Possibly realizing how un-hip attacking gay youth is, the “Day of Truth” is back this year with a “hip” new video that’s really just unintentionally hilarious and sort of bizarre. Much of the imagery appears to be metaphoric but is either confusing, contrived or downright comical.
Click on the animated image to see the whole movie.
Lessons we can learn from said video: (feel free to add your own via comments)
Watch out lesbians! Conservatively dressed strangers are coming to touch you.
Walking (and stumbling) along side freight trains makes you look edgy. For more of an urban edgy look spin a basketball on your fingers.
Young anti-gays like Tyler Chase Harper and unnamed scowly kid look exactly like the twinks you might on any given night at Tigerheat.
Once again the religious right pretends to have a monopoly on the “Christian perspective.”
Choosing to remain gay only leads to a life filled with unflattering fluorescent lighting and being labeled.
A quote from “mike” a “former homosexual” featured in the spot:
Has anyone anywhere been met with anything along the lines of “don’t ask questions”, “don’t explore anything else” from any LGBTQ organizations or advocates anywhere?
My experience may be limited, but I’ve never heard anyting even remotely resembling that other than from people coming from the religious right.
Well blippie, certainly no organization that uses “Q” in it’s name. That “questioning” is there for a reason.
As for the video — I find it a lot disturbing to create a video that is obviously using the sexual attraction of the viewer to the same-sex characters on screen — to promote hatred of same-sex sexual attraction.
It reminds me of a line I heard from a friend’s dad’s one-man show on Jean Genet. Paraphrasing, it was something like “I realized that I did want to BE those other guys but wanted to f*ck them.”
I think many of us went through that moment were we realized that our fascination with certain people of the same-sex was PHYSICAL attraction.
So, this hate-filled group now trots out images of good looking people to mess with that attraction. Nice. Talk about using sex to “recruit”.
Well as a young man forced to go to ex-gay therapy, what a load of shit. What happens to these children when they are forced by age and expierence to form an identity seperate from the parents? Which parts of their upbringing will they take with them, and what happens when their parents strength wanes on their God given hormones? btw having, in the words of Cho, a “homo moment” doesnt mean your gay.
So let us not silence the truth. I would love to reference the book, but my parents burned it when I showed it to them (check borders for a copy by John Boswell), The Leviticus Code was restricted by the Papacy so that it only applied to Orthodox Jewish Rabbis during the 1100-1200s AD. Furthermore, there is a gay marriage ceremony based in Catholic tradition and this ceremoney existed hundreds of years before the heterosexual marriage vows. So which was more honored and celebrated in the time of Christ and the burgeoning Catholic Empire? For a fact check, borrow John Boswell’s books. Now for biblical verses, I will cite heavily from Bruce Lowe (no quotes will be used but this is his research). The story of Sodom, a classic example in the evils visited upon those guilty of buggery, is utterly misrepresented. In the orignal text, the word used to describe the actions in the story was “yadha.” Yadha means “to know” and is used 943 times in the OT; however, only 10 times is it used to mean HAVE SEX, and each of those instances it meant heterosexual sex. If those evil men wanted to bugger those angels, the word used would have been “Shakhabh.” So the original translation meant that these mean wanted to KNOW how these strangers(Angels) were. Hmmm no gay sex here.
As for Romans 1, verse 21 says that these gentiles would not honor God so he gave them up, and they became consumed by their passion and excess, with no discipline to stop them. However, let us consider the following: No previous verse decries homosexuality in the bible or has been properly edited by the ancient Fathers of our Church, so by logic as long as WE all honor God, our Father, our natural love for our partner is in no way evil because we have not been given up by God to be “consumed with passion.”
1 Corinthians, so often used to tell us we will not be allowed into heaven, is also mistranslated. The two words that condemn homosexuals are “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai.” Both of these have been miscontrued(*sp) into meaning homosexual in the NIV; however, malakoi means “soft”, and each time it is used by Matt and Luke, it is used to mean someone that is morally weak or “dissolute.” So if someone is of a dissolving and weak moral will, he will choose to break his marriage vows, murder, or steal. That is the sin, not loving your partner with all of your heart and soul, which has no previous condementations in the Bible. Furthermore, there are 5 other Greecian words that mean homosexual love and sex. So if none of those were used to mean homosexual sex then Paul must have meant malakoi. Oh and arsenokoitai means pederasty with young boys. Last time I checked, children are freakin’ off limits to all.
