Question for Literalists on Lev. Laws

Hi All,This is a simple theological question that I would appreciate an opinion on.Everytime I have ever seen an atheist ask a Christian about some of the 600+ Levitical laws that are no longer practised, they always answer that basically Jesus came to establish a NEW covenant and that these older laws no longer apply.If this is the case, why are SOME of the Levitical laws still referenced when Christians want to make some point? One in particular is Lev 18:22 in reference to male homosexuality. I have never seen a new testament scripture sited on this subject. I know that Paul discusses this issue and seems to say that the Levitical laws governing this were still in effect.I am not trying to be condescending or "funny", this is a question that I would truly appreciate an answer for. Where does it say which laws are still in effect and which are not? Who is the arbiter of this decision? If the answer is God, then I would appreciate scriptural reference from the new testament. If the only reference is Paul, he had to have gotten his information directly from "the" arbiter and it should state that somewhere, if it is just HIS stated word then it doesn't count.Thanks for your time.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I did recognize that Leviticus caN Not be dismissed as "out of date" and indeed there may be some ways to get there from the New Testament that I do not know how to re-read yet I failed to get the point over with my father of NOT comparing the same sex laws to anti-slavery laws for the law today may indeed be a different context and yet again, Leviticical laws always come to MY mind when I read Pascal. I guess it is just a reasoning thing that indeed can be asserted a bit less logorehically with 'faith'. My dad would have none of this even though he is indeed likely more religous than I gather your funny bone is. I saw the pics, Brian posted. Best, Brad. My other guess would sound a bit radical I guess.

Greetings Brad,I understand that people may think that SOME of the Levitical laws were dismissed with the new covenant, but then say that some laws weren't. My question remains, what are the distinctions between those dismissed and those still in place? And who is the arbiter?LOL, don't bring up that pic, I was in a MILD state of inebriation when I sent that pic to Brian.

Well, I'm not a literalist, but I could well be classed as a follower of Paul, so I'll tackle this.

quote:

---

If this is the case, why are SOME of the Levitical laws still referenced when Christians want to make some point?

---

For the same reason that so many Christians make arguments about moon dust, shrinking suns, and cover-ups by Donald Johansen ("Lucy" discoverer). Without any good evidence for what they want to believe, they find whatever is at hand, good or bad.Sorry to sound so critical, but I've been in thousands of doctrinal discussions back when I was a more mainline Christian, and their doctrinal discussions are carried on just like their evolution discussions are.

quote:

---

I have never seen a new testament scripture sited on this subject. I know that Paul discusses this issue and seems to say that the Levitical laws governing this were still in effect.

---

So, does this mean you've never heard a Christian bring up a NT verse on this, but you have found a couple on your own, and you feel that Paul thinks the Levitical laws are still in effect? That's what I think you're saying, but I'm not completely certain.If I had to come up with a NT verse against homosexuality, I would choose verses like Rom 1:27 or 1 Cor 6:9.It seems bizarre to me that anyone would suggest that Paul, the apostles, or any of the churches they started were tolerant of homosexuality. It's not like Christian writings end with the collection of the New Testament. The writings of the fathers date as far back as AD 95 (First Clement). The chain from the NT writings through the fathers is clearly 100% anti-homosexuality.

quote:

---

... and seems to say that the Levitical laws governing this were still in effect.

---

Having read the fathers, who have a lot of reasons to be better at understanding Paul than we are (same language, similar culture, much closer in time, etc.), I would agree with Irenaeus (2nd century, knew Polycarp, who is supposed to have known John the apostle) that Yeshua came to "fill up" or "expand" the law.The meaning is pretty simple, really. In Matthew 5, where Yeshua said he would fill up the law, he also gave that pretty famous formula, "You have heard it said...but I say..." He then gave some pretty figurative interpretations of laws, including a couple of the ten commandments. For example, though Psalms says to "make vows and fulfill them," Yeshua said we ought never to make a vow at all, because our every word should be a vow. He "filled up" that law.Paul apparently agreed with this idea, because when it came to collecting money, he said that the levitical law which says oxen are not to be muzzled while treading grain doesn't mean what it says. God doesn't care about oxen, he said. But he didn't say it was gone or of no effect. He said it really meant that those who work should partake of the fruit of their labor; i.e., Christian teachers have a right to be supported by those they teach.That seems to be a pretty universal early church approach to the Levitical laws. They are "filled up," or "brought to fullness." They still have meaning, but not the mere physical meaning they had in physical Israel.If you can bear it, one more example would be the laws concerning clean foods. God doesn't care about foods, but he does care about that law. Ruminating (or chewing the cud) means meditating on the Word of God, and parting the hoof means to separate from the world. Thus, though God doesn't care what food we eat, that law still applies, and it means that we are to have fellowship only with those who meditate on the word of God and walk it out in separation from the ways of the world.Sorry for the theological answer, but you said it was a theological question.I think Christians nowadays don't know anything about that apparently universal early Christian approach to the law, and they don't know how to handle its appearing to pass away but also still be used, and authoritatively at that.

