Current Scholarship on Homosexuals & the Bible
Tim
I've posted what 'pillars of the faith' of centuries ago believed
about those so-called 'homosexual' passages; and they believed it was
paederasty, prostitution, and promiscuity and Romans 1.27 was believed
to speak of those who abandoned heterosexual sex for homosexual lusts.
Not exactly a definition of a homosexual that I know about. Now, hear
some present day scholars, starting again with an evangelical source:
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition
(despite the rather misleading RSV translation of 1 Cor. 6.9), but its
condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these
strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they
have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too
much." New Bible Dictionary, 2nd & 3rd Ed., 1982 and 1996.
"homosexuality, a word for which there is no specific equivalent in
the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT, since the concept itself, as well as
the English word, originated only in the nineteenth cerntury.
Nevertheless, there are a few biblical references to persons of the
same sex who engage in sexual intercourse." Harper Collins Bible
Dictionary, 1996
"1.26-27 Some think that Paul here condemns homosexual acts by
heterosexual people (i.e., 'unnatural' means 'unnatural for them');
others that he condemns pederasty (sexual activity between adult men
and boys). It is questionable whether Paul thought of homosexuality
as a condition or disposition..." The Harper Collins Study Bible,
1993, note on Romans 1.26, 27. [I see this modern Bible lists the
same understanding that Albert Barnes and David Brown of the JFB
commentary said in the 19th century!]
"1.26-27. Greek men were commonly bisexual; not only was homosexual
behavior approved (some writers, like speakers in Plato's Symposium,
preferred itto heterosexual behavior), but elements of the culture
socialized boys in this direction." The IVP Bible Background
Commentary, Craig S. Keener 1993
I end the post with a secular source available on the Web:
"Male prostitution existed because there was a demand for it. During
the close of the first century B.C.E. and the beginning of the first
century C.E., the emperor Augustus enacted strictly-worded laws
intending to punish extramarital affairs and strengthen the Roman
family system. In this legislation, sex with a prostitute was not
considered adultery. A married or single man broke no social rules by
visiting a brothel. Generally, prostitutes were the one category,
along with ones own slaves (of both sexes) and freedmen whom he could
freely exploit for sexual means. Those considered off-limits, as far a
society was concerned, were unmarried free women, free-born youths and
men, and other mens wives and slaves. As long as the Roman citizen
male remained the active, penetrating player in the sexual game, and
never assumed the passive identity, no one would talk." Taken
from Black Swan Pub. On the web. See URL...
http://www.theblackswan.com/review/article4.htm
It seems that modern scholarship and the great men of old agree that
the usual 'gay bashing' verses do not speak of a homosexual; but, of
wicked heterosexuals who are guilty of wanton lusts! Where do these
crazy homophobes get their ideas from? Not from a use of the Bible
and God given reason! As usual, it comes from their 'gut feelings',
and is no more reliable than that!
Tim
duh
take a look here for proper translations. you will find it very
interesting
Tim
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:51:47 -0500, duh <ipray...@inhisname.com>
wrote:
>take a look here for proper translations. you will find it very
>interesting
>
>http://www.usaor.net/dtl/article/homosexuals.htm
And as you read that webpage, notice the number of times 'homosexual'
is used as an adjective, not as a noun, 'homosexuals'. Notice as well
the arbitrary selection of definitions to insert into 1 Cor. 6.9. The
choices are made with the decision already made that 1 Cor. 6.9 refers
to homosexuals! That is what remains to be determined, not what is to
be read into it. When you are through reading that article, you
realize that it makes 1 Cor. 6.9 condemn homosexuals alone, not
heterosexual and bisexual males having sex with each other. The
article is guilty of just what the New Bible Dictionary states: "Too
often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has
claimed too much." page 478
No rational person bases a doctrine on a passage so varied in it's
rendering:
KJV - effeminate......abusers of themselves with mankind
NRSV - male prostitutes....... sodomites
JB - catamites ...... sodomites
NCV - male prostitutes ...... men who have sex with other men
G.R. Berry Literal - abusers as women... abusers with men
NJB - self-indulgent..... sodomites
Remember, the NKJV makes it clear that sodomite is different from a
homosexual. None of my English dictionaries define 'sodomite' by
'homosexual'. Also, notice that the NASB and the NKJV cannot even
decide which word should be translated, 'homosexual'!
