 |
|
|
|
 The author argues that the meaning of the Bible's passages on homosexuality have been lost in translation.
May 15th, 2012
05:39 PM ET
My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible. We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality. In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved. That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night. The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12). But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35). How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return. The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation. Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation. Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior. In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity." But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart. “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law. In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex. As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers. The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation. Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel A. Helminiak. soundoff (8,832 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's note:
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Why don't Christians care one bit about what JESUS said? Doesn't CHRIST fit into CHRISTIANITY somewhere? Isn't there a charity you can be donating to instead of believing anti Jesus folks like republicans and corporations? Jesus said wealthy people go to hell, and helping the sick and the poor is what you do to love him. He said he doesn't even care if you love him, but don't love the helpless and needy. What is Christianity today but some big cult.
I'm sure not in a cult, but I appreciate the helpless and needy and sometimes even try to arrange something nice for them.
Actually the bible does not say that wealthy people go to hell. it says that it's will be difficult for one to accept the word. Not because the money is bad (many servants of God had money and God bless them Job was one of them), but because many would be greed or be distracted and involved and not listen. Many rich people give today.
There is one thing the bible does say. "Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
If I were you I stop add or changing what the bible says.... just in case is true and real. It would really suck for you.
Foxfox, Jesus didn't say the wealthy will go to hell. He said that it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle (the eye of a needle is a low, skinny entry through a city wall). The point Jesus was making was that it was difficult, not impossible. He also said "there is no one good, no not one." Without the sacrificial payment of our sin debt by Jesus dying on the cross for us, everyone would be going to hell.
Additionally, Jesus did not say we should not love him. Jesus said that he and our heavenly Father are one and that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father. All this to say that Jesus is God. And in regards to God, Jese says in Matthew 22:37-38, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment."
Observer.
Is ot only when we want to prove being gay is natural that we go and take a look at nature? Marriage has never been legal just as government is not a legal issue. Marriage is part of natural law. This is the natural order of things. We do not leglislate marriage. We leglislate ON marriage.
yet more bloviating when you o not know what you are talking about. marriage is vastly different from what it was 300 years ago, and look at the variety even in modern history, with the mormons for example.
Any intercourse between male and female could be considered "natural". Incest and polygamy fits that definition. Try again.
well if you are springing to the defense of incest an polygamy, I do not nee to try your position has no currency in the modern era.
God created Man . then Woman.(as a mate ) They were created to pro-create. And he looked and said "it is good " I don't recall Him creating a Man and then another Man (as a mate). They can never procreate. God never said this kind of union was good. Man can bend all the words of the bible As they will. But GOD is the judge , not man. However, for myself, I will never condone a man marrying a man, Or a woman marrying a woman. It is a perversion .They are kinites .
Well, god decided to use Adam's rib to create woman. So, based on your stupid ass logic, we should be using BBQ sauce at church instead of holy water, and loving ribs.
you belong in Kabul then since you like theocracy and forcing your beliefs upon others to control how they carry out their lives.
Screw all of you. I was the first wife, the best wife, and Adam married down after that. Eve was a cow.
@yalesouth where in what he said.. is he "forcing his beliefs upon others to control how they carry out their lives"? he said.. "But GOD is the judge , not man. However, for myself, I will never condone a man marrying a man, Or a woman marrying a woman. It is a perversion" It sounds to me that you pro-gray are the ones who want to force people into accepting what you believe. This is why you will have lots of problem and divide the country. Because you do not want to be left alone to do your thing. You want people to fall in line. It also feels as soon you will require people to be gay. You can demand the right to choose how to live your life. but you have no right to demand others to accept or change their traditions and religious believes. Keep pushing and you will open a Pandora box.
Unless anyone wants to claim that heteros don't engage in any "perversions", no one should be using that word unless they want to be hypocrites.
I see you hetero bitches pegging.
So, according to the author's opinion, based on pais being translated as 'male lover,' could we apply this elsewhere? Say... in Phl 2:7, "but [Jesus] made himself nothing, taking the form of a male lover, being born in the likeness of men." Mmmmmm... noooo, noo.
