The Good Samaritan

First things first....inspirational picture of the day!

I love stained glass windows, and this is of the parable of the Good Samaritan -- someone we should all try to be like.
The phrase "Good Samaritan" has popped up a lot in the past day. I think it might be a sign from God "This is what you're doing. And no matter how much you're getting shit on right now, I appreciate it."

Secondly, I need to write some stuff out...
I was going to write about the amazing amazing amazing touring show of Wicked that I saw this weekend. However, the sheer incredulous...crap of the past 24 hours deserves a blog entry too. And it's more on my mind. So I'm going to try posting about Wicked later.

Instead, I'm going to quickly give you an overview of the past 24 hours. My parents were driving me crazy, I went to the clubs, I met up with a friend of mine who'd just gotten out of the ER cause he wanted to hang out, nobody was really taking care of him, I paid for our food (and not just ours, his roomates' too!) which came to $35 but I only got $20 back, which I then put towards Josh's Vicodin. I went to sleep at 7, and woke up to Josh fighting with ex-boyfriend (who still lives with him) -- the ex then claimed he'd been taking care of Josh all night except, no, that was me. Today we went to Josh's grandparents so I could be reimbursed for the Vicodin and the gas I spent, but they wouldn't give Josh squat.
So I'm broke, and I'm gasless, and I'm pissed off.
But at least I did a good deed, right? That's alright, I'll get money from his grandparents some other time. We'll visit them again before I leave, and if that doesn't work, I'll charge interest and write them a nice letter.
I'm not a selfish person, I just cannot afford to be doing good deeds that cost money and not be getting paid back.

"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.

"I am Catholic, hear me roar" Part 2

So, I left off after talking about Leviticus yesterday. Today, we're still in the Old Testament but I'm sticking to one story...the story of King David. (And I'm sticking with the KJV, in case anyone was wondering.)

To start with though, I have a passage for you...Genesis 2:24-25:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

To clarify what's going on here for anyone who might not understand, this is marriage. According to the Bible, the covenant of marriage is the union of two beings into one. The husband moves out of his family's house and moves in with the bride's family. And then there's nudity.

Keep all of that in mind as we move into 1 Samuel.
Now, I'm going to point out something most people don't notice. That description of marriage is described again elsewhere in the Bible (or it seems that way). 1 Samuel 18:1-4:

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

So, basically what happens here? David and Jonathon meet. Their souls are unified into one. David starts living at Saul's house -- Saul being Jonathon's father. And then Jonathon takes off all of his clothes. It's very much like Genesis 2:24-25. I highly doubt that's a coincidence.

Especially when you consider that Saul states later in the same chapter that David is his son-in-law twice. You see, Saul tries to get David to marry his eldest daughter and that whole thing falls apart. Then Saul's younger daughter wants to marry David and Saul says (1 Samuel 18:21):

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain."

Now you're all like "Where is Graham going with this?"
Well, that one gave me some problems too (although some other versions have Saul saying "you shall be my son in law a second time" which works better. :-P) But I happened to stumble upon this one time at Religious Tolerance and they have a pretty good explanation:

"Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

So it appears that this is one of those places where the KJV translaters flubbed it up big time.

I'm not done with David yet though. In 1 Samuel 19:1-2 we discover that Jonathon loves David more than his own father -- pretty hefty stuff, especially in such a "respect your elders" culture.

"And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself:"

Now I'm just speculating here, but such a betrayal of one's father (especially when one's father is bloodthirsty) is pretty heavy. You'd have to be in love or be the absolute best of best friends with the person to warn them about their impending death. Just sayin'.

To support that whole "love" idea, enter 1 Samuel 20:41:

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."

This is after a whole chapter's worth of them both trying to make sure the other one is safe. It's all very sweet. And now they're making out. No, they're not making a quick kiss goodbye. They kissed and wept until David exceeded -- that's more than one kiss.
Also, and I haven't found this confirmed anywhere so take it with about two pounds of salt, I've heard that the word used in the original Hebrew for "exceed" can also mean "swell". Now if that's true, there's really only one thing that could have "swelled" and there's really only one reason for it.

