 |
| Chagall - Moses |
are also rare books that dare to touch the major tenets of our society such as Religions. Again, if we retain only the West, one can only note the delay accumulated unimaginable by the churches on the necessary "Dusting" of biblical texts.
Think about these books is not a hobby specialists cut off, these books and their interpretations have created in the past wars as filthy as Rogue, convictions and terrible endless suffering. Insidiously these writings, not rid of their dross, still exude their poison, the more we see daily the renunciation of all forms of thinking, which is almost the "brand" of a society based on futility, ease and superstitions found.
 |
| Sascha Schneider |
In France it is more tolerable today to hear of yet condemnations from the Catholic Church or otherwise, that, despising the separation of Church and State, continues to affect men and women who want to live simply and openly gay. There in that case has no respect for traditions and customs of our country and its history, but the incessant pounding of a doctrine which confuses spirituality and individual freedoms, seeks to impose on all the same mask of "delighted" to the nursery to give glory to God!
Thus, blindness, shelving theologians too "innovative", stubbornness, manipulation, all accumulates to continue to let the Bible in its matrix of darkness , contradictions and errors.
errors that may affect both the meaning of any passage that the veracity of award of any other book in the Old or New Testament.
believer but I remain detached from any form of membership in churches and contained dogmatic about their traditions! Surely one of the keys to this inertia of theological thought: "Tradition", which finally prevailed on the Truth, the "Ritual", which as in certain mental illness, outweighs the simple movements of life.
 |
| El Greco - Christ |
But if we pose the idea that God exists, how can we imagine it away from any reason, any clarity, falling into all forms of discrimination, hatred or fanciful condemnations, advocating a scheme of hierarchical society and simplistic "man-woman" which not give any account of the plurality of human sensitivity and diversity of his own creation.
These men of the Church they serve God through him or their own fears and their own aggression before the world? This could explain their vision so narrow and snarling all variants of love on earth ...
Should we not stop urgently to paint God through human carriers of selfishness and death?
's book Patrick Negrier "Against Homophobia, homosexuality in the Bible", published Cartridge , is among the rare books that feed an in-depth on biblical texts and their true meaning. Those who prefer the Tradition to Truth will be horrified to see that their vision of hatred and disgust turned to dust under the tools of the researcher as an "archaeologist" emerges, cleans and restores the words, situations , myths, rituals, customs and practices which were used in the crucible of the Bible, through the ancient civilizations of the Middle East. In a word Negrier Patrick did an excellent job of exegesis! thank the tremendous work that allows us to have another approach to biblical texts and saw another light as possible to that of a God of compassion and love.
I'll let you discover the different notes that Patrick Negrier has kindly sent me by allowing me publish them on my blog, because it is part of researchers, rare and perfectionists, who extend their thinking long after the publication of their book.
* * * * *
 |
| P de Champaigne - Elie sleep |
Corrigenda and supplements
my book Against Homophobia
by Patrick Negrier
Despite that the literary model of the Egyptian episode biblical murder of Abel by Cain contained an element homosexual, I can not see today the persistence of this theme of homosexuality in the biblical version of the episode's murder Abel by his brother Cain, who murder should be attributed solely to the economic and political jealousy of Cain against Abel whose enrichment in the eyes of the clan was reason enough to forget the devolution of the function of traditional clan leader's son older (ie Cain), and to confer this function on or chieftain rich (ie Abel) therefore more able to nurture and protect the clan despite his mere status of younger son.
 |
| G Dupre - Cain |
*
Gen. 26.1 to 31 shows how Isaac, having recalled that Abimelech king of the Philistines, had not attacked when Isaac had lied publicly trying to convince the Philistines Rebecca (his wife) was his sister, swore in fair return Abimelech that he did not assault despite homosexuality practiced by Abimelek with the head of his army Pikoli (Gen. 21,22) and then with his friend Ahouzzat (Gen. 26:26). That in many sexualities reciprocity between Otherness: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Lev. 19:18).
*
noted as a significant feature of moral psychology bisexuality when Judah found himself without a wife (or as a young man or as a widower), he exercised with his sexuality a man Hirah whose name means "the white" (Gen. 38,1.12).
