I just wanted to make a quick interjection on Nate's unnecessarily long winded post and try to establish some stability in his heated debate.
No seriously, hi. And I'll try to be brief (I'm not as good at it as he is).
I've had alot of Bible training, especially old Testament in both secular and religious settings. While I have qualms with some elements of the site and some ways they worded their arguments and conclusions, I agree with and have had consistency with alot of their topics and sources, and in this story in particular I support the site's conclusion.
As with alot of stories, you have to take in context, but in this case, the site is only supporting its argument with historical context. Something they're not mentioning is the literary context. Ruth is in line with Judges, Esther, and Samuel, all of which (especially Judges) had a huge overaching theme of universalism. The concept was a kind of acceptance for people who are 'different' (for example, Enud, who was left handed, which was a huge deal back then, and Deborah, who was a female prophet; note that in the same story as Deborah, there is Jael, who impaled Sissera with a stake- basically a girl power story, like Esther). One of the critical elements of Ruth's story (at least in what I was taught) was that she was a Moabitess. This was a big deal back then, since she was the great grandmother of David, one of the icons of their society. It's the equivalent of a story in the 50's about an African woman following a White woman after tragedy, and at the end, we discover she's the great grandma of Abe Lincoln. While the race issue is significant, the romantic friendships of the time (see Boston Marriages) would also be a critical highlight, like Deborah was a woman, and Enud was a leftie.
The euphemisms they use, the contextual points, and the dialogue itself is very graphic compared to alot of Biblical text. The Bible repeats itself when its trying to drive a point home that's theological, but mundane; when there's a line as long winded as that without a parallel, it stands out, and has significance.
Yeah, I failed in making that brief, but I wanted to throw my mediocre credentials around and argue that the site's verbiage is in line with Apologetics (and I'm fundamentally against that), but their method and logic is sound and consistent. At least in my opinion and experience.
The rhetoric is a stretch, but the meaning and theory makes a Hell of a lot more sense than the usually touted theory (that it's all about premarital sex between Ruth and Boaz).
Yes and the whole "I will accept death if anything takes you away fro me."
If that's not friendship, then it must be some crazy stalker.
Seriously, name me one friend who would kill...ney...wish to die if they were torn apart from you.
Even after their husband (wife) has already died.
Ruth's husband past away, yet she still has the gall to continue living. But when the mere hint arrives that Naomi is leaving her...she prays for death?
ok, how about this...Ruth was able to continue because of Naomi being there, and the fear that Naomi would leave or anything would happen to her would be like Ruth losing what she has left of her husband, being that Naomi is her mother in law...
From this story I gain the confidence that God doesn't hate me, rather he embraces me and has truly blessed me with Jordan as a gift, not a challenge. It means that my life as directed by my homosexuality is not a curse or struggle. It is merely my life as God has planned it, and I can live it however I choose without worrying about eternal hellfire; that is, if I can stay away from other sin.
Here's another thing to add to the story. Back then, being a widow was almost a death sentence. A woman needed a man to feed her, clothe her and shelter her. For Ruth to decide to not go back to Moab and find a new husband, and rather stay with Naomi, another widow, she put Naomi first.
Another sign of true love to me.
I just don't see it as a stretch. Nate, please explain where it's stretching.
the bible is up to individual interpretation - there is no one answer or meaning behind any story. if you find comfort in what you read and find peace through the readings, then you're a better person because of it. the story is a love story, but not in the same sense you're looking for though. but, it does show the strength of a woman going against convention and how her strenght helped guide another...
I'm trying to say that contextually speaking, it is allowing for two people of the same gender to be together. That's all. Do I call it marriage? Yes, but only because I feel her pledge is the same as a wedding vow. And Ruth is taking care of Naomi the way I would imagine a husband/wife would do. And because Naomi became another mother for Ruth's child.
Perhaps it's not allowing "homosexuality" but it is saying "If you and another man/woman want to be together and live your lives together until by death do you part, then go ahead."
take it however you believe it to be or mean as it relates to your life. The bible, contrary to an above mentioned statement, is not really up to interpretation, but rather a set of stories meant to give guidance...there is a difference...