Hi Truelover,Thanks for responding.I am not saying that I have never seen the NT scriptures discussing this, but that the overwhelming response from most Christians is the Lev reference.While I can understand what the early Christian writers had to say, I guess my main question would actually be what did Jesus actually say or show in his behaviors?I can also see where your examples of "interpretation" came from. Again, I guess my biggest question is...who is the arbitor of which physical laws now have a more philosophical meaning. Clearly, Paul and other early writers believed that the law agains male homosexuality remained an actual physical law with no new metaphysical meaning.Another question for you as a follower of Paul, if you don't mind?
What exactly gave Paul authority? He only supposedly met Jesus once (non-physically at that) on the road to Damascus. What gave his interpretation of the meaning of the life of a man that he hadn't actually, physically met, the authority of the early church?Sorry if my questions don't make sense ), it's late here.Thanks again for your reply.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

The chain from the NT writings through the fathers is clearly 100% anti-homosexuality.

---

Um, not quite.There is no verse anywhere in the Bible that refers to homosexuality as we currently understand it. There are only 4 (or 6, depending on how you count) references to same-sex sexual activity mentioned in the Bible and all of them are in reference to temple prostitution.Last time I checked, very few people are involved in ritualistic sex practices in this day and age.And let us not forget that Jesus never said a single word about same-sex sex.In fact, depending upon how one looks at it, the Bible actually glorifies at least one same-sex relationship: David and Johnathon.And let's not forget that the Roman Catholic church was performing same-sex marriages up until a couple hundred years ago.That said, if we once again look to the words of Jesus, the Levitical laws are still in effect...all of them. Jesus directly states that not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall pass till all be fulfilled. He directly states that he comes not to change the law but to fulfill it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This is a fair question. As far as I can tell, the church is. That's a meaningless statement in today's world, but let me explain.The Scriptures say, "...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." Now, admittedly, probably no scholars today are going to consider 1 Timothy as being an authentic Pauline work. On the other hand, without something to go on besides our opinion at my village (which is that the Spirit of God answers that question in each situation for the local church), it seems to me that early church history agrees with my conclusion. It seemed to be generally understood in the early churches that one of the main purposes of elders, especially in churches founded by apostles, was to preserve apostolic tradition.Also, numerous early fathers talk about the "rule of faith," which was unquestionable and was to be maintained by the succession of elders in each church (but long since lost--I'm not Roman Catholic), and then numerous other issues which gifted men could look into, and their answers were to be judged by the church. Irenaeus, for example, has a summation of the unquestionable views all churches should hold and the more questionable things that those who were gifted could look into.As an example, Irenaeus apologized for suggesting that the prophecy from Isaiah, that the wolf would lie down with the lamb, might one day be literally fulfilled. Everyone knows, he said, including himself, that this mainly meant that "alpha males" (he didn't use that term, of course) would live at peace with meeker brethren without devouring them (figuratively) in the church, but Irenaeus suggested that it might also be literal, prophesying a future rule where animals wouldn't eat other animals. He was apologetic about it, admitting it was an unusual view, but he felt free to express it.Those kind of things remained debatable in the churches. I am sure that the figurative interpretation of Levitical laws was in many cases just as debatable and it was okay for them to remain that way. Searching such things out was considered a spiritual thing to do.Whose interpretations did they, and do we, rely on? Your next question addresses that: Results.Yeshua said you would know a prophet by his fruit. The early churches were quite convinced that Peter, John, and James had really commissioned Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles, so that was of prime importance to them as well. In the end, though, it was Paul's results. He started the majority of the churches that would become the dominant Christian strain lasting to our age, and they considered his commands to be God's (1 Cor 14:33, I think).It was also well-accepted in those early churches that Peter and Paul had worked together in Rome, Peter for 25 years or so, and Paul for shorter periods.I'm just answering your question about where Paul got his authority, not justifying that authority. In this case, I won't dodge trying to justify it as well, but this post is to answer your question about where it came from, not justify it. I don't believe this question can be answered concerning homosexuality. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Gospels, the only real record of his life (accurate or inaccurate, they're all we've got), and they just don't address that issue. Maybe the Gospel of Thomas does, I've only read part of it.