It is clear that males are having sex with males in that verse. The
question is, WHO are those males? Are they what we today call
homosexuals? Or, are they heterosexuals, and married men who are
guilty of unbridled lusts which know no bounds? The later is what
fits all 4 of Paul's references: Rom. 1.26, 27; 1 Cor. 6.9; 11.14;
and 1 Tim. 1.10. It has to do with pederasty, male prostitution,
promiscuity. As to 1 Cor. 11.14, long hair was a badge of a male
prostitute in ancient Rome. See the URL:
http://www.theblackswan.com/review/article4.htm
Tim
Dolf
Also Tim, they fail to provide other scriptural examples which support their
claims. Which you so magnificiently have done in other posts.
Dolf
Jim Upchurch
So have I and i'll do it again:
Romans (NIV) 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the
sinful desire of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading
of their bodies with one another. 1:26 Because of this, God
gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
natural relations for unnatural ones. 1:27 In the same way men
also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed
with lust for one another.
Notice that this one spells it out so even the intellectually challenged
could ( or should ) grasp the meaning.
Leviticus18:22 "Do not lie with a man as a one lies with a women; that
is detestible."
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both
of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads."
Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. Even
their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same
way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed
with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions."
I'll be happy to repost as necessary. Let it not be said that there are no
corroberating passages. :)
--
Jim Upchurch
remove "x" in rango to reply
Dolf wrote in message <89217672...@kermit.netlink.com.au>...
zoe wilfong
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Jim Upchurch wrote:
> So have I and i'll do it again:
>
>
> Romans (NIV) 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the
> sinful desire of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading
> of their bodies with one another. 1:26 Because of this, God
> gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged
> natural relations for unnatural ones. 1:27 In the same way men
> also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed
> with lust for one another.
>
> Notice that this one spells it out so even the intellectually challenged
> could ( or should ) grasp the meaning.
>
> Leviticus18:22 "Do not lie with a man as a one lies with a women; that
> is detestible."
>
> Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both
> of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
> will be on their own heads."
>
> Romans 1:26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. Even
> their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same
> way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed
> with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and
> received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions."
>
> I'll be happy to repost as necessary. Let it not be said that there are no
> corroberating passages. :)
>
I'll say this again, Leviticus is dead, and you have misinterpreted all
of what you wrote above. And as jesus said "Verily, you deny the
commandment of god that you may keep your own traditions." You are
clearly looking for biblical justification for your worldly prejudices.
At the very least, your concern with this subject is way out of
proportion with the attention (you claim) it recieved in the bible;
which suggests that it is in fact *your* concern, not 'god's.'
zoe
Mycroft;-)
zoe wilfong wrote in message ...
Upchurch seems to have edited the Bible down to the above oft-quoted
passages. Notice not one scripture from Christ condemning gays. Typical
fundamentalist: exculsionist and condemnatory.
Mycroft
Harry A. Smith
Tim wrote:
>
> I've posted what 'pillars of the faith' of centuries ago believed
Bravo Tim. Please repost this whenever needed!
--
** Dare To Disturb The Universe! **
Rev. Harry A. Smith, D.D.
has...@nettally.com
Rihannsu Alien
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:35:32 -0500, "Jacob Rossman"
<deprog...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> The bible is correct and the type of so-called 'modern scholarship' which
>can't accept the consistent condemnation of homosexuality in the bible need
>to get another job.
>Any child can understand the clear message where the bible deals with
>homosexuality. God says it is vile, wicked, abominable. Homophobia? I
>wonder who is pushing that term forward. Those who would try to change
>reality.
> Bibliophobia is the real problem. Fear of what the bible plainly says.