The story tells of the importance of having close relationships and enduring faith that when the worst hits, that those around that you cling to for support will be there for you, but you must be willing to believe in them and have them there for you. It reinforces the bond between families, and that even extended family can be a source of strength...this is also a message used in most wedding ceremonies, in that the priest, pastor, whatever, says that the two families come together to form a new family and a new bond...but I've contradicted myself by giving an interpretation...
Bryan, if you believe that god hates you because you are gay, I am so very sorry. Those people that believe such things and cast that upon you will surely not be seen in good light by God at their judgment as they are not listening to the all loving aspect of Christianity and of the Christian God. There is no evil cast upon a person who lives a good life and who is compassionate and gives more than they receive on this earth...in fact that is central and key in many religions...
The framework of religion is based not on a holy deity, but rather on personal beliefs used to shape society...the "sins" and so forth are not based from God...think about it...where in the ten commandments, the most important aspect of christian thought, does it say that thou shall not be gay?
I understand the need for many in the gay and lesbian community to have to or wish to search for answers in the bible, but the truth is the basic thoughts of christianity is enough...I would suggest thinking and reflecting upon the basics like the ten commandments...
Of course I think it is so awesome that we have such a diverse family and set of circumstances which allow us to speak and discuss such a wide range of issues including religion...I would hate to imagine life without the family I have and the differing perspectives we all bring to the family...our individual strengths make us a family that can not and will not be broken, even if from time to time we have rifts.
I agree for the most part, and am open to debate on the initial reason for the post. I can see it going either way.
However (dun-dun-dun-duuun): I wanted to point out that the Bible is often used as a weapon with rhetoric to condemn a homosexual lifestyle. Yeah, we all know that. The point is that the Bible can easily be used as a tool that endorses homosexuality, but most gay folks aren't taught this or recognize it. They're not given this opportunity. It's important for us to be able to express this knowledge when we find it. Both for our personal justifications that we often never really receive, and to encourage it in others. Especially because there is very little religious support for the gay community- and in some respects, I can completely understand that. Nevertheless, we need to be able to reach out and receive that support, but more importantly pass it to each other.
Biblical references like Sodom & Gomorrah and David & Jonathan are manipulated in ways that abuse our perspectives. Gay youth and straight youth alike are exposed to that, and it continues to hinder our society as a whole. When we discover these manipulations, why shouldn't we proselytize it? And not just in gay related matters- Global concepts are important, too. How many Christians realize that Jesus himself states the negation of the Mosaic law, and replaces even the 10 Commandments with only two laws, Love God and Love Eachother? And how often are things in the Pentateuch or 10 Commandments used to justify irrational concepts despite the obvious?
Bryan, and everyone, really, should be taught the dual perspectives of religion- the actualy theology and then the reality of the world and how they apply to each other. Not that either are wrong, but how they both exist and we need to sort out our own understandings. But we're not taught this. And every day, our leadership- social, political, spiritual, educational, so on- all levels of it- fails to provide that insight and divide. That's built into some, and it's just a matter of time to make a mistake for others. Every day Bryan and I are exposed to ridiculous ideas. "Homosexuality doesn't exist in nature", "Gays prey on children", "There is a gay agenda", etc. And so are you. But opening these debates and pointing out there are justifiable arguments for theories like Ruth x Naiomi isn't just to help heal the scars for our own souls (though it does help, and I'm sure we appreciate your patience with the ramblings if for that reason alone), but it also serves as an opportunity to show each other alternate perspectives, other view points, and just general potential.
If Bryan, or anyone, craves- needs- the potential that these kinds of theories can provide, no matter how far-fetched they may appear to be- it's only right we share them with each other. It's served me well personally in debates to be fair and point out there are some radical theories out there that I may or may not agree with, and- most importantly- that you may or not agree with also. You don't have to agree, and it's always good to satisfy your conscience by pointing out, "I've only heard this and think it's a bunch of bologna, but..." Kinda' like how someone advising you the undeniable fact that 2+2=5 can be a very liberating experience.
By the way, your father is constantly popping in and out; I can't think/write when I hear people talking... That being said, if alot of that is out of order and doesn't make sense, I'm hoping you understand. (To be fair, for the past couple of minutes he's been quiet to let me finish. ^_^; ...)
11 comments:
its a stretch...
Oh, helo thar, im stalkin yer internetz blog.
I just wanted to make a quick interjection on Nate's unnecessarily long winded post and try to establish some stability in his heated debate.
