Are Biblical Laws About Homosexuality Eternal? Op-Ed by R.E.Friedman and S. Dolansky

[cancel2 2022]

true if you rest your case on a 17th Century English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew........if you look at the original Hebrew, it is NOT all the Bible says........

So you are a Hebrew scholar now?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So you are a Hebrew scholar now?

/shrugs.....well, I did pass the test and get the degree, yes........Greek was easier, I will admit......I've linked the concordance entry for the word to'ebah before.....even someone who hasn't studied Hebrew can see where the word is used in the Bible thanks to the internet......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They think "born, again" means a get out of jail free card...well, some do, others think that you still have to workon it, depends on what sect you are referring to.

I don't believe that at all. For most people being "Born again" is a deeply personal reawakening of their spiritual selves towards their belief in Jesus Christ as their savior.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

accepting Christ as savior is a "get out of hell free" card......

Not only do I not believe that, I find that notion morally reprehensible though I'm sure every psycho mass murderer on death row would like to believe that. Accepting Christ as ones savior does not absolve one from their actions. To believe that is moral sophistry and is repugnant.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

true if you rest your case on a 17th Century English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew........if you look at the original Hebrew, it is NOT all the Bible says........

the OP article was correct in saying that to'ebah is the word used to describe homosexual relations.....that word is used to describe only 5 (not 10) activities in the Bible.....the others are incest, bestiality, idolatry and human sacrifice........

Awww man....seriously? Bestiality is to'ebah? Oh well.......goodbye Dolly!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Not only do I not believe that, I find that notion morally reprehensible though I'm sure every psycho mass murderer on death row would like to believe that. Accepting Christ as ones savior does not absolve one from their actions. To believe that is moral sophistry and is repugnant.

the fact you don't believe it hardly changes the two thousand year old doctrines of Christianity.....

 

[poet]

The Law of God

God’s moral law clearly condemns homosexuality of any kind: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). Apologists for homosexuality try to circumvent the clear, unambiguous statements of God’s law with blatant Scripture-twisting and excuse-making arguments.

Some argue that the law of God does condemn homosexuality; they teach that God’s law is just a human record of ancient Jewish custom and prejudice. These people deny the Mosaic authorship of the law and are ethical relativists. Their argument must be rejected because Christ and the apostles accepted the divine authorship, infallibility and absolute authority of the Old Testament (Mt. 22:39-40; Jn. 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). If you reject God’s law by saying it is only the purely human ideas of ancient Jewry, then you cannot claim Christ as your Savior. You must believe either that Jesus was mistaken in His view of God’s law or that He was a liar. Be forewarned: Jesus Christ is God (Jn. 1:1, 8:58-59); He cannot be mistaken or lie (Num. 23:19).

Others teach that the laws condemning homosexuality were meant only for the nation of Israel. The Old Testament laws passed away with the coming of Jesus Christ. This view is popular among those who claim to be “evangelical homosexuals.” This view is totally unbiblical. When the New testament says that Christians are dead to the law, it means that Christ has fulfilled the law (the covenant of works) for the believer, and removed the curse of the law through His sacrificial death. Christians who are united to Jesus Christ in His perfect sinless life and His sacrificial death are raised with Christ and enabled by His Spirit to live unto God. Paul says that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom. 7:12). Christ did not get rid of the moral law. He obeyed it perfectly for the believer. He died to remove the guilt of sin and He sends the Holy Spirit so believers have the power to obey God’s law. If Christ did away with the law in the sense that homosexual apologists assert, then there would be no need for Him to die, for if there is no law, there is no sin and guilt. The only laws which are no longer binding are laws specifically tied to the land of Israel (e.g., the jubilee) and the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws pointed to Jesus Christ and His work through types and figures. God’s moral law and the civil case laws based on the moral law are still in force. God’s law is based on His nature and character; therefore, it is absolute, unchanging and eternal.

