“traditional-heritage American”

What the hell?

And I thought the phrase was “separating the wheat from the chaff.” Or am I thinking about something else and confusing my metaphors like Swank?

I always liked the depiction of hell from James Morrow’s Only Begotten Daughter:

The only thing neccessary to put someone in hell for all eternity is that someone else had to wish s/he was there. So there’s a Catholic hell, Jewish hell, Lawyer hell, Asshole hell, and so on and so on. And according to the Devil, only two people besides God and Jesus ever made it to heaven.

Turns out he was lying about at least one of those people.

And Jesus.

p.s.- http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/07/12/i-know-all-about-these-cute-animals/#comments

It must that moral individual who will champion defending the infant in the female body and the biblical understanding of sex, family and marriage.

Have these people actually read the Bible (reports that some churches actually discourage their members to read it aside)? There is some nasty shit in there — not safe for kids. Also, if we’re doing things just because the Bible says it’s okay, who’s up to start slavery again (to name but one thing)?

And why isn’t he capitalizing “Bible”?

Er, “from reading it,” that is.

Yes, Yosef, I know… another strike is pending…

Hmmm, that verse says revilers too. Looks like Pastor Swank will be joining us as well as the family Phelps and other revilers global.

I wonder what words the original text uses. I Corinthians 6:9 and 10–as well as most Bible passages–changes of course depending on the version you choose. Here’s a sampling of lists from http://www.biblegateway.com:
KJV:
…neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners…
New International Version:
…the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers…
New Living Translation:
…Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers…
Young’s Literal Translation:
…whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners…
And one for the German readers among us (not me):
Luther Bibel 1545:
9 Wisset ihr nicht, da? die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verf?hren! Weder die Hurer noch die Abg?ttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabensch?nder 10 noch die Diebe noch die Geizigen noch die Trunkenbolde noch die L?sterer noch die R?uber werden das Reich Gottes ererben.

Therefore, regardless of the gender, we need an O’Connor replacement who is moral, who is traditional-heritage American, who is anti-killing-womb-babies, who is for the biblical definition of “family” and “marriage.”

traditional heritage? WTF? Is this code for honky?

And what the fuck is a womb-baby?

We can only hope that Pastor Swank will one day suffocate to death under the massive weight of a former-lineman-turned-tranny prostitute.

There. I’ve said it.

Given the billions “missing” in Iraq-along with endemic corruption during recent Republican (heck, all administrations) and the rampant divorces among the orttie elect, it seems that this verse is condemning most of Pastor Swank’s best buddies to the pit as well.

Nice. Another semi-literate fundie with a bullhorn. You know, back in the old days, we could just keep walking past these people ignoring them…

Oh wait, that must be why I never read the sites that feature this crap.

I think he means “traditional-heritage American” as code for White Anglo-Saxon Christian, but hey, maybe he wants to put a Navajo tribal chief on the court.

I find the whole cultural war floats on a sea of racism a la “those brown people down at the market smell different, and they speak funny noises that AREN’T ENGLISH sometimes!”

As evelyn said a long time ago, I know it’s impolite to laugh at people’s insecurities, but it’s just so goddamn funny.

That photo of Swank — was that taken on his home planet?

According to the Pons Gro?w?rterbuch, which is extremely large and therefore cannot be other than accurate, “Knabensch?nder” is probably a mix of “Knabe”, or ‘boy’; and the noun form of “sch?nde”, to discredit or dishonour. So, dishonouring boys gets you to hell, according to the Luther Bible. It’s not quite clear what dishonouring girls gets you, or what that has to do with the original.

As to the original! There’s a page on Whosoever.org – which, according to its tagline, is “an online magazine for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians” – that deals precisely with the nine “clobber passages” that you’ll find people quoting against homosexuality. Whosoever.org’s probably biased, of course, but their interpretation that none of those passages really have anything to do with modern homosexuality is pretty strong, I think. As to Paul (and hell, I don’t even like Paul very much), the specific word he used was “arsenokoitai”. He used it again in 1 Timothy. It literally means “man copulators” and no one has any idea what that means in context. Sure, it works to translate it to “homosexual men”, but it also works to translate it to “heterosexual women”, and since “koites” apparently literally means “bed”, I’ve heard at least one person translate it as “men who lie in bed a lot”.