>If a man has an ax to grind and needs to find a way to feel good about his
>sin, he will find a way to change the clear meaning. If you love God check
>out this link and its easy to use links.
>http://www.biblebelievers.com/default.htm
***I quite agree, Jacob. Good to see you on her, and I hope you stick
around.
Personally, I think there are just so many homosexuals and lesbians
out there, that they think they out-number the heterosexual populace.
They seem to think that because this 1998, we should automaically
accept their learned behaviors, and include their false "marriages" as
legal.
In no way, shape or form will I ever condone or accept that false
partnership. I'm sure that if God had intended two males or two
females to live together in the capacity of man and wife, He would
have made only one sex to begin with, since it would not have
mattered.
Obviously, though, it does, and He spells it out plainly in the Bible
that He is against homosexual and lesbian practices-- as you said.
They just refuse to see it.
In Him I remain--
Romath
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relentlessly pursuing the SPAMmish Inquisition !!
Help stamp out spam and sleaze.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael W. Fisher
[This followup was posted to alt.christnet.theology and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]
In article <3533a793...@news.vianet.on.ca>, figure...@ice.net
says...
ŹOn Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:35:32 -0500, "Jacob Rossman"
Ź<deprog...@email.msn.com> wrote:
Ź
Ź> The bible is correct and the type of so-called 'modern scholarship' which
Ź>can't accept the consistent condemnation of homosexuality in the bible need
Ź>to get another job.
I'll grant that there is a clear condemnation of male
homosexuality in Leviticus.
Of course there are a whole lot of OTHER rules in Leviticus that I
must note Christians seem quite indifferent about following, to say the
least.
And they're right in there with the ones on homosexuality.
Ź>Any child can understand the clear message where the bible deals with
Ź>homosexuality.
Yeah.
And the one that says "Of all that lives in water, ... anything in
sea or river that has not fins or scales, of all the small water
creatures and all the living things found there, must be held detestable.
You must hold them detestable; you are not to eat their flesh and you
must avoid their carcasses. Anything that lives in water, but has no fins
or scales, is to be held detestable."(Lev 11:9-12)
How about that? Ever had oyster stew? Lobster? Shame on you!
Had sausage, bacon or roast pork lately? tut tut.
A cheese burger? A pepperoni pizza? Thou shalt not seeth a kid in
its mothers milk you know. Again, shame on you.
Do you wear garments made of more than one kind of fabric (Lev.
19:19)? Tut tut.
Do you keep your hair trimmed or your beard shaved ?(Lev. 19:27)
For shame. Anybody out there with any tattoos? Same verse.
Ź God says it is vile, wicked, abominable. Homophobia? I
Ź>wonder who is pushing that term forward. Those who would try to change
Ź>reality.
Ź> Bibliophobia is the real problem. Fear of what the bible plainly says.
Ah yes. Like Deut 21:18-21 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious
son who will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of
his mother, and even when they punish him still will not pay attention to
them, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to
the elders of the town at the gate of that place. And they shall say to
the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and
will not listen to us; he is a wastrel and a drunkard.' Then all his
fellow citizens shall stone him to death."
Stoned any teen-aged boys at church recently?
Ź>If a man has an ax to grind and needs to find a way to feel good about his
Ź>sin, he will find a way to change the clear meaning.
Um, the quotes above are complete accurate quotes from the bible,
where I merely referenced the verse you may check. Where I provided no
reference I'm pretty sure you can find the applicable law, just use any
concordance.
Ź If you love God check
Ź>out this link and its easy to use links.
Ź>http://www.biblebelievers.com/default.htm
Ź
Ź***I quite agree, Jacob. Good to see you on her, and I hope you stick
Źaround.
ŹPersonally, I think there are just so many homosexuals and lesbians
Źout there, that they think they out-number the heterosexual populace.
ŹThey seem to think that because this 1998, we should automaically
Źaccept their learned behaviors, and include their false "marriages" as
Źlegal.
You have some legitimate authority that indicates that the
behavior is learned? I'm pretty widely read and I've missed that study.
Perhaps you can provide a reference.