It is obvious that the prohibitions against homosexuality have nothing to do with the sacrificial system; they clearly are not ceremonial in nature. Furthermore, if the laws against homosexuality were only meant for the nation of Israel, then why is homosexuality condemned in Sodom, over four hundred years before the nation of Israel existed: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh [homosexuality], are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7)? Although Sodom was generally characterized by wickedness, Genesis 19 presents homosexuality as the last stage of debauchery. The men of Sodom desired homosexual relations with Lot’s guests and were willing to rape them if necessary. God wrought total destruction upon Sodom. Sodom was not destroyed because the inhabitants were inhospitable, as some claim. Just being inhospitable would not explain such a total judgment by God. God utterly destroyed the city; only Lot and his family were spared.

Some homosexual apologists argue that God’s law only condemns male cultic prostitution. They argue that modern homosexuality has nothing to do with the idolatrous, pagan homosexuality practiced in ancient times. God does clearly condemn male prostitution and the cultic fertility rites associated with it; Deuteronomy 23:17-18 does apply to cultic prostitution. But Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not mention cultic prostitution at all. “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

The attempt to consolidate all the prohibitions against homosexuality into only one which deals with ancient cultic prostitution reveals an obvious pro-homosexual bias by these interpreters. They are forcing the biblical text into a pro-homosexual mold. They are being dishonest with the clear intent of God’s Word. They are reading their own pro-homosexual presuppositions into God’s law. It is illegitimate to condense three distinct prohibitions (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Dt. 23:17-18) into one. Pro-homosexual interpreters know this but do not care, because they are not interested in the truth; they are only interested in justifying their wicked, perverted behavior. Furthermore, their interpretation could be used to justify having sexual intercourse with sheep and goats, because bestiality was also part of ancient cultic fertility rites. Don’t be deceived. God is against homosexuality in all its forms, both cultic as well as personal.

The arguments in favor of homosexuality are nothing more than pitiful excuses for a behavior that God hates and will clearly judge. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Homosexuality was condemned by God, centuries before the giving of the law (e.g., Gen. 19). It is explicitly condemned by God’s law (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). As will be shown, it is also clearly condemned in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul.

So I conclude that God requires sinners to repent and believe- no matter the sin. ~ Ice dancer

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html


Many Christians have a peculiar obsession with Leviticus and the subject of homosexuality. Unwilling to accept the clear statements of scripture, they insist that Jewish Law applies to everyone, from creation to eternity. This belief, held by many Christians, is absolutely contrary to what scripture actually says.

The Bible is crystal clear. Levitical Law and the Holiness Code are for the children of Israel. They are not for Christians.

The following verses are pretty clear, aren't they?


1.“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 1:2


2.“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 4:2


3.“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 11:2


4.“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 12:2


5.“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 15:2


6.“Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 17:2


7.“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 18:2


8.“Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 19:2


9.“Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...” Lev 20:2


10.“Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron...” Lev 21:1


11.“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 23:2


12.“Command the children of Israel...” Lev 24:2


13.“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 25:2


14.“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 27:2.


That's Crystal Clear! According To The Bible, Leviticus Is Written To Israel
Not To Christians




Leviticus is written specifically for the children of Israel, containing laws and rules for Israel to obey as they prepare to occupy the land of Canaan.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does God tell us, in the Bible, to whom the laws in Leviticus apply?

Yes, God states precisely, to whom Leviticus and the Law applied. Moses writes under inspiration, II Timothy 3:16-17.


“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, [the Jewish nation] who are all of us here alive this day.” Deu 5:3.

“This day” was around 1450 BC, when Moses originally wrote the Law that God gave him on Mt. Sinai for the nation of Israel.


Notice Two Important Things

First, the law of Moses did not apply to anyone before God gave it to Moses.
Read Deuteronomy 5:3 again and let it sink into your heart. Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not under the law of Moses.

