was clear, Biblical texts are polyvalent - they have many
> meanings. Ruth 1 is really about a woman who has found a new
> mother. It has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. It does
> have a lot to do with one of the patterns for love between
> women.
>
> In 1 Samuel 20 david and Jonathon kiss each other [would this be OK
> for gay men today Mr. Mansour?], and Jonathan destroys his
> birth family for the sake of his friend. The passage has many
> meanings: but is just as easily read homosexually as the Sodom
> story.
It's easily read homosexually because you're imputing homosexuality
into it in order to bolster your argument. I found the same sort of
thing happening when Christa Wolf came to speak at Dartmouth last week.
For those who don't know of her, Christa Wolf was the most prominent
writer in the former GDR. She wrote a number of stories that were
somewhat critical of the regime, and which seemed thinly disguised
stories of her life. One of her novels, Cassandra, is a retelling of
the Trojan War from Cassandra's point of view. Because this story
happens to be from Cassandra's point of view, a number of professors
here have decided that Christa Wolf is a feminist writer -- which from
her other novels is clearly not the case. They find it convenient, for
their arguments, to make the claim that Wolf is a feminist writer, and
look for the tiniest scraps and imput feminism into them.
Likewise, people (both heterosexual and homosexual) impute things into
various passages without taking the entire Bible into context.
--Ted Schuerzinger
z...@Dartmouth.EDU
Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit.
Christopher Monsour
>Christopher Mansour made the expected comments about the
>texts I quoted from Ruth and Samuel. He ignored the Judges
>ref though.
I see: You posted expecting that I would make certain comments. You bitterly
accused Steve Barr of doing something similar to you (though there is no
evidence that he did), but here we have your own admission from your own
keyboard. Care to you explain this hypocrisy?
>In 1 Samuel 20 david and Jonathon kiss each other [would this be OK
>for gay men today Mr. Mansour?], and Jonathan destroys his
>birth family for the sake of his friend. The passage has many
>meanings: but is just as easily read homosexually as the Sodom
>story. Again my point is about polyvalency.
If you think that there is anything homosexual about two men kissing each
other, you are merely making my point about the insidious effects of
homosexuality on our culture.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Monsour
Paul Halsall
wrote
[deltions]
> Additionally, I think Mr. Halsell is clouding the issue. If you
>want to talk about eunuchs or male-male friendships or female-female
>friendship, fine. To say that a certain verse of the Bible applies to
>all sexual minorities is just not valid. There is no way to assert
>that kind of generality. The question we have been considering is
>_homosexuality_. The other issues, eunuchs and such, are other
>issues. Trying to bring these in as if they were necessarily
>connected, and they are not, clouds the issue.
Actaully the issue is Catholic sexual teaching. My point was that the Bible is
read in many ways. Some verses are ingnored, others are used a
proof texts. Jews developed "though shalt not seeth a kid in its
mother's milk" into half the Kashrut laws. Catholics have tended to
rely rather heavily on "Thou art Peter and on this Rock.." to justify
papal supremacy beyond any textual grounds. I said sexual minorities
would find comfort in the verses: that is true.
> Finally, it seems strange to me that one would claim the Bible is
>not a collection of "clobber" texts and then go on to produce texts
>which appear to support his position. While I think it is wrong to
>use the Bible as a curmudgeon, it is true all the same that the Bible
>has things to _teach_, and we must try our best to understand and
>defend the truth.
I discussed the various readings the texts might be given. I did not
try to use them as proof texts.
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
Paul Halsall
[deletions]
Likewise, people (both het. and homo.) impute things into various
passages without taking the entire Bible into context
END QUOTE
Precisely the point I was making.
But note that the Bible has so many writers and editors that
it is not, I think, a defensible position to say that all of it should
or can be taken into context.
I have been reading more about the David and Jonathan story, and might be
prepared to go further now in seeing a homosexual subtext than I
would earlier. I'm still mulling it over.
Paul Halsall
Paul Halsall
wrote
>Paul Halsall writes:
>>Christopher Mansour made the expected comments about the
>>texts I quoted from Ruth and Samuel. He ignored the Judges
>>ref though.
>I see: You posted expecting that I would make certain comments. You bitterly
>accused Steve Barr of doing something similar to you (though there is no
>evidence that he did), but here we have your own admission from your own
>keyboard. Care to you explain this hypocrisy?
Stephan Barr posted a letter addressed to me. My post was general, therefore
I did not expect any particular person, including you Mr. Monsour, to
post on it. I was not laying traps for anybody. Furthermore, I specifically
argued that the texts have many meanings. This seems a difficult concept
to grasp.
Paul Halsall
hal...@murray.fordham.edu
Christopher Monsour
Furthermore, I specifically
>argued that the texts have many meanings. This seems a difficult concept
>to grasp.
I have no trouble with the notion that texts have many meanings. The issue
is whether the meanings you wish to impute to them are there. There is this
leap in all your posts in this thread from non-sexual love between men or
between women to homosexuality. If you don't give a justification for this
leap, you aren't going to convince anyone of your interpretations of these
passages.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Monsour