Common Sense is the basis for
the Common Law:
Having dealt with the likes of
legalistic fundamentalism for years, - one of the epiphanies I
experienced that freed me from their pained thinking was when I began
to study Law & the principles of Law. While many of the people
who claim to "Believe the Bible" talk a lot, -- the fact is that very few
(I have yet to meet even one), understand that the very 'rule-book'
they worship contains a book of Law (Paul writes that Scripture is
given by divine inspiration {God} -- whom the book also calls the [1]
Lawgiver & Judge) so the rules of legal construction apply.
TWO TYPES:
Laws can be broken down into (2) types. Defined:
1) Mala in se: Offenses at common law -- unlawful by
their very nature such as murder, or rape.
2) Mala prohibita:
Offenses prohibited by statute; I.E: 'No J-walking".
What religious zealots often cannot see
is the stark difference between these classifications. With
their understanding darkened & their brains switched off, some of the
most ignorant & self deprecating premises get voiced. What is
more amazing, is that corrupt translations of their very own Bible
have arisen from this ignorance -- and the commonly repeated mantra of
"The Bible being the 'word of God' encompasses the mistranslation & a
lie becomes repeated as if it was the truth. The old saying
applies: "One judge [translator] lies & another one [zealot] swears to
it. Mistranslation in the Bible? Notwithstanding the
difficulty to translating the original primitive languages -- there
are examples of gross violation of translational protocol. How
severe? How about adding text not even hinted to in the original
Scripture: 1st John 5:7-8 in the King James Version is a prime
example. This is what a footnote in the NIV translation has to
say about that: "7,8 Late manuscripts of the
Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit,
and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:
the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)"!
On this website, the Scriptures that discuss the 'curse' of adding to
God's words have been discussed -- and here is an example of that very
offense, -- right in the Bible. Are there more examples of this?
Yes. However, (2) terms that I specifically want to point out
that are fabrications of English -- not part of the
original text in any way, shape or form are:
(1) Sodomite
(2) Homosexual
These terms & more are well documented as to their origins &
complete
lack of textual foundation. Does this mean I'm "anti-Bible"?
No...I'm just anti-LIE. Popular-Christianity (& I use the term as a
cultural description for the luke-warm social-club thingus that pretends to be the
Apostolic Creed of today), has devolved to the point where: "Bubba-Bible
knows John 3:16, and that God Hates Fags (&
he's not so sure about John 3:16)..."
I want to analyze this folly to show it
for what it is. Here's a parallel cite from the NIV, Young's
Literal & Greek
Bibles: I Corinthians 6:9
NIV-
"neither sexually immoral
nor idolaters
nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes
*nor homosexual offenders
nor thieves
nor the greedy
nor drunkards
nor slanderers
nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God." |
YLT-
"neither whoremongers,
nor idolaters,
nor adulterers,
nor effeminate,
*nor sodomites,
nor thieves,
nor covetous,
nor drunkards,
nor revilers,
nor extortioners,
the reign of God shall inherit."
|
GREEK-
πόρνοι οὔτε
εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε
μοιχοὶ οὔτε
μαλακοὶ οὔτε
ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε *
κλέπται οὔτε
πλεονέκται οὔτε
μέθυσοι οὐ
λοίδοροι οὐχ
ἅρπαγες
βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι. |
Why Greek? Because that's what
the original text was written in, Bubba (Some 15 centuries before
King James suckled his first abomination.).
A few points of interest
immediately visible between the NIV & YLT. NIV is the later
translation. Notice where the older YLT reads: "Sodomites" --
how the newer NIV says "homosexual offenders". The Greek
word Paul penned
is: "arsenokoitēs"
- a term that has many scholars guessing its
exact meaning
to this day (but not g0ys)! So: Somehow, "ABUSER" became "SODOMITE" (a term
invented in the KJV - DT 23, that should have been translated as
"male-prostitute" from the Hebrew "qâdêsh"
[Which hints that "Young's Literal" isn't so 'literal' after all]). Then, the invention of: "SODOMITE" later became
"HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDER" - but the very TERM: "HomoSexual" is an INVENTED
WORD, - a pseudo-creation of modern psychology by a non-psychologist!
There is a principle of Law that basically
says that where doubt exists, the law is uncertain & benefit of the
doubt is to be extended to anyone so charged with violations of that
law.