Second, God made His covenant of law, as given in Leviticus, in approximately 1450 BC, with Moses and the Jewish people who were getting ready to possess the land of Canaan, what we today call Israel.

The Holiness Code was not given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They lived hundreds of years before Moses.
The Holiness Code was not made with everyone living on earth. It was a specific covenant with a specific people, the Jews, at a specific time in history, for specific purposes related to the specific situation in Palestine at that time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Holiness Code of Leviticus did not apply to anyone anywhere, until God gave it to Moses, for Israel to obey, in the land of Israel, Deuteronomy 4:5, 14, 5:31, 6:1. Throughout Leviticus, Moses is speaking to the children of Israel, giving instructions for living in the land, under the Law. Moses is not setting down rules and regulations for Christians, in the twenty first century. The Holiness Code was intended to outlaw the pagan practices of fertility goddess cults in ancient Canaan.


It is important to distinguish between Jews and Christians as we interpret the Bible.

Christians do not show up in scripture until Acts 11:26, some fifteen hundred years after the Holiness Code was given.

Some of the Bible is written to Jews but not written to Christians. For example, we have demonstrated above, that Leviticus is written to Jews (the children of Israel).

The New Testament never instructs us that Christians must live under Jewish Law or that Christians must observe Jewish rituals practiced by Old Testament Jews.


The Law Of Moses went out of force when Jesus died on the Cross.



If you don't understand that, you'll have difficulty understanding law and grace.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God, through Moses, addressed Himself to a particular people in a particular cultural situation at a particular time in history for a particular purpose under particular Jewish Laws which went out of force the moment Jesus died on the Cross.

“But Jesus, again crying out loudly, breathed his last.” Matthew 27:50. The Message.

“Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant [the New Testament] was put into action at Jesus’ death.” Hebrews 9:16, The Message.



The New Testament went into force when Jesus died on the Cross.
The New Covenant, what we call the New Testament, went into effect when Jesus died on the Cross. The Old Covenant, what we call the Old Testament, went out of force when Jesus died on the Cross.


"For where a testament [covenant] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator [the person making the covenant].

For a testament [covenant] is of force after men are dead..." Hebrews 9:16-17.


The Law was in effect from the time God gave it to Moses on Mt. Sinai, around 1450 BC until Jesus died on the Cross, around AD 30.

When Jesus died on the Cross, even the Jews who did not believe in Him knew that something had changed because the veil of the temple, which separated the Holy of Holies, was torn from top to bottom.


"And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain [torn in two pieces] from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent [were torn]. Matthew 27:51.

As we noted above, Leviticus is not addressed to people who lived before the Law, Deuteronomy 5:3, and it is not addressed to people who live after the Law ended.


This Is Easy to Understand Because The Bible Is So Clear And Specific.
The Old Testament Law Had An Ending Point.

The Law ended when the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, died for the sins of the world.


God never intended that Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 should be applied to Christians in the twenty first century.



In Leviticus 18:1-3, Moses speaks to Jews, the twelve tribes of Israel, under the Law.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.”



•Important Fact Number One: In Leviticus, God and Moses are not laying down laws for Christians in the twenty first century.


•Important Fact Number Two: In Leviticus, God and Moses are not laying down rules to prohibit two men who love God and each other and want to live together and serve God, from doing that.


•Important Fact Number Three: God and Moses are not laying down rules to prohibit two women who love God and each other and want to live together and serve God, from doing that.

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, God intends to prohibit shrine prostitution or Molech worship, that is, men having sex with men in worship of Ashtoreth, Molech's Canaanite fertility goddess consort.


We know that by the context.

Leviticus 18:3 and 18:21 set the context for Leviticus 18:22. God warns Israel against the pagan gods and pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, specifically mentioning Molech (which includes Molech's fertility goddess consort, Ashtoreth).

Leviticus 20:2-5 & 23 set the context for Leviticus 20:13. God makes the same warning against the pagan practices of Egypt and Canaan, specifically mentioning Molech.