ŹIn no way, shape or form will I ever condone or accept that false
Źpartnership. I'm sure that if God had intended two males or two
Źfemales to live together in the capacity of man and wife, He would
Źhave made only one sex to begin with, since it would not have
Źmattered.
How many sexes do you think there in fact are?
What's the sexual status of Chimera? Does a chimera have one soul
or two?
ŹObviously, though, it does, and He spells it out plainly in the Bible
Źthat He is against homosexual and lesbian practices-- as you said.
And a whole lot else.
If you don't follow those rules, and I'd bet good money you don't,
then why do you focus like a laser on the prohibitions against male
homosexuality? They are but a very very small part of God's law.
ŹThey just refuse to see it.
Oh, I can see it just fine.
I can also see all the rest you conveniently ignore.
Ciao.
--
--
Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
* * *
He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty,
he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Melissa, Mother Superior of the sisters of Lesbos
In article <Oa5kvYzY9GA.89@uppubnews03>,
"Jacob Rossman" <deprog...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> The bible is correct and the type of so-called 'modern
scholarship' which
bible need
You need to get another life! When I volunteer for mistress duty in
hell, I plan on having a lot of fun with assholes like you who get
sent there for hating gays! We'll party!
>Any child can understand the clear message where the bible deals
with
>homosexuality.
LET'S SEE IF i HAVE THIS RIGHT YET. XTIANITY IN A NUTSHELL.
YOU BELIEVE:
1.) THERE'S AN OLD MAN GOD SITTING UP ON A GOLDEN THRONE SOMEWHERE
IN THE SKY, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT OR SAY EXACTLY WHERE. (
DELUSIONAL )
2.) AND THIS OLD MAN WROTE THE BIBLE, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T WRITTEN
BY LIGHTNING BLASTED IN STONE BUT WAS WRITTEN BY TIRED OLD MEN HERE
ON EARTH AND BASED ON MYTHS AND LEGENDS TOLD AROUND CAMPFIRES IN
PRIMITIVE TIMES.
3.) YOUR GOD RAPED MARY TO IMPREGNATE HER AND SHE HAD HIS SON ( AS
IF THAT'S NOT A FAIRY TALE! IT'S EVEN COMMON IN OTHER PRIMITIVE
MYTHOLOGY! )...
4.) HE DID A HUMAN SACRIFICE LATER, BY TORTURING HIS SON TO DEATH
PAINFULLY WITH LOTS OF BLOOD, NAILED TO A CROSS ( AND YOU'RE
AGAINST VIOLENCE ON TV! ) , ( MAKING HIM INTO JSHSOAS; JEWISH
SCAPEGOAT HUMAN SACRIFICE ON A STICK ) , AS A JEWISH SCAPEGOAT BEING
BLAMED FOR THE SINS OF ALL OTHER PEOPLE FOREVER. ( WHAT A SENSE OF
FAIRNESS! ) ( SCAPEGOATING WAS INVENTED BY THE JEWS AND HAS BEEN
USED AGAINST THEM EVER SINCE, BY THE WAY, EXPLAINING WHY JEWS FIND
YOUR RELIGION HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.)
5.) AND YOUR GOD LOVES EVERYONE UNCONDITIONALLY, WITH THE CONDITION
THAT IF YOU DON'T DO EVERYTHING HE COMMANDS YOU TO DO HE WILL HATE
YOU AND TORTURE YOU IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. ( SOUNDS LIKE A NO-WIN
SITUATION THAT DEFEATS FREE WILL, DEMANDED BY A SPOILED CHILD OF A
GOD NOT WORTHY OF EVOLVED PEOPLE HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH!)
6.) AND TODAY, YOU DO RITUAL SYMBOLIC CANNIBALISM AND EAT HIS BODY
AND DRINK HIS BLOOD.
NO THAT'S NOT DELUSIONAL. IT MAKES ALL KINDS OF SENSE....TO AN
INFERNAL BOZO BRAINED IDIOT!
So if you want to repent something, repent the parts of your myth
book that tell you to hate gays! You Pharisee hypocrite! YOU are the
abomination!