So thats the truth based on the original biblical documents, now as a 20 yr-old man I have a damn life to live. I live in the knowledge that my love is God-given and no amount of ex-gay therapy is going to change my soul.
If you know someone in ex-gay therapy, be kind and understanding to them. Never react in anger, that is what the therapist pulling the strings wants. The tortured soul, and believe me it is nothing short of unnerving mental torture to be in this therapy, needs agape, pure love, more then ever. That means listen to their story, not go for the zipper you horndogs. So those that distort the Bible for their own profit should remember 1 Corinthians 6:10 “…nor extortioners, shall inhereit the kingdom of God.” As they save, they save the best rules for last.
Please google Bruce Lowe and read his research, it is brillant and thorough.
Sorry for the length everyone, I get a bit carried away with my writing.
Credo- it’s inspiring to know that the experience of being forced into one of those programs didn’t destroy your faith. I vote you get carried away as often as you want.
It’s true about the same sex marriages in the Church. There was a similar agenda to allow them with celibacy for priests, which was an edict around the same time.
Since same gender couples bore no children, the Church allowed the ceremonies so as to inherit property belonging to the couple.
And celibate priests have no heirs either, so the Church didn’t have to compete for inheritance.
This is ultimately a self serving motive for the church, not for the masses.
Therein is the irony of the Church and procreation.
Childfree couples have more income and less competition for their funds.
Their skills and obligations as citizens through taxation supports social programs they cannot benefit from in the ways people with children are allowed to.
Poor couples with lots of children contribute even less.
So, telling the world that those of us who choose life without children are selfish, or that homosexuals are the most hedonistic and selfish people is another form of prejudice.
WE don’t take money, through the government from unwilling people we didn’t earn, simply because we had children we didn’t have the means to care for in the first place.
And those who do…now THAT is selfish!
Okay, that last statement was off topic.
Credo, I share Boo’s opinion.
I would have thought that a faith community would be happy to have someone OF that faith with, rather than get hung up on the sexual orientation of who shares that faith.
I know how important it is to belong, to feel wanted and respected because you are a caring and giving human being who betrays no one by being gay.
Family and community surely are conducive to a healthy outlook and hope.
This is why the threat of taking that away from a young person for being gay is so patently cruel.
Especially at a time when fitting in and belonging is THE most important thing for a teenager to do.
They also have interesting resources on their resources page provided by Exodus and other organizations. I’m most disturbed by the “Ten Big Myths of Homosexuality” resource…
Christine, that was seriously disturbing. I’m so glad that I don’t live in the US when I read stuff like that.
Credo- it’s inspiring to know that the experience of being forced into one of those programs didn’t destroy your faith. I vote you get carried away as often as you want.
Ditto. Thanks for posting guy.
blippie, there are ex-gay organizations everywhere, not only in the US.
As for the video – does Tyler Chase Harper remind anyone else of Kristy Macnicol and her brother? Whatever happened to them anyway?
Kristy played a bisexual cowgirl in Two Moon Junction – I guess she wasn’t a full lesbian, so that’s accepted.
The video seems like more of the same. It’s pretty weak so I hope not many who are questioning would accept it without detecting the obvious slant.
credo said:
Furthermore, there are 5 other Greecian words that mean homosexual love and sex.
I would like to know what these are. I am not aware of any Greek words which clearly mean homosexual love and/or sex in the way that we understand it.
While I happen to agree that the Bible does not explicitly condemn monogamous homosexual relationships, I would encourage you to do further study and not hang your hat on Boswell (though you did mention Bruce Lowe with whom I am not familiar). You have stated some things as a certainty where even the best admit it is simply unclear. The fact that arsenokoitai was only first translated as “homosexual” in 1958 with no new textual information to prompt that change should give some insight into how muddled some of these examples really are. I believe it or malakoi has also been translated as “masturbator” along with a string of other things. It’s really only through your own study and understanding with God that you can have some assurance concerning these passages (and the rest of the Bible).
