It really is no wonder that anyone could fit into the broad definition that has come to be used for the word sodomy. In the past, it has been used to describe all sexual activities that were not for procreational means. So those who masturbate, were guilty of this crime. Those who even had protected sex, which prevented pregnancy, were guilty of this crime against nature. And by so being guilty, one faced the threat of arrest, exclusion from public office, and if one was trying immigrate here, refusal into the country.

However, as time changed, the idea of sodomy turned from those pursuing sexual pleasure, to be associated with homosexuals. Much like African Americans had been portrayed as raging sexual beasts, homosexuals were given such stereotypes, and sodomy laws “helped” keep it in check. To this day, the stereotype of a predatory gay man, is still alive and kicking, even though it has no basis in reality.

The idea of sodomy though, continues to be used against homosexuals. When talking to a number of Christians regarding the reason as to why homosexuality was immoral, one of the main reasons that come up is that sodomy is a sin in the Bible (which is debated). They point to the story of Sodom, and the supposedly aggressive and hostile gay men of that city (which is a bad interpretation). Sodomy has thus once again been used to subjugate a group of people, which it has a history of doing.

As the issue of same-sex marriages continues to gain momentum, and more and more states pass laws supporting this right of homosexual couples, it becomes a time in which we need to shed the shackles of this “crime against nature.” We are all sodomites, we have all done something that has been defined as sodomy in the past. If we make exceptions for ourselves, we should be willing to make exceptions to those who need protection, the homosexual community.

Just as important as the answer one can gain from the divine speeches regarding suffering, a separate set of wisdom can also be found. Kathleen O’Connor points out that Job, throughout the divine speeches, appears to have become more humble, quiet, and even more patient, then he was during the narrative leading up to this (minus the prologue). At the same time though, comparing the idea of God that is seen in the prologue, to the idea of God that we see in these divine speeches, we see a transformation as well. This may be a reflection of the change in Job though. What we are most likely seeing here is a change in man’s view of God, which is a reflection of the change we see in Job.

Before getting ahead of myself though, an examination of the divine speeches is needed. The divine speeches begin in a manner that Job claims never would happen; that is God meeting with Job in a fair argument. Yet, that is how God presents himself, ready for a fair argument. In doing so, God takes Job out to the wild, or as Terence Fretheim says, “out to ‘where the wild things are.” God does so in order to show Job who God is: the God of creation.

This is something that Job needs in order to understand the meaning of suffering, as well as the meaning of his own life. By bringing Job to “where the wild things are,” God stuns Job, to the point that he refuses to answer the questions God asks. Job simply does not understand how the world works, but God is trying to educate him. As Fretheim states, God questions Job not because Job sinned, but because Job (and his friends were guilty of this as well), had preconceived ideas of how God works, which were simply incorrect.

Job, as well as his friends, had bought into an idea that sin was cause of suffering. Yet, God never mentions any sin that Job supposedly committed. God never mentions the accusations that Job’s friends make, and instead, just brushes them off. Job is actually vindicated. God seemingly does not care if a human is righteous or not, when it comes to suffering. Since we do not know how God governs the universe, we are in no place to judge how God works.

Since suffering is not to do with sin, as Job had previously thought, God needs to show Job that he has to revise his ideas regarding the nature of creation, as well as how God works. Instead of a perfect and orderly world, the world is both good and wild, as well as orderly and disorderly. This is exactly what God intended for the world, which means that suffering can occur apart from sin or evil.

In order to maintain such a world though, God has to limit himself. God does this in order to honor his commitment to human freedom. Because of this, God also will not fix something by simply uncreating it. Instead, what Job, as well as the reader needed to learn is that the “evil” or “chaos” one can see in the world, is part of the creation of God. The “constitute elements of God’s good creation…,” but at the same time, the do pose a risk. These ideas shown throughout the divine speeches.

For Job to really understand the nature of suffering, he needed a more thorough understanding of the nature of creation; that is exactly what God educates Job in. That is why God spends such a large amount of time focusing on the diversity of creation. At the same time though, God does not just come out and tell Job what he should think. God directs Job through questions, and by doing so, challenges Job. Yet, God also wants the various options to be out there, “on the table.”

In the end though, we can come to an answer. That answer is somewhat simple. There is suffering in the world because of the design and nature of creation. Such a world is necessary for genuine life. It is necessary if life is not going to be drab, and boring. More so though, it is necessary for the creative potential. God, and creatures, have the potential to continually be creative in this world; however, for this to be, there was a need for some disorder.

I think the greatest message in the divine speeches though is not regarding suffering, but something else. In the divine speeches we see humans being encouraged to question, and explore one’s faith. Such encouragement is a blessing, and a powerful message.