> God says it is vile, wicked, abominable.
Jesus says hate is vile wicked and abominable!
That makes you the abominable cruxtoid man! A hemmorhoid on Jesus's
ass!
> Homophobia? I
>wonder who is pushing that term forward. Those who would try to
change
>reality.
As if your religion had ANYTHING to do with reality! What a joke!
Hahahahahahah!
> Bibliophobia is the real problem. Fear of what the bible
plainly says.
Fear of what evil hatemongers like you will try to use it for!
>If a man has an ax to grind and needs to find a way to feel good
about his
>sin, he will find a way to change the clear meaning.
I think the whole book is worthless and should be used for toilet
paper but it would be too rough. It might work good in my compost
pile though.
> If you love God check
>out this link and its easy to use links.
>http://www.biblebelievers.com/default.htm
Another hate site to add to my collection, along with the neo nazis.
Of course that's just my opinion.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is clearly wrong. :-)
Melissa My web pages: under construction
Thank God I'm not a xtian! God save me from xtianity!
I don't hate xtians, I hate the evil nature of xtianity.
My posting to Usenet does not imply permission, or a request, to email me,
though kind supportive comments are always welcome. Hostile, harassing,
religious harassment and/or abusive email may be posted and result in
complaints to your provider.
Melissa, Jesus Christ's Sweet Sister
In article <3533a793...@news.vianet.on.ca>,
figure...@ice.net (Rihannsu Alien) wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:35:32 -0500, "Jacob Rossman"
><deprog...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> The bible is correct and the type of so-called 'modern
scholarship' which
>>can't accept the consistent condemnation of homosexuality in the
bible need
>>to get another job.
with
>>wonder who is pushing that term forward. Those who would try to
change
>>reality.
plainly says.
about his
stick
>Personally, I think there are just so many homosexuals and lesbians
populace.
Another dumbass theory of you who can't even format a post right?
>They seem to think that because this 1998, we should automaically
>accept their learned behaviors, and include their false "marriages"
as
>legal.
Some of us already have legal same sex marriages. If you don't like
it, FUCK YOU!!!
>In no way, shape or form will I ever condone or accept that false
>partnership.
Because you're a biggoted hatemonger and your religion sucks!
>I'm sure that if God had intended two males or two
>females to live together in the capacity of man and wife, He would
>have made only one sex to begin with, since it would not have
>mattered.
More idiotic reasoning!
>Obviously, though, it does, and He spells it out plainly in the
Bible
>that He is against homosexual and lesbian practices--
Where did your myth book say anything about lesbians, moron?
Of course that's just my opinion.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is clearly wrong. :-)
Melissa My web pages: under construction
Think yours is a loving religion? See the truth revealed in all it's glory:
http://www.christiangallery.com/strategy.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html
http://revwhite.bestsites.net
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
Thank God I'm not a xtian! God save me from xtianity!
My posting to Usenet does not imply permission, or a request, to email me,
Astalis
Melissa, Mother Superior of the sisters of Lesbos wrote:
> In article <Oa5kvYzY9GA.89@uppubnews03>,
> "Jacob Rossman" <deprog...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > The bible is correct and the type of so-called 'modern
> scholarship' which
> >can't accept the consistent condemnation of homosexuality in the
> bible need
> >to get another job.
>
> You need to get another life! When I volunteer for mistress duty in
> hell, I plan on having a lot of fun with assholes like you who get
> sent there for hating gays! We'll party!
>
> >Any child can understand the clear message where the bible deals
> with
> >homosexuality.
>
> > God says it is vile, wicked, abominable.
>
> Jesus says hate is vile wicked and abominable!
>
> That makes you the abominable cruxtoid man! A hemmorhoid on Jesus's
> ass!
>
> > Homophobia? I
> >wonder who is pushing that term forward. Those who would try to
> change
> >reality.
>
> As if your religion had ANYTHING to do with reality! What a joke!
> Hahahahahahah!
>
> > Bibliophobia is the real problem. Fear of what the bible
> plainly says.
