What ISIS Really Wants

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's not entirely accurate. The Hebrew Bible is as explicit on the subject as the language will allow. There was no expression within the ancient language—at least as far as we know—that makes the kind of specific prohibition you suggest. On the contrary, the euphemistic language and the idioms that are employed make it abundantly clear that homosexual behaviour was not tolerated among ancient Jews. The text in question from Lev 18:22 is most literally translated "Do not lie down with a male as on the bed with a wife." (The construction itself is grammatically awkward, and impossible to render directly into English). The usage of the words שָׁכַב and מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה is made explicit even to the untrained ear by the following verse, which prohibits bestiality by employing שְׁכֹבֶת, which is derived from the same root, literally rendered "bed lying," and does actually mean "sexual intercourse."


You should know that very few people use the King James version anymore outside of an antiquarian interest. (There are a few who insist on this translation as the only sanctioned Word of God in English, but they are an extreme minority). First off, yes, you are correct about some of the ambiguity in the words that appear in Romans and 1 Corinthians—that is to say, these are words that have something of a flexible meaning, and do not clearly correspond to "homosexuality" as we know it today. In the ancient world, there was no such thing as gender identity—people were either entirely male or female. However, the words that do appear in 1 Corinthians, μαλακος and ἀρσενοκοῖτης, carry with them the clear implication that ancient Greco-Roman "homosexuality" was in view. (The second word is actually a word introduced by Paul as a correspondence to the Hebraic expression of the same concept in Lev 18). The censure in Rom 1:26 against "their women who exchanged their natural function for what was unnatural" employs a word that was commonly understood to mean "sexual intercourse" (χρῆσις, cf. e.g. Xenophon, Symposium 8.28; Plato, Leges 8.841a; Isocrates 19.11; Pseudo Lucien Amores 25; Plutarch, Moralia 905b; P.Oxyrinchus 272.12). In other words, there was no ambiguity produced by the writers, nor among the first readers of these texts as to what was their intended meaning. With general clarity, both Judaism and by extension early Christianity were both fundamentally opposed to homosexual activity.

... If, on the other hand, your post was intended to illustrate the absurdity of literalism, then I quite agree with you. One of the fundamental flaws in hermeneutical approaches to the Bible that champions the "plain meaning" of the text is that it often ignores or glosses over critical syntactical, historical, and sociological contexts.

My point was exactly that, I'd be the first one to admit that most of the verses trotted out to justify laws and violence against gays probably where written for that purpose, but they are, none the less, open to different interpretation, and it always amazes me that the parable of the camel and the needle never ever gets brought up by wealthy churches or is ever even looked at by the fundie right wing evangelicals, even though it's a sight clearer than most.

[Vulcan]

I look at homosexuality and religion in a few ways.

1. I'd say a lot societies look at it as repugnant. The question is this a learned reaction or is it part of our DNA? Looking at our younger generation who don't seem to have a problem with this, I'd say it's a learned reaction brought on by. ..

2. A desire to "be fruitful and multiply" which was a good cultural idea at the time as it would aid in the society's survival. It also continues the blood line of the parents which seems to be a natural instinct. Still in my mind it has nothing to do with a relationship with god.

3. A sense of elitism and power. Yes the early Christians and many other religions and teachers want their followers to jump through hoops before accepting them and teaching them the inner secrets. Again these differences have nothing to do with gaining a relationship with god.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

My point was exactly that, I'd be the first one to admit that most of the verses trotted out to justify laws and violence against gays probably where written for that purpose, but they are, none the less, open to different interpretation, and it always amazes me that the parable of the camel and the needle never ever gets brought up by wealthy churches or is ever even looked at by the fundie right wing evangelicals, even though it's a sight clearer than most.

It's funny you mention that. The popular interpretation of the Matt 29:23–26 teaching on wealth while I was growing up was that the "Eye of the Needle" was actually a city gate in Jerusalem that presented great difficulty to camels needing to be taken through it. Of course, the notion is unsubstantiated nonsense, but the implication is that it is not impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven with wealth, only it is a little more difficult.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I agree that the fundamentalist literalistic interpretations of the Bible are dangerous, but not so much that they will ever result in the projections of genocide and holy war that appear to be possible for ISIL.

This is naive in the extreme - literal interpretations of the Bible might not explicitly command holy war and genocide, but they don't prohibit them either. The popes had no problem finding theological excuses for Crusades and the stamping out of heretics in genocide, as happened to the Cathars.

Did God not kill all the Canaanites to make room for his chosen people? Did God not bring down the aforementioned Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins? To say that a literal interpretation of the Bible precludes anticipating "God's will" is foolish, not only is it entirely possible, there are myriad examples of it through history.

