![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm not entirely sure how many Christians who would argue against homosexuality are reading this. However many I have, though, I'd like to give a small but very important piece of advice. Even if you don't believe in condemning homosexuality, you might want to pass this on to other Christians you know who might.
Please, please, please, do *not* quote Leviticus!
Yes, I know it's nice and convenient. But there is a very good reason for this. And the reason is - mildew. I'm sure there are other examples, but mildew is the easiest to pick on. In this day and age, we have much better ways of dealing with mildew than tearing down the entire house and burning the ground it stood on. However, the same justification you use to say that homosexuality is wrong, from Leviticus, can equally be used to say that this ought to be done to mildew. (The shellfish thing that most people quote doesn't hold up half as well, but that's another story entirely.)
It's not as if there isn't anywhere in the New Testament to quote. Try 1 Corinthians 6:9 for a start. I'm convinced there's another one there somewhere too, but I haven't had time to dig it out quite yet. And it's not just that the Leviticus argument undermines the credibility of the argument against homosexuality - when people use it, it undermines the credibility of the entire Christian faith - if people are so easily refuting one part of it, they are less likely to believe anything else they're told.
The trigger for all this ranting is a magazine I read. It's called Third Way, and claims to be for Christians who want to engage with real-world issues. I've only had three issues of it, and so far mostly they've been just as obsessed with trying to deal with sexual sin at the expense of thinking about all the economics of sharing that Jesus advocated, but that's not quite what I'm moaning about. They had an interview with a gay rights activist, who said that he was a Christian but then went on to say that it was more of an attitude than thinking that Jesus actually did exist (annoyance number 1 - they didn't really pick up on this), and asked him what he thought about the biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Now, I expect fairly reasoned debate from this magazine, so I was expecting something along the lines of 'translation errors' or 'cultural context' to be claimed, but no. He trawled out the tired old 'people quote Leviticus at me, but don't obey all the other outdated rules in it, so I'm going to treat this as an outdated rule too' argument. And they let him get away with it, as if there was nowhere else in the Bible it was mentioned! Hence the rant.
If you can think of anywhere else that I could usefully post a version of this rant, please say...
Please, please, please, do *not* quote Leviticus!
Yes, I know it's nice and convenient. But there is a very good reason for this. And the reason is - mildew. I'm sure there are other examples, but mildew is the easiest to pick on. In this day and age, we have much better ways of dealing with mildew than tearing down the entire house and burning the ground it stood on. However, the same justification you use to say that homosexuality is wrong, from Leviticus, can equally be used to say that this ought to be done to mildew. (The shellfish thing that most people quote doesn't hold up half as well, but that's another story entirely.)
It's not as if there isn't anywhere in the New Testament to quote. Try 1 Corinthians 6:9 for a start. I'm convinced there's another one there somewhere too, but I haven't had time to dig it out quite yet. And it's not just that the Leviticus argument undermines the credibility of the argument against homosexuality - when people use it, it undermines the credibility of the entire Christian faith - if people are so easily refuting one part of it, they are less likely to believe anything else they're told.
The trigger for all this ranting is a magazine I read. It's called Third Way, and claims to be for Christians who want to engage with real-world issues. I've only had three issues of it, and so far mostly they've been just as obsessed with trying to deal with sexual sin at the expense of thinking about all the economics of sharing that Jesus advocated, but that's not quite what I'm moaning about. They had an interview with a gay rights activist, who said that he was a Christian but then went on to say that it was more of an attitude than thinking that Jesus actually did exist (annoyance number 1 - they didn't really pick up on this), and asked him what he thought about the biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Now, I expect fairly reasoned debate from this magazine, so I was expecting something along the lines of 'translation errors' or 'cultural context' to be claimed, but no. He trawled out the tired old 'people quote Leviticus at me, but don't obey all the other outdated rules in it, so I'm going to treat this as an outdated rule too' argument. And they let him get away with it, as if there was nowhere else in the Bible it was mentioned! Hence the rant.
If you can think of anywhere else that I could usefully post a version of this rant, please say...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I refuse
Date: 2002-05-19 06:39 am (UTC)From:I'd advise skipping over the post altogether.
