A re-examination of nothing (2)

[David Brider]

God clearly called homosexuality an abomination in the OT..

Actually, no He didn't.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

On the other hand, the Bible says that David loved Jonathan, but nowhere does it claim that he loved any woman. (Just an observation someone once made and pointed out to me.)

Yes but we have been through this and what is your point? If David slept with the woman after seeing her beauty naked, this is clearly sex. Loving someone isnt necessarily sex. In the Bible the two are basically different. Jesus loved all people but there is no indication he slept or had sex with any. Love involving sex is a modern concept. Your proposition is therefore based on a false understanding of the Bible.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

Actually, no He didn't.

Actually yes He did, for example Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.- NIV.
The NIV says it is detestible rather than abomination.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Your oft cited Bible passages are neither coherent, nor consistent... hence my problem.

Yes that’s exactly your problem, you don’t understand the Bible.

You self evident doublething regarding Leviticus is emblematic

I evidently don’t, you evidently do. The question to you is simple do you keep all the OT laws such Lev 19:18 to love one’s neighbour as oneself and not to wear clothing of two different kinds of material?

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
Actually yes He did, for example Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.- NIV.
The NIV says it is detestible rather than abomination.

Sure - but where do you get the idea that that's talking about homosexuality?

David.

 

[k2svpete]

The whole 'not lie with mankind as with womankind' gives the game away. There is no other interpretation to what is being said there. To do so is sheer idiocy.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

what, pray tell, makes it 'obvious' that they had a homosexual relationship?

The way there are so many hallmarks of a homosexual relationship in their relationship.

As I've said repeatedly, if you read this story anywhere else, you would acknowledge this to be the case.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The whole 'not lie with mankind as with womankind' gives the game away. There is no other interpretation to what is being said there. To do so is sheer idiocy.

Except thats not what the original says.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
Yes that’s exactly your problem, you don’t understand the Bible.

I evidently don’t, you evidently do. The question to you is simple do you keep all the OT laws such Lev 19:18 to love one’s neighbour as oneself and not to wear clothing of two different kinds of material?

Leviticus is irrelevant. Christ's word is what matters.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Even on its own merits, it is not a certainty that they were engaged in a sexual relationship. There are other instances of men kissing each other on the mouth written in the bible, are they homosexual encounters as well? Do you realize customs have changed drastically throughout cultures and ages?

Goodness, and yet when I try to say that what was morally reasonable during Biblical times is a different context to that of today, I'm told God's word is unchanging and eternal, and any attempt to change morality in accordance with todays standards is "moral relativism"... so, you can't have it both ways, same sex intimacy is either acceptible or it isn't.

 

[k2svpete]

Leviticus is irrelevant. Christ's word is what matters.

No, that's dangerous ground. The whole bible is relevant, what is not readily apparent is that the OT and NT are intrinsically linked and without one or the other you don't understand the whole story.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

The way there are so many hallmarks of a homosexual relationship in their relationship.

As I've said repeatedly, if you read this story anywhere else, you would acknowledge this to be the case.

In a magazine article? Sure. In a 2000+ year old collection of documents? No. You'd have a stronger case if you addressed what exactly the supposed 'hallmarks' are, or why you'd think what makes someone 'publicly gay' is the same thing that made them 'publicly gay' 2-3000 years ago.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, that's dangerous ground. The whole bible is relevant, what is not readily apparent is that the OT and NT are intrinsically linked and without one or the other you don't understand the whole story.

I understand the whole story extremely well, thankyou. However understanding it does not equate with living my life by irrelevant, out dated and highly subjective ancient tribal laws that are totally outside my context

 

[EnemyPartyII]

In a magazine article? Sure. In a 2000+ year old collection of documents? No. You'd have a stronger case if you addressed what exactly the supposed 'hallmarks' are, or why you'd think what makes someone 'publicly gay' is the same thing that made them 'publicly gay' 2-3000 years ago.

I did not suggest they were "publicly" gay 3000 years ago... not in the least. Indeed, it is the fact that their relationship is utterly indistinguishable from any of the hundreds of stories available refering to "closeted" homosexual lovers that makes me so sure of this analysis... They could not publically acknowledge their relationship at the time, and, accordingly, their closeted relationship looks so very similar to a closeted relationship of today, or any time in between where, for whatever reason, people have not been able to acknowledge their God given love. Change the names and the costume, it could be about Oscar Wilde.

