Homosexuality is an abomination?

[Kulindahr]

i'm not sure if this is a real letter but it does remind me very very very much of a scene from one of the greatest shows ever on TV

A-MAZE-ING!

As a Christian that scene delights me.

It's sad, though, that not many gays take the lesson, of "that's how I beat him": what he just showed is studying the opponent and being better at the opponent's game than your opponent is. He snowed the "doctor" and buried her, because with the knowledge he'd gained on that subject, she was totally out of her depth.

We have to get gays, like Matthew Vines, who can shut down the haters on their own turf with their own materials.

 

[bankside]

The trouble I have with rebutting people on their own terms is the idea that we should need to out-smurf the smurfs and smurf them until they realize they just can't get away with smurfing any more. I just don't see the point.

 

[KaraBulut]

I believe that people who make the argument of a literal interpretation would admit that it had to have been incest, but the main reason why incest is so frowned upon -- genetic defects -- didn't exist back then because Adam and Eve would have been genetically perfect.

(note: I don't believe any of that myself)

Ironically, those literal Fundamentalists also have a blind spot when it comes to the question of many of these complications. If you believe Genesis as a literal story of human origin, then we're all the descendants of an incestuous family.

The same Fundamentalists (like Schlesinger whose PhD is in physiology, not psychology) seem to have selective reading capability when it comes to Leviticus. Or they use the "new covenant" argument that most of it doesn't apply anymore- except the stuff about butt-fucking, of course.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ironically, those literal Fundamentalists also have a blind spot when it comes to the question of many of these complications. If you believe Genesis as a literal story of human origin, then we're all the descendants of an incestuous family.

The same Fundamentalists (like Schlesinger whose PhD is in physiology, not psychology) seem to have selective reading capability when it comes to Leviticus. Or they use the "new covenant" argument that most of it doesn't apply anymore- except the stuff about butt-fucking, of course.

They divide the Law of Moses into "ceremonial" and "moral". Then they play the game of categorizing which is which.

Pointedly, the "homosexual" passage of preference is in Leviticus, which is about the priests, so it would seem to be a "ceremonial" law from the start. But beyond that, it's an artificial invention; there's nothing at all in the Old Testament that says there's such a division. The Law is the Law, and that's that -- a point Paul reaffirms in the New Testament when he says that if you hold to one part of that Law, you have to hold to all of it. So if they're going to protest equal rights for gays, they should be out there picketing the Long John Silver's restaurant chain and all manner of other things.



edit: on a theological level, the Christian who clings to Old Testament laws is denying the effectiveness of the work of Christ. If the grace of Christ regenerates and makes new, if the Spirit guides in Jesus' name, then no detailed rules are needed -- a point the New Testament actually makes when it says that "love is the fulfillment of the Law".

To rely on a discredited authority is to assert that Christ didn't finish His job, and that His declaration from the Cross, "It is finished!" was a hollow brag.

These are people to whom Christ could rightly say, "Oh ye of little faith!"

 

[gsdx]

Pointedly, the "homosexual" passage of preference is in Leviticus, which is about the priests, so it would seem to be a "ceremonial" law from the start.

Actually, the passage in Leviticus 18:22 is a victim of translation. Today, most versions of the Bible use the word 'abomination', but it has had many translations over the years. The original translation is 'unclean' and refers to the marital bed. The verse doesn't actually say that a man shouldn't have sex with another man, it just tells them where they shouldn't do it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, the passage in Leviticus 18:22 is a victim of translation. Today, most versions of the Bible use the word 'abomination', but it has had many translations over the years. The original translation is 'unclean' and refers to the marital bed. The verse doesn't actually say that a man shouldn't have sex with another man, it just tells them where they shouldn't do it.

That's an interesting proposal, but I haven't seen much substantive argument behind it. "Unclean" is a better translation, though -- in fact, "ritually unclean" is not reaching.

BTW, if I put every objection I know to the Leviticus passage in one post, I'd give myself finger cramps.

 

[gsdx]

That's an interesting proposal, but I haven't seen much substantive argument behind it.

Check it out here: Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views

It's a good website which goes back to the original writings wherever and whenever possible. I've been using it for reference for many years now.

 

[Kulindahr]

Check it out here: Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views

It's a good website which goes back to the original writings wherever and whenever possible. I've been using it for reference for many years now.

Something's strange -- this is the total of what I get there:

This verse is one of the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible that is often used to condemn same-sex sexual activity.

In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Although the verse appears to most readers to apply only to sexual behavior between two males, at least two Bible translations appear to mistranslate the verse in order to widen its scope to include lesbian sexual activity:

Clicking on a link just takes me back to that.

 

[gsdx]

Clicking on a link just takes me back to that.

Wow. It's changed dramatically. The URLs in the links are all different, but the pages are all the same. A lot of the GIFs are missing as well. Somebody's screwed up there. Sorry.

I'll investigate a bit more and see what's going on. It used to be an excellent resource.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Something's strange -- this is the total of what I get there:


Clicking on a link just takes me back to that.

Same here. I hope Neil can point us to the right stuff - looks like a very good read. I always hear about the biblical counter-arguments but have never actually found one which I could use against the holier-than-thou out there.

-d-

 

[Kulindahr]

Same here. I hope Neil can point us to the right stuff - looks like a very good read. I always hear about the biblical counter-arguments but have never actually found one which I could use against the holier-than-thou out there.

-d-

In Galatians 3 Paul quotes Deuteronomy 26, to make that point that if you decide to follow the Law, you have to follow all of it. By insisting on this (alleged) prohibition in Leviticus 18, they are indeed following the Law, so they are required to follow all of it. There's no allowance for anything else.


This whole bit of foolishness is one reason I tend to despise lawyers: IIRC, the division between "moral" and "ceremonial" and "civil" law was the work of a lawyer, who IMO was looking for a way to be able to slap his followers with rules and regulations to keep them in line. Theologically and biblically, though, it's an abomination, since the Bible makes no such distinction. All it does is feed the love of imposing rules on people, which verges on heresy because Paul makes it plain -- as Augustine summarized it -- that we are to "love God and do as you please".


Anyway, that's the big point I use: you can't pick and choose commandments. If you're claiming to be a Christian and demanding obedience to one commandment, you''re obligated to follow all of them -- so no more shellfish, and cheeseburgers, no working on Saturday, no divorce, kill your kids if they scream at you in argument . . . after all, a disobedient child is an abomination.