Because of the length of this post I have had to split it into 2. The start of the second post is the only bit which I think might be of some intrest to non-christians.
I will not take this advice because I think it unbiblical, unchristian and just bascially wrong.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
To discard a bit of the bible and say "We won't use that" is not only absurd, it is categorically wrong!
What does the bible say about homosexuality? Well you start from the beginning, Genisis infact (Gensis 18 and 19[1] for those of you who haven't had their old testaments infected with mildew and had to rip them out).
And the law given in Leviticus (18v22 in particular and 24-30 for some exposition of the attitude, for those of you who've yet engaged in that burning spree to rid the lingering traces of mildew) is a part of the bible, and a significant one. We are not in a position to throw it aside and go "Outdated, don't need that." Absurd! This is God's word!
Matthew 5
"17 [Jesus begins speaking] "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
(v19 and 20 are also relavent - hopefully you got the mildew before it made it into your new testament).
(For those of you concerned as to where Grace fits in with the law I recommend reading Romans, in particular Romans 3v21-31, but the whole book is excellent on this topic and you should spend time with it all if this stuff is troubling you.)[2]
(For those of you who want to claim that grace means that the law is now of no value I would direct you towards the end of that passage: Romans 3v31, and observe that God didn't make an error when he wrote/dictated the law).
Does this mean I need to repent of having just consumed a pork sausage, (and indeed check my romo very carefully for that insiduious mildew?).
Well fortunatly not. Paul states that the ceremonial laws, sacrifices, cleanliness rituals and requirements, etc, have been fuffilled completely through Jesus: there is no longer a need for animal sacrifices and we are clean through faith in christ, we don't need to worry about the things around us making us unclean[3] (See Romans 14 and Galations 3).
So, our ever popular mildew:
Let's go to (gasp) Leviticus. The section on mildew starts in v47, I'm not going to quote all of it: I don't think it's relavent to this discussin, however I will quote the end of v51:
"the [mildew affected] article is unclean."
Ah, so it's an 'uncleanness' thing then?
So from what Paul's said this 'way of doing things' has passed away (not that it isn't useful to read about, not that it teaches us nothing about God and can be ignored: simply that we are no longer subject to it).
What about homosexuality (and other sexual sins which invariably get mentioned next to passages on homosexuality [4]).
Well those two are not described as making the person "unclean", no, they are described as "detestable" (I have a feeling I've seen it described as an abomination elsewhere but I've not been able to find it, somewhere in Deuteronomy perhaps?). Does Paul say doing destestable things is okay?
Absolutly not.
So is the command in leviticus relavent?
Absolutly. You should no more be going around performing homosexual sex than you should be going around mrdering people, or worshipping idols. Leviticus has all of those as well. It's a worthwhile book, hard to get into, but not to be ignored.
So, what shall we say in summary:
[See next post]
Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-19 06:40 am (UTC)From:So, what shall we say in summary:
If asked "Is homosexuality okay/morally acceptable?" I would reply "No." If I was asked why I thought I would say that that was what the bible said, categorically and repeatedly[5] that it was wrong.
If I was asked why I thought the bible said that I would have to admit that I don't know, I simply trust that God knows better than me.
If it was a christian asking me the question and they challenged the matter further I would dig up those quotes from the bible, yes, even the one in leviticus.
If it was not a christian then they would probably say "Well I don't believe what the bible says" and I would have to say that I am then, not aware of any sound moral reason why they should think homosexuality wrong.
I wouldn't expect an aethist (for example) to think homosexuality neccessarily wrong, and I would expect them to realise it was wrong only by first comming to God.
Just as I wouldn't expect them to see worshipping other gods as a sin, (which doesn't make it not a sin) but would expect them to see murder as wrong.
Neil, who suspects this will have exceeded the allowed comment length (depsite them putting up said length since the last time I did this!).
P.S.: The other New Testament remark on homosexuality that you're looking for is Romans 1v24-27 I think, there may be some other's but that's the clearest other one on the topic I have to hand.
[1] Or at least, this is the first direct referance I know of, there might be earlier ones I've missed, anyone know of one?
