Did you just skip two pages at once? (I love that quote from red dwarf
)
me: Not sure what that is in reference to!
you: This does *not* say that abomination is in regard to actions done as a part of idolatry. It simply says that idolatry is one of those actions, primarily, considered an abomination. Homosexuality is another form of abomination. It does not say what you are claiming.
me: The definition itself may not say that, but the context of Leviticus does. Leviticus is continually speaking to the children of Israel and how they are not to do what their inhabitants do. The inhabitants are idol worshippers. That sets the context for idolatry. The inhabitants did not worship God the Creator, but idols. Whether you acknowledge that all things in Leviticus are abominations for being associated with idolatry or for ethical reasons, the point is that anything associated with idolatry or anything that is opposed to for ethical reasons are both negative things. That would imply that sewing two different seeds in the same field, wearing clothing made of two fabrics, shaving the side of one's beard, sleeping with one's wife when she is on her period, etc. are all negative in the eyes of God and in Levitical law. That is, if we are to follow the law of Moses in Leviticus, which includes 18:22 of which persons like yourself like to reference yet you disregard the other things I just listed. After all, if verse 18:22 is simply saying all general acts of homosexuality is a prohibited, is that the case with the verses regarding wearing two types of fabrics at one time or sewing two different seeds in the same field, or sleeping with one's wife while she is menstruating, or even shaving the sides of one's beard? Or, is there a context for these prohibitions. I say there is a context that the author knew of and it is it is related to idolatry. You are failing to
connect same sex acts with idolatry and instead are seperating them. You imply there is idolatry, which is an abomination, and then there is homosexuality, which is also an abomination. In context of Leviticus and the other biblical references to 'sodomites', as in 1kings 14:24, the two, idolatry
and same sex acts or homosexual acts, are associated with one another. Even Paul makes the connection in Romans one where he describes ONE group of people and that is idol worshippers. That is clear when he references images made to look like man and beast. He was aware of what idol worshippers did in service to their false gods and some of that 'service' was sexual acts of all kinds, including with animals. That explains the levitical reference to lying with animals (18:23) and is likely what the women were doing unnaturally as spoken of by Paul in Romans. He is not speaking of two kinds of people: homosexuals
and idol worshippers, but of
one group, idol worshippers, or more distinctly, those who did not worship God. There are also verses there that make that clear as well. In 1kings 14:24, there were sodomites in the land who did according to all of the abominations. In 1kings 15:12, sodomites and the idols were removed from the land. Why sodomites
and the idols? Because sodomites were temple cult prostitutes who engaged in same sex acts and opposite sex acts with some of the idol worshippers who came to worship the false god or goddess. A sodomite is not a homosexual! There is a link or connection between the 1kings reference and the levitical text. In the Leviticus 18:24 verse, God informs the children Israel that He is going to deliver them (future tense) from the nations that participate in idolatry by casting the people who do such things out. In 1kings 14:24, God informs us that He has completed (past tense) casting such persons out. The casting out has taken place already and been done with. What such persons? Idol worshipping peoples, which includes sodomites, who were devoted to the idol by licentious prostitution. So, you see, 1kings 14:24 specifies what type of same sex sex took place in those nations that God had cast out before Israel. The reference to sodomites makes this case. Knowing that sodomites are male cult temple prositutes and reading what my Strong's concordance refers to as to what sodomites are, it's clear to me that this is the case here. The context was not same sex relationships in general, but a specified same sex context was addressed and 'sodomites' helps to make clear just what that same sex context was. History soures confirm this. The sources at
www.cebiaz.com/book are provided or look up pagan idol history up on the search engine. Baal, Molech, and Ashtoreth are a few god names. In Leviticus 18:21, Molech and giving seed to Molech is mentioned. This implies that either children were killed in sacrifice to Molech and/or one's children became temple prostitutes in service to Molech. Leviticus 20:2 implies the same. In Leviticus 20:5, the sexual activity involved with Molech is more clear.
you: Well, the conclusion is that we must consider then what is an abomination in God's eyes - and something that is abominable in God's eyes must be abominable to everyone.
me: I would agree here, but when God looks at one's heart and evil motives and intentions are coming out of it, it is not hard to understand why things are an abomination to Him: haughtiness, pride, etc. I once heard bible speaker Jill Briscoe of the religious program Telling the Truth, and she used King David as an example. A story in 1Chronicles about David doing a census. She said that for David to take a census was not in itself a sin, but the REASON he did it made it a sin. David's intent or motive for taking his census made that census a sin. This is pretty much what I am saying in regards to those things in levitical law. God saw these things as sin due to the reasons behind them. Consider the fact that turning away from God and worshipping another god is in and of itself abominable to God. Add to that rejection of God, sex done in worship to the false gods and it's insult upon injury. This is sex with anyone whether you are married already or not. This is sex with relatives. This is fornication, this is harlotry, this is to go a whoring after Molech! Would it be just to compare heterosexuals who go a whoring after Molech to heterosexuals who have committed, monogamous relationships and who love and seek God? No, but that is what you are doing to homosexuals in the same situation. It's what has been done traditionally in the Sodom story. Rape was the intent there, but it is used as an example of condemnation against all same sex relationships that have nothing to do with rape.