*
Christians and Jewish fundamentalists seize, abruptly verses from Leviticus. 18:22 and Lev. 20.13 to condemn male homosexuality. But in doing so, they mistakenly believe that the Bible is a simple book outlining a single thought, while it is instead a veritable library of different authors, defending opposing interests, and consequently expressing views otherwise. It is this great lesson comparative literature teaches us that the study of the Pentateuch, the collection of the first five books of the Bible. After the Genesis is the book of the major principles, the following four books deal with similar themes, but by offering everyone about every topic of divergent and conflicting views. The study compared four last books of the Pentateuch shows that Exodus was written by the leader of the people by Moses and the judges who seconded him in his office of judge; that Leviticus was written by priests aaronides; the Book of Numbers was written by spiritual teachers (prophets moralists outside the path of the rite), and finally that Deuteronomy was written by the prophets policies (which are the path of rituals). Now if the theme of homosexuality, we compare the respective positions of the authors of these four books of different socio-cultural origins, we find:
a) Exodus (book of policies) is not interested in prohibiting homosexuality and sexuality that adultery (Ex 20,14);
b) Leviticus (book of priests) condemns homosexuality only masculine
c) that the book of Numbers (book of spiritual masters) criticizes the Moabites, is homophobic wagons (Num. 21.26 to 30, 22-24);
d) and finally the book Deuteronomy (book of political prophets) only: one in Deut. 22.5 to prohibit wartime Jewish soldiers to defeat the enemy by using the strategy is to wear clothes of the opposite sex to better attract the enemy to put to death more easily, and secondly in Deut. 23.18 to 19 to forbid Jews to practice their own sacred male prostitution (Academic), the fact that this text prohibits the Israelites who have given up paying a prostitute abroad instead pay that sum to the treasury of the temple showing clear that the Israelite men practiced homosexuality as the only foreign customers of prostitutes. It appears this analysis as homophobia, ignored by authors of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, was that the mere fact of priests authors of Leviticus. This raises our question: why was not she homophobia in Israel the fact that only priests authors of Leviticus?
*
beginning of an answer to this question appears in the fact that Leviticus only condemns male homosexuality and not female homosexuality which the Bible Yet in Genesis provides a first example in the person of Dinah (Gen. 34.1). If the priests of Leviticus attempted to prohibit male homosexuality but not female homosexuality, so it had a problem not with homosexuality per se but only with the homosexuality practiced by men, the female homosexuality is their apparently completely indifferent. Now, as the authors of Leviticus priests were only men, so we have to conclude that it is through jealousy that priests authors of Leviticus censored male homosexuality while losing interest in female homosexuality that they bore no shading (indeed the Israelite women were unfairly excluded from the exercise of the priesthood by the dominant macho men priests of the time, and represented therefore not rivals for the men priests). How male homosexuality was shadowing it to the priests of Leviticus authors who were all men? The reason is simple: the priests were forced to marry a woman to have at least one child to whom they should send their hereditary priest. It appears that if men Levitical priests authors censured Israel homosexuals (not gay) because they were jealous of those lay homosexuals who are not priests, were not forced to marry a woman, and therefore could thus freely practice homosexuality, freedom was precisely forbidden to priests forced to marry and be faithful to their wives, adultery is forbidden in the Decalogue of Exodus. It is clear from this analysis that homophobia priests authors of Leviticus had first as a cause a spring psycho-moral jealousy (see for example like in Numb. 25.10, the evocation of "jealousy" murderous priest Pinhas - "mouth of a serpent" - about the union a Jew with a Madyan).
*
Second part of the answer: Lev. 18.1 and Lev. 20.1 exhibit homophobia (among other items) as a word of YHVH to Moses gold this is false because when we consult the Exodus written by Moses, we do not find any expressions of homophobia.
*
Third response element: Lev. This 18.1-5 male homosexuality (among other items) as a practice whose Egyptian and Canaanite son of Israel worshiping the god YHVH must differentiate themselves: and such a blend is wrong for two reasons. First the authors of Leviticus priests wanted the Israelites differentiate their practices of worship Egyptian and Canaanite, but this is a contradiction because all those who have thoroughly studied the cultures of Egypt, Mesopotamia Elamite and know that these are the matrices of direct Yahwist religion of the Jews (Ps. 87.4). And then present homosexuality as an expression of Egyptian and Canaanite cultures is an aberration because homosexuality is a fact of nature as possible expressions of the sensitivity of sexual and emotional human universal, is totally transcendent (ie, ie foreign) to ethnic and cultural representations of the various countries of the world, and that is why there is and always will be homosexuals in all countries regardless of their cultures.
