![[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: 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.)