you: "Now my lexicon (not just a summary like strong's verse) describes abomination being used in two senses. One is in regard to ritual uncleanliness like you I think are saying - ie, God may find Israel's sacrifices 'abominable', certain animals - perhaps because of their connection with other religions, or perhaps for health reasons (unknown - that's important). Now here's the important part...Abominable is also used in an ethical sense. And my lexicon lists the Leviticus 18:22 verse as being ethically abominable, not ritually. That holds more weight than a summary of a lexicon - which doesn't appear to support your position."
me: Yes, that makes sense. Ethically, verse 18:22 is an abomination. It is not because it is a man with a man, in and of itself. After all, nothing is unclean in itself. It is because it was something done with the intent and motive of pleasing a god that is not God. It is done to glorify, praise, and show thanks to a god who does not deserve these things. Only God the Creator is owed glory, praise, and worship. Therefore, God prohibited those things. It is morally disgusting to render to something else that which is God's. Sex, whether homo or hetero, is morally disgusting in God's eyes when it is presented with the intentional purposes of selfish gain and presented before an imitation god. He did not prohibit homosexual relationships as we know them to be today. The context is not dealing with that. It is dealing with the context that was at hand in that day and time. It deals with the place the children of Israel were going to, the types of pagans that lived there, and some of the ordinances and practices that the pagans engaged in because of their devotion to false gods. God was warning them of these things and told them not to get involved with these things although they would be surrounded by them. It was not committed, monogamous relationship of love between same sex persons that were going on that God was abstaining them from. It was not that context. The context was idolatry and what was done in the name of idolatry.
you: "Now according to my Hebrew concordance of 8441, we find abomination used in only these verses in Leviticus - 18:22,26,27,29,30, 20:13. (others elsewhere in the Bible)"
me: It is my belief that since the bible was not originally written with things that divide it like chapter header titles, verses, foot notes, and chapter numbers. Leviticus is connected as a whole book and 'abominations' is a reference to all things in the book, not just in those verse or chapters that the word abomination appears in. Read it with all the verse numbers and chaper titles, etc. gone and see that all was considered abominations, not just those things included in the particular verse that contained the word 'abominations'.
you: "But this is all beside the point. The new testament affirms that homosexuality is something to be forbidden. Remember that with the New Testament, Paul was not one who favored arbitrary laws, but rather preached about the liberty of the gospel that we have from the law. For what possible reason then would Paul seek to tell us to not practice homosexuality if it was something pleasing to God? That is a misuse of the gospel and in my view a perversion of the truth."
me: I've addressed this already above. Paul's contexual concern was those who worship idols and worship not God and what they did in service to their false idols or gods. This is evident in the words he uses. Paul prohibited same sex acts, in my opinion, because he knew of them to be associated with idol worshippers and what idol worshippers did via sexual acts for their idols. I do not believe that Tom and John lived down the street and lived together in love and service to God, giving alms and doing good and this is what Paul immediately thought of when the issue of same sex acts came up. If it were, there is no biblical reference to such same sex relationships like Tom and John. The only type of biblical references in regards to same sex acts are idolatry related, whether as ritualistic worship or as a vile practiced done from one man to another or a group of people to another to show superiority and/or to degrade someone (ie. Sodom and Gomorrah). Besides, if Paul's intent was that we are free from the law, references to Leviticus 18:22 should not be referenced nor anything else in the law of Moses.
you: "Given the new testament we can look back on the old and know for certain that the word abomination in leviticus really meant in all cases, not just in connection with Caananite practices."
me: I disagree. You have to take the context of the text and apply it. Unless it specifies all contexts, it is not just or wise to assume that it applies to all contexts. As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. You can't conclude that since the men of the city wanted to rape the two angels that ALL same sex relationships are condemned because of an act of group rape. You wouldn't imply that to heterosexual rape, would you? I would advise you to read the entire book at
www.cebiaz.com/book. Read it and take it in slowly. Then seperate the wheat from the chaff. I would say given the new testament, we can look back on the old testament and know that the word abomination in Leviticus refers to things considered morally disgusting to God due to the heart intent and motives of a people who did all things for the honor, worship, and praise of another god other than the one true God. Paul's words make it clear that he is speaking of people who rejected God for another false god (ie. idol worshippers). His continual description of what this ONE group of people did with their bodies and his reiterating of how they served the creature and images in the likeness of things God had made shows that, in one breath, Paul is speaking of idol worshippers and describing things they did in their vain imagined service to their vain imagined idols.
Leecappella
