Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Silent Acorns · 08-18-2003, 01:06 PM

It is generally understood by most Christians that they are not subject to "The Law" of the OT. Christians don't need to eat Kosher food, circumcise their children, etc. There is scriptual support for this. There are several passages in the NT like Gal 2:16,21:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ... I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

IOW, the law is irrelevant w.r.t. righteousness.

Therefore, since the only OT passages condemning homosexuality are in the law books of Lev and Deut, does this not mean that homosexuality, while not strictly Kosher, is acceptable for Christians? Would it be fair to say that Christians that eat pork, but condemn homosexual sex as an "abomination" are hypocrits? What is the Christian defense to this line of thinking, and what is their scriptual "support"?

Heathen Dawn · 08-18-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html#Mosaic

Do you follow ALL of the laws in the Mosaic Code, or do you just pick and choose those that denounce homosexuals, while ignoring the others?

The Mosaic Code consists of two types of laws: moral and ceremonial. (Analagous to modern law's mala in se and mala prohibitum, respectively). Moral laws are included in the Mosaic Code because they are in and of themselves wrong (e.g., murder, adultery, human sacrifice, sodomy, etc.). Ceremonial laws are included in the Mosaic Code because they were shadows of things to come. They were ceremonies that represented something (e.g., not eating certain types of animals, not wearing clothing of mixed fibers, etc.). These ceremonial laws foreshadowed Christ, and certain other eternal concepts. These ceremonial laws were done away with when Christ came. See Colossians 2:13-23. The moral laws, however, always have been and always will be in effect. We are supposed to follow the moral laws.

The context of the verses in the Mosaic Code that forbid sodomy is important. Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." This verse is part of a list of abominations that were done in Egypt and other nations, for which the Lord spued the people out. In other words, He punished other nations for these abominations. This means that these abominable acts were not only forbidden to the ancient Jews, but to ALL nations (whereas the ceremonial laws in the Mosaic Code only applied to people in the Jewish nation). Any nation that engages in these abominations will be destroyed. To paraphrase the context of Leviticus 18:22 - don't have sex with a menstruating woman, don't commit adultery, don't sacrifice your children, don't commit sodomy, don't commit bestiality. The question is: why are all of these things still abominable, except sodomy? Why is sodomy suddenly OK? If you claim to believe the Bible, and you're at all logical, it makes no sense to say that sodomy is OK.

Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." What's the context of this verse? To paraphrase - don't commit adultery, don't have sex with your step mother, don't have sex with your daughter in law, don't have sex with other men, don't have sex with your mother in law, don't have sex with animals. Once again, all of these verses condemn things that are morally wrong, as opposed to ceremonially wrong. It makes no sense to suggest that all of these are still wrong - except sodomy.

Finally, people ask this question to try to prove a point. And the point is "the Mosaic Code contains lots of stuff that we don't follow anymore - why should we still follow the verse that forbids sodomy?" For example, "if it's OK to eat pork, why isn't it OK to commit sodomy?" I believe I've answered this above, but I'd like to point out that the above statement makes about as much sense as "if it's OK to eat pork, why isn't it OK to murder?"

Autonemesis · 08-18-2003, 03:00 PM

Of course, there is no verse in the Babble at all about womenkind laying with womenkind, so lesbian sex is OK. In fact, pretty much anything that occurs between two women is considered frivolous and unimportant by these Bronze Age religions.

Doctor X · 08-18-2003, 03:04 PM

Actually, there is one in the NT--I know this because I made a similar claim once and sat corrected. The OT has no prohibition against lesbianism, however. I believe it is one of Paul's letters.

If you believe current scholarship, the "Mosaic Laws" do not forbid sodomy--they forbid "receiving." They say nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.

As the title of the most Christian webpage indicates--bigots can justify anything, no matter how ridiculous or intellectually dishonest--by sifting through texts.

--J.D.