Gosh, Rrhain, I don't know where you got the things you said in your post from. Maybe you can provide sources or good reasons for agreeing with any of it. Here's my reasons for disagreeing. The verse I gave in my post, Rom 1:27, says:"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."There's nothing in the surrounding verses that indicates it has anything to do with temple rituals and much to suggest it doesn't. He's talking about creation and creatures, not religious rituals.The early fathers, also Romans, and most carrying doctrines they inherited from Pauline churches, mention homosexuality quite a bit, and it is almost always in the context of actors, not temple prostitutes. Boys were often driven in that direction to make them feminine so that they could play women well in plays, and the churches thought that was horrifying.Cyprian of Carthage wrote a letter about AD 250 in response to a question about whether it was okay to teach acting, even though acting itself was a forbidden profession to the churches. Cyprian assures the church writing to him that if it is wrong to act, it is wrong to teach acting. He then offers to take the teacher in and support him in Carthage if he could not find a job or be supported in the city he was in. He mentions the reason I gave above.Justin Martyr (AD 150) says that Christians of his day only had sex for the sake of having children. Clement of Alexandria (AD 190) says that for this reason husbands should not have sex with their wives when they are pregnant or nursing. It is obvious in reading the early fathers that this sort of anti-sex mentality is the norm in the early churches.Surely you're not suggesting that in such an atmosphere the churches were only against temple prostitution. Homosexual activity cannot produce children, and they were often against even heterosexual activity that was not for the sake of producing children.They had gone quite a bit further than Paul (as is clear from 1 Cor 7), but anyone who suggests that the churches from the apostles until last century were not avidly anti-homosexual isn't aware of or isn't interested in the facts. Yes, you can look at it in a normal way, which is that in a society that condemned homosexuality, it is very unlikely that their relationship was sexual, or you can make wild, unjustified suppositions about their relationship. You'll have to prove that one to me. I've never heard such a thing, nor do I believe it. I addressed this in my post, including what the word "fulfill" (Gr., pleroo) means.I know people play silly games with foreign words, picking translations that say what they want. In this case, however, I am telling you how Greek speakers in the churches that his apostles started interpreted and understood that word. They understood it to mean that he "expanded" or "filled up" the law.Yeshua follows the verse you quoted by saying, "You have heard it said...but I say..." over and over again, changing numerous commands including two of the ten commandments. Clearly, their interpretation fits the context, and yours doesn't.You made a lot of assertions without giving reasons for even one of them, Rrhain. Surely you're among those that have complained about creationists doing exactly that.

Turthlover, I think you need to reread Romans 1:18-32In context Romans 1:27 is a curse from God.The NIV translation of Romans 1:25-26 is as follows
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. AmenBecause of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones"Clearly there is a relationship to idolatrous worship, according to Romans, and it is certainly an odd suggestion that God would curse people in a way that caused them to sin.

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

Gosh, Rrhain, I don't know where you got the things you said in your post from.

---

From actually reading the Bible without the penetrating gaze of someone telling me what it is supposed to mean.

quote:

---

The verse I gave in my post, Rom 1:27,

---

Oy...not Romans again."That which is unseemly" is a reference to temple prostitution.

quote:

---

There's nothing in the surrounding verses that indicates it has anything to do with temple rituals and much to suggest it doesn't. He's talking about creation and creatures, not religious rituals.

---

Try again. Stop reading the book with the eyes you were told to read it with and look again at what is there.What do you think "that which is unseemly" means? Take a look at what else Paul writes. The word he uses is "arsenkoitai" in 1 Corinthians 6:9. And do you know what? This is a completely made-up word. It is from the Greek "arsen" and "malakoi" meaning, literally "male temple prostitute."When Paul is condemning everybody left and right in Romans, he's talking about things that were happening at the time.And that indicates temple prostitution.The concept of homosexuality as we understand it today was not known at the time. This isn't to say there weren't any gay people. It simply means that they did not divide the world up like that. There was no word for "homosexual" in Greek or Latin or Aramaic at the time. They simply didn't see the world that way. So to impose a modern concept on the text is an error.

quote:

---

Boys were often driven in that direction to make them feminine so that they could play women well in plays, and the churches thought that was horrifying.