Furthermore, there is a gay marriage ceremony based in Catholic tradition and this ceremoney existed hundreds of years before the heterosexual marriage vows.
Not that I doubt you, but I would really like to see some reference for that one!
I’m glad you seem to have made it through/out of the exgay program with your self esteem intact. Your attitude toward those going through similar programs is very kind and understanding. I can only vaguely imagine how violated one must feel at being sent by one’s own parents to such a place. It should be classified as child abuse.
David
The fact that the Christian groups think it is accetable for a teenager to call his fellow classmates shameful is so beyond bad. How would they feel if someone had a “Christianity is shameful” shirt? There are other ways to let people know that you are against homosexuality. I feel bad that this kid is swimming in his own ingorance and they are enabling it.
Well, I really wasnt kidding when I said my reference was burned. Here is the name, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell. It had passages and a translation of the actual vows. My other reference was properly called “A letter to Louise” by Rob Lowe, which provided me with the research found at the link http://www.godmademegay.com. Slightly cliche but well written. My assertions are mostly based on the above two sources. The appendix in the letter is very helpful.
I agree with your point that there are no “Greek words which clearly mean homosexual love and/or sex in the way that we understand it.” But wouldn’t it seem that the original author would have used those particular words if he was condemning gay sex in any form?
As for my certainity, I was slightly ticked off when I watched that video, it came through in my writing. But when the most profound thought process of an esteemed “exgay” therapist is to think that the reason I have nonwhite gay friends is that they are nothing more then a projection of my antipathy for my white father, I tend to stand rather firm on my beliefs. Honest questions and comments love ’em.
Thank you for the kindness, but perspective is important to anyone who feels violated. Consider it a challenge to your manhood or womenhood. After all, how can any person earn his place in the world if we are unwilling to be tempered by trials of fire? My father taught me that, in case you thought I had no respect or love for him;)
Actually, I’m pretty sure that homosexuality as we know it didn’t exist as a word in any language until the 1850’s.
Credo, I can sympathize with you. I realized I was homosexual while attending a conservative Catholic high school so while I can somewhat understand the private hell that one is put in when placed in that kind of situation. I find it remarkable that you managed to keep your faith as I found myself unable to. My mental wounds were too deep for me, I guess I’m just not a strong a person as you.
Anyways, on topic the “Day of Truth” thing in general confuses the hell out of me. It started because a school removed a student for a day because he refused to not ware something that was seen as offensive and would have been a distraction in the school environment. The fact that they call “Homosexuality is Shameful” a “loving message” makes me want to puch them in the gut and then call it a “love tap” because it’s effectively the same thing. Honestly, for the longest time I couldn’t even figure out what the dang shirt said. All the webside said was something to the effect of ‘he wore a shirt that stated his beliefs, and for that he was persecuted.’ They made it out to sound like he wore a shirt that said “Jesus loves loves all of his sheep” with a picture of a white, a black, a yellow, a red, a brown, and a rainbow sheep on there. (Think I might actually make that shirt now. It would be rather humorous I think.)
Seriously though, they make that kid out to be like some kind of martyr. It’s really kind of disgusting. They play down the fact that what he wore was offsensive, homophobic tripe and play up the fact that he was removed from school because he refused to take it off. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a book out next year called “The boy who said ‘No.'” and chronicled the “horrible injustice” that the poor boy had to go through, by not being allowed to express his little biggoted self in a learning environment. What a shame. *tear* (Wow, that sounded bitter)
“Furthermore, there is a gay marriage ceremony based in Catholic tradition and this ceremoney existed hundreds of years before the heterosexual marriage vows.
Not that I doubt you, but I would really like to see some reference for that one!”
David,
the reference is John Boswell but the book is Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.
Although his work is not an easy read, I like Boswell. His research was pretty thorough and (in my opinion) fairly convincing. But Boswell did caution the reader not to rely on him. He positioned his Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality as the beginning of a discussion and not as being conclusive.
