I must say it is rather disquieting to come down to breakfast, as I did this past Tuesday, innocently open the paper, and find in it a photograph of a sign put together by a fellow who proposes I should be put to death because of my marriage.
I mean dang!
However, I found that as I studied the gentleman’s sign more closely, I realized that perhaps I might be safe from this gentleman’s sentence of capital punishment after all.
As I read the text, so helpfully quoted from the book of Leviticus, I see that it says, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed…", etc.
As a strict constructionist, as one who takes the Bible to be the very exact and not-to-be-re-interpreted-by-all-you-liberals true spoken Word of God, I found myself drawn to observe certain key words in this verse 13 of Leviticus chapter 20. I mean to say, this is a verse that so many, from the Pope to the humblest cross-bearing believer, have judged to be one of the most important verses in all of scripture. After all, it is from these 33 words, that they have fashioned a sweeping condemnation of a sizeable chunk of humanity.
So I want to be sure that we are all reading it exactly right.
I cannot help but call your attention to certain words in this verse. First, I notice the word “also” as in “if a man also lie with mankind..” Then I look at this phrase “as he lieth with a woman.” Two things strike me.
First, it seems to me that in order to fall under the scope of this very strict pronouncement of judgment—a person must be a person of the male persuasion. Reading it quite closely and exactly, I see that it does not prohibit the liething of a woman with a woman.
So I am certain, that Mr. Adams, the maker of the sign, would not dream of reinterpreting or second guessing God’s clear dictum in this verse by supposing that there is anything at all contained within it that objects to a woman liething with a woman. That would be reading between the lines—that would be interpreting—that would be activist rewriting of God’s word—and that is something only wrongo liberals do.
Second, with this word “also” I find myself obliged to ask, why is that word “also” in there? After all, God didn’t put anything in the Bible by accident! I think that it is quite clear that in order to fall under the scope of this very strict pronouncement of judgment—a person must first be man, and second he must lie with another man, but, and this is the important part, he must “also” lieth with a woman. Because being very strict and literal about it, if a man lie with a man and he never in his born days has layeth with a woman, then it cannot be said that he “also” lie with a man as he lieth with a woman. I think that if he never did layeth with a woman, then he’s OK.
I mean if the word of God in the holy Bible had said, “If a man lie with mankind, as mankind lieth with womankind, both of them have committed an abomination,” that would be different. If God had dropped the “also” and changed “as he lieth” to “as mankind lieth,” then I fear that even the poor sixes on the Kinsey scale—that is those men who only ever lie with mankind, and would never dream of also laying with a woman, would be in trouble.
But that isn’t what God says. As I read it—in my very strict and not at all loose way—what this verse says is that bisexual men should be put to death.
Everyone else, the lesbians, and those poor male sixes on the Kinsey scale who have never gotten it on with a woman, and even those brave male fours and fives on the Kinsey scale who have righteously resisted their occasional impulse to get it on with a woman—they’re all OK!
The only ones condemned by God, are bisexual men! I tell you, it is those lousy bisexual men. They are the ones, after all, who ALSO lie with mankind as they lie with a woman. Tch. Tch. Their blood shall be upon them. So there.
But even as I am reassuring myself of this correct, proper and strictly strict interpretation of God’s word, I suddenly recall that back in ‘75—there was that one night when I was feeling really frisky. My friend Dolores and I were having such a good time, and she was looking fine and then before either of us knew what was happening, we …. Oh my God, I’m doomed!
--David Greene is the author of Unmentionables: A Novel, a gay "Gone With the Wind" for everyone.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
gaypersonsofcolor
Farleftside
Drewonimo
lorianne
cartouche
L in the Southeast
Salon.com
Comments
Lemonpulp...yes you may well be safe after all. I think I may have discovered an escape clause for so many!
Lezlie
Lezlie, yes I'm afraid when u get into Leviticus you are getting into some very strict stuff. It goes well beyond the Kinsey 3's and the beastials.
I'm thinking about writing an additional post about some of the other rules that were so clearly laid out there by the Almighty.
There is a compelling rule, for example, which strictly prohibits men from seeing a woman naked whilst said woman is having her "sickness."
Excellent piece!
Froggy, I'd love to read that piece. It sounds right up my alley. I should hate to see the beard shavers try to get out from under it. And the mixers of two fibers....what can be said for them?
Anyway, both the humor and the irony in this is marvelous.
The strict fundamentalists, though oblivious, have so many problems when they adhere to a supposedly inerrant bible. Making the history of the bible is hard enough, but, when you throw in several different presentations of laws, theology and the like, the task gets even tougher.
Great post.
To believe in Bible infallibility is to believe this isn't true, though every report proves it is, and, rather, to believe an Aramaic fisherman, who spoke no Greek, was given a Greek pun for a name, by a charismatic Egyptian Isis Culter, and years later, the Cult leaders Dad, who happens to be the creator of the Universe, smote a magician from the sky in Rome in order to be sure the reputation of said fisherman did not suffer the ridicule of being unable to fly himself.
Amen
If it is in Christian (so-called?) hands, then what is an ancient Judaic law from the days in the desert doing being used instead of Christ's teachings?
I'm just sayin'....
R
At least Leviticus had something for everyone---this powerful and wealthy church covers their misdeeds, breaks the law, while seeming to offer a loving welcome all to be brainwashed clean of their "sins".
Sadly, the Bible/Leviticus does not cover: idolotry of beehives, seagulls, handcarts; nor beehive hairdos, overeating of ice cream/punch/cookies; quilting, zucchini-lime jello marmalade, or funeral potatoes; nor swear words such as gosh-darn, what the heck and flip.
But you dont address why God used Mankind and not "another man". I wonder about that now. Could he possibly have meant you first had to have sex with at least one woman and then every male on the planet? Or is mankind meant to be each and every human being??
Now Im really confused.
She was never anything but trouble.
A clam-eater too.
If you haven't, you should read The Year of Living Biblically: One man's humble quest to live the bible as literally as possible by AJ Jacobs... it's hysterical!
So you're good. Just don't lie to any man.
I say it sounds like you're okay if you standeth or siteth rather than lieth...
or maybe it's an argument for separate beds...
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Leslie Farber
_____
From: NJDP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NJDP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Babsc@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:10 PM
To: denniscmcgrath@yahoo.com; njdp@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NJDP] Most of N.J. takes the Bible literally
For all those literal believers, we should remind them at EVERY opportunity
about the abomination of NOT following dietary laws, and the mixing of
cotton and polyester!!
B
Those of us capable of reason and insight know that the louder they whine, the deeper their self doubt.
Is adams in the proverbial closet and doesn't realize it?
BTW-As for useless yet dangerous control freaks like adams,
here is one more of his
DISGUSTING ILK
Click on it.
But now all I need to remember is "also." Even I can do that.
Heck ... just the blasphemy clause alone would depopulate the world if it were uniformly applied.