Now, we don't hear much else about this romance until 2 Samuel 1:26, where David is singing a lament after he hears of Saul and Jonathon's deaths. He says the following of Jonathon:

"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."

There's two things that could be going on here. Either David's comparing friendship love with romantic love, which is kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison because women couldn't be "just friends" with men in that culture. Either that or David is talking about a romantic or sexual love, and saying it was better than the same type of love with women. That makes a whole lot more sense to me.

So, King David...hero of the Bible, slayer of Goliath, ancestor of Jesus. He was homofabulous.

Part 3 is coming tomorrow!

"I am Catholic, hear me roar..." Part 1

Okay, I'm not Catholic. I'm Lutheran. But the song from Altar Boyz doesn't say "I am Lutheran, hear me roar" and I don't think that sounds as good.

Anyways...today you're in for a doozy of a post, but hopefully it'll be interesting. It's a seldom heard point of view on the Bible -- but one that makes a hell of a lot more sense than the right-wing, conservative "homosexuality is a sin" bullshit. (Not that I'm biased. :-P) Unlike the religious right, I won't switch versions around -- I'm sticking with the good ol' KJV although I could pretty much go with any version. It's all about context and common sense -- watch.

This post, by the by, is dedicated to Eric...mostly because I can't comment on any of his posts right now to say on this stuff on there. :-P

So to start with....Genesis.
This first one is one of those common sense moments...Genesis 1:28 is often mentioned as proving that God frowns up homosexuality but really...

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

First of all, that's a lot of commandments to expect every single person to fulfill all of them. And also, if that's what everyone is supposed to do then we wouldn't have infertile people, would we? Aside from that: Adam and Eve are the only people alive, correct? So how can we say for certain he wasn't just telling this to Adam and Eve? When God told Noah to build the ark, not every person went and built an ark.
That's a whole lot of room for doubt that homosexuality is a sin. If this were the American legal system, the prosecution (the right-wing conservative side) would have just lost their case, and badly.

Next we come across the story of Sodom and Gomorra in Genesis 19. Now, really, this is one I get upset over and I could really devote an entire blog entry just for this. I'm going to summarize instead.
The whole idea that this story is against homosexuality, first of all depends entirely on what version of the Bible you read (some versions say the "people" of Sodom, not the "men") (albeit, the KJV says "men"). Also, it ignores the fact that the Sodomites are trying to rape the angels -- to say that homosexuality is a sin based on these passages means that, by omission only, rape is a-okay by God. Somehow I don't think God lets serial rapists through the Pearly Gates, but sends loving homosexuals to Hell. A third fact is the point that Abraham and God have this whole negotiation about Sodom and Gomorra before the attempted rape even occurs. God is already planning to destroy the cities -- the specific reason why is not even in the story.

I have one more verse from Genesis to reference, but I'll get to it later because it's really far more pertinent when it's used in reference to King David.

Leviticus has some pretty infamous verses, undeniably (at least in my opinion) anti-homosexual verses at that. Leviticus 18:22, for instance, says rather coldly:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

And Leviticus 20:13 is at least as kind:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Faced with such crushingly heterosexist verses, how can one deny that God is in fact against homosexuals and still call themselves a Christian?
Easy. By reading the rest of the book. Sure, some of the laws have clearly been lifted in the New Testament (for instance, when God cleanses the food that Peter eats in Acts). Others, not so much. Like, y'know, that one where it's sinful to touch a woman who's menstruating? And I don't even mean like touch sexually (which, ew, but that's beside the point). Ever shook a woman's hand and then found out that it was that time of the month? Leviticus 15:19-24 for your reading pleasure:

"And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean."

All I'm saying is, if you're going to preach hatred based on two lines in one book of the Bible, you best be making sure you're following everything that book has to say. I'm not saying Leviticus isn't relevant -- it is, but not as something for us to follow. The Bible tells us a story, a story with morals and rules in it, yes. But the Mosaic Code is meant to explain the culture of the ancient Israelites, not to be a rulebook.

Part 2 is coming soon -- look forward to it. It's good stuff.