![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
After the comments to my last post, I feel I ought to clarify things.
I am *not* saying that the verse in Leviticus is irrelevant. I'm just saying it's far too easy for people to pick holes in it, so it's not the best starting point for a discussion. A discussion with another Christian, or someone who wants you to go into more depth about it, should include that verse, yes. But it shouldn't be your starting point - because it's so easy for them to point at something else in Leviticus and say 'well, you don't do this any more, surely it's the same thing?'. It's possible for them to do that with some of the stuff in Paul's letters (to fend off another criticism :-) ), but not as easy. Yes, you can probably explain why the things in Leviticus that don't need to be done any more don't, but it eats away at your argument.
I'm just fed up of seeing people dismiss the objections in Leviticus and not go on to deal with all the other places the Bible objects to it.
I am *not* saying that the verse in Leviticus is irrelevant. I'm just saying it's far too easy for people to pick holes in it, so it's not the best starting point for a discussion. A discussion with another Christian, or someone who wants you to go into more depth about it, should include that verse, yes. But it shouldn't be your starting point - because it's so easy for them to point at something else in Leviticus and say 'well, you don't do this any more, surely it's the same thing?'. It's possible for them to do that with some of the stuff in Paul's letters (to fend off another criticism :-) ), but not as easy. Yes, you can probably explain why the things in Leviticus that don't need to be done any more don't, but it eats away at your argument.
I'm just fed up of seeing people dismiss the objections in Leviticus and not go on to deal with all the other places the Bible objects to it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-05-19 12:27 pm (UTC)From:Homosexuality and Gay reviewed
Date: 2002-05-19 06:14 pm (UTC)From:Jesus came to fufill the law, not abolish it.
I had a reply done up for you. but instead I would recommend both of you read this for the truth
http://www.catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp
Re: Homosexuality and Gay reviewed
Date: 2002-05-19 06:30 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2002-05-20 03:23 am (UTC)From:http://www.whosoever.org/bible/index.html is the most comprehensive example of the same thing.
Their refutations of the OT passages might be justified - the point of these stories seems to be about different things, and the Leviticus reference, as I keep saying, is easily discredited. I haven't really done much research into these passages, since using OT arguments swiftly gets you into difficult ground anyhow.
Romans 1:26-27 seems to me to be about the reason there are people who are 'naturally homosexual' - claiming that it's a result of the perversion of the world through sin. It is in the context of idol worship and relationships based on lust rather than commitment though, so it can be explained around if you try hard enough.
The arguments over 1 Corinthians 6:9 mainly center around two Greek words: 'malakois' and 'arsenokoitai'. The first one can and is indeed used to mean 'weak-willed' elsewhere. All the sites promoting homosexuality that I've found claim that the second refers to a certain type of temple prostitution. However, the Evangelical Alliance's document on this (after several months of research by both liberal and conservative Christians) says that 'arsenkoitai' can and is used for a wide range of homosexual behaviour, and that there is a more specific word available for the specific types of behaviour that the other sources are claiming that the verse is condemning.
Even without all the heavy Greek-scholar stuff, why did God create humans as male and female if His plan was for same-sex relationships? Why did He not just make a race of hemaphrodites? (Yes, I know there are holes in this. That's why the above stuff is important - and also the fact that it is condemned in Leviticus, and isn't one of the types of law specifically repealed (things concerning sacrifice, uncleanliness or food).]
Anyway, that's my take on it.
no subject
Date: 2002-05-20 09:28 am (UTC)From:Mostly, what I was looking for was your personal opinion on the subject of homosexuality. I'm pretty sure I have it now.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to take you off my friends list. You're a nice person, but I just can't deal with this. I won't tell or ask you not to write about it in your journal; but reading about it upsets me, and rather than fighting with you every time you bring it up, I'd rather that we go our separate ways.
Take care, and live in grace, however you find it to be.
Whosoever (should be whomsoever, surely)
Date: 2002-05-22 09:25 am (UTC)From:I didn't look at all of them, but the one's I did look at (Gensis 18-19, Romans 1 and Corinthians 6v9) would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Jesus apparently says that Sodom's sin was inhosptality.
He does this by saying if someone rejects the gospel when you preach it to them, they'll be worse off in judgement than Sodom and Gomorah[1] (as they've heard the gospel and rejected it instead of sinning without having directly heard God).
My word, I'm glad they told me! I would never have spotted that meaning in Jesus's words if they hadn't told me! (Matthew 10v14-15 if you want to chase it.)
However, yet classier is still to come:
"NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sex."
"Jude disagreed with God; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature."
How odd, Jude's definatly in my bible ...
And I wonder what it is that makes them think Jude is disagreeing with God here.
So it would seem that they feel that if you carefully ignore certain areas of the bible (yep, Jude was disagreeing with God for that one verse, that one only, that's right), then indeed there's nothing left in your bible-minus-verses-on-homosexuality which condems homosexuality.
What a revelation! I'd never have known.
(I could go on: their interpretation of Romans 1 leaves me with the distinct impression that they tried feeding it into babblefish till it said what they wanted. When this failed, they settled with feeding it into babblefish until it was meaningless, and then declaring it meaningless[2]).
So, yeah, I wasn't impressed with that website.
Neil
[1] is it just because Sodom is easier to spell that we always refer only to it?
[2] A comma seperated list of sins with "These are bad things, don't do them" before and after got turned into "If you do all these at once and under special circumstances ... well God won't be impressed.
Re: Whosoever (should be whomsoever, surely)
Date: 2002-05-22 09:39 am (UTC)From:This is their comment on:
1 Kings v24 "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
"there is little evidence that homosexuality was involved."
Right ....
I wonder, do they not quote the bible passages they talk about because of copyright, to encourage you to read the stuff around, or because if you went and read the passages in question they'd have a lot more trouble making you believe them?
Cynical Neil
[1] For those of you who got lost in that sentence, it's not so I don't.
Re: Whosoever (should be whomsoever, surely)
Date: 2002-05-24 01:25 am (UTC)From:Their main case is that all the references to homosexuality refer to a specific kind of temple prostitution, and it's temple prostitution (and worship of other gods etc) that the passages are talking about. I can't independantly check the meanings of the words they quoted, but when they said what the word literally meant and when the Evangelical Alliance document quoted that word and said it was a general one, this all seems to undermine their case (as they're claiming it means what they say it means because a word for that specific kind of temple prostitute was translated into it once, or something like that).
Re: Whosoever (should be whomsoever, surely)
Date: 2002-05-24 01:35 am (UTC)From:And the reason for this claim: it says homosexuality is really bad, their conclusion: therefore it must be referring to worshipping idols.
Eh?
Ah well, makes no sense to me.
Neil