Re: finally, some verses...
Submitted by John Guard on April 13 1999 at 10:45:13
In reply to finally, some verses... Submitted by scott on April 12 1999 at 23:52:12
|
Scott, I did some research on those verses/situations. I find them interesting and was a little...amused by the information I found, many of which I didnt even notice before. Before anything else though, I think it will be prudent to allow the Spirit of the Bible to control our beliefs..and not our beliefs control our impression of what the Bible is saying. If we use the Bible for our own ends/agendas, how different are we from the so-called Christians who use the Bible to justify killing/persecuting gays/pedosexuals/Jews/blacks/etc? We need to see everything in context of what GOD means and not use one or two verses out of context or out of the Spirit of the Bible, which is primarily based on GOD's Holiness and Love. Regarding the centurion verse, yes ..interestingly enough, the word used to describe the servant is the Greek word Pais...which is also used as "son " or "male child". My interpolation from that is that this male servant was clearly very much beloved by the Centurion AND that there is a wide age-difference between the two. HOWEVER, this doesnt' give us the license to take the whole thing as a pederastic relationship. First of all, while it is unusual for Roman Centurions to turn to Jewish healers..remember that this is a most unusual Roman to start. He was very well respected by the JEWS...which is like an Iraqi well loved by a Jew or a Kuwaiti. That shows me that this Roman was a very caring, honorable and loving man...even to his servants, which doesnt necessarily mean that he is a pederast. We also need to be study the culture of that age. "Servants" during Biblical times are different from "slaves"..and even that is different from our American perception of what a slave/servant is. Roman servants, as opposed to slaves, are usually treasured by their masters. Also, while Romans did adopt the Greek sub-culture of pederastry..they were mostly a little more...errrr rough about it, which is obviously not in the case of this verse. Therefore, I dont think that this verse/chapter alone can be used as proof for a pederastric relationship...although I do admit that it doesnt make it impossible either. With the David/Jonathan relationship...I found that a little more..tricky to analyze. I am not sure about your age-analysis. I got differing souces of how old David and Jonathan were at the time but it is almost certain that Jonathan was considerably older than David. I think we need to remember that the Ancient Israeli culture at the time is way way way different from our...or, rather your American culture. First of all, Middle Eastern culture permits for close male to male relationships. Even at this present age, we see some cultures permitting men to kiss each other (even lips to lips) or hold hands while walking. I found it amusing when Yeltsin gave Clinton a kiss on the cheeks. Clinton turned a little red in the process :) Even "worse", in some cultures, men can hug their kids and not be ashamed of it :) Not all culture is as sex-paranoid as America or sees everything as sexual, you know :) Also, the idea of mentoring was quite permissable and encouraged in Ancient Israeli culture. Men then felt strongly motivated to mentor younger men, especially those with potential. Its a survival tactic, actually, as these men would like to impart their talents to the future. Its their form of legacy. If I was Jonathan, I would had loss my faith in my own family anyhow..especially since my dad (Saul) is such a looney :) I am quite certain that Jonathan saw that potential in David, being a hero himself. As such, one cannot immediately conclude from this chapter/scenario that there was a pederastric relationship between Jonathan and David. Secondly, we also have to remember that the Ancient Era was very very sexually...energized. The Old Testament, and to a lesser extent the New Testament are filled with sex...and in most cases...the Bible is positive or apathetic towards it. David, for example had tons of wives..while Solomon had hundreds. David wasn't criticized by GOD for having too many wives. Its only when David/Solomon allowed their sex lives overrule their allegiance to GOD that problems arose. To add to that, the Israeli culture during David/Jonathan's era was saturated with female and male prostitution and other forms of carnal ...behavior. It is quite possible that David and Jonathan, being very sexual creatures could had been bisexuals. For some reason, 'tis only Western culture that seems to be so....sex-negative while at the same time, so preoccupied with sex. I find this an interesting paradox. Nevertheless, I dont think we can conclude from this that there was something going on between David and Jonathan. The same applies to the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel verses. These verses can obviously be seen as sexual...but they were typical during that era. To talk about sex..or ones conversation laddened with sexual themes or under/overtones is as natural to them as talking about a sports game would be for Americans. You also have to remember that the AOC then was roughly twelve. Mary was roughly only fourteen when she married Joseph, who was probably twenty at the time. My point is that the Ancient Middle East culture was very sex-positive, and the Bible doesnt condemn that. It only condemns abuse of sex. Whether homosexuality is an "abuse" of sex is still in question and quite honestly, I am not sure how to view it. One of the things we need to be wary of is to stop viewing things from an American glass. The Bible is not American, you know...and will never be. The Bible is not sex-negative...it is actually very sex-positive, but only as long as it is within God's WILL...which is based on Holiness and Love. Fornication is wrong because it hurts relationships. Prostitution is wrong because it renders ones body as a cheap object. My two sheckels, John Guard |