He also was careful not to claim that the same-sex unions were “marriage”. His work showed how the ceremonies were nearly identical to marriage ceremonies but I think Boswell was concerned that if he made leaps of logic or was in any was sloppy the religious right would immediately discount all his research.
I’ve never seen anything that directly refutes Boswell’s work. I’ve seen items that say, basically, “I disagree” but never anything that can show that his analysis was less than scholarly and well documented.
“So the original translation meant that these mean wanted to KNOW how these strangers(Angels) were. Hmmm no gay sex here.”
Currently many scholars, including gay supportive scholars, accept that yadha in this case includes a sexual component. This is suggested by Lot offering his daughters as an alternate.
But this seems inconsistent with the way in which the story was understood and referenced in scripture. When the story of Sodom is discussed elsewhere, it is usually in the context of inhospitality. But don’t think that “to know” or “to talk, discuss, or question” would be adequate crime to incur God’s wrath. I suspect (for what it’s worth) that the best interpretation of the demands of the fellow Sodomites to Lot would be “send these men out so that we may interrogate them”.
Since we know that God consistently insists that we be hospitable and care for each other, interrogation of those in need who came to your city seeking shelter would indeed be seen by the God of the Jewish Scripture as a massive violation of his commands.
Those Christian leaders who love to talk about Sodom should take care that they don’t miss this possible alternate interpretation. If, indeed, God destroyed Sodom due to interrogation rather than due to homosexual activity, they’re on the wrong side of the political debate.
They are supporting an administration that is involved in the interrogation of prisoners (to the point of wishing to use torture) and that seeks “to know” about its citizens without even the use of search orders or any judicial oversight. Surely, they should be concerned.
One more rant:
Why is it that anti-gay activists feel compelled to label their lies as “Truth”?
I get so sick of these groups showing people labelled as “former homosexuals.” I’d love to see them dragged into court for false advertising.
That is an interesting thought process Timothy. However, when muslim terrorists seek the extinciton of all Christians, Catholics, and Jews, I get the feeling God doesnt mind us sending them to Hell.
I don’t have the time to do all the links (off to work, sorry) but will note the Truth as provided by Exodus….the falsehood that identical twins will be identical in all regards. Fingerprints?Exodus has been conducting research for years??? I’d like to see it.A cleaned version of Kinsey’s sample was published in way back in 1979. It excludes prison populations etc, and made diddly-squat difference to the results. The authors of the Batelle study ref. by Exodus have publically condemned the use of their study for such purposes. Check Laumann et al for a better study… 10% (or 2.7%, or 5.4% depending on what measures you are using)Exodus say any homosexual “can change”. Note: they don’t say into a heterosexual. The de-listing of homosexuality from the DSM has nothing to do with anything about change. Spitzer says “some”. That’s a mile away from what Exodus claims. Satinover ref. old and bad studies. M&J were dealing (largely) with bisexuals. Fine… same generation (and political bent) as Socarides.unsupported opinion. Not even remotely applicable to the backgrounds of the majority of gay men and women, let alone providing evidence that change therefore can occur.regurgitated vomit from Sprigg and Dailey at FRC, and (confused woman) Knight at CWFA. Exodus distorts the study findings, or promotes studies that are ill-designed for that use.”I really want to be your friend, although I will continue to spout lies 1 to 6 at you. I shall listen to Exodus, rather than you.”
BTW that’s Mike Ensley in the video.From the “former homosexual”
So the former homosexual is not a former homsexual. Wow, there’s a Truth for you…Mike is the (current) poster boy for Exodus (eg). Isn’t it odd that with all those “hundreds of thousands” of exgays Exodus needs to keep using the same one or two people — until that person suddenly is dropped like a hot potato and replaced by one or two other people claiming to represent “millions”.Johnston. Paulk. etc etc.
Timothy, regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the reason is that they were inhospitable. I mean, just for starters, God had already decided to destroy the town when he sent those angels to visit Lot, so it can’t be the actions of the men in the town during their visit that prompted God to destroy the town. Look at what the Midrash and Talmud have to say about it.
Not that that’ll prevent anyone from deciding that the focus of their current crusade was the reason Sodom was destroyed. Hell, people were claiming that miscegenation destroyed Sodom when they wanted to keep that illegal.