Say it ain't so JC!
And I sayeth to thee, stick it in.
Good one! They author's not taken seriously by anyone but those already lost and wandering in darkness...
I lost my meds....who are you people....where am I.....
I never wander in the darkness, but I just can't seem to stop going around and around and around in the wilderness.
Go to bed, sam! Yo mama's tired of waiting!!!
HONEY, YOU KNOW IT'S PAST YOUR BEDTIME AND YOUR THERAPIST SAID REST IS IMPORTANT...YOUNG LADY (ALTHOUGH WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE ACTUALLY A HERMAPHRODITE) YOU GET TO BED RIGHT NOW.
sam I am, actually giving it a rest is something you might want to try...YAWN...I'm bored to tears with you...
God loves everybody. I don't know why or how He can because people pretty much stink, but He does. I hope gay people read the Bible for themselves and decide. Please do not allow any fallible, vain, egotistical, arrogant human being turn them away from their search. I am a Christian who is tired of all this bickering. Politicians caused all this for their own gain. We never used to fight like this before the 1990's. Christians and gays need to just lay down their weapons and read.
Could we just lay down and watch?
It's in the Bible. The 'Book of Rules', chapter twenty-three, verse eleven, it reads "And the Lord said 'He who buttf*&ks another man, and not his wife or cattle, shall be damned.' It's in the Bible, really.
brb, dying.
If you're into perverted gay s.e.x you would probably even do all three!
I have always been alarmed by the fact that the Bible, a text that has dictated so much of our quest for civil rights and has been used to violate those rights time and time again, is a *translated* text that in many areas has been *mistranslated.* In academia, if you want to cite a source, then you'd damn well better be able to read it in its original language. Why should we not apply the same to politics? The Bible has been poorly translated. Anyone who does not know the original Greek and Hebrew of the texts is not allowed to comment. I applaud you for pointing out these translation errors. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who do not care. But thanks to separation of church and state they won't have a say in any of this much longer.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
Does not get any plainer than that.
kanelakos,
Leviticus also says (Lev. 20:9) "If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death”.
So what was your point, if any?
It doesn't get any plainer than that.
@kanelakos
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Can't get much plainer than that 🙂
Kanelokos – That was in the OLD Testament. Jesus came to announce a NEW covenant with God – or don't Christians believe that anymore? Whatever was said in the Old Testament is not for Christians to worry about. Jesus said 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, body, and mind'. He said 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.' He said 'NEVER blaspheme against the Holy Spirit'. And He said, 'Be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is Perfect'. He didn't say 'You should judge gays harshly because that's what they did in the Old Testament.' Instead, He said, 'Judge not, lest you be judged.' When did Christians forget the 'love thy neighbor' part of being Christian?
Foxfox, the problem with "loving your neighbor as yourself" is how people define "loving" your neighbor. More and more people say it is "loving" to follow the philosophy of "live and let live". Just let people do what they want. Is it loving to not confront somebody about choices they are making that are detrimental to them or others? Is it loving to let someone jump off a 10 story building because you would be infringing on their right to live their life in whatever way they want to?
What does a catholic know? Jeez! The only one to ask is Rev. John Hagee. Brilliant man.
Look at you using the bible with the intend to confuse and lead others believe in what you want to believe. Did you know the devil sited from the bible many times. When tented Jesus he used references to the bible. So here you are doing exactly the same thing. Do you know what an apostate is? Someone that is opposed to God's will and drag others into it. One thing is to not believe in the bible another is to make the choice of following it what it says or not. But worst is to try to change it to fit your life style. Basically what this article is saying is that God has no rules and will accept anything. God gave all free will and you can choose to live your life how ever you want. It does not mean he has to approve of it nor that there will not be consequences.