The very foundation of Christianity is one of
love and the New testament makes exceedingly clear that "Love works
no ill toward its neighbor - therefore love is the fulfillment of the
law." Actions contrary to that are usually self evident; --
And same
sex unions are not antagonistic to that principle in themselves.
Although any relationship can suffer from wrong motives, Scriptures
like Galatians 3:28c make it clear that gender cannot be a dividing
line.
Also interesting: With the NIV version, a strange dynamic in
the wording adds to the doubt of the text's meaning: Does the text forbid "homosexual
offenses", or is it condemning people who "offend homosexuals"?
It does list: "homosexual offenders" as those
who will not inherit God's kingdom! By that reading: "Offend a
homosexual & go straight to hell"! Ironic, isn't it.
Overall: it's an example of an incredibly sloppy translation & VOID FOR VAGUENESS under any rational
inspection. Yet, rabid fundamentalists take vague phrases like this &
use them to threaten naive people with -- suggesting that "whatever it might
mean ... well that better not be you!". Once again, we find
somebody saying "or even touch it, lest you die"! The
LAW
doesn't work that way, & people who make assertions to the contrary are
ignorant, evil, or both. One Christian friend told me in
confidence that he did not like the NIV because it was "soft on
homosexuality". In light of corrected theology, --one might
argue that this "softness" is a reason to actually LIKE the
NIV!
One of the easiest ways to spot a mistranslation however, is by looking at the CONTEXT of
a passage. You see, every category of transgression on the list
cited above results in somebody inevitably being badly treated, abused, swindled
or denied justice - when taken in context with other scriptures that
cover similar concepts, -- that is, except (1). How does
being a "homosexual" - (even one who may be sexually active with
someone) hurt anybody else? I know of same-gender couples who have
been together for years. They've never had an STI/disease nor
given one to anyone else. Several have been together since
high-school & for all we know, may be together until death does them
part. In that context, the NIV translation might as well replace the term
HOMOSEXUAL, with "HETEROSEXUAL". It would be just as meaningless
there - unless, of course, - you've got an 'agenda' (How
ironic is that!). Whatever the Greek term might mean, it does NOT
translate into a term that by its nature lacks evidence or
propensity to create injured parties! Gotcha! SIN - by it's very
nature has an inherent propensity to create INJURED PARTIES - yet
LESBIANS and G0YS have the LOWEST STATISTICAL INCIDENCES of STD's of
ANY SEXUALLY ACTIVE DEMOGRAPHIC! "Mankind abusers" would be a much
better guess at a translation. That covers AnalSex and a myriad of
other activities that create injured parties in abundance (such as
pugilism I.E: boxing / UFC fighting). How are your sports idols
holding up?
Early into this topic, I named two
types of laws:
1) Mala inse: Offenses at common law -- unlawful by
their very nature such as murder.
2) Mala prohibita:
Offenses prohibited by statute; I.E: 'No driving intoxicated".
-
Mala inse laws are self
evident. Do not steal, do not murder, & the like. The
negative repercussions of breaking such laws are visible instantly.
Whether civil or criminal - there is ALWAYS EVIDENCE OF AN
INJURED PARTY for such laws to be valid legally.
Read that over and over again until it sinks in. In order for a
law to be valid, there MUST, ALWAYS BE EVIDENCE OF AN
INJURED PARTY! No Victim, No Crime.