The rules God gives in Leviticus specifically target the children of Israel. They are God's rules for Israel, living under the Law, in the land of Palestine, at a particular time in history.


1.We know these rules do not apply universally because God never told us they apply universally.


2.God Himself never applied these rules universally.


3.God never states in the New Testament that Christians must obey the Levitical Holiness Code to be in right relationship with Him.

God only applied these rules to Jews living in the land of Palestine, under the Law of Moses.



Christians are commanded to study the Bible, rightly dividing the word of truth, II Timothy 2:15.


I know discernment is not your strong suit, but give it a try- poet.

 

[poet]

I get the feeling poet is having a sissy fit? Must be its achy back from sporting that mattress all over Texas every night looking for action~

Pardon me, but, unlike you, I've been in a monogamous , devoted relationship for the past 10 years, and any action would be at the behest of my life partner. Prostitute on.

 

[Damocles]

And this from a heathen who has used racial epithets, hatespeech, and curses....why don't you talk about something you do know about...like whoring.

I see you take your Christianity seriously.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the fact you don't believe it hardly changes the two thousand year old doctrines of Christianity.....

No, you're factually wrong. You're only telling half the story and convienantly omitting the other half. One must not only accept Jesus as their savior but one must also truly repent for ones sins. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't just accept Jesus as your savior. You must accept Jesus as your savior AND repent for your sins. Continued recidivism indicates that one is dishonest and does not truly repent of their sins and, according to 2,000 year old Christian doctrine, the good Lord above will hold you to account for that.

Or as Jesus said to the Lawyer who was being stoned to death....."Go and sin no more!"

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The Law Of Moses went out of force when Jesus died on the Cross.

depends on which laws you are referring to......

Categories of the Old Testament Law
Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.

Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.

Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

the ceremonial laws were intended to insure the sufficiency of sacrifice in the temples.....since Christ came as the fulfillment of all sacrifices, ceremonial laws became unnecessary.....these are generally referred to as Levitical codes....

the moral codes were specifically affirmed by Jesus.....these are generally referred to as the law of Moses....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No, you're factually wrong. You're only telling half the story and convienantly omitting the other half. One must not only accept Jesus as their savior but one must also truly repent for ones sins. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't just accept Jesus as your savior. You must accept Jesus as your savior AND repent for your sins. Continued recidivism indicates that one is dishonest and does not truly repent of their sins and, according to 2,000 year old Christian doctrine, the good Lord above will hold you to account for that.

Or as Jesus said to the Lawyer who was being stoned to death....."Go and sin no more!"

no, I am not factually wrong........and certainly, anyone who thinks they can actually go and sin no more IS factually wrong.......my wife used to have a plaque on the refrigerator that said something along the lines of "God, so far today I have broken none of your commandments. I have not spoken harshly to my children. I have not coveted my neighbor's new dishwasher. I have not been angry with my husband. But now it is time to get out of bed and that's going to change, so forgive me."......

 

[Canceled2]

I love the way that you recycle your old jokes, nobody could ever accuse new of trying out new material. It is good to see that your old pal has been banned, not before time, let's hope it is forever. Ding dong the bitch is banned!!

Yes, Tom, it's obvious her getting banned is like the only orgasm you and your ugly clan of sexless masturbatory allies will have~

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-elliott-friedman/biblical-law-on-homosexuality_b_911963.html

One of the recent reviews of "The Bible Now" that was favorable on the whole criticized us on one point in our chapter on homosexuality. The reviewer said that we were liberals, with a liberal agenda, and that we had twisted the clear meaning of the biblical law to fulfill that agenda.



Others have criticized us at times in our careers for being conservative.



