DAVID & JONATHAN: The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name! The Hypocrisy Of Religion - Church's Darkest Secret: Homosexual Love In THE HOLY BIBLE! - RI10

DAVID & JONATHAN:

The Love That Dare

Not Speak Its Name!

The Hypocrisy Of

Religion - Church’s

Darkest Secret:

Homosexual Love In

THE HOLY BIBLE! -

RI10

I was watching the new Bill Moyers show on PBS ‘Bill Moyers’ Journal’ when during an interview with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church of America, she let drop the deepest, darkest secret in the Bible. I’m 65, and I had never heard about David & Jonathan before. How many of you Readers knew about them?

Last year on the History Channel they profiled Emperor Constantine’s Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. They mentioned that there was extreme disagreement over the inclusion of the Book of Ruth into the Holy Bible, but they did not say why. Tabacco, of all people, should have smelled something “fishy” about that omission. But I blew it and did not investigate further:

History, Politics & Capitalism Of Christianity: emperor Constantine Of Rome, Council of Nicaea 325 AD, Arian Controversy, The Holy Bible Part I: What’s Christ Got To Do with It? - RI10
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/history_politics__capitalism_of_christianity_emperor_constan.htm
Published December 26, 2006

But as luck would have it, Tabacco gets a 2nd chance to expose the Bible’s Biggest Secret, the one religious leaders avoid like the plague. They are quick to quote Leviticus; but they ignore Ruth! This, in the vernacular, is known as “Cherry Picking”. They pick and chose what they want to talk about, and they ignore that, which they want to remain secret. Now we can all know why there was extreme confrontation about including the Book of Ruth in the Bible Anthology.  ‘The Book of Ruth’ was fortunate; ‘The Gospel of Judas’ was not!

Religious types have no trouble accepting both admonitions above from the Old Testament and from the New Testament respectively in spite of the obvious incongruity and impossibility of doing both at the same time. I am curious to see how they will attempt to reconcile Leviticus and The Book of Ruth now that we know the Secret that dare not speak its name!


June 8, 2007

Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

BILL MOYERS: It was quite a day last fall at The National Cathedral in Washington.

For the first time in its history the Episcopal Church of America was installing a woman as its presiding bishop.

NEWSFOOTAGE: Brothers and sisters in Christ, greet the 26th presiding bishop.

BILL MOYERS: Quite a moment for a faith community that traces its roots back over four centuries to the Anglican Church of England.

And quite a moment For Katharine Jefferts Schori. Raised as a catholic, she only became an Episcopal priest in 1994. Now, just twelve years later, she had been elected to lead America's two-and-a-half million Episcopalians. Before the priesthood, she was a marine biologist - as familiar with squids as she would become with scripture. Now she presides over a fellowship of 7,600 congregations…

But it's a troubled time for the church. Episcopalians are part of the worldwide Anglican Community of 78 million members…and they are deeply divided over issues of sexuality and the Bible.

VOICE: It is the Bible that says man shall not lie with man neither shall woman lie with a woman - it is an abomination before God.

BILL MOYERS: At a global conference in 1998, their representatives declared homosexuality to be 'incompatible with scripture."

Five years later, defying the world body, U.S. Episcopalians consecrated Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop in the history of the church.

Traditional Episcopalians at home and Anglicans abroad were outraged. Over 40 American congregations have now voted to leave the fellowship, many to join a new alliance led by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria.

Last February, at an international conference in Tanzania, seven archbishops refused to take communion with Bishop Schori.

Now there is speculation the Episcopal Church of America might be expelled from the worldwide Anglican Community. As the controversy rages, Bishop Jefferts Schori finds serenity in her faith and --- her flying. Her new book is in fact entitled A WING AND A PRAYER.

This week she was down to Earth again and testifying before a Congressional hearing on global warming… as both a biologist and Bishop.
----

BILL MOYERS: As I read about the conflict in your church, what I find is that both sides treat the Bible as their source, but they come to totally opposite conclusions as to what the Bible says. What do you make of that? As a scientist and a believer.

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Our ways of reading Scripture shape the conclusions we come to. And often what we go looking for shapes the conclusions about what we read. I'll give you a-- you know, a loaded example. The story of David and Jonathan.

You know, Canonically, the traditional way of reading that has been about the friendship between two men. It says in the Scripture that David loved Jonathan with a love surpassing women. Many gay and lesbian people in our church today say, "This is a text - that says something constructive about the love between people of the same gender." Yet our tradition has rarely been able to look at it with those eyes. I think that's a fertile ground for some serious Biblical scholarship and some encounter from people who come to different conclusions.

BILL MOYERS: If biology, as I understand it does, tells us that homosexuality is-- is a genetic given. And religion says homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God; can those two perceptions ever be reconciled?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: How do we come to a conclusion that it's a sin in the eyes of God?

BILL MOYERS: Well, you're the-

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: What texts do we read that-

BILL MOYERS: But you know, all of your adversaries say that it is.

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Well, I would have them go back to the very sources they find so black and white about that, and ask what's the context of this passage? What was it written to address? What was going on underneath it that this appears to speak to? And I think we find when we do some very serious scholarship, that in almost every case, it's speaking about a cultural context that looks nothing like the one in which we're wrestling with homosexuality today.

BILL MOYERS: So how do you read-- Jonathan and David, that story?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think it's got some-- challenging things to say to us who have said for hundreds of years, thousands of years that it's inappropriate for two men to love each other in that way.

BILL MOYERS: Is this a moral issue to you?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's a moral issue in the sense that part of the job of a church is to help all Christians grow up into the full stature of Christ. It's to help all of us to lead holy lives. The question is what does that holy life look like?