---

"Driven that direction"? What do you mean?

quote:

---

Surely you're not suggesting that in such an atmosphere the churches were only against temple prostitution.

---

No. I'm saying, once again, there is no mention of homosexuality as we understand it in the Bible. The closest is the description of David and Johnathon and that relationship is considered blessed.Might extra-biblical writings condemn same-sex sexual activity? Certainly.But silly me, I thought the Bible was the big one to pay most attention to and it doesn't say anything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, depending upon how one looks at it, the Bible actually glorifies at least one same-sex relationship: David and Johnathon.

---

​

Yes, you can look at it in a normal way, which is that in a society that condemned homosexuality, it is very unlikely that their relationship was sexual, or you can make wild, unjustified suppositions about their relationship.

---

Um, what do you think "love that surpasses that of women" means?It isn't simple friendship.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And let's not forget that the Roman Catholic church was performing same-sex marriages up until a couple hundred years ago.

---

​

You'll have to prove that one to me. I've never heard such a thing, nor do I believe it.

---

You need to do your homework. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell.It includes the Catholic ritual.

quote:

---

I know people play silly games with foreign words, picking translations that say what they want.

---

Yes.And you're one of them.Tell us: What do you think "arsenkoitai" means?

quote:

---

Yeshua follows the verse you quoted by saying, "You have heard it said...but I say..." over and over again, changing numerous commands including two of the ten commandments. Clearly, their interpretation fits the context, and yours doesn't.

---

No, try again. Jesus does not change a single commandment. Instead, he insists that they be carried out fully. All of the examples of "But I say" are indications of carrying out the full point of the commandment rather than maintaining some sort of slavish devotion to the individual words.Jesus spends a great deal of time condemning the Pharisees and those who nit-pick on fine points of phrasing. His point was that the message is very clear: Be nice to each other.For example:Mat 5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:Mat 5:22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.Notice that Jesus does not say that the commandment against killing is lifted. Instead, he's taking it one step further: Don't even think bad thoughts because that road will lead you to breaking the commandment. The point is made even more clearly immediately after:Mat 5:27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:Mat 5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.The point is not that adultery is suddenly OK. It's that you need to keep control of yourself so that you don't even consider the possibility of committing the sin.The point that Jesus is trying to make is that thoughts are just as important as actions for thoughts lead to actions. It is not enough simply not to do the sin. If you're thinking about it, you're reveling in the sin and that's just as bad. Heaven is not a place for people who are simply a mood swing away from committing atrocities. It is a place for people who wouldn't even consider such things.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi Truthlover,So please tell me if I have this right. I know you're not a literalist, but bear with me. This infallible book, inspired by god herself, has from the very beginning been subject to the whims and beliefs of fallible man? I submit that even Paul was doing nothing more than interpreting stories heard second and third hand and fitting them into a new world view meant to make HIM feel better. He seemed so obviously full of self-loathing that it seems to me that the idea of a personal savior that could save him from whatever personal "demons" he was fighting eventually led him to "take up the cross" so to speak.Correct me if my opinion seems wrong to you, but Christianity seems more a Pauline philosophy then a Christian one.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Well, here I thought we were having a discussion. Sometimes you make it pretty difficult. I hadn't looked up arsenkoitai, and "that which is unseemly" is hardly something that clearly, or even in any unclear way, would lead anyone to think of temple prostitution unless they were already thinking that.By my statement about playing games with foreign definitions, I was apologizing in advance for being particular about Matthew 5:19 use of pleroo, and I was careful to tell you why I was doing it in this one instance. You ignored that instance and then said very inaccurate things about the context of that verse, meanwhile being insulting.My Strong's says the word "effeminate" in 1 Cor 6:9 means "soft to the touch" first and is used of boys kept for homosexual relations with men, homosexual males, and finally, as definition number four, temple prostitutes. Even then, it is only one way it is used, not a definition.The definition it gives for your word arsenokoites is "one who lies with a male as with a female." I'm sure that's a contrived definition, but arsen means male and koites is probably where we got coitus from, since it mean's bed or marriage bed or the things done in a marriage bed.In other words, it means literally "male coitus." Now, maybe you can explain why I should have assumed that meant male prostitution, and tell me who's playing games with definitions.

quote:

---

Might extra-biblical writings condemn same-sex sexual activity? Certainly. But silly me, I thought the Bible was the big one to pay most attention to and it doesn't say anything.