And about the bible being written by man and therefore not truth. Well, funny and convenient. All we know about Jesus and God comes from there. So, why pick the parts you like? how about nothing at all? Also, if God is all powerful; don't you think he would make sure the bible is kept the way he intended; hence why the bible is the most printed and read book in history. even when many tried to destroy it? The point is if you want to do what you want to do.. go for it. Stop trying to re-write what the bible says. It's what it is. If you are right and the bible is wrong and God accept anything and everything you do; than it's all good. If you are wrong, than God be the judge. But what about marriage. Tradition with religions meaning across many faith which is consistently between man and woman. Why don't you create your own version with your own name. Call it heavenlyunion or something. You are trying to force people to change the meaning of the word to fit your ideals to force people into accepting what you want and to others to forget the meaning it had for thousands of years.
"Look at you using the bible with the intend to confuse and lead others believe in what you want to believe."
Just like every good little christian does every day, you mean? Hypocrite.
No one believes every word of the Bible. They just pick and choose what they like.
That's why there are so many Christian HYPOCRITES who pick on gays while ignoring the Golden Rule.
Hypocrite
I agree with the hypocrite part. I believe that most 99.99% of all religions manipulate or read the bible for their benefit. Like the fact that the bible says not to call Father to no one on earth and people call father the pope.
The bible says Love your enemy... but it also says hate whats bad. So, just because you do something that I perceive as wrong does not mean I hate you. It also does not mean I have to embraise and accept what you do that I believe to be wrong. If my brother is a criminal, just because I love him as family does not mean I will go and join on his doing. That's the bible means and you are and other who want that everyone join the club wants to make it into a condition. If you love me you have to agree and support wherever I do. It's not that hard to understand really. In some country some marry kids at the age of 12. Do I hate them? Do I hate that practice? Yes. So when the bible says love your enemies.. it does not mean join on their doing to prove it.
"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity”
WastedFact,
Can you explain why God could watch as he torturously murdered virtually every person on the face of the earth at one time and yet can't handle what two consenting adults do in privacy?
This whole experiment terrarium thing I did is sht....gonna start over.
::floods planet::
listen, he wasnt trying to re-write the bible...youre trying to re-write what he was trying to say. the bible is poorly translated and if you cant understand that, well i fear you may be living under a rock. i dont understand why its so hard for christians to accept the fact that there are parts of the bible that we have been misunderstanding for centuries bc no one wants to admit that there are errors in translation. dont mistake what im saying, i believe the bible was inspired by gods own words and that the men that wrote it were the instruments of god...but what language did they write it in? and how many times has it been translated over and over and over again...we have lost touch with the original language of the bible. i own a bible that has 2 colums...the hebrew side and an english side. the differences would blow you away. i also have a bible written in greek. it makes all the difference in the world. you just choose to think that its the correct way as it is bc its easier to justify your hate filled beliefs and cast judgements that you have no right to cast.
You seem to have very little faith in the power of God. You trust the government to ensure translation of a driving manual from english to spanish but not God to ensure that the bible is kept the way he intended. Your point is that when the bible says not do something that you do not agree or like.. it's a mistranslation? Maybe you shall not kill is also mistranslation and what it really says is kill at will. Can you give examples of these mistranslations where the entire meaning was changed? I am not taking about a translation where in one version it says "Shall"and another "Should". A change of meaning? Many bible manuscripts were found.. original were found and always found.. for example, Dead Sea Scrolls found between 1947 and 1956 on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea... dating between 150 BCE and 70 CE. They were compare and the meaning between them were kept. how is that? Base on your argument that should not be the case. Do you know why these were found and many others? So, those like yourself who try to invalidate and undermine God's world by planing in peoples mind that it's content may be false because of the many iterations can be proven wrong. Impressive? not really, The creator of the universe can't ensure his word is kept the way he intended? Heck if a company can ensure their website is translated in multiple languages why can't God do the same if he wants to?
This was fun gotta run kick you gays while you're down later.American by birth,southern by the grace of God heehaw.PS bullying being a crime shows how weak gays have cussed this great land to become
lol.
Taking your kid back to Mardi Gras to see the hetero guys in drag?
oh come on youre not real
Stupid person who said gay marriage won't get Obama votes! first hatheists will be more firm in their support, then gays and their family who may be conservative will be more prepared to listen not to talk of closet gays and loose Xtians calling themselves liberal christians.