*
Fourth response element: the degree of orthodoxy of the book of Leviticus was minor because the authors had wrongly allowed to add items to the right of canon law in Israel was limited to "ten words" of the Decalogue (Ex 34.28; Deut. 4.13, 10.4), and two verses of the Pentateuch had absolutely wanted to remind the authors of Leviticus that priests were forbidden " add 'articles entitled to these "ten commandments" (Deut. 5.22, an expression of political prophets; Numb. 11.25, expression of the spiritual masters). Or by adding the number of legal publications (such as homophobic verses in Leviticus. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13) to the Decalogue, the authors of Leviticus have betrayed them, despite the unorthodox nature of their writing, and therefore not Orthodox, homophobic articles of Leviticus should not be taken into account but instead be discarded without any concession as non-Orthodox.
*
The problem of the legal obligation for male priests authors of Leviticus, to marry a woman, was treated in Jug. 19 which shows a hand with a striking example of how a homosexual overcomes the Levite Leviticus prohibited. 18.22 and Lev. 20.13 a lesbian taking a concubine in order to impersonate the eyes of public opinion for a so-called heterosexual, which does not preclude also secretly having sex with his own servant, and finally deliver his concubine to ruthless violent xenophobic Give'ah people who end up killing her. This Haggada ("legendary story instructive") was there a response from the authors of the book of Judges (prophets policies) to show all the tribes of Israel and especially to the tribe of Levi unconscious envious (author of the homophobic Leviticus) that the requirements of Leviticus. 18:22 and Lev. 20.13 were criminal since they resulted in a deadly civil war in Israel.
*
 |
| Chagall - Noemie |
2.1 Ruth teaches us that the husband of Noemi "knew" (MYD ') a man. Now that the verbal form MYD 'is not vocalized indicates that this "knowledge" was not speakable, we should not talk about it, imagine what this man was at least bisexual. Or conversely the disastrous example of Jug. 19, Ruth 2.1 shows clearly that a homosexual or bisexual may make sense of moral authority, to overcome his bisexuality personal nature to exercise its right to charitably goel (right of redemption was not mandatory but only morally Recommended Gen. 38; Ruth) to yield offspring remained a widow without children, in this case the Moabite Ruth (familialistic homophobic at that!).
*
Note that whenever a biblical author criticizes the typical people of Sodom (figure of xenophobic and homophobic violence) and Moab (the figure familialist homophobic), it is critical of homophobia. Examples of criticisms leveled against these two types of homophobic: Ex 15.15; Deut. 2.9 to 19, 23.4-7, 29.22, 32.32 (observant and perceptive reader will not fail to note a contrario that Leviticus contains no criticism of Sodom and Moab, which he shared ideology homophobic).
*
In my book Against Homophobia, the chapter title "Homosexuality teaching" should more accurately be replaced by "The pedagogy from to homosexual "as if the prophets Elijah and Elisha physically united but modestly to a homosexual emotionally isolated and immersed in a kind of neurotic distress to save his life, it is not because these two prophets were homosexuals is indeed a rescuer can perform a mouth mouth on a person of his own sex to revive her without being himself homosexual.
*
The prophet Habakkuk in Hab. 2.15 criticizes homosexuality hedonistic voyeurs.
*
In my book the subtitle "Homosexuality teaching practiced by Jesus" should be replaced by Jesus and the transformation of the educational homosensualité.
*
5.1 to 20 Mc's episode takes place in the city of gerahs, Decapolis city inhabited by ultra-Orthodox Jews (I Mac. 13 Mac and II. 10) for most anti-gay ideology in accordance with homophobic Leviticus (expression of the extreme right of the time) but nevertheless has dominated - 63 by the Romans who must necessarily temper the enthusiasm of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews of Decapolis. In this episode the demon refused to leave the Roman Decapolis where homosexuality was regulated, so it was a gay barely reached by the homophobia of Jewish ultra-orthodox Decapolis since they were subject to political power and morality who accepted Roman homosexuality in regulation. But what kind of gay was he here? He refuses to remain attached to strings that made him a slave. Yet according to Roman mores slaves were used as passive sexual objects by the Romans. We must therefore conclude that if the demon refused her a slave, because, refusing to be used as a passive sex object by the Romans, it was a practicing homosexual.