No seriously, hi. And I'll try to be brief (I'm not as good at it as he is).
I've had alot of Bible training, especially old Testament in both secular and religious settings. While I have qualms with some elements of the site and some ways they worded their arguments and conclusions, I agree with and have had consistency with alot of their topics and sources, and in this story in particular I support the site's conclusion.
As with alot of stories, you have to take in context, but in this case, the site is only supporting its argument with historical context. Something they're not mentioning is the literary context. Ruth is in line with Judges, Esther, and Samuel, all of which (especially Judges) had a huge overaching theme of universalism. The concept was a kind of acceptance for people who are 'different' (for example, Enud, who was left handed, which was a huge deal back then, and Deborah, who was a female prophet; note that in the same story as Deborah, there is Jael, who impaled Sissera with a stake- basically a girl power story, like Esther). One of the critical elements of Ruth's story (at least in what I was taught) was that she was a Moabitess. This was a big deal back then, since she was the great grandmother of David, one of the icons of their society. It's the equivalent of a story in the 50's about an African woman following a White woman after tragedy, and at the end, we discover she's the great grandma of Abe Lincoln. While the race issue is significant, the romantic friendships of the time (see Boston Marriages) would also be a critical highlight, like Deborah was a woman, and Enud was a leftie.
The euphemisms they use, the contextual points, and the dialogue itself is very graphic compared to alot of Biblical text. The Bible repeats itself when its trying to drive a point home that's theological, but mundane; when there's a line as long winded as that without a parallel, it stands out, and has significance.
Yeah, I failed in making that brief, but I wanted to throw my mediocre credentials around and argue that the site's verbiage is in line with Apologetics (and I'm fundamentally against that), but their method and logic is sound and consistent. At least in my opinion and experience.
The rhetoric is a stretch, but the meaning and theory makes a Hell of a lot more sense than the usually touted theory (that it's all about premarital sex between Ruth and Boaz).
I'm with nate...it's a stretch. but the passage is one i'll remember - entreat me not to leave thee, for whereever thou goest,I will follow.
Yes and the whole "I will accept death if anything takes you away fro me."
If that's not friendship, then it must be some crazy stalker.
Seriously, name me one friend who would kill...ney...wish to die if they were torn apart from you.
Even after their husband (wife) has already died.
Ruth's husband past away, yet she still has the gall to continue living. But when the mere hint arrives that Naomi is leaving her...she prays for death?
Come on! That's love.
ok, how about this...Ruth was able to continue because of Naomi being there, and the fear that Naomi would leave or anything would happen to her would be like Ruth losing what she has left of her husband, being that Naomi is her mother in law...
again its a stretch.
Here is a question, what do you gain from this story?
How does it make you a better person?
From this story I gain the confidence that God doesn't hate me, rather he embraces me and has truly blessed me with Jordan as a gift, not a challenge. It means that my life as directed by my homosexuality is not a curse or struggle. It is merely my life as God has planned it, and I can live it however I choose without worrying about eternal hellfire; that is, if I can stay away from other sin.
Here's another thing to add to the story. Back then, being a widow was almost a death sentence. A woman needed a man to feed her, clothe her and shelter her. For Ruth to decide to not go back to Moab and find a new husband, and rather stay with Naomi, another widow, she put Naomi first.
Another sign of true love to me.
I just don't see it as a stretch. Nate, please explain where it's stretching.
the bible is up to individual interpretation - there is no one answer or meaning behind any story. if you find comfort in what you read and find peace through the readings, then you're a better person because of it.
the story is a love story, but not in the same sense you're looking for though. but, it does show the strength of a woman going against convention and how her strenght helped guide another...
I'm trying to say that contextually speaking, it is allowing for two people of the same gender to be together. That's all. Do I call it marriage? Yes, but only because I feel her pledge is the same as a wedding vow. And Ruth is taking care of Naomi the way I would imagine a husband/wife would do. And because Naomi became another mother for Ruth's child.
Perhaps it's not allowing "homosexuality" but it is saying "If you and another man/woman want to be together and live your lives together until by death do you part, then go ahead."
take it however you believe it to be or mean as it relates to your life. The bible, contrary to an above mentioned statement, is not really up to interpretation, but rather a set of stories meant to give guidance...there is a difference...