>
> Fear of what evil hatemongers like you will try to use it for!
>
> >If a man has an ax to grind and needs to find a way to feel good
> about his
> >sin, he will find a way to change the clear meaning.
>
> I think the whole book is worthless and should be used for toilet
> paper but it would be too rough. It might work good in my compost
> pile though.
>
> > If you love God check
> >out this link and its easy to use links.
> >http://www.biblebelievers.com/default.htm
>
> Another hate site to add to my collection, along with the neo nazis.
From your own words it's apparent you certainly
know enough of and how to hate...
Astalis
--
"Love is like a river flowing down from
the Giver of Life. We drink from the water
And our thirst is no longer denied. You
gotta give it away...
As we live, moving side by side,
may we learn to give, learn to sacrifice."
**From Michael W. Smith's "Give It Away"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
-----------------------
Tim
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:39:43 -0400, "J. S." <cha...@ttlc.net> wrote:
>It seems to me this issue (Biblical evaluation of homosexuality) tends
>to divide on "liberal" vs "conservative" scholarship with each "camp"
>well-entrenched in its own exegesis. However, even this
>liberal/conservative dichotomy does not hold up too well where
>scholarship is concerned.
>
>Witness, for example the rather liberal Oxford Companion to the Bible
>(Oxford University Press, 1993) edited by professors from Princeton
>Theological Seminary and Stonehill College (with a vast number of
>contributors from all manner of institutions). The entry on
>"Homosexuality" is written by a scholar who holds the Chair of the
>Christian Studies, Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department at
>Brandeis University (not exactly a hotbed of Christian fundamentalist
>thinking). Some of the quotes from this article follow.
>
>"Leviticus 20.13 prohibits sexual relations between men, defines them as
>an 'abomination,' and places them under the death penalty. (Citation
>omitted) Ethical considerations such as consent, coercion, or the power
>imbalance inherent in adult-child relations are not legally relevant in
>these passages (nor in the surrounding levitical laws on adultery,
>incest, and bestiality). Thus, regardless of the sexual relationship of
>the participants … all are equally culpable." P 288-89.
>
>The article goes on to describe Paul's views in similar terms and
>extends the reasoning to include (but not be limited to) men and women
>who would alter the traditional gender rolls (i.e. men "superordinate"
>and women "passive"), and cites Jude and Philo as early writers who took
>a similar conservative view of homosexuality, as per se sin.
>
>I offer this article not to champion the views it espouses, but simply
>to acknowledge that scholarship is divided on this issue, not always
>along traditionally "conservative" and "liberal" lines.
>
>It seems to me that this is another reason to read widely and consider
>thoughtfully the meaning of Biblical texts. I'm all for exegesis and
>belief. They are necessary for a sincere effort to follow after the
>Lord and each of us should follow our best, most prayerful,
>understanding of the Bible as the Word of God (even though, undoubtedly,
>we will come to different conclusions). However, it might be wise for
>each "camp" to spend more time considering the log in its own collective
>eye rather than condemning the sliver in the other's. Given Jesus'
>admonition about lust in the heart being the equivalent of an act of
>sexual sin, there would seem to be plenty to examine inside each of us,
>regardless of the "camp" to which we are drawn. Judgment of each of us
>on this issue, as on all issues, remains the Lord's.
>
>- Chalice
That is an interesting article by Bernadette J. Brooten. I find it
difficult to understand her views. For instance, as you said, she
indicates that the Levitical law did not have "ethical considerations
such as consent, coercion, or the power imbalance inherent in
adult-child relations" as relevant. Then she goes on to state, "Like
Leviticus, Paul does not employ the ethical categories of consent or
age for distinguishing between sanctioned and condemned sexual
relations." Is she warning us against using such passages as a
blanket condemnation when such ethical considerations as we find
Biblical are left out of these sections? Are we to follow her views
that a male raping a male child under Levitical law calls for death to
both parties? I take her article as illustrating how extreme our
position becomes by being literal on these passages. Like you say, it
is an unusual piece in a rather liberal work.
Tim