Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

Jaguar · February 10, 2004, 22:23

I seem to recall that there was a thread on this a while ago, but I searched for it and couldn't find it.

I'm in a class on the Bible which includes a pair of homophobes who love bringing the infamous passage up. I'd like to be armed with a few counterarguments (from the Bible, otherwise the teacher probably will just break up the discussion and that will be no fun.)

If anyone has good counterarguments from the Bible, or knows where the old thread is, their help would be appreciated.

MrFun, I'm looking to you as the board's gay Christian to help me out.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:26

Quote:

Lev. 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:26

I am interested in hearing the counterarguments for this as well, since to me the passage seems pretty cut and dry.

monkspider · February 10, 2004, 22:28

The counterarguements have already been made many times. I'm too tired to post them.

Ben Kenobi · February 10, 2004, 22:28

Jaguar Warrior:

I can help, but it depends on what type of case you are trying to make.

What are your foes saying about Lev 20:13

What exactly do you want to say?

DRoseDARs · February 10, 2004, 22:29

MS, post them. That's the point of this thread: JW needs them to counter the homophobes in the class.

The Templar · February 10, 2004, 22:31

Yeah, how about we don't put to death people who curse their parents anymore (20:9), we don't execute men who sleep with their father's wife anymore (20:11) - we put them on Jerry Springer, we don't stone fortune tellers to death (20:27), we don't exile people for haveing sex during menstration (20:18), and so on and so on ...

In fact, any of those penalties would be considered immoral today. Leviticus is an ancient legal code - and should be treated as such ... it has no relevance today except to blockheads who read the Bible as the literal word o' God.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:34

The main argument would be that the Law of Moses(under which the Israelites lived) was fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah.

However, it could be argued that homosexuality was still forbidden in the New Testament.

EDIT: Also, not all things mentioned in the Old Testament suddenly became 'obsolete', for lack of a better word, with the coming of Christ, such as the Ten Commandments.

The Templar · February 10, 2004, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
I am interested in hearing the counterarguments for this as well, since to me the passage seems pretty cut and dry.

So does 15:14. When is the last time you offered up turtledoves as a holocaust?

The Templar · February 10, 2004, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
The main argument would be that the Law of Moses(under which the Israelites lived) was fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah.

However, it could be argued that homosexuality was still forbidden in the New Testament.

Well, argue it then. Anything at all could be argued ...
If the Messiah fulfills the law, then homosexuality is fine.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

So does 15:14. When is the last time you offered up turtledoves as a holocaust?

See above.

Ben Kenobi · February 10, 2004, 22:38

Quote:

Also, not all things mentioned in the Old Testament suddenly became 'obsolete', for lack of a better word, with the coming of Christ, such as the Ten Commandments.

Why not use the words of Christ? He has come to fulfill the law. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New.

The Templar · February 10, 2004, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
EDIT: Also, not all things mentioned in the Old Testament suddenly became 'obsolete', for lack of a better word, with the coming of Christ, such as the Ten Commandments.

What's the decision procedure for determining which is which - or is it all just ad hoc?

MRT144 · February 10, 2004, 22:40

im so close to just wiping my ass with the bible and selling it as art

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:41

Romans 1:24-end of chapter or so.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Timothy 1:10

Jude 1:7

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why not use the words of Christ? He has come to fulfill the law. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New.

Yes, but not all things in the Old are necessarily discarded.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

What's the decision procedure for determining which is which - or is it all just ad hoc?

Well, leaving my own personal religion out of this so as to not spark an off-topic debate about varying religions, for one the NT gives specific examples about certain practices, although I cannot pull the verses off the top of my head.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 22:51

The answer is simply to apply every law that Leviticus states, mercilessly and to the letter.

If you aren't prepared to do that, throw the whole book away.

The Templar · February 10, 2004, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Romans 1:24-end of chapter or so.

While not an endorsement of homosexuality, the section is about Roman idolotry - the people were given over to their lust - i.e. made animal-like because they worshipped animal-like idols.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9

Bans sodomites from heaven. Great, so a blow job from a woman will exclude a Christian male from heaven. Again, not specific to homosexuality.

Quote:

Timothy 1:10

As above

Quote:

Jude 1:7

Condemns "promiscuity and unnatural vice" - vague and likely applies to straights as well.

And my best argument - these are all Paulist texts. Paul also condones slavery and creates a divine right of kings. Real moral guy that Paul.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 23:02

Well, as is the case with most debates concerning the Bible, it is all up to one's interpretations.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Well, as is the case with most debates concerning the Bible, it is all up to one's interpretations.

In practice this means choosing the bits they like and ignoring the bits that require them to actually make real sacrifices in God's name.

Dr Strangelove · February 10, 2004, 23:07

Oh dear, here we go again. If you read the whole of Romans you discover that Paul is trying to mend a rift between the gentiles and Jews in the Christian community of Rome. He's primarily addrerssing the Jews, trying to get them to come down from the high horse. He starts of fwith this diatribe against sexual acts universally loathed by the Jews, then points out that many common sins, like argumentativeness, pride and boasting are equally codemned by scripture. He then puts it to them that the pridefulness which seperates them from their gentile co-parishoners condemns them just as surely as if they were taking a role in the hay with the neighbor's boy.

With regards to the others, reading Genesis it appears that the folks of Sodom attempted to take the messengers of God out into the street and have their way with them, the angels. It would appear then that strictly speaking "sodomy" refers to a forcible act, even though it is commonly used to refer to anal intercourse in general.

Verto · February 10, 2004, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

In practice this means choosing the bits they like and ignoring the bits that require them to actually make real sacrifices in God's name.

I understand your point, and have also seen firsthand this happen. However, this is not always the case; some of us actually practice what we preach, or try our best to.

monkspider · February 10, 2004, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
MS, post them. That's the point of this thread: JW needs them to counter the homophobes in the class.

Sorry D-Rose, you can only argue something so many times before you realize you are just banging your head against the wall. This is one such subject.

Urban Ranger · February 10, 2004, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
The answer is simply to apply every law that Leviticus states, mercilessly and to the letter.

Not just Leviticus, but the whole book as well. Ask how many of them have sold their belongings and gave the proceedings to the poor.

MrBaggins · February 10, 2004, 23:23

Counterargument?

Its fiction. Period.

OzzyKP · February 10, 2004, 23:32

On the topic of the Old Testiment fufilled, I've wondered about that. Especially in light of this passage:

Quote:

Don't misunderstand why I have come--it isn't to cancel the laws of Moses and the warnings of the prophets. No, I came to fufill them, and to make them all come true. With all the earnestness I have I say: Every law in the Book will continue until its purpose is achieved. And so if anyone breaks the least commandment, and teaches others to, he shall be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Matthew 5:17-19

OzzyKP · February 10, 2004, 23:38

Also, I assumed from the Israeli flag that you were Jewish, JW. So would any New Testiment stuff help you? Or did I guess wrong.

loinburger · February 10, 2004, 23:39

Two problems with the passage (in addition to the usual problem that Leviticus is probably not being consistently applied by the homophobes in question) are that the passage does not address lesbianism, and also that it is generally impossible for one man to engage in vaginal intercourse with another man (thus making it unlikely that a man will ever lieth with mankind as with a woman). I suppose the passage could be interpreted to mean that it is an abomination for a man to have a sex change operation and to then lie with another man, though.

OzzyKP · February 10, 2004, 23:40

And may I say that my Bible really stinks now. I got a Koran, and it was heavily incensed, now my whole shelf of religious books smells like the Koran. From the Book of Mormon to this Krishna thing to the Bible. Muslims just took over my whole shelf.

My dictionary smells too.