I’m an identical twin, so I’d like to add to grantdale’s point about twins. Obviously identical twins are identically genetically, but biological differences are everywhere.
For example, I’m about 1/2 inch taller than my brother and have always weighed about 10 pounds more (despite very similar eating habits). While both of us have bad eyesight, his is much worse than mine.
Our personality differences are also very obvious. Sure environment plays a role in a lot of this, but hormones in the womb are just the beginning of what could cause two genetically identical people to be different without having to cite choice or social influences.
To me, any study showing that identical twins have over 50% occurence rate of both being gay if one is is pretty stunning, especially considering the social factors that keep people IN the closet so long.
As much as Exodus doesn’t want people to believe it, there are lots of factors keeping people in the closet still today.
And, if anyone surveyed my brother and me about it, they’d get one gay twin and one straight one. The only problem is we’re both gay (he’s just not out).
Ok, just finally watched the video. The fact that Chase Harper is on there talking about how you have to bring love to gays is out of control.
How can anyone see the message this kid wore to school on his shirt and let him go and say you have to go to gay kids with love. There was nothing loving about his message, and, again, I can’t believe they are promoting this little trouble maker.
Brady,
interesting… I hadn’t thought of differing levels of denial or closetedness within identical twins.
Just curious … do you know that your twin brother is gay (has he told you) or are you just pretty sure?
Funny little side note… some years ago I was dating a guy who’s family “didn’t know”. Our first year in SoCal we were watching the gay pride parade when his brother went by dancing on a float. They still didn’t discuss it.
Timothy,
Up until last year I had a suspicion that he was gay, but it wasn’t more than an educated guess. Today I am 100% sure of it (found some people that know him, etc.). But, he is very in the closet. He’s always been the conservative kid, and I’m not sure he’d ever want to come out.
I’ve been out to him for 4 years now, and almost everyone in my life has been accepting. My dad was the only big challenge. Even still, coming out is a big deal, and it’s not something he may ever want to have to deal with.
I personally think differing levels of closetdness in twins heavily affect the gay twin study findings.
Timothy said:
the reference is John Boswell but the book is Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.
I’ll check it out, thanks. I thought I had a book here by Boswell but I can’t find it. I may have loaned it out and never received it back.
But Boswell did caution the reader not to rely on him. He positioned his Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality as the beginning of a discussion and not as being conclusive.
My point as well. Just as “iron sharpens iron” in a reasoned debate, I think one should view work from differing ideological perspectives when researching an issue like this. The result is bound to be closer to the truth than either one side, and sometimes it is God himself speaking to your heart that is the tie breaker.
Currently many scholars, including gay supportive scholars, accept that yadha in this case includes a sexual component. This is suggested by Lot offering his daughters as an alternate.
I suspect (for what it’s worth) that the best interpretation of the demands of the fellow Sodomites to Lot would be “send these men out so that we may interrogate them”.
I’m not sure how you got from one point to the other, but I think the logic of your first statement cancels out the conclusion of your second. I don’t have any problem understanding the use of yadha in a sexual context here. Does anyone think that God would not consider homosexual (or heterosexual) gang rape a sin? Why is it so hard to believe that, among the many sins of Sodom, this could be included? The fact that Lot offered his daughters as a substitute doesn’t mean this would have been any better in God’s eyes, but possibly shows the hospitality component kicking in with respect to his visitors. It wasn’t God who suggested they take Lot’s daughters instead, it was Lot.
Remember that Sodom and Gomorrah were depicted as seriously evil cities. I doubt there was any one sin that gave them that distinction. We have nothing to indicate for sure that the crowd (or a similar crowd) wouldn’t have acted the same way if the visitors had been female. They may have simply allowed their sexual appetites – all of them – to run unchecked.
David
Sorry, the previous comment was mine – I guess I let the session time out before posting 🙁
David
Today in Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, is an email titled :
‘A Better Heterosexual’
The writer weighs in on the effect that Brokeback Mountain had on him and a previous classic film that pulled it together for him.
http://www.andrewsullivan.com
His observation was about how excessive machismo and the expectations concerning what a ‘real man’ is, leaves young men who are simply not in that box, out and adrift with nothing to guide them but themselves.
