Bible Quizzes for Smart Folks VII
Bill Long 12/29/06
An R (or X)-Rated Quiz
[**Let me begin this quiz with a warning. I would put it in red or in glistening lights if I could. The following quiz deals with sexually explicit material. But, since it is from the Bible, I suppose that "sanctifies" it. If you are offended by sexual talk, well, stop reading here--and be careful of your Bible. You have been warned.**]
1. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Yep, there you have it. Homosexual acts, according to this Bible passage, should lead to death for both offending parties. So, I suppose the author of this text might not have had too much sympathy for gay marriage. But one thing I learned as a lawyer and law professor is that when you make an argument, make sure you don't argue in a way that proves too much, or else you can get in as much trouble as proving too little. Those who want to use this passage as an argument against gay marriage or against extending equal rights to gay people really aren't being very biblical. If they really wanted to be biblical, they would be killing gays or, at least, men who had sexual relations with other men [Query--does this also apply to women with other women? The Bible is seemingly silent on that one, I think.]
Yep. Putting the men to death. That is what the text says. Or, if not themselves, they should be turning them over to authorities who would put them to death. But there is no jurisdiction in America recognized by our civil justice system that will put a person to death for homosexual activity. Well, isn't that an outrage? Just think, in this Christian nation of ours, you can't even get people to put others to death when they have committed homosexual acts. What is this nation coming to? But anyone who wants to argue that they rest the case against gay marriage on this passage just isn't being too straightforward or honest. If the person really loved the Bible, they would put 'em to death. That is all there is to it.
Oops. Maybe this argument would prove too much for another reason--because my eyes just ran up to the verses directly above this one. Let me give you one verse:
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."
By the way, where are these verses from? Ok, but let's think about this one for a moment. It appears three verses before the homosexual-death verses. So, that means that they should be construed together. They comprise a list of those who should be put to death for doing various kinds of sexual acts. I can't see how we can be against gays and not be against adulterers. And not simply against adultery as in, "I am against adultery," but in I MUST KILL ADULTERERS. Because, in fact, that is what the text says. Oh, you might try to weasal out of it because it is adultery "against the wife of his neighbor," as if the neighbor is only someone living on your alley, but I think that is an escape I can't permit. If we frame the discussion of who is my neighbor in the context of Luke 10 (the parable of the Good Samaritan), we see that anyone can be a neighbor. Thus, if there is ANY adultery going on anywhere in our society, the people just have to be exposed and put to death. I see no other way of taking the passage.
But, of course, all this proves much too much. If we really wanted to "take the Bible seriously" we would be killing a lot of people. But I think the tells us more about the society which produced this text than ours. It proves, above all, that the texts just cited came out of a society where the sexual rules had to be clear so that the society could function well. You touch someone's wife, you were messin' with his property. Males start "lying" with each other and that threatens the preservation of the society, which has loads of enemies breathing down its necks. Keep the sexual lines clear, and we can all get along just fine. Well, where are these texts from?
2. "the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." And, a few chapters later, "Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life." And a little later: "He bowed theree times, and they kissd each other, and wept with each other, David wept the more."
Ok, there is a "chaste" way of explaining these passage--two guys were friends with each other. Maybe they just were liberated modern males who knew how to express feelings to one another and didn't care what anyone said. But, I think the charged nature of the language and relationship gives the impression that good old King David, before he became king, probably had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. After all, he couldn't keep his eyes off another man's wife (hm..why wasn't he killed for THAT?); I think he was just sexually "out of control" as a younger man. That wouldn't at all be unusual. Many people are like that. Well, how did David and Jonathan manage to avoid the biblical injunction against lying with another man? Well, maybe they "stood up" instead of "lying down." Never know.
Well, where is this story? And, what is your "take" on it? In any case, I think I need to have one more quiz on X-rated verses.