![[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}
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