-
Mala prohibita laws are in place to dissuade
actions that
have high probabilities of eventually harming someone. "Do not drive while
intoxicated", is such an example; -- Not because drunk driving in an
of itself is harmful, but because it often leads to injury of
others. Traditionally, a valid mala-prohibita law must
have certain key properties in order to be legally valid. One
such key is that the activity being restricted must be clearly
perilous - one that is highly likely to injure someone by
exacerbating risk. It is precisely on this key point that the
argument can be made to outlaw Anal-Sex. It has clearly been
identified by every major health organization as greatly
exacerbating risk far higher than all (say "all") other types of "sexual"
activity (+5000% more perilous than even 0ral-sex). Furthermore,
the recipient of this act is ALWAYS injured because the anus is
NOT a genital organ and this type of contact regularly
causes
well-documented injuries. And the myriad of diseases this
type of contact readily spreads are often incurable and several
- fatal. Finally, the time frame between the action and the
emergence of the contracted disease/s is long enough so that the
victim often cannot connect the causative act with the resulting
disease. This extended delay & seeming-disconnect between cause and
effect create the need to make a mala-prohibita law because the
cause/effect pair are not obvious. In other words, if a
persons bowels exploded within minutes of having AnalSex, there
would be no need for a mala-prohibita statute because the
mala-inse
nature of the act
would be self evident. However, it is possible to be killed by
the act of analsex and not realize it for years -because certain
diseases take that long to gestate. AIDS is a prime
example (but not the only one) of an STD that can take YEARS to
manifest. And, of course, a person
can have NO SYMPTOMS and still spread the disease! If
that's not a real example of being a "zombie"... Once
again - AnalSex is so perilous because these a-symptomatic
people can infect others years before they themselves know that
they are carriers. And - because AnalSex is so excellent
at spreading STDs, the contagion rate grows
explosively-exponentially with no close second. This
aggressively deadly dynamic is why the Torah made the act a
capitol crime. The prohibition may be mala-prohibita in
form, but the act of the buttfuck has been considered a mala-inse
act in civilized cultures for millennia. These reasons are
why.
KEY INSERT:
While the issues of "FRAUD" & "TORTS" are not
usually considered religious, - but legal in
nature; -- G0YS point out (again) that in the Torah - Moses' command against 'Men lying
with mankind as he does a woman", - has no symmetrical prohibition against "woman
lying with woman as with a man"! The lack of a reciprocal commandment in a
volume of LAW (The Torah is a
volume of LAW.) speaks volumes. Since it is a fundamental
principle of law to not go beyond the letter of what is written
(inclusio unius est exclusio alterius)
-- then it is
immediately clear that Moses has no prohibition against "woman lying with women"!
Is this a matter of Moses playing gender-favorites? No.
For one: It's a
matter if biology. Under Moses law - the only lawful way for a man to "lie" with
a woman was to penetrate her via genital means. Throw your Karma-Sutra away. Since
women have proper anatomy to be penetrated; - There is defined the 'natural use'.
However, if a man was to lie with a man as with a woman under Moses law -
then the man would be, by definition - penetrating a man. Since a
man has no appropriate anatomy with which to be penetrated -- then the
back hole (anus) becomes the unlawful target. Under Moses law - it
is unlawful to come into contact with human dung. What would a penis
inside a rectum be in contact with?
G0YS unfold the
law to overcome the religious prejudices against same gender attractions that
many, many people have been oppressed with their entire lives. This understanding reframes
Romans chapter 1 & shows Paul's expose against ungodliness not to be one against
women with women or men with men; - But against women and men having anal sex
- regardless of the gender composition of the pair.
The
concept of "exclusivity same-gender-attracted" was generally a consideration because men were
generally seen as ambisexual - & every honest Rabbi KNEW
about the dynamics of friendships like David & Jonathan's (well before either was born) -- because
what was written about their relationship is common to man anyhow.
Due to the Hebrew man's right to contract at his coming of age - there was
nothing to stop 2 Hebrew men from making covenant with each other & within those
covenants expressing love & mutual care for each other's family. They
have the fundamental right to self determination & the mingling of their affairs
with whom they choose. Unless a 3rd party has a legal interest (as would
be the case of a father of a BRIDE) - nobody has authority to encumber a
contract made in good faith between two men. If two men of
legal age fell in love & wanted to merge their lives; - They simply DID IT.
Two self-determining beings made in God's image wouldn't ask for permission for
what is a fundamental right of contract! This is precisely
what David & Jonathan illustrated with their mutual love for each other & subsequent
familial covenants; --
Which is another legal reason HOW the kingdom of Saul became David's; -
& WHY David was able to probate from it to Jonathan's
son Mephibosheth; -& also was the legal basis for David's adoption of Mephibosheth &
his family into David's. It is all in the record of David's love-covenant with Prince
Jonathan. READ THE
ACCOUNT.
Peter specifically said that people who did not understand legal
fundamentals would misread Paul's writings (to the detriment of many) & this is precisely what has happened
in reference to Romans chapter 1 and ALL OCCURRENCES where the term "HOMOSEXUAL"
or equivalent occurs in translations of the Scripture.
|
All other
factors considered and absent the act of AnalSex, there is
simply no compelling legal reason to forbid groups such as
lesbians and g0ys. By their natures, both groups are
much, much
less likely to catch or spread STDs than the population at
large. And this is where religious zealots who condemn
"homosexuality" show their stark ignorance of law, Leviticus, and
miserably fail the requirements of a wise presbyter or judge.
