Love and Marriage–and the Bible

Most of the problems in the contemporary word come because of bad translations and even worse interpretations.  This is easily seen in the graphic accounts of same-sex love and marriage in the Old Testament.

I offer these contemplations because of a letter that I received from my friend Nora in Georgetown, Texas, USA.  She wrote:

Since when does the law of the United States have to limit itself to what is allowable in The Bible?  If there is a separation of Church and State, then why is gay marriage banned because The Bible forbids it?
 
The Bible condones polygamy [1 Kings 11:1-3, Solomons 700 wives, Genesis 4:19; Lamech “took unto him two wives. Genesis 16:1-4 discusses Abram who had two wives and sold one (Sarah)  into prostitution and cast away without water the other (Hagar)–this author’s note to original comment].  Using the same standards, why then does the US prosecute polygamists? 
 
It seems to me that The Bible is used as a guide for our legal standards only when a certain group of people decides it should be.   Doesn’t seem like much of a “separation of Church and State” to  me.
 
I responded instantly.  Writing back to her, I typed rapidly:  “The Judeo-Christian Bible does not ban nor deny gay marriages.  On the contrary, the Bible talks of marriage as a commitment of two people over a bowl of wine. That is why the New Testament Jesus changed water into wine as did over 103 saviour gods throughout history (John 2:1-11).” 
 
Bacchus by Michelangelo (16th century)

Bacchus by Michelangelo (16th century)

There is nothing new to this myth as it is a part of the theology of the Greek god Bacchus whose cult began in 1500 in Mycenae (and survived until 1100 BCE) before traveling throughout Europe and Asia, Mesopotamia and Egypt.  Bacchus (who is also known as Dionysius; he was born from the thigh of Zeus and thus considered to be “born of a virgin birth” since there was no copulation, no impregnation nor planting of sperm or ova) was universally recognized as He is a god of epiphany, “the god that comes”, and his “foreignness”; he preached to people and told them not to stop children from approaching him, and for his audacity was ultimate hung and died on a tree in the same manner as Jesus (see my post on why Jesus was never crucified on a cross; cp. Burkert, Walter (1985). Greek Religion, pp. 64, 132; cf. Kerényi, Karl (1976). Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life (Princeton, NJ, USA: Bollingen) 1976).  Dionysius was “born again” so that on his second re-entry into the world of life he could greet women and men along a high way before his celestial father caused him to rise on a cloud and ascend into heaven (Diorodus V 75.4, noted by Kerényi, Karl (1976). Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life.  Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press:  “The Cretan core of the Dionysos myth” p 110 note 213 and pp 110-114.).

Paul Oestreicher

Paul Oestreicher

Today, many canons (scholars of the bible), such as Paul Oestreicher, Canon Emeritus of Coventry Cathedral, in the Anglican Church have publicly stated that all biblical references about Jesus shows that he was homosexual (as I have also written).  David did love Jonathan (1 Samuel 18: 1 ff) and lived with him for fifteen years (the Hebrew words note a marriage: Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.  “Became one in spirit” actually translates as “the two became one” directly inferring sexuality, commitment, and charity [cp. 1 Corinthians 13]).  Ruth loved Naomi (Ruth 1:14 ), and the word for this attachment in Genesis 2:24 is the very same word on how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other: compassionate, caring, erotic, sexual, and so forth. Instead of putting 15th through 20th century interpretations on the words, it would be better to translate them using the interpretation of when the passages and books were written–that is scholarship, and we find that no marriage was denied to any two people who made a lifetime commitment.

David loved Jonathan (medieval manuscript marginalia)

David loved Jonathan (medieval manuscript marginalia)

The word bible means book, and includes the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Upanishads, etc.  To cherry pick a verse out of context is idiotic, as the word homosexual does not appear in the English lexicon until 1895, the German in 1901, etc.  The word before that in English was “inversion” but the ancient Hebrew and Greek reads qadesh and refers to using sex to experience a deity.  The Mormons took it farther by adding polygamy as a god ordered lifestyle, and when the saved die, they go to other planets to have sex and repopulate/populate those planets. 

Pope Julius III

Pope Julius III

Psychology shows us, through repeated verification research, that those who are homophobic and oppose homosexual marriages most likely are homosexuals. They are afraid of their own sexuality and refuse self-actualization, becoming their worse enemy and the greatest threat to civilization as is the case with numerous pedophile priests, bishops, cardinals and popes (at least Pope Julius III had courage to add his boy-toy ( Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, age 13) not only to his bed chamber but to the cardinalate (cf. P. Messina (1990). ‘Del Monte, Innocenzo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, Vol 38, Rome) with many noting how many homosexuals had been appointed cardinals and became, in time, popes [the first openly gay pope was John XII 955-964, while Paul II {in 1471} had a “most embarassing death” while having anal sex with the preteen active boy) throughout history as well as an ever-increasing number of pastors, rabbis and mullahs.

3 Comments

Filed under Homosexuality, Jesus Christ, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, separation of church and state

3 responses to “Love and Marriage–and the Bible

  1. Tomppa

    Yes, it’s very true, thank you for your story! Love you man!

  2. Pingback: When religion triumps over reason: faith, psychology, investigation and research | Arthur Frederick Ide's Blog

  3. Pingback: Roman Catholic Church attack on Human Rights and Benedict XVI’s cover-up | Arthur Frederick Ide's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s