BILL MOYERS: Well, many conservative, traditional Christians say that the homosexual life is not a holy life.

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: They would say that it's only holy if it's celibate. And I think we've got more examples out of Scripture even to offer in challenge to that.

BILL MOYERS: But if it is a moral issue, is there a way somewhere between the positions on this? Or is it impossible for a church divided to agree on that way somewhere between the moral judgments?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I do believe it's a moral issue because it's about how we love our neighbor. It's about how we live in relationship to God and our neighbors. When I look at other instances in church history, when we've been faced with something similar-- the history in this country over the-- over slavery. The church in the north. Much of it came to a different conclusion than the church in the south-- about the morality of slavery.

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: And neither side was comfortable with the breadth of understanding that could include the other. In practice, the Episcopal Church didn't kick out the Confederate part of the church. They kept calling the roll during the Civil War, and when the war was over, they welcomed them back. But in the-- in the heat of the moment it's pretty tough to live with that kind of breadth that can include a position that seems so radically opposed.

BILL MOYERS: It's not my intention to hold Episcopalians up as the only arbiter of this issue because the Catholics are facing it, the Mormons are facing it, the Southern Baptist Convention is facing it. Orthodox Jews are facing it. And Islam, of course. Why are so many religious people uptight about sex?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Because we haven't done an adequate job of talking about the whole human being, I think. Teaching in our faith tradition about the whole human being. And actually Judaism has probably done a better job than most of Christianity.

Celebrating-- celebrating the Sabbath-- for a married couple was often understood to include-- sexual intercourse. A way of welcoming and rejoicing in the presence of God in the midst of the Sabbath. Christianity hasn't been able to say that very effectively.

BILL MOYERS: Why, do you think?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think part of it's our Greek heritage. You know, our tendency toward dualism, that-- you know, one part of a human being or a male human being-- exemplifies spirit and-- a female human being is somehow lesser and-- demonstrates the flesh

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: With our long-development of an anthology that says that heterosexual male is a normative human being. We're-- we've only begun in the last 150 years to really question that.

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: And I believe that the wrestling with the place of women in leadership, particularly in public leadership, is directly related to the same kind of issue over the position of gay and lesbian people in leadership, in public leadership.

BILL MOYERS: When you look at what the other side says about homosexuality, and the-- Scriptural tradition, do you grant them anything?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely. That has been the traditional way of seeing things. It was also why Galileo got in so much trouble. The traditional way of seeing things was that the-- sun went around the earth, not the other way around. If you expect things to be in a certain way, it's hard to see data that ask you to see the world in a very different way.
(That’s called Cognitive Dissonance! - Edited by Tabacco for clarity and focus)
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06082007/transcript3.html


 
   
Conservative and Liberal Views: Standard Disclaimer

We will attempt to give interpretations of key passages of the Bible from both a conservative (Fundamentalist and other Evangelical) and from a liberal position. Speaking generally:

Conservative Christian theologians tend to accept English translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV) as authoritative. They generally accept the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret passages literally, unless there is a good reason not to. They consider all Bible passages as instructive in today's society. When they see any same-sex activity condemned, they believe that this applies to all homosexual activities. All homosexual behavior is sinful, regardless of the nature of the relationship. Homosexuality is a chosen, unnatural, abnormal, changeable, and perverted lifestyle, which is hated by God.

Liberal Christian theologians tend to follow a wider variety of translations, and to be more concerned with instances of copying errors in the original Hebrew or Greek, of forgery, and of biases among the translators. They consider some passages (e.g. those referring to slavery, burning some hookers alive, raping female prisoners of war, etc.) as not being valid today, as immoral, and against the will of God. They differentiate among various homosexual and heterosexual sex practices, treating some (rape, prostitution, temple sex rituals) as immoral and some (within committed relationships) as positive. Homosexual orientation and behavior is seen as a normal human sexual expression among a minority of adults. It is not changeable or chosen. Like all sexual behavior, it can be a sin if it is exploitive or manipulative or not carried out safely within a committed relationship.


The Bible describes three emotionally close relationships between two people of the same gender. They appear to have progressed well beyond a casual friendship. There is, however, no unmistakable evidence that they were sexually active relationships. The individuals are:

Ruth and Naomi
David and Jonathan
Daniel and Ashpenaz
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm


David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, an extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.

Interpretation:
Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.

    Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses, which describe their relationship, are:

1 Samuel 18:1

    "...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

    "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2

    "From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4

    "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

1 Samuel 18:20-21

    "Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

    "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

    "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41

    "After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:
“...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)

    "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

    "They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)

    "They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)

    "Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)

    "Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)

    "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word, which means "great" in this passage, is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

    2 Samuel 1:26

    "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

(Let your minister, deacon or priest try to explain that away! Well, maybe not your priest!) 

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.


Daniel and Ashpenaz

Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.

Various English translations differ greatly:

    "Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)

    "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

    "Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)

"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)

    "Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)

    "Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)

    "God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)

    "And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)

"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)

Interpretation:
    Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of Daniel and Ashpenaz as totally non-sexual. It is inconceivable that God would allow a famous prophet of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words, which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz, are chesed v'rachamim. The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy". A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav



Tabacco: There is a universal conclusion to be derived from this “Lying by Omission” done by Church leaders:

Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.


In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".

 

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)

tags: knowledge is power  takebackamerica  business  politics  religion  bush  richvspoor  disaster capitalism  warpeace  lies of omission  lies of commission  holy bible  book of ruth  leviticus  homosexuality  homosexual  gay  david and jonathan  mendacity  propaganda