Because to say that "God forbids same-gender intimacy" is to
imply that God is an arbitrary rule-maker without needing to
show-cause. And because God cannot LIE, He would not
misrepresent the nature of reality by creating a meaningless
commandment that in itself protects men from nothing. And
for "ministers" to cite Scripture that has already been proven
to have been mistranslated shows ignorance or intentional
dishonesty. And who would they start killing to keep
their forged commandment? Consider
this question carefully. By their own
lame standard: wo/men merely laying together is a "capital crime".
Do we go through the boy-scout camp and execute all the boys
sharing tents? Girl-scouts too? After all ...
they're "laying together". Or perhaps they'll opt to kill
only those same-gender couples that are laying together and
seem to be "enjoying it"? Perhaps if they kill only the same gender
couples who have been seen kissing or holding hands in public? What about King
David & Jonathan?
They kissed a lot!
This slippery-slope of sloppy theology soon exposes itself as an
excuse to commit murder indiscriminately and without a shred of just-cause
demonstrated - (not that these lazy, evil, religious hell-spawn
understand that legal principle, either).
According to the Scripture, Lucifer is a
liar, thief and murderer. And the 1st words he is recorded
saying are those one that expanded the scope of the commandment
of God: "Now
the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which
the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has
God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree
of the garden '?" - Gen 3:1.
It is for such reasons that Rabbi's bind such
commandments to the very letter of the law and it is why every
Rabbi knows that the act being forbidden in Scriptures
such as Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 is specifically, AnalSex[.] And this
is also why there is NO commandment in the Torah forbidding
woman laying with woman! Lacking the means to commit
Analsex with each other, there is no need for a statute; -& law
being what it is, -it is unlawful to apply a commandment
intended by the letter for men and use it to prosecute women!
Doing that is in itself
a capitol crime in the Torah! However, because contact with
human dung is toebah (unclean/abomination) in the Torah, men
committing AnalSex with women is presumed to be illegal, too
(And THAT is what
Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26 which is precisely HOW
they receive the "penalty WITHIN" themselves...)! Anally
Injected Death Sentence! It is written: "Do not add to the LORD's words, lest He rebuke
you and prove you a liar." - Pr 30:6 GVT It is written: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to
him the plagues described in this book." - Rev 22:18
The primary, broad sweeping theme of
New Testament Christianity is a command to:
1) Love God
2) Love People
...END OF LIST. (Looks like Judge Moore's big, heavy courthouse
monument with 10 commandments may have been 8 commandments too
heavy!)
See, a perpetual attitude of LOVE automatically
self-governs the individual because you can't be acting in a spirit of
love while you're stealing from somebody. You can't be acting in
an attitude of love while you're encouraging the breaking of personal vows (yours or somebody else's).
You're not acting in an attitude of love if you're using deception
within the body of a contract or statute to ensnare another. You're not acting
in an attitude of love while driving drunk. You're not acting in love
if you're spreading disease.
If God has said: "Mala-Prohibita
man w.
man & woman w. woman" ... Then, at
what point does the act produce results that cause grievous harm. At
what point does the proverbial 'drunk' - 'run over the child'? At what point does
the innocent's blood get shed? Obviously, no double standards
are allowed when answering this. One cannot reason: "They might spread
a disease!",
IF - it is also true that a "MAN & WOMAN" might spread disease
in same or greater degree. Some
might argue "They can't reproduce!" Well then, perhaps all
mixed-gender couples beyond childbearing years, or those who cannot
bear children in their prime should be separated! Since when is
fertility a prerequisite for pair-bonding? And so it will go: From
a premise, - to a test with a mixed couple; -- & then tell us
please:
OTHER THAN THE WELL DOCUMENTED
PERILS OF ANALSEX ... WHERE IS THE CRIME COMMITTED THAT
IS WORTHY OF DEATH - AS SO MANY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MINDLESSLY ASSERT
THAT GOD HAS SAID???
A rule for the sake of a rule? Perhaps if one's a fool...
To Summarize:
|