…which, er, was a reasonably long post to essentially say that Pastor Swank has no idea what he’s talking about, something that I imagine will be news to nobody.

And why isn’t he capitalizing “Bible”?

CAST HIM INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!

How accurate are ANY of those translations? The word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until the 19th century, and there’s no equivalent word in either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek. Also, shouldn’t Swanky be worried about the “effeminates”, since he doesn’t exactly scream “Stud” from what I can see? Come to think of it, what the fuck does “effeminates” mean anyway? Isn’t that a rather subjective term? (Then again, so is “sexually immoral”)

Bill S, exactly. One big problem with translating is getting the intended meaning of the original work into the translated text. King James’ translators made changes to fit their beliefs and new fanatics translate further and inject their own biases. What they call “making it easier to read” is actually “putting my viewpoint in Jesus’ mouth so that I don’t sound so batshit crazy anymore”.

… like a poorly-translated Japanese microwave instruction book ….

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO PASTOR SWANK!

Of course Pastor Swank doesn’t want a Native American on the Supreme Court; lots of native tribes practiced homosexuality, and many thought it was divinly ordained.

Apparently god allowed the devil to decieve an entire continent, and god decided not to tell them about Christ or himself because… um… if they were holy they would’ve had the good sense to be born in Europe, I guess.

Seriously, I still haven’t found anybody who managed to explain why god forgot about America for more then a thousand years, and then when he finally did remember, decided to send slavers and disease-ridden monks instead of the saviour. What does god have against America?

Most translations have something against sodomy (a.k.a. being the ‘top’) and something against male prostitution (a.k.a. being the bottom, not being a gigilo…those guys who had sex with women for money were just fine, but the women were considered sluts) but the context is, of course, the Greco-Roman world. While what we know of as ‘homosexual’ relationships (between two consenting adults) did exist, they were at best rare, and at worst not tolerated and the people killed. The typical homosexual relationship was one between an upper class male and a young boy that was his pupil and adopted child. Paul’s writings are pretty easily interpreted to be a polemic against this Greek system, which was very common (and quite honestly, I bet most of us damn dirty liberals would accept this reading of the Bible. I, for one, despise the practice of older men having sex with twelve year old boys who view them as father figures).

And for clarity, the last sentence should actually read: I, for one, despise the practice of older men having sex with 12 year old boys who view the older men as father figures.

Still, if that’s the case, it means the victimized 12-year-olds are condemned to hell too, which is pretty offensive.

After your physical body dies, [supposedly] your soul/spirit/essence can’t feel pain anymore anyway.

Who cares about the flames of hell? Can’t hurt me, nyah nyah nyah.

And I thought the phrase was “separating the wheat from the chaff.” Or am I thinking about something else and confusing my metaphors like Swank?

Yosef, I can offer a couple of semi-useful definitions for “tare”. The most likely one is actually the least funny, so we’ll deal with that second.

A tare is basically the number you get when you determine how much wheat (or whatever) there is in a pot, for the purposes of taxing the wheat by weight but not the pot. The tare is the weight of the container, more or less.

So possibly he’s suggesting that God will be separating the wheat from, uh, the pots it’s in. Which really seems like kind of a lame sorting method for an omnipotent God: “I’ll just dump the flour onto the counter here and throw away the bag.”
Hell, *I* can do *that*.

In this case, as to Swank’s weird choice of metaphor, if it were possible, I’d almost suggest that he’s trying to make a joke: Separating the wholesome from the empty vessels, or those who contain the essence of life (wheat) from those whose emphasis is solely on the container (pleasure in bodily activities), something like this.

(For that matter, it might even be some kind of anal sex joke, since chaff is merely useless, flyaway stuff and a tare is, when you get right down to it, a big hole. If so, he’s probably also trying to mock women, too, and maybe he should have gone with the whole “wheat from the stalks/stems” thing.)

The second definition of a tare is significantly less funny in this context, but it means a weed that grows in a wheatfield. So, Swank probably means that. But it doesn’t get you to any asshole jokes, so hey, who cares what he really means. If he can’t be more precise, I think we’re entitled to interpret him in whatever way makes him sound like the biggest moron.