As we said in the first of these posts and in the book, we are scholars, not politicians. Our job isn't to score points for a side, push an agenda or to re-size the Bible to fit our personal views. So far as we know, all the other reviews and endorsements we have received thus far have gotten that point. That doesn't make this one claim in this one review wrong. We don't determine the truth by majority vote. Nor have we ever written a response to a review. So what are we supposed to do when someone criticizes both our scholarship and our integrity in one shot? We do what scholars are supposed to do. We go back to the evidence. So here's the text and a summary of the evidence:

"You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to'ebah" (offensive thing)

(Leviticus 18:22).

"And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to'ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them"

(Leviticus 20:13).

We just want to remind you first that this is just one point in a larger treatment of a very controversial subject, and there's much more to the chapter. There are several points here that call for treatment: Why does the text prohibit only male homosexual acts and not female? Which acts does it forbid: only penetrative intercourse, or all acts? These are in that chapter, and they're important, but they're not the subject of this post.

The point on which we were thought to be "twisting" came up later in our discussion. We acknowledged that many people have recognized that these two texts pretty clearly do prohibit at least some kinds of male-male sex, but they have asked whether there is any legitimate "way out," anything in the text that might provide for some change in the law. For example, one of our students once pointed out that it is, after all, impossible to lie with a man in the way one does with a woman -- namely, vaginal sex -- so no one can violate this commandment! That's a clever, even fascinating idea, but why then would the commandment exist if it prohibits something that is impossible anyway? And besides, the plural phrase "a woman's layings" (miskebê 'issah) implies that many acts, not just vaginal sex, are included here.

Similarly, a daughter of one of the authors of this book pointed out that a homosexual man may not mind a commandment that tells him that he can't lie with men the way he lies with women because he does not lie with women! This, too, is not a compelling argument, (though it's clever). We considered other such arguments as well but found all of them inadequate. For left or right, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, we don't think that we can define our way out of the question by looking for such loopholes in the law. The law really means what pretty much everyone has taken it to mean for centuries. Whatever view one takes, one must address the law fairly in terms of what it says.



So we sought to contribute another perspective that we believe can be helpful on this subject. The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to'ebah, translated in English here as "an offensive thing" or in older translations as "an abomination." This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. In both of the contexts in Leviticus (chapters 18 and 20), male homosexuality is the only act to be called this. (Other acts are included broadly in a line at the end of chapter 18.) So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts.

The question is: Is this term to'ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to'ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative -- meaning that something that is a to'ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to'ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to'ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another -- in which case the law may change as people's perceptions change?



When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they're cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don't eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don't find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.



A former student of ours pointed out that right here in this text, in the broad inclusion of laws that are to'ebah at the end of Leviticus 18, are some that prohibit actions that the great patriarchs of the Bible had done. For example, Abraham marries his half-sister Sarah. He says:

"She is, in fact, my sister, my father's daughter but not my mother's daughter, and she became a wife to me" (Genesis 20:12).

But the law in Leviticus explicitly forbids such relations with a half-sister:

"Your sister's nudity -- your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, born home or born outside -- you shall not expose their nudity" (Leviticus 18:9).

So what is not a to'ebah in the generation of the patriarchs has changed and become one in the generation of Moses. In a somewhat different way, the land itself can change from not being a to'ebah and can become a to'ebah as a result of the behavior of its residents on it. The prophet Jeremiah says:

"You defiled my land, and made my possession into an offensive thing (to'ebah)" (Jeremiah 2:7).

An act or an object that is not a to'ebah can become one, depending on time and circumstances. The word to'ebah does not automatically mean that something is immoral. Depending on the context, the period and the persons involved, it means that it offends some group.



Now, one might respond that the law here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God -- and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase "an offensive thing to the LORD" (to'ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to'ebah to God!

If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to'ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to'ebah that opens the possibility of the law's change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This could involve arguments and evidence from specialists in biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise as Bible scholars. Our task here has been to make the biblical evidence known.