Background

Before really delving into the subject of the Garden of Eden, some background information is in order. The story of the Garden of Eden is credited to the J source. This is thought to be the oldest of the sources that compromise the Torah.

There is debate to actually who wrote this source. Some have suggested that it was a group of authors, while others see in it just a single author. Harold Bloom suggests that it may have been actually a woman who wrote this source. I’m going to go by the idea that it was a single author. To me, this seems most reasonable as it appears to be that way. Now, it is possible that a group of writers composed this work, but I think in the end, it is a little issue.

As with many sources, the J source is composed of older sources. The author would have relied on oral tradition, as well as possibly written sources as well. But we can be sure that the information is not all original to the author of J, and that they did in fact rely on previous information and stories.

The dating of the J source has generally been placed in the 10th century B.C.E. Many attach the writing to the court of David and Solomon. It does appear to be an earlier idea though. We see God as anthropomorphic (which God is not in later writings), as we see traditions and ideas that are absent in later works (yet, appear to fit into an older time period). The sources that J would have been using would have been even earlier.

Symbols

There are a number of symbols that are present in the Garden of Eden story. I will just start with a couple of the basic ones, that are the focus of the story. The first is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is unlikely that the fruit from this tree would only provide knowledge of good and evil, as we are told later on from the serpent, that by eating the fruit, one will be like the divine beings. In addition, one should assume that if God commands Adam not to eat the fruit, and gives him a consequence, that there is an implication that Adam (and therefor Eve), know between right and wrong.

Most likely what we are seeing here is a merism, which uses polar opposites in order to denote totality. So it probably isn’t referring to just knowledge of good and evil, but a more total idea of knowledge.

The serpent is a little more difficult. First, it is not a snake as has become a common idea. It also does not represent Satan as some have claimed. But it does have a long history of being said to be Satan. In the book of Jubilees, which is a Jewish text, written in Greek, and is dated probably to the 2nd century B.C.E.

Even though the serpent doesn’t represent Satan, it does appear to be an adversary or an opponent. We can see this in the way the serpent acts. Humans seemingly only have one rule. Yet, the serpent tempts and tricks humans into breaking the one rule. The serpent also implies that God is a liar.

Looking at another serpent from the Hebrew Bible, the Leviathan, we can gain that idea that serpents represented (or could represent), chaos. Chaos though is not necessarily evil, and in fact, we are told in the Hebrew Bible, such as in Job, that it is good as it is part of the nature of creation.

They can also be used to symbolize sexuality, or fertility. These generally are seen in a positive light, yet can be seen as evil as well. In addition though, serpents can also represent an ill omen, such as impending death, or represent guards, not to mention magic. The point though is that the serpent does not necessarily represent evil or despised.

What Does it Mean?

The story has some sort of meaning. It was written for a purpose. It was supposed to relate a “truth.” Humans are finite beings. In the grand scheme of things, are limited and weak. There is just so much that we can do. Yet, we are driven to test these limitations, as well as burst beyond them. That is how humans have survived and prospered.

Doing so is not necessarily a bad thing. Humans were never cursed because they disobeyed (the serpent was cursed though for opposing God). The land may have been cursed or the like, but really this is more of a reflection of the writers life. (This is partially why some suggest that a woman authored the J source. If we look at the story of the Garden of Eden, we do see more focus on the woman, and it could have been simply a reflection on her own social situation).

As with the fruit, testing one’s limits can be a pleasing experience. As Genesis states, the fruit it good to eat, and pleasing to look at. It is also desirable, as it gives one knowledge. So there is nothing inherently wrong with testing the limits, or going beyond them. However, at the same time, there can be consequences. The relationships we see here are quite changed, both between humans and God, as well as between man and woman. And we do see a warning of this (this is partially where the serpent comes in).

The stories also serve as a revelation of life during that time. It is a reflection on the life of the author’s.

Growing up, and having gone through the ordination process at an fundamentalist church, I had been taught that the Tower of Babel story was about humans rebelling against God, and humans essentially trying to become like God. According to this interpretation, this human want to become like God happened on a number of occasions, each ending with a punishment. The first such occasion occurred in the Garden of Eden, where humans ate from the tree of knowledge. In doing so, humans became like God.¹ As punishment, humans were removed from the Garden of Eden, and perfect life.

The next such story is that of divine-human reproduction, found in Genesis 6:1-4. In this case, it was through the sons of God taking human wives, and bringing fourth children. Once again, we see divine like beings, which God found to be evil. In order to punish humans, he sent the global flood, which wiped out all human life except for that of Noah’s family. This story then directly leads into our story concerning the Tower of Babel.

From a more critical look at the previous stories though, we can see that this interpretation of humans constantly trying to become like God may fall short. It does take some creative reading, and is based on only a few stories. It also requires one to focus on the tower when it comes to the story of the Tower of Babel, which we will later see is a mistake.