---

Yes, silly you. You have me confused with someone else.I figure the best way to know what was in Paul's mind, since I can't ask him, is to look at the writings of those who were in the churches he started. What attitudes and ideas did he convey to them? What did they think, because what they think is very likely to be what he thought.I do follow Paul. I do not follow the Bible. I am not a literalist, nor is my God a book. I am not glad that Paul's religious descendants gathered the writings of the prophets and apostles into a book and gave it the authority it has gotten.I'm only telling you that so that you are arguing with the right person.

quote:

---

But silly me, I thought the Bible was the big one to pay most attention to and it doesn't say anything.

---

I don't think you've established that at all, nor provided any evidence for your position. You said two things. One, you said "that which is unseemly" means temple prostitution, and you said that arsenokoites means temple prostitution, neither of which seems very likely to me.In fact, if you could provide evidence that arsenokoites was commonly used of temple prostitutes, you might have a case, despite the fact that its parts mean male coitus, but you said it was a made up word, so there must not be a history to it, according to you. If it's made up, well, it's made up of male and coitus, not of temple and prostitute.

quote:

---

Um, what do you think "love that surpasses that of women" means? It isn't simple friendship.

---

Says you. In a society with laws against homosexuality (the Deut 22 we've been discussing), it seems pretty unlikely to me that a scribe would praise homosexuality in a king. It's a big stretch to interpret it that way.

quote:

---

You need to do your homework. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. It includes the Catholic ritual.

---

Oh, great, you send me to a whole book. I have read whole books on Catholic history. None of them ever mention the time when homosexuality became okay by Catholic doctrine. I'd be willing to guess the book you sent me to doesn't say that, either. That it happened? Why not, since popes passed on mistresses to their sons, why wouldn't there have been some homosexual unions right in the Catholic church.However, officially, it has always been banned, and we're only discussing what helps us interpret Paul, which I don't believe the hypocritical behavior of medievel Catholicism helps us with.

quote:

---

No, try again. Jesus does not change a single commandment.

---

Okay, I will try again. Look at the one about oaths. The command says, "Make oaths." Jesus says they are of the devil.I think it's fair to say he contradicted the edict on divorce as well.

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, here I thought we were having a discussion. Sometimes you make it pretty difficult.

---

That's because I don't take evasion as an answer.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Tell us: What do you think "arsenkoitai" means?
...
"That which is unseemly" is a reference to temple prostitution.

---

​

I hadn't looked up arsenkoitai,

---

Perhaps you should. How can you think to make relevant comments about your holy book if you're not aware of what it says?

quote:

---

and "that which is unseemly" is hardly something that clearly, or even in any unclear way, would lead anyone to think of temple prostitution unless they were already thinking that.

---

Of course! Once again, the Bible was not written for a modern audience. It was written for an ancient one. And thus, it will use imagery and metaphor that an ancience audience would understand, not a modern one.So since the ancient audience didn't divide the world up into "heterosexual" and "homosexual," what on earth makes you think "that which is unseemly" means homosexuality?"That which is unseemly" is a reference to nakedness. If we take the first Strong's definition the way you want to do with "effeminate," it refers to a woman's genitalia (the word being "aschemosune.")So please tell me how you reach homosexuality among men from a word that refers to women's genitalia and nakedness?

quote:

---

By my statement about playing games with foreign definitions, I was apologizing in advance for being particular about Matthew 5:19 use of pleroo, and I was careful to tell you why I was doing it in this one instance. You ignored that instance and then said very inaccurate things about the context of that verse, meanwhile being insulting.

---

Um...Matthew?Matthew 5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.And I admit to being a bit short of temper. But it is frustrating to have to debunk the same errors coming from the people who should be the ones most cognizant of what the text actually says.

quote:

---

My Strong's says the word "effeminate" in 1 Cor 6:9 means "soft to the touch" first and is used of boys kept for homosexual relations with men, homosexual males, and finally, as definition number four, temple prostitutes. Even then, it is only one way it is used, not a definition.