One of the primary dangers of the evangelical right-wing in the USA is their obsession with using military force to reorder the world. The aim of spreading "American values" is not merely coincidental with the evangelical ideal.

[T@T]

Here my literal interpretation's of the bible and the quran.

[Tinordi]

"Solid" contribution

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Let's not forget that the motivation behind horror is mostly superfluous. Whether its a secular reason, a religious justification, or an insane reason. Its the output that really matters.

However, the nuances DO matter when trying to understand WHY certain savage ideals are contagious and how to best counteract them.

Arguing about biblical/quaranic semantics is about as useful as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin IMHO. Unless you are trying to figure out how to combat the holy zombies of ISIS/Branch Davidians etc.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jammies

This is naive in the extreme - literal interpretations of the Bible might not explicitly command holy war and genocide, but they don't prohibit them either. The popes had no problem finding theological excuses for Crusades and the stamping out of heretics in genocide, as happened to the Cathars.

Perhaps somewhat naive, but not to the extreme. There are massive differences between medieval approaches and usages of scripture and those that have universally replaced them within the modern world that I believe provide a significant obstacle to legitimating genocide.

Originally Posted by jammies

Did God not kill all the Canaanites to make room for his chosen people? Did God not bring down the aforementioned Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins? To say that a literal interpretation of the Bible precludes anticipating "God's will" is foolish, not only is it entirely possible, there are myriad examples of it through history.

Not really, no. The "myriad examples" to which you refer I understand to predominantly implicate the role of the church in the Crusades, which was not drawn from a literal interpretation of scripture. In actual fact, the model for scripture interpretation that was universally employed before the Protestant Reformation was a sophisticated allegorical hermeneutic. An example of the traditional method that mined scriptural passages for layers of meaning appears in the following letter from 1146 by Bernard of Clairvaux, who is credited as a major catalyst in the Second Crusade:

Originally Posted by "Bernard of Clairvaux

"Besides, brethren, I warn you, and not only I, but God's apostle, 'Believe not every spirit.' We have heard and rejoice that the zeal of God abounds in you, but it behooves no mind to be wanting in wisdom. The Jews must not be persecuted, slaughtered, nor even driven out. Inquire of the pages of Holy Writ. I know what is written in the Psalms as prophecy about the Jews. 'God hath commanded me,' says the Church, 'Slay them not, lest my people forget.'

"They are living signs to use, representing the Lord's passion. For this reason they are dispersed into all regions, that now they may pay the just penalty of so great a crime, and that they may be witnesses of our redemption. Wherefore the Church, speaking in the same Psalm, says, 'Scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord, our shield.' So has it been. They have been dispersed, cast down. They undergo a hard captivity under Christian princes. Yet they shall be converted at even time, and remembrance of them shall be made in due season. Finally, when the multitude of the Gentiles shall have entered in, then, 'all Israel shall be saved,' saith the apostle. Meanwhile he who dies remains in death."

Originally Posted by jammies

One of the primary dangers of the evangelical right-wing in the USA is their obsession with using military force to reorder the world. The aim of spreading "American values" is not merely coincidental with the evangelical ideal.

I totally agree, but the spreading of "American values" is a world away from holy war and genocide, and I am fairly confident that the rigorously modernistic roots of Western culture tend to minimise the possibility for a shift from one goal to the other.

What is the biggest difference between the medieval religious climate that spawned the crusades and modern fundamentalist America? The former was predominantly illiterate and authoritarian, and fostered an allegorical approach to scripture. The latter is grassroots, hyper literate, and subject to a much more inflexible literalism that governs the meaning of sacred texts.

What is the biggest difference between fundamentalist America and fundamentalist Islam? The latter is both authoritarian and literalistic. It is more like medieval Christianity in that meanings from scriptures are dictated. But it is also simultaneously quite different in that this dogma by fiat is delivered within a much more inflexibly literal framework that proactively sanctions violence.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by T@T

Here my literal interpretation's of the bible and the quran.

This would also quite brilliantly illustrate your command of history, culture, and language. Well done.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This would also quite brilliantly illustrate your command of history, culture, and language. Well done.

It's time humans bury religious history and culture, world would be better off.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by T@T

It's time humans bury religious history and culture, world would be better off.

Not disagreeing with you...however until a monolith from 2001 shows up humans are not going to give up clustering around stories (e.g. religions, countries, groups).

It serves a evolutionary purpose I'm afraid (groups survive longer than loners)

...might as well go to plan B