LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Forgive me, Polarstern, but I don't quite understand what you're saying. What do you mean by "help" in this sense—are you referring to a translation of a translation?

Damnit, Starship, what did shellfish ever do to you?! What?!

@Jim, you cannot translate the various Hebrew dialects used to compose the Protestant Old Testament straight to Greek.

As I said before, Asiatic scholars are known for using other languages contemporary to the specific dialect of Hebrew and other dialects to make sure they are understanding the Hebrew correctly.

Hebrew even in it's current form is really big on metaphor, allegory, and hyperbole. So it's very difficult to build a context, let alone translate right.

@Silasw: I'm well aware that at the lower levels the Co E is a lot more progressive than similar American organisations. I do live here. But there seems a marked disconnect between them and the leaders of the church, so I guess what confuses me is why there hasn't already been a schism, much like some of the Archbishops are warning might occur.

@Kay, I could've just killed those prawns, but then I decided their punishment must be more severe.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:10:40 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Aha, so Starship admits he wants to kill gay people!

Hebrew: the not-so-simple language with more dialects than a hydra has grow-back heads and more resurrections than Jesus, Lazarus and anything Isaiah managed to pull on others put together.

Paelo-Hebrew: some texts may well have been written in that and preserved... to themselves be translated as both script and language shifted, and what remained probably dying a death after the creation of the Torah, after being incorporated into it, the Talmud or junked outright beforehand. <shrugs> Romantics insist that the Tradition (QBL, Kabalah, Cabala... pick a way of trying to sound out three letters) started around here, secretly squireling away teachings the mainline schools of thought found too radical. Doubters doubt this a lot. (Personal opinion, I'd pick much, much later, too...) Some folklore might well have actually survived from here, though, and has weaved its way surreptitiously along the years into the rest, even if original written sources are long gone.

Biblical Hebrew: as you'll notice if you read the Wiki entry, it came/ comes in dialectical flavours depending on exact time period and place; mainly used in the Torah and Talmud (but not exclusively... see Aramaic) and notoriously prone to induce arguments even amongst fluent native speakers of each particular dialect, as, when you don't write every vowel-sound, you can argue about what each word actually was when you hit ambiguity, let alone adding transcription errors to the mix from people who weren't always familiar with another area's quirks. Add to that that what survives is a mix of highly educated scholars trying to sound swish (and not talk as they did back home)... and, those barely able to speak what they were trying to copy, let alone write it straight. <_<

Medieval Hebrew: relevant, as many texts discussing the Torah and the translations of earlier versions of the language were also used by Christians interested in Bible study. Again, note the flavours of the rainbow... <_< And, the cross-pollinations. Yiddish deserves a special mention here.

Modern Hebrew: reconstituted for your own convenience to once again become a living language. Oh... and leaning heavily on Modern Aramaics and now-dying Yiddishes to do so (think of them as the water bit to "just add water"). Raised this here as it shows that even lifting Classical and Medieval forms from written sources couldn't make a living language in all its required complexity. Writing only gives you so much of a language, as, after all, scholars prefer to sound learned, and not bother with the gritty stuff needed for the day-to-day. And, without a knowledge of that, you can sometimes lose something in what scholastic written texts you have got: unspecified Knowledge Bases are important when it comes to reading anything a language has.

Related, but necessary...

Aramaic: a separate, but related and constantly cross-pollinating language; comes in flavours and a lot of the Bible is written in forms of it. Both Old Testament and New, in fact: a lot of the Rabbis across the centuries had to be bilingual in a wide range of Hebrews and Aramaics just to keep up (let alone other languages). Just look at the number of flavours. And, some of the differences between them are shockingly wide to almost be totally different languages entirely. In fact, this language provided the script for Biblical Hebrew, as well as other languages in the region... and is the basis for cross-pollinations with other Semitic languages that became their own selves... like Arabic.

In short: Hebrew and Aramaic are language groups within a larger group, not single languages. And, the same goes for Ancient Greek, actually. The nearest modern equivalent? German... particularly if you stretch the term to include Frisian, Dutch-derived languages and dialects... and English. And, although you can muddle through in a lot of the dialects if you're familiar with two or so, it's not that easy to switch between all of 'em, right?