The story tells of the importance of having close relationships and enduring faith that when the worst hits, that those around that you cling to for support will be there for you, but you must be willing to believe in them and have them there for you. It reinforces the bond between families, and that even extended family can be a source of strength...this is also a message used in most wedding ceremonies, in that the priest, pastor, whatever, says that the two families come together to form a new family and a new bond...but I've contradicted myself by giving an interpretation...
Bryan, if you believe that god hates you because you are gay, I am so very sorry. Those people that believe such things and cast that upon you will surely not be seen in good light by God at their judgment as they are not listening to the all loving aspect of Christianity and of the Christian God. There is no evil cast upon a person who lives a good life and who is compassionate and gives more than they receive on this earth...in fact that is central and key in many religions...
The framework of religion is based not on a holy deity, but rather on personal beliefs used to shape society...the "sins" and so forth are not based from God...think about it...where in the ten commandments, the most important aspect of christian thought, does it say that thou shall not be gay?
I understand the need for many in the gay and lesbian community to have to or wish to search for answers in the bible, but the truth is the basic thoughts of christianity is enough...I would suggest thinking and reflecting upon the basics like the ten commandments...
Of course I think it is so awesome that we have such a diverse family and set of circumstances which allow us to speak and discuss such a wide range of issues including religion...I would hate to imagine life without the family I have and the differing perspectives we all bring to the family...our individual strengths make us a family that can not and will not be broken, even if from time to time we have rifts.
I agree for the most part, and am open to debate on the initial reason for the post. I can see it going either way.
However (dun-dun-dun-duuun): I wanted to point out that the Bible is often used as a weapon with rhetoric to condemn a homosexual lifestyle. Yeah, we all know that. The point is that the Bible can easily be used as a tool that endorses homosexuality, but most gay folks aren't taught this or recognize it. They're not given this opportunity. It's important for us to be able to express this knowledge when we find it. Both for our personal justifications that we often never really receive, and to encourage it in others. Especially because there is very little religious support for the gay community- and in some respects, I can completely understand that. Nevertheless, we need to be able to reach out and receive that support, but more importantly pass it to each other.
Biblical references like Sodom & Gomorrah and David & Jonathan are manipulated in ways that abuse our perspectives. Gay youth and straight youth alike are exposed to that, and it continues to hinder our society as a whole. When we discover these manipulations, why shouldn't we proselytize it? And not just in gay related matters- Global concepts are important, too. How many Christians realize that Jesus himself states the negation of the Mosaic law, and replaces even the 10 Commandments with only two laws, Love God and Love Eachother? And how often are things in the Pentateuch or 10 Commandments used to justify irrational concepts despite the obvious?
Bryan, and everyone, really, should be taught the dual perspectives of religion- the actualy theology and then the reality of the world and how they apply to each other. Not that either are wrong, but how they both exist and we need to sort out our own understandings. But we're not taught this. And every day, our leadership- social, political, spiritual, educational, so on- all levels of it- fails to provide that insight and divide. That's built into some, and it's just a matter of time to make a mistake for others. Every day Bryan and I are exposed to ridiculous ideas. "Homosexuality doesn't exist in nature", "Gays prey on children", "There is a gay agenda", etc. And so are you. But opening these debates and pointing out there are justifiable arguments for theories like Ruth x Naiomi isn't just to help heal the scars for our own souls (though it does help, and I'm sure we appreciate your patience with the ramblings if for that reason alone), but it also serves as an opportunity to show each other alternate perspectives, other view points, and just general potential.
If Bryan, or anyone, craves- needs- the potential that these kinds of theories can provide, no matter how far-fetched they may appear to be- it's only right we share them with each other. It's served me well personally in debates to be fair and point out there are some radical theories out there that I may or may not agree with, and- most importantly- that you may or not agree with also. You don't have to agree, and it's always good to satisfy your conscience by pointing out, "I've only heard this and think it's a bunch of bologna, but..." Kinda' like how someone advising you the undeniable fact that 2+2=5 can be a very liberating experience.
By the way, your father is constantly popping in and out; I can't think/write when I hear people talking... That being said, if alot of that is out of order and doesn't make sense, I'm hoping you understand. (To be fair, for the past couple of minutes he's been quiet to let me finish. ^_^; ...)
Post a Comment