(no subject)

[chess]

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.

Comments

Re: Whosoever (should be whomsoever, surely)

[chess]

Possibly it should be whomsoever, but people don't use the word 'whom' any more unless they're trying to be formal and intimidating.

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)

[passage.livejournal.com]

Yes, I found their claim around leviticus 18 to be particularly weak: they claimed that a verse in the middle of a bunch of commands against sexual sins was infact about religious sins, and had just sort of arbitarily been shunted in there for confusion value.

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