You will make sense one day, won't you?
BRING ME A SHRUBBERY
Some expressed concern about polygamy coming back. For that matter, why can’t a man marry the disk drive on his laptop, or a woman marry her curling iron? What’s to stop us from marrying corpses when this thing gets out of hand? And then the narcissists will be marrying themselves and taking the IRS to the cleaners if they can ever tear themselves away from themselves long enough to go back to work. This slippery slope will inevitably lead to unilateral marriage where one party will preemptively marry the other without their new mate’s consent or even giving a heads-up. Got a real bad crush on somebody? No problem, we've deregulated marriage. Just unilaterally marry your dream mate with a stand-in county clerk serving as a proxy bride or groom at the courthouse and show up at her/his wedding chamber that night with a couple deputy sherifs and a writ of mandamus compelling your new spouse to perform court-ordered matrimonial duties.
Polygamy is tame compared to what we got coming down the pike.
God is the one who DEFINED marriage, we as humans do not have the right to re-define it.
Yep. Sure.
We never should have allowed man to marry women in the first place because it will lead to men marrying their mothers and sisters.
Amanda,
Believesrs told us not long ago that God defined marriage as being only for people of the same race.
To Amanda: Shouldn't "Bride Magazine" have the last word on this?
That's called incest, and by the way, human genetics did not deteriorate to the point incest was declared evil until the time of Moses. If some man didn't screw your mother you wouldn't be here, dodo.
Amanda,
We know what incest is. It's what the Bible preaches against and it was God's choice TWICE to use it to populate the world.
You people are so ignorant it's unreal. BOTH instances where God re-populated the world via incest was BEFORE the time of Moses, human genetics were pure enough to handle it prior to that point. It wasn't wrong, that's why Abraham could marry his (half) sister. Get your nose into the Bible and find out what it really says before spouting off in ignorance!
To Amanda, again: Your mother hired a lawyer named Moses to screw your father who now probably regrets you’re here.
John: Oh that hurts. NOT.
Amanda,
Speaking of ignorance, does the Bible say that genetics changed with Moses? Where did all the deformed people come from that God didn't want in his church? Any chance genetics was involved?
Amanda...don't vote or breed. We're all begging you.
Amanda, even I am begging you.
I'm sorry you guys, I am pretty stupid.
john, im sad for you. i really am. bc two PEOPLE want to marry eachother...you somehow get in your head that that will lead to beastiality or marrying inanimate objects??? what is wrong with you???
Go to bed sam, your mama's waiting...
Tyger: If you're not pulling my pierna, then I am so sad and woebegone for you.
This is bull. Leviticus. It says to kill men who "lie with other man as with a woman."
The Bible is very clear. This author is stupid because he either didn't read the Bible or thought other people haven't and wouldn't catch him.
Yes, he conveniently left that scripture out of his justification. Ruth and Naomi lesbian? Ruth was her daughter-in-law, married to Naomi's SON, what the freak! He's an idiot.
Amanda, everyone slept with their relatives in the bible. Is that better? Shut the fuck up.
The bible's been retranslated to say whatever who was in power at the time wanted it to say. You're both fucking stupid, delusional idiots.
I was equally shocked to note that someone who spent their lifetime studying the bible would have omitted the Leviticus line you just read. I would also point out Romans 1 26:28 which again, clearly and unequivocally states, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."
If you're going to reference the Bible, it should be cited correctly.
What do you expect when everyone in the family is wearing a toga or a robe that's always opening up?
TheRationale,
It's highly likely you don't believe all of Leviticus so did you have any point?
@Incomplete – nothing in the bible is unequivocable. How insane are you?
@Incomplete Article Indeed!
Why quote Leviticus if you don't believe it all?
hmmmmm what about all those other punishments that you are conviently forgetting to enforce. Don't forget to scorge the slave girl if you sleep with her, Oh and not to mention the children who curse their parents.
