-DM-

Thank you for the explanation. I did not know what you meant by "a position"; now I do. And I have no problem with this interpretation. Quite possibly--perhaps even probably--that is what was intended. However, the NT (specifically Paul) seems to have broadened the application of the OT principle, then.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. One of the reasons that I qualified "homosexual" with the word "behavior" is because I learned long ago that it was not homosexuality, per se, that was condemned but rather the behavior itself. The difference between what you are saying and what I had said is that you are specifying the behavior whereas I did not.

Doctor X

DM:

You recognize some of the problems people have had trying to "update" ancient texts. As for "position" I gather I got too clever for my own good.

In a sense the Leviticus laws prohibit behavior--but it prohibits a specific behavior. This is very different than the "cop-out" used by some modern theologians that it is "okay to be homosexual just don't engage in homosexual practice."

Theologians are good at ignoring inherent contradictions!!

It should suprise no one that writers retrojected there personal biases by writing scripture.

--J.D.