Or sometimes the occasional movie.
This all still goes to respect for physical, mental and spiritual identity.
Who we are as individuals and understanding what makes a person simply different and what matters of ethics and morals are universal.
The immorality that violates another person, doesn’t require being taught that it has or how it makes us feel when on the receiving end of that betrayal.
It’s a built in human instinct.
We teach and should, when self determination begins to violate another person.
Our culture, Christians included…forget that too easily and often.
I don’t think it unreasonable to remind the anti gay of that either. No one has a license to violate another person, regardless of what you feel about them or their identity.
Politically, socially or spiritually.
Having said that….perhaps the emailer to AS is correct.
In respecting at least, what a homosexual is…one might become a better heterosexual.
And in this way, one is not at the expense of the other.
What I just said. I think Exodus, et al….if their material is anything like the Living Waters manual I got…it’s a book as thick as War and Peace.
I think what these kids really need is something as simplistic as what I said.
Not referrals to straight men and women using archaic books on homosexuality.
These young folks just need a straight forward understanding of what self determination, identity and ethics is.
Period.
This has nothing to do with religion or one’s spiritual identity.
Most basic ethical matters are few, simple and universal.
Smoke and mirrors is the usual tool of Exodus and company and makes them especially suspect all the while.
And of course, youth are the easiest to manipulate and therefore their preferred target.
There has also be a standard of caution around what holy texts say, and how modern society had modified itself when GROUPS mentioned are violated because of religious texts.
There are lines, clear ones regarding this and history.
This is why females can’t treated like they were then, or people of color, Jews, scientists, doctors, soldiers…or homosexuals.
For what it’s worth, here’s a study I did recently on the Sodom story. One has to go outside the Bible while ignoring the story’s original context to find any support for the notion that Sodom’s destruction was an anti-gay parable.
Posted by: Brady at February 6, 2006 06:54 PM
Brady said “As much as Exodus doesn’t want people to believe it, there are lots of factors keeping people in the closet still today.”
Brady, you’re right that the roughly 20 to 50% concordance rate of genetic twins being gay is a profound statement that genes play a role in determining gayness. The mere likelihood of which the anti-gays destructively, dishonestly, and actively deny. Similarly they deny the logic that given gays in the closet its a possibility if not a liklihood that the study concordance figures for gayness in genetic twins are too low because some twins are closeted due to societal oppression and lied by claiming to not have same sex attractions.
In the many discussions I’ve had with anti-gay religious people I’ve regularly asked the opponent to acknowledge the implications to their anti-gay arguments of many, perhaps most same sex attracted people being in the closet. On only one occaision after months of my arguments did one acknowledge there are any same sex attracted people in the closet at all. Warren Throckmorton repeatedly refused to acknowledge to me that as some gays are in the closet concordance rates for the (bailey?) studies are likely (or even possibly) artificially low.
The fact that many, perhaps most same sex attracted people are in the closet has critical implications that a great deal of the anti-gays’ statistics and “research” about gays is wrong or exagerated. The ferocity with which some religious anti-gays deny that gays in the closet may mean research and stats involving gays are exagerated or non-representative of the entire same sex attracted population demonstrates religious antigays profoundly hypocritical value of rigid adherence to a pre-judged position over the obvious truth. It seems like anti-gays such as those at Exodus believe that as long as they make anti-gay statments they are following the spirit of their beliefs and any lie in that service is okay.
Eugene,
Interesting study and I tend to agree with much of it, however you never do deal with the passage in Jude. One can hardly go to the apocrypha for one view and not deal with an opposing view in Jude. Any critical reader is going to call you on dismissing that one as an “unlikely” exception unless you explain why it is such.
David
WARNING: this posting uses some crude language. If you are offended by this, don’t read it.
David,
I come from a position that “sin” is simply a shortcoming, not quite reaching the mark, and more of an adjective that means more or less the same as the word “human”. This seems to be a more accurate translation – at least of the Greek word. So for me, a listing of “sins” (nouns) is fairly unmeaningful.