From my trusty (and until recently, the “Dustiest Book in America”)”Roman Catholic Bishops Association of America New American Bible (ca. 1970)”

I Corinthians 6:9-11

“Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the kingdom of God?
Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sodomites, thieves, misers or drunkards, no slanderers or robbers will inherit God’s kingdom.
And such were some of you; but you have been washed, consecrated, justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

And from the notes beneath the passage:
“The fornication that is referred to is probably that of religious prostitution, an accepted part of pagan culture in Rome.”
And from the notes at the beginning of I Cornithians 4:
“Paul tempers his severity by reminding them that, as the founder of their community, he has a certain right to display his feelings. Moreover, he reserves the further right to confront personally in the future those who may remain recalcitrant.”
Or, if you prefer- Paul is stating his opinion on the matter and it is not necessarily the directed will of God- though it is potentially good advice given Paul’s standing as a theologian at that time.
And crazynick is correct: many Greek experts believe the context for the anti-sodomy and whatnot is for the Greco-Roman system (the words used are those which refer to such things- while the connotation of the words are the same as clinical terms for “anal sex” the denotation is differant and much more narrow).

Of course, the Romans and the Greeks always complained about those liberal Christians and their desire to destroy the traditional heritage of the Roman empire as well as the sanctity of Greco-Roman families: A man, his wife (who was mere property), his mistresses (although those weren’t that popular, too many bastard children), and his small boy whom he could roger all he wanted without the threat of them becoming pregnant. And those Christians wanted him to give up his slaves, too. It just goes to show that Jesus was nothing more than a activist rabble rouser who defied those in power and subverted the morality of the day. (Hey come to think of it, He sounded/sounds like a great guy!)

I’m glad so many people have posted on P.S.’s “bible” verse, because I sort of fell out when I read that. I’ve never seen a bible that actually had the word “homosexual” in it, since there was no such identity in the ancient world. The bible makes some references to certain practices, but that’s not the same as talking about what we today understand by “gay” or “lesbian”. My New Revised Standard Version says “…Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers…”. The New International Version, while generally accurate, leans toward evangelical wingnuttery whenever there is a translation choice to be made. None of the “Living Bible” versions are actually versions. They are renderings, and come conveniently pre-interpreted for your ideological pleasure.

homosexuality as condoned, even smiled upon, by the divine.

Yeah well god does like to watch everything that goes on, the fucking pervert.

“traditional-heritage American”

I believe the word you’re looking for is “white”.

Hey, what’s with the piling on the ancient Greeks? Haven’t you people read The Symposium? Greek pederasty (which involved adolescents, not pre-teens) had nothing in common with modern notions of pedophilia, and passing judgment on it from a contemporary perspective is completely meaningless. It’s about as productive as…well, as assuming that Biblical references homosexuality have any connection to our conception of the term.

“Pick your pocket”?

I call bullshit. Pastor “Swank” is a mole.

Why… yes I have the Symposium- and still think pedastry is a filthy and immoral practice (holy shit- that sounded Alan Keyes-like I need a bath!). I don’t care what consenting adults do in their own homes, but I draw the line at that “Man-boy love” crap.
Sure, it should be understood in historical context- but that doesn’t make it “not wrong” any more than witch burning is “not wrong”.

Give me a break. We’re not talking about NAMBLA-type stuff here; these “boys” are sexually mature. Oh no, a fifteen-year-old boy with a thirty-year-old man: that’s not even illegal in some states. Such things are frowned upon if not actually forbidden today because, lacking any societal framework, they would almost inevitably be exploitive. But this is a case where context DOES make a difference. No doubt there was abuse within the system, as there is everywhere, but the kneejerk “it’s filthy and immoral!” ‘argument’ is no more convincing from you than it is from, well, Alan Keyes.

Gavin: Yes, Swank’s home planet is the Planet Glamorshots!

Now give me back my belly fruit, you murderers global!!!

Christopher wrote, “Seriously, I still haven’t found anybody who managed to explain why god forgot about America for more then a thousand years, and then when he finally did remember, decided to send slavers and disease-ridden monks instead of the saviour. What does god have against America?”

To be fair, the Mormons believe that Jesus’s Second Coming was in the United States. South Park had an excellent episode on the subject. 😉