I am reading a version of my Bible in Amharic (Ethiopic) .. .Rome 1:15-28 says it all...especially #28.. literally translated... God left them of to a rubbish mettle for as much as they chose to ignore Him....have a good night.
But you don't have to ignore him if you twist things around to suit your perversions and weaknesses. Then your off the hook! You get to "Love" God AND
do whatever you want! See how it works?
The article was FULL of butts and you know it.
butt 1 (bt)
v. butt·ed, butt·ing, butts
v.tr.
To hit or push against with the head or horns; ram.
v.intr.
1. To hit or push something with the head or horns.
2. To project forward or out.
n.
A push or blow with the head or horns.
Phrasal Verbs:
butt in
To interfere or meddle in other people's affairs.
butt out Slang
1. To leave someone alone.
2. To leave; depart.
[Middle English butten, from Old French bouter, to strike, of Germanic origin; see bhau- in Indo-European roots.]
butter n.
butt 2 (bt)
tr. & intr.v. butt·ed, butt·ing, butts
To join or be joined end to end; abut.
n.
1. A butt joint.
2. A butt hinge.
[Middle English butten, from Anglo-Norman butter (variant of Old French bouter; see butt1) and from but, end; see butt4.]
butt 3 (bt)
n.
1. One that serves as an object of ridicule or contempt: I was the butt of their jokes.
2.
a. A target, as in archery or riflery.
b. butts A target range.
c. An obstacle behind a target for stopping the shot.
3. An embankment or hollow used as a blind by hunters of wildfowl.
4.
a. Archaic A goal.
b. Obsolete A bound; a limit.
[Middle English butte, target, from Old French, from but, goal, end, target; see butt4.]
butt 4 (bt)
n.
1. The larger or thicker end of an object: the butt of a rifle.
2.
a. An unburned end, as of a cigarette.
b. Informal A cigarette.
3. A short or broken remnant; a stub.
4. Informal The buttocks; the rear end.
[Middle English butte, from Old French but, end, of Germanic origin.]
butt 5 (bt)
n.
1. A large cask.
2. A unit of volume equal to two hogsheads, usually the equivalent of 126 U.S. gallons (about 477 liters).
[Middle English, from Old French boute, from Late Latin *buttia, variant of buttis.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Butt [bʌt]
n
(Biographies / Butt, Clara (1872-1936) F, English, MUSIC: contralto) Dame Clara. 1872-1936, English contralto
butt1
n
1. the thicker or blunt end of something, such as the end of the stock of a rifle
2. the unused end of something, esp of a cigarette; stub
3. (Clothing, Personal Arts & Crafts / Tanning) Tanning the portion of a hide covering the lower backside of the animal
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Anatomy) US and Canadian informal the buttocks
5. (Law / Recreational Drugs) US a slang word for cigarette
6. (Engineering / General Engineering) Building trades short for butt joint, butt hinge
[C15 (in the sense: thick end of something, buttock): related to Old English buttuc end, ridge, Middle Dutch bot stumpy]
butt2
n
1. a person or thing that is the target of ridicule, wit, etc.
2. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Shooting) Shooting Archery
a. a mound of earth behind the target on a target range that stops bullets or wide shots
b. the target itself
c. (plural) the target range
3. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Hunting) a low barrier, usually of sods or peat, behind which sportsmen shoot game birds, esp grouse
4. Archaic goal; aim
vb
(usually foll by on or against) to lie or be placed end on to; abut to butt a beam against a wall
[C14 (in the sense: mark for archery practice): from Old French but; related to French butte knoll, target]
butt3
vb
1. to strike or push (something) with the head or horns
2. (intr) to project; jut
3. (intr; foll by in or into) to intrude, esp into a conversation; interfere; meddle
butt out Informal chiefly US and Canadian to stop interfering or meddling
n
a blow with the head or horns
[from Old French boter, of Germanic origin; compare Middle Dutch botten to strike; see beat, button]
butter n
butt4
n
1. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Brewing) a large cask, esp one with a capacity of two hogsheads, for storing wine or beer
2. (Mathematics & Measurements / Units) a US unit of liquid measure equal to 126 US gallons
[from Old French botte, from Old Provençal bota, from Late Latin buttis cask, perhaps from Greek butinē chamber pot]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Butt a small piece of land; a bundle or pack.
