bms:
You respond to me with:
"How? What you have quoted from Lambeth is exactly what I was saying compared to the Changing attitude statement, yet you suggest it isn’t.
What you quoted distinguishes that our sexual affections can’t define us, we are not homosexual or heterosexual but male and female."
First, if that's what you meant, which stills comes across rather confusing even now, perhaps you should begin your arguments with common nouns rather than pronouns or non-referential nouns (i.e. "two").
Second, it's been my understanding that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,
there is neither male nor female; for
you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) I'm fairly sure, then that the writers at Lambeth did Not, thus imply Your Meaning.
Finally, what I'm saying (to both you and sbvd) is that these very specifically delineated Sexual Activities (in Leviticus 18) were considered Obligatory by law (religious law) in the lands of Egypt and/or Canaan at the time. They were parts of religious ritual as can be discovered by Google or Bing searches with the terms, "Sex+rites" combined with "ancient+world" or "Egypt" and/or "Canaan." Many findings of archaeology show these activities and more.
The object of these rituals was to reEnact the myths of their religion which created the specific gods. Costumed as a god or goddess (depending on their relations to each other) they would call up fertility for the earth, or weather, or good fortune for the community. [There are Magicians who practice "Sex-Magick" (e.g. Aleister Crowley, last century, and those that follow his and other teachings today,) to invoke/evoke pagan deities.] Using sex with animals in their rites would call forth the specific "gods" that we find in hieroglyphics and on papyrus writings, Part human image/ Part animal.
These passages are most definitely NOT about "relationships"
And, sbvd, that which you're inferring from is Not the "consequence" of idolatry, but the Very Act of Idol Worship, itself. Please note the distinction. From verse 28 on, your inference is correct.
These were the Statutes that the Hebrew people (as foreign slaves in Egypt) were required to participate in. They knew exactly what Yaweh was talking about. As His People, the Hebrews, were being called on to Only do that which Yaweh accepted as religious ritual.
They also wouldn't be allowed to sacrifice their children to Molech by passing them through the fire. That commandment, alone, in the midst of the list ought to show that this is a section of laws NOT regarding sexual sin, per se, but about the worship of false gods. The mention of man lying with man, was simply denouncing participation in a reenactment of a myth -- such as Horus (the First) raping Set. You might thus find it strange that nowhere in these lists, is woman-with-woman sex forbidden.
In Romans 1, Paul is paraphrasing this section of "The Law" to begin his discussion of "The Law" for the Jewish Christians (though in Christ there is neither Jew Nor Gentile
) in Rome, and for the Gentile believers to have some "context" when he gets around to addressing them.
Blessings.