---

If that's the way it is used, then that's the definition.You're being exactly like the Pharisees: Nit-picking on a single word when you're missing the whole phrase.That is, 1 Cor 6:9 mentions the "malakoi" and the "arsenkoitai." Why do you think that Paul would use two words based on the same root, one of which in a word that we cannot find any other use of in any other document? Look at the rest of the people condemned:Idolators, fornicators, adulterers, those kept for sex.Well, put them all together and what have you got? Temple prostitution! You're having sex with someone who isn't your spouse in worship of a god that isn't the One True God.I swear the answer is staring you right in the face. Why won't you see it? Do you really think that Paul wouldn't understand that a statement about religion and sex wouldn't be understood by a culture that used sex in religious practices?

quote:

---

The definition it gives for your word arsenokoites is "one who lies with a male as with a female." I'm sure that's a contrived definition,

---

Then why are you using it? Why not use the one that it actually means: Male temple prostitute.Remember, this was written for a Roman audience who did not understand homosexuality the way we do. So why are you trying to impart modern nuance onto Paul's words rather than a Roman sensibility?

quote:

---

but arsen means male and koites is probably where we got coitus from, since it mean's bed or marriage bed or the things done in a marriage bed.

​

In other words, it means literally "male coitus." Now, maybe you can explain why I should have assumed that meant male prostitution, and tell me who's playing games with definitions.

---

Because it isn't "koitai"...it's "malakoi" which does, indeed, mean "temple prostitute."However you, seemingly like your god, are being capricious and arbitrary. You don't like the outcome, so you will ignore it in favor of your preconceived notion. Instead of looking at the entire statement, you focus on the individual words as if that tells you what is meant.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Might extra-biblical writings condemn same-sex sexual activity? Certainly. But silly me, I thought the Bible was the big one to pay most attention to and it doesn't say anything.

---

​

Yes, silly you. You have me confused with someone else.

---

Well, considering that this particular branch of the thread started with a comment that the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality as we understand it, you can understand why I would seem to be under the impression that we're talking about the Bible, not extra-biblical material.I figure the best way to know what was in Paul's mind, since I can't ask him, is to look at the writings of those who were in the churches he started. What attitudes and ideas did he convey to them? What did they think, because what they think is very likely to be what he thought.

quote:

---

I do follow Paul. I do not follow the Bible.

---

Ah, but the only writings of Paul that we have are the ones from the Bible and since the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality as we understand it, then one has to wonder why you're claiming Paul has something to say about it.

quote:

---

I'm only telling you that so that you are arguing with the right person.

---

So please show me where god said anything about it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But silly me, I thought the Bible was the big one to pay most attention to and it doesn't say anything.

---

​

I don't think you've established that at all,

---

I know you don't. You've already made up your mind and there is nothing I can do to change it.

quote:

---

nor provided any evidence for your position.

---

Other than the original Greek.And we know how useless that is. Everybody knows the English translation (whichever one the speaker is using) is the one that really tells it like it is.

quote:

---

You said two things. One, you said "that which is unseemly" means temple prostitution,

---

You certainly didn't show it didn't mean that.What do you think "aschemosune" means?

quote:

---

and you said that arsenokoites means temple prostitution, neither of which seems very likely to me.

---

Because you've already made up your mind.

quote:

---

In fact, if you could provide evidence that arsenokoites was commonly used of temple prostitutes,

---

You mean your own dictionary isn't sufficient?

quote:

---

you might have a case, despite the fact that its parts mean male coitus,

---

No. You've got the etymology wrong. "Man sex" would be "malakoi" and that doesn't mean "gay" but rather the pederastic practices of Ancient Greece and Rome. You're trying to impose modern understandings to ancient writings. Rome and Greece didn't understand homosexuality the way we do. They did not divide the world up that way. A man who pursued boys in the pederastic practices, for example, would often have a wife and children and not think that he was "putting on a show" or "living a lie."

quote:

---

but you said it was a made up word, so there must not be a history to it, according to you. If it's made up, well, it's made up of male and coitus, not of temple and prostitute.

---

No, it's made up of "male" and "temple prostitute." And since the word just before it is the "temple prostitue" part and since the words just before that are comments about religion and sex, one has to wonder why you can't see the connection.The only place we ever see the word "arsenkoitai" used is in the Bible...once in 1 Cor and once in 1 Tim. That's it. Thus, the only way to possibly understand it is to understand it within the context of the Bible.And the Bible was written for an ancient audience which did not homosexuality the way we would and thus would never address it by referring to it as such.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, what do you think "love that surpasses that of women" means? It isn't simple friendship.

