by laverite 39 Replies latest jw friends
Judge Dread
Your definition doesn't chime with Webster
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
in this context the term has been used in identifying an aversion. You may dislike the anomaly between the construction of the word and current usage but you strict definition of homophobia is inaccurate.
lifestyle? seriously folks...
A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group
a lifestyle can be athletic, academic, holistic, artistic, urbane, goth yada yada frikkin yada
orientation is not a lifestyle.... i do not have a "heterosexual lifestyle" ...
i AM heterosexual and happen to have a lifestyle that supports inclusive
progressive thinking about civil rights and equality
I wasn't online yesterday due to some internet connection issues at home and work was busy. Not much time today to post.
First, just wanted to say Love You to Curious Butterfly. :) Thanks also to those debating the notion and definition of the word homophobia. Lots to potentially respond to here but not much time this week it seems.
Quick comment though on the word lifestyle. Thanks for bringing it up Chickpea. I have often wondered why I, as a gay person, have a "lifestyle" while others seem to have "lives." I mean, my day to day life is all about taking care of my kids, keeping the house running smoothly, working, etc. I get up in the morning and brush my teeth, and then the real craziness starts. But gay lifestyle? I haven't ever found gay lifestyle. Am I missing out on a big party somewhere? Someone help!!!!
LaVerite,
I haven't listened to any of "Johnny", but I'll share an observation from my Bethel experience. This is going back to the era of George Couch when we were trained to be homophobic. No wrestling with your roommates in your underwear, no backrubs, and don't go to clubs where you use the same silverware and doorhandles as "homos". It generated the homophobic mentality, of course, and the stories of bethelites getting involved in homosexuality was met with disgust. For everything I ever experienced, including plenty of 'effeminate' brothers in the bethel family, there was never mentioned the hint that someone in the family was actually gay, or calling a bro, "sister". Why? Because we were all single male bethelites that would be easily targetted for being gay. Most of the time we used gang showers and shared a tiny room with another dude. And at that time, we had a sense that the "Bethel Family" was indeed our family. For the majority of the bethelites I knew, they would completely deny that a fellow bethelite might be gay unless it became clearly obvious after they were dismissed and/or DFed exactly for gay activity. I can't speak for the validity of "Johnny", but if he's gonna be judgmental and homophobic, he needs to realize that he's living surrounded by young, single, sex-starved virgin men... sounds like a "gay fantasy" to me.
... I'll stop my rant now...
Homophobia - I have an opinion, based if you like on the example provided for us within American evanglical/pentecostal churches, that the more virulent the rhetoric, the more likely that the speaker of the homophobic words is personally attracted to the same sex. The rhetoric addresses his/her personal concept of him/herself. Because of the conflict this person feels over his/her same sex attractions they feel impelled to keep reminding themselves and demonstrating to the world that they hate the actions they perceive as implicit in the feeling.
When this type of of person latches onto Christianity they are able to learn a vitriolic vocabulary, ready made for their self-hate, and a culture that encourages its use. Of course, it also means that they have to ignore some of clues that indicate that same sex interest may have been relatively common in the lifestyle of early Israelites.
The Sodom story indicates that at least in story form, the potential of sex with another male was known. (And there is no OT evidence that the sin of Sodom was homosexual in nature. Homosexual rape is secondary to the main point, that of inhospitality.
In Deuteronomy 23:17, Israelite males were commanded not to become 'temple prostitutes' (NWT) indicating that it was reasonably common enough to make the prohibition neccessary. Verse 18 continues, not to bring the ... 'hire of a dog', into the temple is interpreted as referring to payment to a male for sexual services by another male. One could argue that these practises were eliminated in early Israel. But the evidence is otherwise. 1 Kings 14: 24 tells us, ' and even the male temple prostitute proved to be in the land.' And this not so long after the 'glorious' reigns of David and Solomon. Something else must occurr as a corollary to 'male temple prostitutes' being in the land. Someone (male or female) hiring his/her's body out, does so in response to customers wanting that service. So, understanding that statement we see this remarkable claim, that male prostitutes and their customers are evident 'in the land.'
