Liberal and Conservative

[dreadnought]

Being heterosexual I have never disobeyed it, but even so I do not consider it binding on Christians today. I also eat clams, scallops, mussels and shrimp and have been known to wear clothing of two fabrics. Oh, crab and oysters too.

You have disobeyed it if you have given your blessing to homosexuality.

 

[hedrick]

And Leviticus 18:22 is obviously a commandment.

But it's obviously from a part of the Bible that no one considers applicable to Christians, except that one commandment.

 

[dreadnought]

But it's obviously from a part of the Bible that no one considers applicable to Christians, except that one commandment.

If it's an abomination for Jews, it's an abomination for us.

 

[hedrick]

If it's an abomination for Jews, it's an abomination for us.

Here are the things call abominable in Lev:
7:18 Eating the flesh of the sacrifice on the 3rd day
11:13 Eating the eagle, the vulture, the osprey
18:22 lying with a man as with a woman
18:28 general summary, presumably applying to everything preceding
19:30 eating the sacrifice on the third day
20:13 = 18:22
20:25 eating any unclean animal or bird

Is eating any unclean animal or bird an abomination for us? Abomination is simply the term for a violation of the Levitical purity code.

 

[dreadnought]

But it's obviously from a part of the Bible that no one considers applicable to Christians, except that one commandment.

You say none of that part of the Bible (Lev 18:22) applies to us? You think the following thing are acceptable to Christians?

[6]"None of you shall approach any one near of kin to him to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.
[7] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
[8] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
[9] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad.
[10] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
[11] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister.
[12] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's near kinswoman.
[13] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's near kinswoman.
[14] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
[15] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
[16] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; she is your brother's nakedness.
[17] You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your near kinswomen; it is wickedness.
[18] And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive. Lev 18:6-18 RSV

 

[JackRT]

You have disobeyed it if you have given your blessing to homosexuality.

When looking at loving relationships between same gender couples, the prohibitions are simply not in the scriptures. The clobber passages that are cited in our bible do not address same gender relationships as we know them today. To continue to cite these passages to discriminate and do harm to LGBTQ persons is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worse. To continue to cite two thousand to four-thousand-year-old understandings and writings without consideration of twenty first century education, science, reason, and experience is ludicrous and unfaithful.

 

[hedrick]

You say none of that part of the Bible (Lev 18:22) applies to us? You think the following thing are acceptable to Christians?

[6]"None of you shall approach any one near of kin to him to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.
[7] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
[8] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
[9] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad.
[10] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness.
[11] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister.
[12] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's near kinswoman.
[13] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's near kinswoman.
[14] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
[15] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.
[16] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; she is your brother's nakedness.
[17] You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your near kinswomen; it is wickedness.
[18] And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is yet alive. Lev 18:6-18 RSV

I think there are reasons other than Lev to know these are bad ideas.

 

[Paidiske]

On topic, I feel that I inhabit the middle ground. I don't read the Bible as a science or a history textbook, or see it as something to be read entirely literally or as inerrant; but I do take it very seriously as a document which is God-breathed and which tells us everything we need for a salvific relationship with God.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

When looking at loving relationships between same gender couples, the prohibitions are simply not in the scriptures. The clobber passages that are cited in our bible do not address same gender relationships as we know them today. To continue to cite these passages to discriminate and do harm to LGBTQ persons is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worse. To continue to cite two thousand to four-thousand-year-old understandings and writings without consideration of twenty first century education, science, reason, and experience is ludicrous and unfaithful.

Which is eisegesis at work. Of course the bible don't mention LGBT by name so to speak, but if we're being faithful to a traditional scholastic tradition of interpretation of scripture we'll read the sentiments and draw parallels from the explicit moral codex of the bible and apply them on similar ethical issues of our own time.

This is the kind of "fence around the Torah" thinking with in moral theology has been inherited from the ancient jewish interpretational work.
Exegesis is useful, eisegesis is hopeless in order to discover the truth of God.

One could legitimately reduce your way of reasoning to the utterly absurd by asking if we should be allowed to have sex in the church because through my eisegesical work I've found no mention of it in scripture.
Then it must be allowed!

This shed some light on just how absurd this way of reasoning is.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Intruded? I enjoyed your contributions.

Thank you

 

[dreadnought]

When looking at loving relationships between same gender couples, the prohibitions are simply not in the scriptures. The clobber passages that are cited in our bible do not address same gender relationships as we know them today. To continue to cite these passages to discriminate and do harm to LGBTQ persons is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worse. To continue to cite two thousand to four-thousand-year-old understandings and writings without consideration of twenty first century education, science, reason, and experience is ludicrous and unfaithful.

As long as there is no sexual lust, you are fine.

 

[dreadnought]

I think there are reasons other than Lev to know these are bad ideas.

Same goes for homosexuality.

 

[dreadnought]

On topic, I feel that I inhabit the middle ground. I don't read the Bible as a science or a history textbook, or see it as something to be read entirely literally or as inerrant; but I do take it very seriously as a document which is God-breathed and which tells us everything we need for a salvific relationship with God.

When God or Jesus are quoted, I believe we need to obey.

 

[Paidiske]

When God or Jesus are quoted, I believe we need to obey.

For me, the first question would be, is what they're saying directed to everyone, everywhere, or to specific people in a specific time and place?

Obviously, for example, God's travel directions to the promised land aren't for everyone, everywhere but were for Israel as they left Egypt.

 

[dreadnought]

For me, the first question would be, is what they're saying directed to everyone, everywhere, or to specific people in a specific time and place?

Obviously, for example, God's travel directions to the promised land aren't for everyone, everywhere but were for Israel as they left Egypt.

But you can tell the difference between something aimed at everybody and something aimed at Jews. When he said, "Do not commit adultery," he wasn't just talking to the Jews.

 

[Paidiske]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who, in fact, can't tell the difference.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And Leviticus 18:22 is obviously a commandment.

So is Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and Deuteronomy 15:1-11.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If it's an abomination for Jews, it's an abomination for us.

Such as shrimp.
Leviticus 11:12

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dreadnought]

So is Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and Deuteronomy 15:1-11.

-CryptoLutheran

No, I think those remarks were directed at the Jews. It's easy to tell when the Lord is speaking to us all and when he is talking to just the Jews. For example, when the Lord describes sexual immorality, we know that if it was sexually immoral for the Jews, it was sexually immoral for us, as well.

 

[dreadnought]

Such as shrimp.
Leviticus 11:12

-CryptoLutheran

Trying to defend sexual immorality is a fruitless investment. We will all be judged one day.