Toto · 08-18-2003, 04:04 PM

Romans 1:26-27

[26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,

[27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

{This seems to condemn lesbian sex}

1 Cor 6:9-11

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers� none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.�

Commentary on The meaning of arsenokoita:

Quote:

In this recent critical translation arsenokoitai is taken as a reference to those who practice homosexuality. Arsenokoitai poses a problem to the translator because this is its earliest known occurrence in Greek literature. Robin Scroggs has plausibly suggested that Paul created this new word by combining the two terms found in the Greek version of Lev 18:23 (LXX 18:22) and 20:13: arsen = �male,� and koite = �bed,� which translate the Hebrew for �lying with a male� (mishkav zakur; The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate [Fortress, 1983] 106-8). With the likelihood that these Levitical prohibitions are echoed in 1 Cor 6:9, the NRSV is justified in translating the term as a reference to homoerotic intercourse, even if the English �sodomites� is somewhat archaic.

The most vociferous critic of taking arsenokoitai as a reference to homoerotic practice is the late, gay scholar J. Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1980] 335-53). He concludes that arsenokoitai refers to male prostitutes without specifying the gender of their partners. Boswell�s theory has been popularized by the widely known work of gay Catholic J.J. McNeil, who confesses his dependence on Boswell even though his work appeared earlier (The Church and the Homosexual [Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, 1976] 200). Boswell�s broader thesis, the Bible does not justify the later homophobia that appealed to it, has not been challenged, but his lexicography has come under unfavorable review.

David F. Wright has devoted an article to demonstrating the inaccuracies of Boswell�s presentation of the data (�Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),� Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53). Wright and Boswell engage in highly sophisticated and detailed lexicographical argumentation, which space prohibits re-presenting in this brief article. Wright�s most telling argument is that Boswell seriously underestimates the use of arsenokoitai in early Christian writers, and he is especially negligent in his highly selective and inaccurate use of the early, Greek-speaking bishop John Chrysostom. Wright points out how the very texts from Chrysostom cited by Boswell, when viewed in light of their surrounding texts, both undermine Boswell �s interpretation and support the traditional view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexuality.

Soul Invictus · 09-04-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

If you believe current scholarship, the "Mosaic Laws" do not forbid sodomy--they forbid "receiving." They say nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.
--J.D.

Can you explain this for me?

lpetrich · 09-04-2003, 10:49 PM

There is a certain problem with the division of the Law of Moses into moral and ceremonial laws: where do the moral laws end and the ceremonial laws begin? The text does not mark the laws out as being one or the other.

08-18-2003, 01:06 PM	#1
Silent Acorns Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SW 31 52 24W4 Posts: 1,508	Homosexuality, Christianity, and "The Law" It is generally understood by most Christians that they are not subject to "The Law" of the OT. Christians don't need to eat Kosher food, circumcise their children, etc. There is scriptual support for this. There are several passages in the NT like Gal 2:16,21: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified ... I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. IOW, the law is irrelevant w.r.t. righteousness. Therefore, since the only OT passages condemning homosexuality are in the law books of Lev and Deut, does this not mean that homosexuality, while not strictly Kosher, is acceptable for Christians? Would it be fair to say that Christians that eat pork, but condemn homosexual sex as an "abomination" are hypocrits? What is the Christian defense to this line of thinking, and what is their scriptual "support"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-18-2003, 03:00 PM	#3
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Of course, there is no verse in the Babble at all about womenkind laying with womenkind, so lesbian sex is OK. In fact, pretty much anything that occurs between two women is considered frivolous and unimportant by these Bronze Age religions.

08-18-2003, 03:04 PM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Actually, there is one in the NT--I know this because I made a similar claim once and sat corrected. The OT has no prohibition against lesbianism, however. I believe it is one of Paul's letters. If you believe current scholarship, the "Mosaic Laws" do not forbid sodomy--they forbid "receiving." They say nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. As the title of the most Christian webpage indicates--bigots can justify anything, no matter how ridiculous or intellectually dishonest--by sifting through texts. --J.D.

09-04-2003, 10:49 PM	#7
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	There is a certain problem with the division of the Law of Moses into moral and ceremonial laws: where do the moral laws end and the ceremonial laws begin? The text does not mark the laws out as being one or the other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.