This is why "translation" isn't simple, Maxima. And, why just settling back and saying "well, scholars are agreed" is... a bad move. Because scholars never agree. You have to do some actual looking yourself, mate. And choose between scholars. And, thereby enter a whole new world of argy-bargy.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:38:18 PM by Euodiachloris

The lack of a schism is down to the fact that preventing a schism is what the Co E spends most of its time on. Even within the hierarchy there is a split. I'd be willing to put money on the idea that Rowan Williams personally supports gay marriage. It's just that there’s a large amount of right wing people at the bottom of the hierarchy (especially in Africa) that might well leave the church if he admitted that. Like pretty much every organisation in history the Co E main goal is maintaining and expanding its support base. Sadly that means it's unwilling to kick the sexists and homophobes to the curb.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:17:06 PM by Silasw

Commander Silasw: Sir, enemy ship has been targeted. Phasers and torpedoes are locked and standing by at your command.

Captain Maxima: Well done Number One. This will a proud day for the Federation; now prepare to f.....

Lt. Elfive: Incoming transmission from enemy ship sir.

(A villainous cackling face appears)

Colonel Scallop: So, you think you've won, Captain Maxima? Prepared to finish us, are you?

Captain Maxima: You shellfish have been the scourge of this quadrant long enough. Time to say goodbye.

Colonel Scallop: Well, before you do that, you might want to say goodbye to your little gay pals as well.

(The viewscreen pans to kay42day trapped behind a forcefield. Everyone on the Enteprise's bridge is stunned silent.)

Kay: Captain! Forget about me. Destroy them now!

Captain Maxima: (hesitates, then draws a deep breath) Commander, lower shields. Power down phasers and disarm torpedoes. (Silasw stares) Now, Number One.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:23:08 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Someone should really compile all of your little story analogies somewhere. If nothing else I think some of us have gotten promotions as the series has progressed.

I dunno ... that seems logically weak. After all, if some language's concepts aren't translatable into any other idiom, how could that fact even be articulated, or adequately demonstrated, to speakers of those languages?!

And despite archaeological advances, we moderns aren't really swimming in tons of relevant linguistic evidence unavailable to earlier translators. King James's men, for example, were highly lettered in nearly all the Asiatic languages we know today. The 19th/20th-century decryptions of Egyptian, Sumerian, and Old Persian added little to scholars' insight into the texts, and though the rediscovery of Ugaritic was a help with several semantic cruces, it didn't exactly revolutionize the message of the Biblical MSS ... to put it mildly.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:26:17 PM by Jhimmibhob

@Silasw, I'm a troper, I can't help it. It literally just pops in. I hope folks get a laugh out of them at least.

Reread the brilliance Euo just posted.

Again, I'm not the scholar, but I've talked with plenty I do esteem wo have proven their worth and they do talk about the different translations.

It's not just homosexuality that is in debate either, this just applies to this thread.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:31:54 PM by Polarstern

Yes... but, translators add their own widgets when they run the data through their own software.

No matter how fluent you think you are in a written language, you're still missing bits, as it's not your native. Allegory is so dependant on folklore, idiom and usage that even those fluent in various Hebrew or Aramaic languages wouldn't get all of what was written... as the story needed was oral. And, disputed... and morphed along the way. <_<

Also, some tropes just don't translate across cultures without some gymnastics. <shrugs> Values Dissonance, etc.

Also, many scholars are crap at picking up on jokes.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:32:54 PM by Euodiachloris

Thanks for the overview of Hebrew, Euo! It's easy to forget such things when we use the same word to refer to a language that evolves over millennia.

However ... one could say precisely the same thing about Greek. We use the same name for the Cretan dialect of Linear B, for Homer's Ionic/Attic pidgin, for the widely differing languages of the Hellenic city-states, for the lingua franca of Alexander's empire, for the dizzying socioeconomic variants of Byzantine speech, the mediaeval documents penned under the Ottoman yoke, and the 21st-century language of the Athens Daily. Nonetheless, it's possible to read and understand each of these "Greeks" on its own terms with enough education and preparation.

Western Hebrew scholars, now and then, are aware of these distinctions. Not even the first-millennium and mediaeval translators were green enough to, say, promiscuously apply the examples and usages of Deborah's Song to the book of Malachi.

Thanks for making that point Jhimm.

Jhimm, don't think I missed what you did there.

edited 4th Jan '13 12:53:41 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Yikes—I've really got to read my stuff more carefully before posting.

