Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Israel's Holiness Code.
The chapters that contain these verses are clearly identified as speaking against practices involved in cultic idol worship. The entire passages are generally accepted as not applying to modern Christian life.
These two verses in Leviticus read as follows in the King James Version:
�Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination.� (Leviticus 18:22)
�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 be upon them.� (Leviticus 20:13)
Before delving into these two verses, it would be helpful to read
How Language is Interpreted, which is part of the discussion of Romans 1.
If we wish to understand the true meaning of these verses, we must look at their context, both textual and historical. Until we understand what prompted these rules in Old Testament times, we will not be able to determine if the rules should be applied to the case of two people in committed, loving relationship.
The last statement shows a serious problem with this sort of thinking. In Judaism no matter what the background, you keep the command. The command is a command.
There is also something really flawed with the thinking of people who take some bits of conjecture and history, like the rest of your message after the quote, and think they can really exactly piece what life was like for ancient Israelites. We get little bits and pieces from history and archeology about their lives. There are a thousand opinions about how to interpret this information. And then more information comes to light, which often confirms that the Biblical text is accurate. Some people didn't believe Bethsaida existed, but it has been discovered. Before that, there were those who claimed that the Hittites did not exist. But the Hati people are considered by many to have been the Hittites.
Some little bit of information about homosexual practices in religion in Egypt or among the Canaanites is not evidence at all as to whether Canaanites were having non-religious homosexual sex. None of this information takes away from the fact that the Israelites were given this command. The command stands whether or not the sex was done to worship an idol or as a part of a ritual. This type of sex just is detestable. That's what the text states. It doesn't say it's only forbidden when it is an abomination, but that such type of activity is an abomination. To say otherwise is sophistry, and academics with PhD's can engage in sophistry. Sometimes they are the best at it.
In the opinion of other PhD's, probably most PhD's who work in academia are idiots. When one PhD gets his paper rejected by the PhD (or grad student) editors at a journal or conference, there is a chance that he will call those other PhD's idiots. Personallly, I think it's wrong to call other people idiots, but I can tell you it happens. There is a pretty good chance that any of these PhD's in academia have been called 'idiots' by other experts in their field whose papers they have rejected through a blind review process.
The text itself gives us a big clue as to the intended meaning. Three different times we are specifically told that the rules set forth in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and Canaanites did.
Canaanites had gay sex. Don't have gay sex. Canaanites slept with animals. Don't have sex with animals.
If you don't think the Bible forbids these things in the Old or New Testament, do you think it would be wrong for your husband to engage in some homosexual activity on the side? Biblically, what would your case be against that, beyond any particular promises or assurances he gave you? Why shouldn't a Christian husband or wife go have sex with a pet or farm animal as a supplement to their marital sex life? Do you think the Bible forbids this? I do. But I don't see how your line of reasoning leads to this conclusion. You wouldn't categorize homosexual sex or sex with animals as 'fornication' would you?
The term Canaanites refers to the group of nations who lived in the land into which the Israelites migrated when they left Egypt. It follows, therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behavior was common among the Canaanites and Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses were meant to prohibit.
Egyptian practices may have been quite different from Canaanite practices.
Biblical historians tell us the Canaanite religions surrounding the Israelites at the time of Leviticus often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. These rituals were thought to bring the blessing of the god or goddess on crop and livestock production. During the rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex.
I wouldn't disagree. But the command forbids these types of sex, and doesn't specify that they have to be done in an idolatrous context to be forbidden. Sex between men is an abomination. That's a free standing thing. It doesn't have to be done during an idol-worship ceremony to be true.
Greek and Roman culture was very sexualized. There were temple prostitutes and other pagan-related sex practices. But I think there is plenty of evidence for non-temple prostitution and for sinful sexual practices that went on outside of pagan practices as well. Their homosexual sex wasn't all about religion either. We shouldn't expect that Canaanites would have been less perverted. They were bad enough for God to drive them out. They may have been worse than the Romans.
This is just another example of misapplying the cultural-historical method.
I just see this a lot. Basically it goes like this, "When X commandment/teaching was given, the cultural situation was Y. Because the situation is not Y anymore, commandment/teaching X no longer applies."
One of the LGBT uses of this approach goes like this,
"Homosexual behavior back then occured in idolatry (or rape, or prostitution, or an oppressive relationship.) But in our culture, this is not the case, so the teaching or command against it does not apply."
Of course, that isn't true, either, since one passage in the New Testament condemns the acts when motivated by men's desire for one another. The commandment says what it says independent of cultural context.
I can use the same logic on a number of other issues,
"Back in the time of Moses up through the time of Christ, men would try to get out of paying a culturally required dowry by divorcing their wives or by divorcing them and remarrying them after they had remarried. That is not the case today. I want to divorce my wife because she is ugly after a botched plastic surgery. That was not the cultural situation the Bible addreses. I am going to give my wife a huge settlement, so the teachings and commandments of scripture do not apply in my case."
Of course, that is false, because Jesus' teachings on putting away one's wife aren't contingent on the situation with the dowry. Btw, my argument is based loosely on some arguments I've heard using the cultural-historical approach.
And here is a nice extreme example,
"When thou shalt not kill was commanded, people killed each other in a messy, violent, painful manner with stones, swords, and knives. They did not sneak up to people at the mall and spray them with a can of painless and humane death gas, so using death gas is okay. And 'thou shalt not steal' only applies if the people are alive."
Of course, murder is murder. And robbing a dead body is stealing from the heirs. People say all kinds of things to justify themselves. I haven't heard that particular line about murder, fortunately.