 

[k2svpete]

I understand the whole story extremely well, thankyou. However understanding it does not equate with living my life by irrelevant, out dated and highly subjective ancient tribal laws that are totally outside my context

If you understand the bible so well then I would venture that you would not have made such a rash comment as before.

Living and understanding the bible are two very different things, it is something that all of us have to work on.

Have a look at Gal 4 IIRC. There it specifically addresses the Galatian church on matters of the law and where they were demanding circumcision etc. The crux of the passage is that if you are going to keep the law, keep all of it. By the same token, no one was saved by the law.

That certainly doesn't open the floodgates to do what we want though. We still get the over-arching command to love the Lord our God with all our being. That includes obedience to him and adopting his characteristics.

 

[David Brider]

The whole 'not lie with mankind as with womankind' gives the game away. There is no other interpretation to what is being said there. To do so is sheer idiocy.

The whole 'not lie with mankind as with womankind' gives the game away.

You're right there. Fifteen verses of "do not have sexual relations with..." and all of a sudden we get "do not lie with...as with a woman". If the writer wanted to convey that he was talking sexual relations, why didn't he use the same wording as he'd used in the previous fifteen verses?

And if "do not lie with a man as with a woman" is referring to male-male sex that's not the same as referring to homosexuality as a whole - it has nothing to say for male homosexuals who aren't engaging in sexual activity, and nothing whatsoever to say to female homosexuals. So to derive from the Leviticus verses that "God says homosexuality is an abomination" is a massive interpretative leap.

David.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That certainly doesn't open the floodgates to do what we want though. We still get the over-arching command to love the Lord our God with all our being. That includes obedience to him and adopting his characteristics.

And love our neighbours. I agree.

Nothing there to consider homosexuality wrong though...

 

[k2svpete]

And love our neighbours. I agree.

Nothing there to consider homosexuality wrong though...

That's where I don't agree. God certainly finds some things abhorrent.

From what I can see, anything that messes around with how nature was designed falls under that category. There is still the moral stigma attached to homosexuality too. Now we both know that that isn't confined to religious belief systems so that would suggest that there is something deeper with the base human psyche that feels it is wrong, like many other things.

Without citing the same old verses that have been bandied about back and forward innumerable times, this is more evidence that suggests to me that it is not 'the done thing', regardless of the society.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

From what I can see, anything that messes around with how nature was designed falls under that category.

Eye glasses? Anti-biotics? Caesarian section?

There is still the moral stigma attached to homosexuality too

So what? There's a moral stigma attached to eating shellfish, or eating with your left hand some places. You gunna change your life because of what someone else thinks? Jesus was pretty clear about miral stigmas... seem to recall him dining with tax collectors...

Now we both know that that isn't confined to religious belief systems so that would suggest that there is something deeper with the base human psyche that feels it is wrong, like many other things.

Amazingly... people who are not brought up being told that homosexuality is evil... don't seem to be all that confronted by it. There goes that theory... full points for thinking though.

Without citing the same old verses that have been bandied about back and forward innumerable times, this is more evidence that suggests to me that it is not 'the done thing', regardless of the society.

And cultures and traditions change and evolve. Its a GOOD thing...

 

[k2svpete]

The whole 'not lie with mankind as with womankind' gives the game away.

You're right there. Fifteen verses of "do not have sexual relations with..." and all of a sudden we get "do not lie with...as with a woman". If the writer wanted to convey that he was talking sexual relations, why didn't he use the same wording as he'd used in the previous fifteen verses?

And if "do not lie with a man as with a woman" is referring to male-male sex that's not the same as referring to homosexuality as a whole - it has nothing to say for male homosexuals who aren't engaging in sexual activity, and nothing whatsoever to say to female homosexuals. So to derive from the Leviticus verses that "God says homosexuality is an abomination" is a massive interpretative leap.

David.

I never said that same sex intimacy was the entire bounds of homosexuality. Don't pigeon-hole me with your preconcieved ideas about what I mean and what I'm going to say.

Neither you or I am the writer, God is the author so how about you ask Him about the change in terminology. Looking at that in context it makes for a broader definition than merely the sexual act. If it was confined to the sexual act then it may well have been more prescriptive. Intead the scripture mentions lying with a man so perhaps that also includes the times when sexual relations are not being pursued? The fact that women are not mentioned specifically is not a big deal, you don't have to be an intellectual giant to see that the rules are applicable for both sexes.

Massive interpretive leap? Certainly a much smaller one than any verses you care to cite tht support homosexuality.