*
In Mk 7:31-37 Jesus of Nazareth healed a gay social homophobia. Indeed, Jesus put his fingers in the ears of the deaf-mute, with his mouth and then spitting it touched his tongue, he could not do that with his own language as he had already put his fingers in the ears of deaf-mute. In other words Jesus kissed her on the mouth a deaf-mute to cure his deafness and difficulty speaking. Why this person was he a deaf-mute? The answer to this question is simple : The action takes place in Decapolis where the Maccabees had installed ultra-Orthodox Jewish supporters such as the ideology of Leviticus including homophobic (I Mac. 13-14). It appears that it is homophobia social Decapolis Jews who had made this individual deaf and stuttering, and that the educational intervention homosensualité (exclusively oral and therefore sexually continent, that is to say chaste) practiced by Jesus on the deaf-mute who, by providing a first experience homosensualité this individual, the liberation of social status of homosexual made sourdbègue by homophobia social ultra-Orthodox Jews of Decapolis.
*
The fact that the nazir Jesus of Nazareth, his dedication to YHVH doomed to a state of sexual abstinence (Num. 6.1 - 21), ie chastity, has charitably "loved" the apostle John at the point of accepting the latter, who was apparently sensitive homosensuelle rests on his chest, does not mean that Jesus shared this sensitivity but only as son of a man open to the understanding of everyone and everything, he felt it was his moral duty not to reject an apostle of his affection than other men did not like because of its sensitivity sexual minority.
*
In Jn 13,23.25 21.20 and the apostle John spills onto the torso of Jesus of Nazareth who was a Nazarite, that is to say a man "devoted" to YHVH and therefore living chastely in sexual continence. John spoke of the friendship that Jesus was using two verbs : Egap (Jn 13.23, 19.26, 21,7.20) and ephilei (Jn 20:2). Egap refers to a moral relationship of love (like that of master and disciple), however, that ephilei (term used by Mary Magdalene to appoint his personal perception of subjective and therefore the relationship between Jesus and John) refers to an emotional relationship, between sentimental alter-ego who understand and accept each other. If John has described himself as a disciple whom Jesus loved, a friendship both charitable (Jn 19:26 resumed the vocabulary used in Tob family adoption. 8.21 and 11.17 on the heterosexual couples) and affective (point subjective view of perhaps envious Mary Magdalene) was to serve as a negative contrast has himself John was loved by others in general or the moral of charity or the emotional feelings (he was so hated). There would be here to wonder why John, "loved" the only charitably Jesus was loved by others in general or in terms of charity or to plan a comprehensive condition.
*
Erastus (Greek figure typical Practitioner's teaching on homosexuality), auxiliary Paul (Acts 19,22), but located between by Paul Tertius ("Third") and Quartus ("fourth") was well regarded by Paul as a simple zero (Rom . 16.22 to 23) despite its useful role as treasurer of the Church of Corinth. This only confirms the malicious homophobic and frankly uncharitable Paul.
*
 |
| G Reni - Peter and Paul |
When in II Peter 3.15 to 16 the chief Apostle Simon Peter critically dusnoeta tina ("a few things misunderstood") contained in the epistles of Paul, he calls on Christians to show the patience of Jesus Christ which Paul spoke in his letters. Now if we have the curiosity to see the letters in which Paul speaks specifically of the patience of Jesus Christ, we note with dismay that three of these passages related to homosexuality censored by Paul makrothumia (I Rom. 2.4; Tim. 1.16) and "suffer injustice" (I Cor. 6.7). Moreover, it is even more striking that in his letter where Simon Peter urged Christians to "wait" in imitation of Jesus of Nazareth, he treated precisely in II Peter 2.6-10's episode of Sodom, remember, was a city of xenophobic and homophobic violence. It appears that when Simon Peter urged Christians to be patient as Jesus Christ face to passages where Paul spoke of this patience in connection with its own censorship of homosexuality, Simon-Pierre de facto invited Christians to imitate Jesus of Nazareth by him as proof of patience with these dusnoeta tina ("things misunderstood") by Paul on homosexuality. Thus it appears that Simon-Pierre politely but firmly opposed to the passages where Paul spoke of homosexuality without understanding.
Patrick Negrier, summer solstice 2010.
0 comments:
Post a Comment