(sorry folks, I’m not welcoming a debate on this, I’m just stating my perspective)
Having said this, I do have an opinion on the Sodom story. But I don’t particularly feel a necessity to be right so I don’t discount anyone else’s take (except for the nutcase right wingers who think Sodom (et al) was destroyed BECAUSE of homosexuality specifically – which simply can’t be supported in Scripture).
However… to adress just a couple points
“I’m not sure how you got from one point to the other”.
David, you left out a middle paragraph that explains (perhaps poorly) my thought process. I think perhaps why I discount the notion that the men of Sodom were seeking sexual knowledge of the angels is that without starting from that assumption, it’s hard to get there.
While the word can indicate sexual intimacy, it seldom does. But when it does, I think our prudish culture has misinterpreted the sexual meaning. I’d have to double check but I believe it is always in reference to a wife and resulted in childbirth.
In other words, while yadha could be used to mean “know sexually”, it was never used as “to fuck”. The “sexual” meaning of the word did not stand alone but was an aspect of the “knowledge” meaning.
It is an amazing stretch to think that the same word used mostly as “to know” and on a few occasions as “to have intimate sexual interaction” would suddenly in one single instance mean “to rape” or “to fuck”. I just don’t buy it.
What is confusing is that Lot offers his virgin daughters. Many people think this offer was as an alternative. But it could equally be as a bribe or a distraction.
Let me offer a comparison. Suppose there was a man with a daughter. The villian shows up and demands the daughter be given to him. The man says “please, no, you can have my life savings”.
Does this somehow imply that the daughter was a whore? After all, there’s an offer of money!
Of course not. But we are so accustomed to the accepted cultural understanding of this story that we bring our biases to it. We see the daughters offered and say “yep, it’s about sex”.
Perhaps so. But I don’t see any compelling evidence.
“Why is it so hard to believe that, among the many sins of Sodom, this could be included?”
Perhaps it could be. As could anything, I guess. Perhaps every possible flaw a city could have was evident in Sodom. But was sexual interaction between males the (or even a) reason for their destruction?
The prophet Ezekial listed as the important or significant sins:
Ezekial 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
I think it is clear from many references that Sodom was considered to be debauched and sexually immoral and lewd (as was clearly stated in Jude). The very idea that Lot’s daughters could be used as a distraction suggests that the Sodomites were not particularly respectful of women or sexuality.
But other than the bizarre singular interpretation of one word, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that their sexual immorality had to do with same-sex activity.
However, the most significant specific reason given for the destruction of the city seems to be consistently related more to general selfishness and inhospitality than anything else.
Even Jesus discussed Sodom in terms of inhospitality:
Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
*** Disclaimer: I have not done a complete study on the subject so some of my facts listed above may not be 100% correct. I may have to go back and do decent research at some point. Also, I think this issue is fairly open to other opinions so feel free to disregard this position (though I reserve the right to be adamant if I do the research) ***
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid at February 7, 2006 04:43 PM
We come from very different perspectives 😉
David
If I may be on-topic for a moment…
WOWEE, does this video suck! I don’t see them making many new converts, for which I am forever grateful.
I laughed out loud at your “lessons”. I’ll tell my wife to watch out for the conservatively dressed strangers trying to touch her.
Posted by: ReasonAble at February 7, 2006 02:30 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. In the paper I originally wrote Jude was covered in a separate section. But I do touch on it briefly in this follow-up post.
I watched a program on KCET about human sex trafficing.
I’ve known about this for a long time. During my internship with the Los Angeles Police Dept. Forensic Photo Unit, I don’t think it would especially amaze you at just how pernicious and widespread this is.
Parents are not above abusing their kids and putting it in pics on the internet.
Nor is there an age limit.
There are some cultural differences, but not many.
Heterosexual men make up such a huge majority of abusers. Against females of whatever age of course.
Homosexual abuse is much lower, but the point is any abuse is unacceptable.
When you’re talking Biblical fables, parables and cautionary tales.
The fact that women were traded as casually or even more so than a family’s working animal, simply shows that the value and worth of women, or weak (gay) men…hasn’t grown very much in the eyes of the men in this world.
Biblical or Q’uoranic values in matters of gender based sexuality continue to be selectively and brutally primitive, not enlightened.