Just read these, tell me what you think.

Protoevangel said:

Hi Thekla,

Would you mean: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion." - Leviticus 18:22-23

Didn't Command0182 already provide his argument regarding this? I think he believes this only rejects male prostitution, and not a “loving monogamous homosexual relationship”.



You see, according to this argument (using it on the text above), it must mean that the nature of a man (and ergo the only God-pleasing way to do so) is to have sex with women who prostitute themselves for their false gods, or out of pure lust. quod est absurdum

It must also mean that it is ok for people to mate with animals, as long as it is in their nature to do so. I always wondered why I couldn't marry my canary. Now with this Protestant Liberation Theology pretending to be compatible with Orthodoxy, maybe I can!

Is his argument starting to make sense now?

Click to expand...

ThePilgrim said:

God's Wrath on Unrighteousness

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Click to expand...

Richard Hays [J of Rel Ethics 14 (1986)] took issue with the interpretation of nature in this passage. However, his argument had little foundation in the Greek language of the text. Here I shall argue, against Boswell, that the passage is mistranslated as well as misinterpreted. I think that a correct translation casts much light on the issues involved.

Click to expand...

Our passage is:

"Dia touto paredOken autous ho theos eis pathE atimias, hai te gar thEleiai autOn metEllaksan tEn phusikEn khrEsin eis tEn para phusin; homoiOs te kai hoi arsenes aphentes tEn phusikEn khrEsin tEs thEleias eksekauthEsan en tEi oreksei autOn eis allElous, arsenes en arsesin tEn askhEmosunEn katergazomenoi kai tEn antimisthian hEn edei tEs planEs autOn en heautois apolambanontes." "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." [Rm 1:26,27] (NIV)
​

The first phrase is 'Dia touto paredOken autous ho theos' On account of this God handed them over. The "this" refers to the Gentiles' idolatry. The word 'paredOken' seems to have been almost a legal term, for assigning someone to an officer of the court to be taken to their punishment, see [John 19:16 & Matt. 5:25-26]. It does not refer to the punishment itself, which is a mistake that leads Hays to assume that the following sins are themselves God's punishment and judgement. In any case, to say such a thing smacks of Calvinism! The present tense in [Rom 1:18] "God's wrath is being revealed" is actually referring to the storing up of God's wrath for the day of wrath [Rom. 2:5], that is, the future Judgement Day, when God's actual punishment will be administered. Until then, the sinners are simply in remanded in custody, having beenhanded over to their own devices.

Based on the usage of 'phusis' in the NT, the phrase 'tEn phusikEn khrEsin' can be rendered as their characteristic practice or their manifest sexuality. 'Phusis' refers to an observable property. This supports and emphasizes Boswell's thesis that the people mentioned here engaged in heterosexual behaviour of some sort before exchanging it for something else. The real trouble is with 'khrEsis', practice. In ordinary Greek it could refer to any custom or habit; on the other hand, it could be so specific as to refer to the pattern of sexual behaviour which distinguished homosexuality from heterosexuality. The use in Pseudo-Lucian's ErOtes is late but telling for its context; the "khrEsis" with women is contrasted to the "khrEsis" with "paides" (boys/men) in a debate between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pharseas.world/NatureAndPassion.htmlThe second part of the phrase 'tEn [khrEsin understood] para phusin' should then be rendered as that sexuality which was not characteristic of them or that practice which was not typical of their [previous] behaviour. "Para" means beyond or additional to, so "para phusin", literally means paranormal, or unusual. As we have already seen, it does not mean contray-to-nature. If ESP or Ghosts or PsycoKinesis turn out to be parts of objective reality, they will inevitably be (super-)natural. "Super" is, of course, the rough latin equivalent of the Greek "Para".