Anderson suggests that this story is in regards to unity and diversity. He sets up the story as a clash between human will, and divine will.² Humans desire to remain united. It is for this reason that they build a city³. As Theodore Heibert argues, building the city and tower are just means to their goal of remaining one people with one language.⁴

This desire to remain united though is in direct conflict with the divine will of God, which is for diversity. Diversity, according to Anderson, is not a condemnation, but instead is a divine blessing.⁵ We can see this diversity from God throughout the primeval history, or Urgeschichte as Anderson refers to it as.⁶ In the creation stories, we first see this desire for diversity. Both creation stories agree that the Earth started in somewhat of a uniform manner. From there, God either separated or created items in order to make the world more diverse. At the end of the creation stories, we are present with a world that bears all types of plants, is full of animals (which dwell in sea, on land, and in air), and contains humans.

We see this desire for diversity occurring again after the flood (and in fact during the flood). In order to keep the diversity that is present in the world, God commands Noah to take a number of animals, of every kind, on to the ark. In doing so, God insures that diversity remains. More so though, after the flood, as we see in Genesis 10, humans spread across the Earth, and become diverse, bearing their own languages, and lands. Anderson goes further with this and speaks about eschatological portrays of God’s divine plan. This includes not a unified humanity, but one that is diverse.⁷

Anderson gives two examples of this portrayal. The first being Isaiah 2:1-4, which describes when people make a vast pilgrimage to Zion. We see a diversity of people in this regard, and they are all included in this vision of the last days. Anderson goes on to also include a story from the New Testament in his argument. In Acts 2, we again see diversity being celebrated, and at the same time, not being a barrier to unity. In this particular story, the Spirit of God descends upon the crowd gathered during Pentecost, and all are able to hear the gospel in their own language. So again, we see diversity not necessarily being something that separates people or as a punishment. As it can be transcended in the end.⁸

This division of unity and diversity is best seen when we look at this narrative as occurring in two movements, which balance each other out.⁹ This story is introduced with the observation that everyone speaks the same language. This point is stressed by the first thing God says as well, which is an observation that everyone speaks the same language. At the same time, humans want to build a city, and keep their unity. While on the other hand, God confuses their language (effectively destroying the chance to build the city), and then scattering the people (destroying their unity). What we then see are humans being the actors in the first part, and then God being the actor in the second.

In the end though, the message we can gain from this story is that diversity should be cherished as a blessing from God.¹⁰ It is something that we should embrace. Yet, at the same time, people fear the unknown, and that has a tendency to try to find security with those who seem most alike oneself. This may be due to people pushing “others” away, or people simply withdrawing into their own groups. Both can cause a number of problems though.

Many gangs are formed because of people pushing away minorities. In order to find security (which was often necessary because of the discrimination and persecution many minorities faced), they created their own communities, and gangs formed. These gangs began as a way to find security, but as we see now, have also adopted a criminal component. However, they found safety in numbers, and in unity.

On the other hand, when groups withdraw into their own groups, it can cause many people to look at them in negative ways, or raise suspicion.¹¹ An example that we looked at before was the Gypsies in Turkey. They found security within their own group; however, it was this solidarity that also led other so see them in negative ways, and as essentially as inferior beings.¹²

In order to  help achieve our fundraising goal, we will be promoting this work in a variety of ways.  Everyone who donates and helps us achieve our goals, will receive a copy of our ebook Homosexuality and the Community, which is set to be published at the end of this year.  They will also be entered into a number of giveaways, which will feature a variety of wonderful gifts.

We will also be scheduling a number of shows, both live shows, as well as online shows.  If you want to see one of these shows in your area, send us your city and state, and we will try to arrange one in your area.  As for the online shows, we will record them in order so that those who are not able to attend a live show, still get the opportunity to witness one.

To donate to this cause, click here: Donate

As for our first giveaway, jewelry designer Sandra Schell-Geiss, owner of SilverSchells Hand Crafted Jewelry, is donating this beautiful Angelic Infinity Necklace, which is the same necklace created for Jessica Alba.  All who donate will be entered into the drawing.

In Harems of the Mind, by Ruth Bernard Yeazell, we see a desire for fantasy. In part, this desire was “to believe in a place where a man could have as many women as he wanted.¹” Many times, this desire for a belief will even surpass all of the information to the contrary, which is the case in the above quote. More so though, this desire is not just for fantasy, but also the need for justification; whether it was in the form of justifying the want to be with multiple women, or in justifying a particular want or fear.²

This desire has a tendency to cause individuals to hold onto small grains of reality, or exploit confusion. An example of the latter in regards to Yeazell’s work is the confusion between the Turco-Persian word saray (meaning palace) and the Italian word serrare (meaning to lock up or enclose). The confusion between these words were exploited, and one could argue that it was in regards of a desire for a particular fantasy.³

One can see this same exploitation of confusion in regards to the Biblical story of the virgin birth of Jesus. In this case, it was the exploitation of confusion in regards to a Hebrew word (almah) being translated into a Greek word (parthenos). In this regard, the confusion was most likely created on purpose, in order to fulfill a desire to give Jesus a miraculous birth, as other great figures were also said to have had (such as Augustus, or Alexander the Great). As parthenos (like almah) can mean maiden, yet in context of Matthew, was purposely used to refer to a virgin, we can see that confusion was also used in this story to fulfill a desire.