It is noted also that the previous verse (23) lists 'sacred pillars and sacred poles,' as being used by the Israelites. This is usually understood as referring to phallic worship. We can easily understand what that may mean to a woman, but how do males worship 'sacred poles?' Hmmm! OK, let's move on.
All the above throws light on another Biblical incident, that is, David's grief and words at the death of Jonathon. (2 Samuel 1:26). Homophobic Christians explain this away by twisting the text and saying that David loved Jonathon with divine love. Some even refer to Agape love, forgetting that in the LXX translation 'agape' was used to refer to Samson's 'love' for Delilah, which was patently sexual in nature. I have not tried to find the LXX rendering of love in the above verse, has anyone else?
However, Strong's concordance, as quoted on the Blue Letter (Bible) site gives these definitions for the Hebrew word, 'ahabah,' as 'human love for human object', and love, 'of man toward man.'
It's interesting that this text is not 'spun' in some way to make some sort of condemnation of David and Jonathon's love for each other. ... 'More wonderful was your love to me than the love from women.'
One more text. The gospel of John reveals strong Hellenic (greek) influence. The so-called 'last supper,' in the John gospel more closely resembles the greek social institution called a 'symposium,' a gathering where ideas could be discussed. John 13;23 gives this word picture, a glimpse of the furnishings and positioning of the people attending this last meeting. This verse tells us, 'There was reclining in front of Jesus bosom one of his disciples, and Jesus loved him.'
This is a very intimate position. John was in front of Jesus, I presume with his back to Jesus, so that every time Jesus reached forward he presssed against John. If intimate, it is also a scene of great tenderness.
The Gk word used by the author of John, to express the feelings of Jesus for John was 'agapao.' It is argued by many Christians that this is 'divine 'love,' and I have no doubt that this is the way the word is used today. But then? And, we should note in modern greek, for example, the love songs you hear on the radio, will have many usages of agape, 's'agapo,' is common - 'I love you.'
James Davidson*, (reader in Ancient History at Warwick University) argues that in those times, 'agape' could refer to the love of one man for another. Note, though - the word itself did not neccessarily include a sexual dimension. But some of the examples he provides for the use of the word are:
1. As used by Xenophon to describe the feelings of Spartan men for the younger men with whom they had relationships.
2. The affections of the soldiers in the Theban, 'Army of Lovers' for their partners.
3. The feelings of Zeus for Ganymede the young man he (Zeus) kidnapped and took to heaven with him.
Davidson does point out that forms of agapos are used throughout the NT, and that therefore we should be careful in assumptions. However, since we know so little about the reality of the development of Christianity I suggest that we cannot jump the opposite way and say that John did not mean to imply any feelings of intimacy between him and Jesus.
This clearly is another layer of (sexual) meaning beneath the surface. Why later editors allowed these instances to stand is interesting to contemplate. For modern Christians I suggest, these texts have an obvious lesson - Go easy on the homophobic vitriol.
Same sex attraction is known from the earliest times. It appears to be inherent in at least some people. Why condemn when we clearly do not understand what is happening. In ancient Greece, romance was more likely to be seen between two men than between a man and a woman. In Tokugawa Japan, the Samurai warriors, even if married (and most were) were more likely to have a boyfriend than a mistress, though again most may have had both.
* "The Greeks and Greek Love"
Jehovah's Witnesses have a rule about homophobia, don't they? One must be homophobic to be a member in good standing...!???
satinka
Judge DreadYour definition doesn't chime with Websterscotsman,
I was using the definition of "phobic" provided by cyber-clown.
Other than that, I've made my point, and I'm done.
JDW
Tag this thread as 'dumb'
Tag this thread as 'dumb'Why?
Because it's not a "conspiracy" thread?
No mention of Jesse Ventura?
No David Icke?
Well, I thought I was done here.
JDW
You forgot Alex Jones death wish ;-)