It's the most action Malachi has had in ages. Don't knock it. But, poor, poor Deborah: her story has been badly butchered. <morns>

I want to show something that sums my approach to discussions like these

Thing is, when this first came up, I did some research. This evidence consists of a few employees saying they were discriminated against and the oft-touted figure of a dozen lawsuits settled since 1988. Apparently, folks missed that gay-friendly Apple has had that many lawsuits filed against them in a single year.

Folks also missed Matt Perez's intelligent commentary on the gay lobby (col.) trying to force their ways down people's throats. By the way, he's gay.

And to this oft-repeated line of "they give to hate groups". Again, no, they are not hate groups. They are groups the Southern Poverty Law Center says are hate groups. The SPLC's own website says they conjure up their own definition, admittedly a lot of the criteria make sense, but they don't use any standard that has been agreed on by any impartial party, or any part of the government. Their own website includes the disclaimer that appearing on their list doesn't actually, nor should it imply, wrongdoing. In that regard Planned Parenthood and the Family Research Council are the same type of group and should be labelled the same.

Those are the facts. I didn't need speak Greek, or know Aramaic, or have fancy psychoanalytical degrees. I simply did a Google search and got the data. Do I ignore other people's knowledge, experience, skill, and training? No. I don't speak Hebrew, I can't do translations, I don't know how to compile a psyche profile, so of course it makes sense to buddy up with people who can, thus expanding the parameters of my own knowledge. But when I see people who can translate Greek and can give me the intricacies of potassium-argon dating, and yet basic things that only require 10 seconds on Google evade them, then I feel justified in saying "I'm not quite convinced."

The point of all of this is to say I don't "oppose the cause" because I like being the forum douche, no matter who may say or feel that way. The point is that it is the height of rank hypocrisy and arrogance to say "We're right. And how dare you question it?" You are no better than the so-called hate groups you oppose. I for one refuse to bow such demands.

Why? Because I made that mistake already. I was led like some dumb sheep to support things that I couldn't ever support, I supported people who in truth opposed all I believe in. I HATE the bitter taste of being so deceived and I resent the fact I'll have to carry that shame forever.

To paraphrase X Men First Class, I've been at the mercy of people who thought they were right and refused to question it. Never again.

... but I thought, as Shimaspawn said, that you agreed that the FRC was a hate group by your definition as well? Because Chick-Fil-A has certainly donated to them.

Plus, there's this excerpt from Tony Perkins on LGBT activism, in which he mentions that homosexual behaviour 'will destroy them and our nation'.

edited 5th Jan '13 10:18:34 AM by Iaculus

The boycott wasn't because of the donations. Donations were happening long before the boycott. The boycott was because the CEO stated his opinion. Nobody even knew about the donations.

Really? The donations were all over my local papers when it went down. They were linked with the quote, as the reason people noticed the donations, but the donations got a lot of flack at least in Chicago at the time.

When I heard about the issue, I don't think they were even mentioned. Perhaps Chicago local news is underrated.

I'm confused. Are LGB Ts just not allowed to protest or boycott businesses they don't like? Does not eating at the Chik-fil-A in town make me a Nazi?

I was once a Christian and believed that.

If I was still one, I would probably be dead.

I was soaking in despair and on the verge of psychological breakdown because I believed I was the lowest, most sinful and wicked thing in the world simply because I happened to be gay.

Not because I'd actually done anything. Just because I continued to have sinful impulses.

The only reason I didn't commit suicide was a fear of hell and a desire to not hurt my family, but given enough time I probably would have just done it to have an end.

There's no real way I can separate the idea of homosexuality as a sin with that time in my life.

I once told one of my religious friends that if I discovered that Christianity was right, I would go to a remote location and pray that God would destroy my soul when I died. I would continue praying until dehydration or starvation took me.

Such a world is not one I can continue existing in.

If It is arrogance to believe you are right, then I am arrogant.

Others will judge me regardless of what I do or say. Judge me for disagreeing with them, their views or their religion. Judge me for wanting to have a relationship with someone I care about. Judge me for simply continuing to exist.

It's not something I can ever control or be above. If someone tells me they think I'm wrong, unless I'm very confident, I listen.

Because I really, really don't like being wrong about things.

It's why I try to avoid talking about stuff I know little about. It's also why I tend to preface my statements with "Possibly"s or "I think", and end them with "..But I am probably wrong".

It insures I don't... trap myself in an absolute statement.

But in this case, I can say with the complete and utmost confidence, I think I am right about Homosexuality not being a sin.

I now complete my overtly long, rambling, rant-ish, and mostly "THIS MY OPINION!" post.