More often though, this desire seems to cause individuals to hold onto a grain of reality, regardless of the information against that position. Part of this is the want to just continuing to imagine what they wish, even though such ideas are debunked.⁴ However, such ideas still need to have some sort of fact, or perceived fact to buttress them.⁵ We see this to be the case with the work of Ingres. He looked to reality in order to have ground for his fantasy. The more his dream of the harem evolved, the more he needed to hold onto the reality, or apparent reality that it was grounded in.⁶

We have seen a number of similar examples in just the last decade. One case that entered into popular culture in the means of a best selling book, and then later movie, was a novel by Dan Brown entitled The Da Vinci Code. This book introduced a number of individuals to the ritual of the sacred marriage. Much of the information that Brown used concerning the ritual of the sacred marriage, came from an author named Margaret Starbird. According to Starbird, Mary Magdalene performed an act that is supposedly identical to the marriage rite hieros gamos (literally sacred marriage). This act was that of her pouring a precious unguent of nard over Jesus’ head.⁷⁸ However, much of the supposed facts in Brown’s book have been debunked by a variety of scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman.⁹

Regardless of the debunking of such ideas though, many have continued to hold onto the supposed facts that Brown presents. Part of this is due to their being a grain of reality in the work of Brown. Sacred marriages are a historical reality, such as with Istar.¹⁰

Istar was a popular goddess in the Near Middle East. Part of the reason for her popularity was probably because she crossed many different boundary lines.¹¹ We can see a similarity by looking at the ministry of Jesus, who also crossed certain boundary lines, such as eating with sinners.¹² By doing so, one allows themselves to be available to a larger audience.

Istar also crossed the boundary of gender. She was a goddess of paradoxes, taking upon the roles of men, as well as women. She encompassed “order and disorder, structure and antistructure, kindness and cruelty.¹³ In this regard, she was very similar to another popular deity, the Hindu god Shiva. Shiva also represented a number of paradoxes, such as being an aesthetic, while also being a household, or representing destruction, as well as goodness. In addition, Shiva is often portrayed as being half male, and half female, yet still is regarded as being a male god.¹⁴

The devotees of Istar did participate in a sacred marriage ritual. In this, we do see at least some grain of truth in Brown’s claim; there is some sort of tradition a sacred marriage rituals in ancient cultures. However, as we will see shortly, his claims are greatly exaggerated. Interestingly though, we see Istar’s devotees being tolerated primarily because they offered the greater community some sort of use. As Nedim Karakayali states: “..strangers often carry out special tasks that no one else in the group is capable (or willing to) perform.¹⁵”

Istar’s devotees were indeed seen as strangers, or others, who were barely tolerated by the general public.¹⁶ Like many cases of strangers, they were often seen in a negative light.¹⁷ However, they were still tolerated as they carried out a special task. In one regard, they acted as meditators between the goddess and the human. They performed rituals that we seen to be on the behalf general populace.¹⁸ On the other hand, they also helped the general populace define boundaries, such as the limits of acceptable behavior, or defining gender roles. This was partially done by the devotees of Istar transgressing such boundaries, and by doing such, having the general populace define themselves against the stranger, or other.¹⁹

By serving a purpose, these individuals were able to find some sort of tolerance. However, this tolerance was only superficial, as these others were still seen in a negative light. This negativity often has a tendency to start rumors, and in another example of individuals supposedly practicing the ritual of sacred marriage, we see such rumors being at the center of such an idea.

In a supposed example of a sacred marriage ritual in regards to Christianity, we can see the work of Epiphanius who details such a possible act. This act was said to help individuals to find passage into a heavenly realm. However, the Epiphanius describes the act in a very derogatory manner, that was meant to demean women, as well as to paint this group of Christians in a negative fashion.²⁰ It is doubtful that Ephiphanius account is historical²¹, yet he provides a grain of reality for those who want to believe in the idea of the sacred marriage as posed by Brown.

Thus we see people both having a desire to create a belief, even though that belief is largely unfounded, but contains just a small grain of truth, as well as using a belief in order to find a means in which to use an individual (such as using them as a way to define oneself). In both cases though, we see some sort of desire being the ultimate motivator.