[2] In particular note that we are not justified to God through the law: the law does not bring Salvation (see Romans 4 and 5, for example 5:1). Note however that grace does not give us permission to think our transgressions against God are meaningless, see Romans 6v1, have I mentioned what a cool book Romans is on this subject yet?
[3] We *do* have to 'worry' about our actions however.
[4] (let's not forget that homosexuality is only one of many ways we can abuse God's gift of sex, often we seem to talk more about homosexuality, I've still not figured out if that's because the people doing the talking think there's a chance they might do something sexually wrong in some of those other ways, so they don't want to emphasise how wrong they are, but they're entirely confident they're never going to tempted to engage in homosexual activity, or if it's instead because people seem more able to appreciate that adultery is a *bad* thing)
[5] This is not a big issue for the bible frankly, it mentions is several times, so there is a sound body of evidence for God being strongly against homosexuality, but you shouldn't mistake that as meaning that God is most concerned about homosexuality and which God you worship/the difference between rich and poor/etc are lesser issues, the bible talks a lot more about rich and poor, and what should be done about it, and about whom we should be worshipping and why, than it does about homosexuality.
Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-19 08:08 am (UTC)From:Leviticus was very relevent when it was written... but *not now* in fact it's a pile of shite. And most of it says "I am the Lord thy God and there is no other God but me" or some variation...
*must calm down*
also, all the Kosher laws are laid down in Leviticus, and the Mildew thing.
Do you keep Kosher Neil?
no, because the new testement says 'bugger that for a lark, eat what you like'.
Yes, Chess is right, the bible is still anti-gay but that is probably one of very few bits of Leiticus that are still relevent (and the bit about not marrying your mother.)
*points out that this only referes to gay _men_*
oh and Chess... good places to post it would be places I'm not (*grins*)... though you might like to try the xf list.
*huggles Chessypig and Neil to make up for ranting at them*
Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-19 09:59 am (UTC)From:Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-19 02:02 pm (UTC)From:"25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."
I'm not sure I follow Naath's arguement actually: even if it didn't specifically mention women would it make any sense to think it somehow didn't apply to them?
Isn't that just pedantry?
The bible isn't a scientific paper, it's not carefully derived from axioms so that pedantry is the appropriate way to approach it.
This isn't a docuement written to be read by computers, but by humans, so read it like a human.
If the text doesn't say something but it's blindly obvious it means it, then go with that meaning.
The bible never once mentions Jesus using the toilet. I think we can be entirely confident that Jesus had a digestive system that threw ought waste just the same as yours does.
Neil
Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-06-01 06:28 am (UTC)From:Not to mention that the Hebrew word for "men sleeping with men" is identical to the word used for ritual male prostitues in the temples of other religion, which may be a restriction designed to keep the Hebrews from participating in other religions in any way, rather than a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. This is supported by the fact that the verse in Leviticus is part of the so-called Cobblestone Laws, all of which are specifically designed to prevent the Hebrews from participating in other religions.
The story of Lot's guest can as easily be interpreted as a condemnation of homosexual rape as a condemnation of homosexuality, especially as heterosexual rape is generally condemned by the Bible.
The story disturbs me, however, because I am confused by the fact that Lot's protection of his guests is considered righteous, which makes perfect sense, but there is no comment either way on the fact that in his attempt to protect his guests, he offered his daughters to the mob for sexual use -- in those circumstances, for what would probably have been a gang rape, given what the men of Sodom wanted to do to Lot's guests. I would hope that this action is not part of what is credited to Lot as righteousness, but it's not commented on either way, and heterosexual rape is specifically condemned, as I said. I don't understand what was credited to Lot as righteousness here, and because of that, I am extremely leery of using this story as a basis for condemning homosexuality.
I can't comment yet on the passages in Romans and Corinthians. They appear to be straight forward, but then, I thought the verses about husbands and wives were straight forward, but it turns out that they don't actually mean, in the original Greek, what they are traditionally interpreted as meaning.