"The Greek word para usually means 'beside', 'more than', 'over and above', 'beyond'. We retain this meaning in many English words. A paraprofessional is someone who is not trained in a particular field but who assists those working in that field. For example, 'paralegal' refers to people who are not lawyers but who work with lawyers and other legal professionals."
[Dr. D. A. Helminiak: "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality", Chapter 6]​

Paul seems to be going to a lot of trouble to avoid the misunderstanding that he is talking about ordinary homosexuals. That he used Stoic terms which were misunderstood almost from the start is unfortunate. It parallels his unsuccessful attempt to forestall antisemitism in this same letter: Paul's very words were used to reinforce the exact kind of antisemitic "boasting" which he condemned, see for example, St Ignatius of Antioch. The first part of the passage:

"Dia touto paredOken autous ho theos eis pathE atimias, hai te gar thEleiai autOn metEllaksan tEn phusikEn khrEsin eis tEn para phusin ...." should thus be rendered:
"On account of this God handed them over to dishonourable urges, for in addition their females put aside their habitual sexual practice in exchange for that which was beside it ...."​

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

Hi, Command0182 -

the problem is, I think, wherever you "draw the line" in the Leviticus passages, the teaching is there.

this is not to say homosexuals should be treated in an unseemly manner. But the teaching exists, and is biblical. Nor have (AFAIK) the other teachings in ch. 18 been overturned.

Click to expand...

[SIZE=-1]"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." [/SIZE][SIZE=+1](Leviticus [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]20:9[/SIZE][SIZE=+1])[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But the above verse is just[/SIZE]a mere 3 verses before[SIZE=-1]Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It's just incredible, isn't it?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fundamentalists change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]....[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." [/SIZE][SIZE=+1](Leviticus [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]19:27[/SIZE][SIZE=+1])[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Bible-believing" fundamentalists never preach against the evils of shaving, as they do not take this verse literally for our day. Of course, they most certainly would do so if they had a personal bias against shaving, but apparently, they do not.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]An "abomination?"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know that the Bible calls other things an abomination as well?[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=-1]The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1] to you." (Leviticus 11:10)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1]." (Leviticus 11:11)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an [/SIZE]abomination[SIZE=-1] to you." (Leviticus 11:12)[/SIZE]

​

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

Peter's vision (Acts) instructed that "all foods" were 'clean'. In this sense, the dietary laws of Leviticus were overturned, because we have a specific instruction doing so. But which of the Leviticus verses concerning "human sexuality" received a similar 'overturning' in the NT. So this presents a problem ...

As per the second concern, Christ clearly brought us from "human law" (property rights -- human rights -- equal rights) to the law of God; the revelation that God is love and every person belongs to Him. This "law" is the negation of human rights - it is the law of self-sacrifice as revealed in Christ's voluntary sacrifice. It is, in a sense, the law of not rights but responsibility. We are responsible to God, and our responsibility to others flows from our relationship with God.

Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]7.[/SIZE] "MOMMY, WHY AREN'T WE JEWS?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] In one of his writings, Moishe Rosen, the author of the book, Y’shua – The Jewish Way to Say Jesus (which book, by the way, we recommend highly), records a conversation he had with his mother when he was still a little boy. Like many Jewish children before him, Rosen asked his mother, “Mommy, why are we Jews?” And, according to Rosen, his mother answered, “Because we are not Christians.” Naturally, this answer raised more questions in little Moishe’s mind.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Believe it or not, his mother’s response was and is, to a great degree, the standard reply (and, according to some Jewish sources, the traditional reply) to Rosen’s question. As Rosen writes in Y’shua, “Among Jewish traditions there is probably none so firmly ingrained as the one that says Jews are not supposed to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] This, then, explains the title of our article, “Mommy, Why Aren’t We Jews?” We believe the answers to this question are certainly more positive, edifying and spiritually advantageous than the answer Moishe received from his mother.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] In some circles it is not considered ecumenically polite to believe and confess that Christianity superceded Judaism as the one and true faith that God has given for the world's salvation. But, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem points out, "The Holy Spirit, Who in unison with the Father and the Son has established the New Covenant in the Catholic Church, has set us free from the burdens of the law grievous to be borne… For the Apostles, who were here at Jerusalem, by a written injunction set free the whole world from all the legal and prefigurative observances (of the Mosaic Law). They wrote: 'For it hath seemed good unto the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication' (Acts 15: 28, 29); showing evidently by what they wrote that, though the writing was by the hands of the Apostles, yet the decree is universal from the Holy Spirit: which decree Paul and Barnabas took and confirmed throughout all the world" (Catechetical Lectures, 17:29).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Having this in mind, we publish here a humorous piece taken from First Things (May, 2001), simply to emphasize what we are taught about the Old Testament by the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers of the Church. As the editor of First Things observes: "This whimsical item of anonymous authorship floated in on the email. It purports to be a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a popular radio and television giver of advice. I publish it not to mock Dr. Schlessinger and certainly not to make light of scriptural authority, but as a reminder that the case against same-sex relations cannot be sustained by cherry-picking biblical passages [at random]."1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] In addition to being quite witty, the letter addressed to Dr. Laura Schlessinger demonstrates the sterility of following the Mosaic Law "to the letter," especially after the coming of Christ our Saviour, Who as perfect God and perfect Man, fulfilled all the Law in Himself. Here is the letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Dear Dr. Laura:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]laws and how to follow them:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 4. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an ab0omination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-9 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] So much for the observances of the Levitical law! Truly, as the Prophet Jeremias foretold, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda: not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more" (Jeremias 28:31-36).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, initiated this new covenant at His Mystical Supper when He said: "Take, eat, this is My Body" and "Drink ye all of it; for this is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] And St. Paul puts the final touch on "the letter of the Law" of the Old Testament when he tells the Corinthians, "God has made us able ministers of the new covenant: not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (II Corinthians 3:6).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] So, if your child asks you: "Mommy, why aren't we Jews?", your response should be: "Because, my child, we are Orthodox Christians under God's New Covenant."[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

Thank-you; I have now read the article you linked (and the article it referrred to). I have one chief concern; the article tends to sugest that homosexuality is the "ontology" of a person. This is rather "un-Orthodox"
thinking. Can our "isness" be anything of our present condition; for example, our nationality, our hair color, etc ? I tend to think not. These things can effect our sense of self and our interactions with those around us, but are these things 'truly us". Our true nature is found in relationship with Christ; anything that interferes with that relationship interferes with knowing our "isness" too. We cannot confuse the self which is effected by the fall with the self that "is", the pre-lapsarian ontology.

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

My dear friend was born, frankly, a stunning beauty with a beautiful heart. It has been a great burden for her since the time she can remember. This is something she cannot escape -- the sense of self-interested ownership others project on her (the "gaze", as it is called). Others have expected less of her than her capability; this has taken its toll as well. This is a cross not easily escaped.

In my extended family are two people I love dearly who are also gay. One is being ravaged by AIDS. A dear friend (and former house-mate and confidant) died in an earlier wave of AIDS deaths, in 1988, when treatment was more inadequate. I miss him. We have few close friends; among those we stay in contact with is a man who over 23 years has shared our sorrows, our joys, and has always been a favorite 'uncle' to our children.
I find the teaching a struggle; I know it is moreso for those who are gay.

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

when the Law is reiterated, summarized or referenced in the NT, are we to do otherwise ?

I don't understand your reference to abortion, could you clarify ?

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

despite the levity of the article, I don't understand how it addresses the points I raised.

Click to expand...

Thekla said:

you seem to imply that if we don't have a sexuality, we cease to be a being.

Click to expand...

rusmeister said:

Let me second that emotion. I've seen serious changes (growth) in your writing over the past year. And PE is right. Stay away from that stuff. D'you remember what Gandalf said about Saruman studying the arts of the enemy too deeply...?.

Click to expand...