"I am Catholic, hear me roar" Part 3

We're finally moving on into the New Testament now. And we're going to start right at the beginning. Well, not right at the beginning, just in the gospel of Matthew.

Venturing back to chapter 15 of Leviticus, some (a very small number) say that the reason menstruation is no longer unclean is because Jesus healed a woman who was menstruating. Good logic, I suppose, although they must then concede that Jesus also healed a gay man in Matthew 8:5-13.

"And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."

This is another translation thing, and it's not so much an error as an inadequacy of the English language. You see, the original Greek uses the word "pais". The word for a slave or indentured servant, in the ancient Greek language, was "duolos". Pais tends to indicate a male slave kept for sexual purposes. Since the centurion was also a man, that means that there was some man-on-man action going on.
The same story is told in Luke 7. In the beginning of this telling (Luke 7:2) it seems much more homosexual:

"And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die."

So Jesus was okay with homosexuality enough that not only did he heal a homosexual -- he praised a homosexual's faith.

Matthew 19:4-5 is often cited as a condemnation of homosexuality by the religious right. Of course, this is one of those many instances where the religious right can't mention any of the passages around the verse they're using, because it becomes plain that Jesus is not referring to homosexuality at all.
Here is Matthew 19:3-8 with the fourth and fifth verses bolded. It's clearly a condemnation of divorce.

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

Yeah, pretty obviously about divorce right there.

Not long after that, in fact, two verses later, comes a bit that's a strong support for homosexuality (although not homosexual marriage). Matthew 19:10-12, where Jesus explains that it's oky if someone can't or won't get married and have kids.

"His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 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."

Okay, so probably everyone's like "eunuchs aren't gay!" Well, with the modern definition, since we have the world homosexual now, no, eunuchs are castratees. But back in the day homosexuals were considered eunuchs because they wouldn't have kids. They were actually allowed to guard harems, just like castratees.
Aside from that, simply by reading the passage, you can tell Jesus isn't referring just to castratees. The first group of people Jesus talks about includes naturally infertile people and homosexuals, for those who believe that homosexuals are born gay. The second includes castratees and homosexuals, for those who believe that homosexuals are influenced by their environment to become gay. The third group of people are the Catholic clergy and homosexuals, for those who believe homosexuality is a choice (a position, I might add, which has no basis in any factual evidence and is not supported by any verse in any holy book).

A big one supporting that homosexuals don't go to hell is John 3:16.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

And I think that's all that needs to be said on that one...

Paul's letters (Paul, who says himself not to follow his teachings but to follow Christ) are often used to condemn homosexuality, but such arguments do not stand up. Romans 1:26-27 is a commonly cited passage. But we're going to look at it in context of Romans 1:18-27, bolding the religious right's favorite part as before.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

This is not a condemnation of homosexuality because Paul is referring to a specific group of people, and just two verses before engaging in homosexual sex, they were lustful heterosexuals. Paul says that this is "unnatural" because they, unlike homosexuals, were never naturally attracted to people of the same sex.
Basically, it's a condemnation of sex without love.

Another favorite verse to cite is in Paul's Letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is used...although, never the KJV which I've been sticking to exclusively, because it doesn't have the right wording for a homophobic's agenda. I'm still going to use the KJV, I'll just bold the word that in some other versions (not all) is translated as "homosexuals" or "homosexual offenders":

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

First of all, aside from contradicting the gospel of John...there's a little problem with translating this verse.
You see, that spot I bolded has roughly a million and one things it could mean. Why, you ask? Well, because Paul used the Greek word "arsenokoitai". Google that word, you'll find everything I'm about to tell you.
Nobody knows what the word means. It's used twice, ever, both in Biblical letters. Paul seems to have made it up. Following its roots it seems to mean "manbed". From the context it's used in, it's clearly some kind of sexual sin. But to just jump to the conclusion that it must mean homosexuality? To translate it as such? There's a quote by Anne Lamott "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do." Yeah, that's pretty much what this "condemnation of homosexuality" is.

The other place "arsenokoitai" appears is in 1 Timothy 1:10, also in a list of sins:

"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

But, as I've said, you can't reasonably use this as a passage condemning homosexuality since nobody knows what Paul was talking about.

Moving on, but keeping it in 1 Timothy we find the one and only Biblical support for gay marriage. 1 Timothy 4:1-3:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

That's right. Forbidding people to marry is the doctrine of devils. There it is, black and white, the word of God. Look it up in your own Bibles if you think I'm making this stuff up. I'll say it one more time for emphasis: forbidding people to marry is the doctrine of devils.

I have one more verse to cite, Jude 1:7:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Going after strange flesh. Flesh they did not know. As in flesh they weren't in love with and flesh that didn't know them (and didn't want to have sex with them). As I said before, Sodom and Gomorra is not a story about homosexuality, it's a story about rape.

Those are the only places in the Bible that homosexuality is mentioned. Maybe I'm biased, but it all makes sense to me.
So now, dear readers (I always wanted to say that...I feel like Mark Twain :-P), you too can use this mounds of heaping evidence that God's really okay with homosexuality whenever you need to. It happens, I know.