---

​

Says you.

---

Says the text. Remember, we're in a culture that doesn't see sexuality as "straight" and "gay" and "bi." Stop imposing your modern view on the text.

quote:

---

In a society with laws against homosexuality (the Deut 22 we've been discussing),

---

Deuteronomy? That has nothing to do with homosexuality, either.

quote:

---

it seems pretty unlikely to me that a scribe would praise homosexuality in a king. It's a big stretch to interpret it that way.

---

But then again, since there's nothing in the Bible about homosexuality, why is it such a surprising thing?As someone else said, there are only six comments about same-sex sexual activity whereas there are over 300 restrictions on opposite-sex sex. That doesn't mean god loves straights any less...just that they need more supervision.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You need to do your homework. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. It includes the Catholic ritual.

---

​

Oh, great, you send me to a whole book.

---

Yes. And? You act like this is something that can be solved in two words. You ddin't seem to be capable of doing it with "arsenkoitai," so now you're complaining that I've provided too much information. Could you please tell me what is your word limit?

quote:

---

I have read whole books on Catholic history. None of them ever mention the time when homosexuality became okay by Catholic doctrine.

---

And why do you think that might be? Consider the current attitude of the Church, consider that the ritual hasn't been used for a couple hundred years, and then ponder the reason why you haven't read any books about same-sex unions in the Catholic Church.

quote:

---

I'd be willing to guess the book you sent me to doesn't say that, either. That it happened? Why not, since popes passed on mistresses to their sons, why wouldn't there have been some homosexual unions right in the Catholic church.

---

Read it and find out. The book includes the ceremony (page 372). The link I gave you contained 58 sample pages. Did you look at any of them?

quote:

---

However, officially, it has always been banned,

---

No, it's only been officially banned in the recent past. How can the Church perform a ceremony that is banned? If they're performing it, then it isn't banned.

quote:

---

and we're only discussing what helps us interpret Paul, which I don't believe the hypocritical behavior of medievel Catholicism helps us with.

---

It was only a single point. Go read the rest of the book. You will notice that the title is Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe and not What a Single Catholic in 1732 Thought. Let's look at the Table of Contents:"What's in a Name?": The Vocabulary of Love and Marriage
"For Family and Country": Heterosexual Matrimony in the Greco-Roman World
"A Friend Inspired by God": Same-Sex Unions in the Greco-Roman World
"This World Is Passing Away": Views of the New Religion
"What God Has Joined Together": The Development of Nuptial Offices
"Let Me Not to the Marriage of True Minds Admit Impediments": Comparison of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Ceremonies of Union
The History of Same-Sex Unions in Medieval Europe
"Those Who See and Those Who Do Not . . .": Subsequent Developments: A Look Forward
EpilogueIt would seem to be that Boswell is going all the way back to the Greeks and Romans...those people that would have been contemporaries with Paul and even before that.Oh, and while you're at it, read another of Boswell's books: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth CenturyAppendix 1 is titled "Lexicography and Saint Paul."

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, try again. Jesus does not change a single commandment.

---

​

Okay, I will try again. Look at the one about oaths. The command says, "Make oaths." Jesus says they are of the devil.

​

I think it's fair to say he contradicted the edict on divorce as well.

---

No, not really. Jesus allows divorce in the case of adultery...which is what Deuteronomy 22 spends a great deal of time talking about.And what is the point that Jesus is saying about oaths? Is it a simple comment about "you shouldn't do it" or is it a spiritual comment that one should not have to make the point of taking an oath?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

TL,Rhhain wrote: Just to illustrate the point he's trying to make, consider that in parts of S. America there is no such thing as 'homosexual' in the sense that we have it in the US. Are there guys banging one another's gongs? Yupper. The trick is in how the cultures pidgeon-hole behavior. In the US, we divide by hetero- vs. homo-. That is, by the naughty bits of those in bed. Two of the same == homo. Different bits == hetero. Ok. In parts of S. America, the division is not along those lines, but instead is along the lines of giving and receiving (romantic, no?). The partner recieving the... ummm... attentions of his amour is homosexual. The person giving said attentions is not.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

ok, yours indeed remains.