Our colleagues with expertise in biblical scholarship and especially in biblical Hebrew may agree with or challenge this analysis. So far they have been complimentary. But that reviewer claimed that we are playing a "game," that we find the text in Leviticus to be "an embarrassment," that we "belong to the category of Bible-seekers who do not believe that the Bible is divinely revealed," and he completely misunderstood our treatment of the context of this law in the ancient world, calling it "a remarkable performance." He thinks he knows our motives, our religious beliefs and our political side -- and, apparently, our ethics. We can't deny that this is hurtful and frustrating to be so badly misread. The reviewer does not come on as an enemy. On the contrary, he writes, "The Bible Now is an honorable book." He just apparently thought we had dropped the honorable ball in this one section.



So, in the end, how do you decide if this is serious scholarship or if that person was right to think that we were doing the twist? We always hated authors who answer every question with, "Read my book." But, in all honesty, to answer this question, that's exactly what the discerning reader ought to do: Read the whole thing yourself.

Note: The review appeared in Tablet on July 5 and was republished in The New Republic online on July 12. The author was Adam Kirsch. It should not be confused with a review by Jonathan Kirsch, who wrote that "Their approach is based on an exacting and meticulous examination of what the biblical text actually says and means." (JewishJournal.com, June 16)

This is the third in a series of posts examining the Hebrew Bible and the issues of our day



Since the passages from Leviticus come from Hebrew, I'd say this is definitive proof that 1) Levitical Code (law) was binding only on Jews and 2) the passage about homosexuality was not one of the laws identified as to' ebah (offensive) to God. Period. - poet

Not laws.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I always love these arguments. They are so fruitful.



Seriously though, there is a difference between the purity laws (changed by the New Covenant) and something considered "abomination" in the Bible. However, as far as I understand it, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and all can be forgiven with belief. (I think it is Romans 1:27 in the New Testament that repeats the "abomination" thing).

Of course in my religious philosophy (I am a Buddhist) it takes a bit more work to gather that kind of "forgiveness", and it isn't quite the same thing and the "washing away" of sins just by stating something about believing in somebody. (It also wouldn't be a "sin" in Buddhism unless you did it to harm another, which I would doubt you do). As far as I understand it, all sins are forgiven when one is "born again"...

Christianity is kind of dumb since it's moral philosophy isn't based on proportional reward/punishment and instead either rewards or punishes someone infinitely after crossing an arbitrary moral threshold. It needs something like universalism, a system in which hell is almost impossible to get into (since most just go to purgatory), or hell being very easy to avoid (salvation by faith) just to escape the moral quandaries they've created.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The bible has been used to defend slavery, justify the Inquisition, and to subjugate women, but we do not see them, keeping holy the Lord's day, or end usery or stop lust, which are part of the big 10! Homosexuality didn't even make God's big 10, it was considered unclean, by Jewish standards is all that the Bible says. Remember, these were also people who put their children to death for disobedience and stoned adulters! There would be a lot of dead people nowadays if these "godly?" laws were enforced.

It is a primitive book that creates a lot of rules designed by primitive peoples.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

first, being a homosexual is not a sin, engaging in homosexual relations is.........second, the only sin I can recall the Bible describing as unforgivable is an intentional refusal to believe in God.........

THE HOLY SPIRIT Sucked my cock the other day. Damn GOD'S Good at What SHE Does.

 

[Damocles]

The Holy Spirit sucked my cock the other day. Damn God's good at what she does.

From what I understand you've committed the only unforgivable sin here... Well, that one and rejecting the divinity of Christ...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not only do I not believe that, I find that notion morally reprehensible though I'm sure every psycho mass murderer on death row would like to believe that. Accepting Christ as ones savior does not absolve one from their actions. To believe that is moral sophistry and is repugnant.

Douchebag God: Create a psychopath, punish psychopath for doing things you designed them to do. The notion of hell is what's morally repugnant. By the simple physical laws of the universe, there can be no such thing as an infinite transgression to warrant an infinite punishment, so it's an idiotic doctrine.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

From what I understand you've committed the only unforgivable sin here...

That was my intent.