Examples: butt of land, 1475; of linen [1500 yds.], 1705; of olives, 1653; of Malmsey wine, 1477.
Nope, didn't see any of these uses anywhere in the article... you really need to learn to spell – or recognize the use of ho.mo.phones when you see them.
Amanda, just because your own ass is the size of Texas, don't obsess about other's butts.
You know perfectly well it's an abbreviation for the word "buttocks," why don't you show us what that word means?
Every time you open your braying ass of a mouth, we all know what it means.
I like big BUTTS and I cannot lie
You otha bruthas can't deny....
Go to bed sam, you mama's waiting...
Be
It is sad to think that when people think gay rights they add marriage when its not a right. Marriage if u check the other species is not a right. If u make it to be about ge.ni.ta.lia among xtians then what is it among gays! To utter blasphemy by calling Jesus' ancestors gay is going 2o far!
Marriage is a LEGAL matter with OPTIONAL religious involvement.
When a marriage fails, no one goes back to the church in front of their friends and explains to God why they lied about staying married "until death do us part".
Nope. They run to a LAWYER.
It's not blasphemy when there's nothing wrong with being gay, you neanderthal.
Does anyone notice that the Christians on this post: A, don't know the English Language, and B, don't use the word Christian in their posts, but abbreviate it? Grow up people, act like Christians for once.
I just think it's funny how people use the "well now Obama needs the Gay support, that's the only reason he said it because Romney is pretty much tied up with him" excuse to make Obama look bad. Do you people realize that, had Obama said that or not, the Gays would STILL be on his side? EVERYTHING related to Mr. Romney OPPOSES anything related to Gays. Gay Marriage, Civil Unions, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and so much more. He has clearly statted all of this himself yet you people honestly think Obama NEEDED the Gay vote? You people REALLY need to start reading a little bit more before you make yourselves look like fools. Some of you CLEARLY don't know what either of these candidates stand before. It's a scary thought.
It is like the Black Community, they, the Gays and Lesbians are being used by the Democrats. The Religious community is being used by the Republicans in the same manner and fashion.
Which is why voter turn out will be low this time cause folks are waking up and seeing that both sides are really just using us to keep their jobs.
Totally agree! Divide and conquer. Tell your group what identifies you as part of the group and then "hate" and separate from the others. Media creates collective identifiers which at the end separates us all, rich from poor, blacks from whites, gays from straights, iPhone holders from the others, I'm better because i have this or look like that or make this amount of money and you don't. I'm republican so I'm better or I'm straight as my community so I'm better. I wonder when will people start thinking BY THEMSELVES? WITHOUT BEING MANIPULATED BY OUR SOCIETY'S BELIEFS AND CONCEPTS? Only until then we will start making some progress, when people really use their head to think and then vote according to what he or she thinks is right!
The author is full of BUTTs. Bible says it's an abomination, BUTT....Paul says it's unclean, BUTT... What a joker.
That's odd... I didn't see the word "butt" in there anywhere. Reading comprehension 101, or spelling? 😉
He never actually gives his little twist on what Rom 1 26 27 is really then trying to say! If not the obvious, then WHAT is it saying?
Straight people have already crapped all over marriage, let the gays finish it off!
LOL
It is pretty sad that the Christian right equate love and marriage primarily with their genitals. When you believe that marriage has more to do with what is between your legs than what is in your heart, it is no wonder that the divorce rate is so high. The gay agenda seems to currently be about monogamy, commitment, family and service to country. God can't help but smile on that. Those that are condemning them are coming off strangely like the pharisees in the time of Jesus. It is pretty clear what side Jesus would come down on in this argument when you look at his life here on earth. I think the gays are winning both from a civil point of view, but also from a religious point of view when one asks the question, "What would Jesus do?"
>>>""What would Jesus do?""
Ask a Gay or Lesbian minister or pastor. There are Gay and Lesbian Christians. 🙂