I just got back from call at the hospital, and because I want to spend more time then just a quick read of the above info, I will only touch on part of this post this evening if you don't mind?
I understand, and I appreciate that you are willing to take the time to try to understand my position, and Plato's before responding.
I believe that if you take the Bible as a whole then there is no weakness in the other verses that talk about homosexuality being a sin. The only way that there would be weakness would be if 1 Cor. 6 was the only scripture that spoke of homosexuality. Then even I would have to question and pray alot to see if those two words were really speaking about homosexuality. I say that meaning that if there weren't other things like how perfectly male and female bodies are made to fit. Or how the only marriage that is spoke of is the man and woman one, and how God created them male and female telling them to go forth and multiple.
Although I do agree with those who declare that we do not have enough context to definatively define what Paul meant when coined the word
arsenokoites, it does seem clear enough that he meant to echo the LXX translation of Lev 20:13 which includes the phrase
arsenos koiten. So I have no objection to connecting the two Pauline verses to the two Levitical verses.
The weakness I referred to is based not in Paul's language but in the Mosaic Law.
Consider the incest laws. They take up several verses, many of those verses including several types of relatives. So there are dozens of examples of who is too close a relative, and they are in groupings that potentially include still more types. For example, Lev 18:9 speaks of a sister, a half-sister on the father's side, a half-sister on the mother's side, and a step-sister. However if there were a girl raised in your household who is not directly related to you, but is your half-brother's step-sister, she would be included here as well. It is just not possible to list every immaginable relationship. But they give enough examples to set up a general principle.
But there is only relation, indeed only one action, which is forbidden in Leviticus 18:22. Nor does Leviticus 20:13 add anything to the ban except the consequences.
The rabbis, who usually admitted that "built a fence around" the Mosaic Law in order to avoid even the possibility of accidently violating it. So that the few laws about unclean animals and about cooking a kid in its mother's milk became elaborate dietary laws in which certain cuts of meat are forbidden and you need separate settings for different meals depending on whether the meal includes meat or dairy.
Similarly, the "fence" the rabbis built around Lev 18:22 includes all forms of male-male sex. Significantly, however, it did not include female-female sex. The rabbis brought up the question, only to dismiss it. Whatever females "rubbing" one another was, it was not male-male penitrative sex.
But the language of Lev 18:22 is a little unusual. There are only five significant words in the whole verse. A literal translation would read "With
-a
-male to
-lie in
-the
-lyings/as
-to
-lie with/of
-the
-wife is
-taboo."
The words for the man and the woman are not counterpart to one another. The word for the man is the one used when one is just aknowleging the sex of the person, while the word for the woman references a specific woman, his wife. Likewise, the two instances of "lying" are two different words.
I have seen different studies into the significance of the unusual language. If we assume all of those theories are true and have equal weight, then the conclusion is that the command simply forbids you from raping a strange man you find in your wife's bed! Clearly, not all of these studies are equally valid. But that does not mean none of them are.
Likewise, a case can be made for the command referring to a specific religious practice among the Canaanites, and so it is therefore an anti-idolatry command, not an anti-sex one. However that interpretation is not without its problems.
So there are competing theories of just what was forbidden, and under what circumstances. They cannot all be right. But does it really matter all that much?
Let's accept the broadest possible interpretation -- that it forbids being the "dominant" partner in male-male sex under any circumstances. It still only calls the act
toevah, "taboo." Mosaic Law usually labels sexual immorality as
zimmah, "wicked."
So it is taboo for an Israelite to engage in male-male sex, just as it is taboo for him to eat forbidden food (Deut 14:3), to share a meal with an unbeliever (Gen 42:32), or to remarry a woman he once divorced, if she had been married to someone else (Deut 24:1-4)
But those other taboos are intended mainly for the purpose of clearly showing the Israelite people to be different from the pagan Gentiles. They have been lifted with regard to Christian (Acts 10-11, Acts 15, etc.). If man-lying is not "wicked" then it should be lifted as well.
Looking at the unbridled passions. I am sure that anything to excess would be considered a sin according to the Bible, but to say what Plato was meaning will have to come after I study the above. I am not real sure though why it matters what Plato thought, because Plato didn't write any of the books of the Bible. I don't see anything that says he was inspired by God to write the Laws, and I don't see anywhere that Paul said he was quoting or getting his understanding and information from Plato.
If in the middle of a speech, or a letter, I quote a famous saying (for instance, "We have nothing to fear but Fear itself.") I may not attribute it, as I would in a more formal paper. I'd rely on its fame to speak for itself.
Paul quoted it, not for the lessons that Plato taught (although they would be in the back of his readers' minds), but because it was a well-known example of the kind of unbridled passion he wanted to mention at this point in the introduction to his real topic of Grace.
I believe that Paul would have used language that the Greeks were familar with, and so that is why I believe he would have used words that were used in other writings of that time. I don't know that he was quoting Plato's Laws tho, and will add that to the studying I will do before answering the above portion of your post.
Exactly! He had to start the letter where the readers were (mentally), and unlike any of his other letters, he had never met these people, so he went with what he knew they had read.
I will also add my answer to the last part of your post tomorrow also, as I feel like I am not really making good sense. I am just to tired to get my thoughts together in the written form.
Good night, and thanks for your response and your patience.
I look forward to it.