And Neil, this might sound strange, but I would urge you to consider it prayerfully. First of all, the Bible is inerrant, but we are not, and I have heard homosexuality argued from both sides by people whom I know to be deeply committed Christians, and in both cases, they came to their positions after much prayer. And second, are you sure you are not making an idol out of the Bible? The Bible is the gift of God, but it is not God itself, and we must be careful that we do not put what we *think* the Bible says ahead of what God himself actually says. (I find it interesting that Quakers, who are generally quite liberal and who have a really deep commitment to service, do not consider the Bible as the final authority of God, but only the Bible as enlightened by the Holy Spirit, if I understand them correctly. I am seriously considering turning to the Quaker churches to finally find a spiritual home.)
Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-20 01:47 pm (UTC)From:And if you don't want to /die horribly/ then I would advise not look *grins*
Re: Summary and Footnotes for preceeding post
Date: 2002-05-21 02:20 am (UTC)From:Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-19 07:31 am (UTC)From:What does the bible say about homosexuality? Well you start from the beginning, Genisis infact (Gensis 18 and 19[1] for those of you who haven't had their old testaments infected with mildew and had to rip them out).
And the law given in Leviticus (18v22 in particular and 24-30 for some exposition of the attitude, for those of you who've yet engaged in that burning spree to rid the lingering traces of mildew) is a part of the bible, and a significant one. We are not in a position to throw it aside and go "Outdated, don't need that." Absurd! This is God's word!
I was under the impression that abiding by the laws (not 10 commandments - I mean the Leviticus laws) was what consituted the Old Covenant, and that the coming of Jesus formed the New Covenant. That's why we have two testaments - the old and the new. I'm not saying that the old testament is irrelevant for Christians today, but I do assert that the old laws are no longer relevant when it comes to action. I think that they can form a basis for guidance.
There are other things that I'd like to say, but they're not strictly relevant, and are non-scripturally based, and I'm supposed to be doing practise papers for tripos (you're an Emma mathmo? part 1A, or 1B? I'm a Trinity philosopher...), so I'll leave them be. As a taster, I disagree that, at the very least, homosexual love (I'm not asserting 'sex' here) is immoral or against God with respect to Christianity - and I might assert the 'sex' part too, depending on the situation.
As I replied to
Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-19 03:15 pm (UTC)From:Well those two are not described as making the person "unclean", no, they are described as "detestable" (I have a feeling I've seen it described as an abomination elsewhere but I've not been able to find it, somewhere in Deuteronomy perhaps?). Does Paul say doing destestable things is okay?
"Detestable" or "abomination" depending on the translation. The Hebrew root is something like "to`ebah" (look up the relevant verse about lying with a man at Blue Letter Bible and use their Hebrew Concordance (the letter "C" by the verse).
Other things which are abominations include women wearing mens' clothing (so no trousers for you girls) in Deut 22:5, plus dishonest weights and measures and also following other gods. While there are some things in that list which it seems obvious that Christians would not want to get involved in, I hope you will be consistent in your application of your exegesis of the difference between "unclean" and "abomination" and treat women wearing trousers in your church with the gravity that such an a sin deserves.
[I did once hear a sermon attempting to make the point that men should wear different clothing from women using the NT: specifically Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 11. Quite, quite mad.]
Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-24 02:12 am (UTC)From:You might want to claim that men wore them first, true, men wore tights first, I put to you that tights are not male clothing.
You might want to claim that more men wear trousers than women do (although women might own more trousers than men do) and I put to you that in the 16th century (and perhaps even today) more men wore crowns than women, this didn't make the crown a male garb.
I put to you that trousers are not male only clothing, they might have been once, but what was once the case isn't our problem.
These days a women wearing trousers isn't in rebellion against God, they aren't claiming "I know better than you which sex I should be". (Perhaps it is in some countries, I don't know for certain, I don't know of any. It's certaintly not that here).
I think this is a passage about transvestives, not about trousers.
(And as one of my elders once said to his wife, the point doesn't even make sense, women wear differently taylored 'women's trousers' (because guess what: the female body is a different shape)).
So I will indeed "treat women wearing trousers in your church with the gravity that such an a sin deserves", and scottish men wearing kilts equally so ;-)
Neil
Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-24 07:51 am (UTC)From:The motive for women wearing trousers (I mean the first ones that made it acceptable, not women today) was practicality. They started to wear them because they were more practical than traditional womens' clothing.
This is different from the motives behind transvestitism.