Damien the Leper Posted January 31, 2013 Author Posted January 31, 2013 Well, if how you described the view of homosexuals in the Jewish culture is correct, it seems plausible that the Jewish leaders could have believed that homosexual activity was part of the reason for the judgment against Sodom, no?No, I don't believe we can man an assumption about the text or that the text somehow implies something that is not in the text. If the prophets were against homosexuality, then they appear to have remained silent on the subject with the exception of Leviticus. But even Leviticus has to be read within the context of it being a Holiness Code.
go_utes01 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 No, I don't believe we can man an assumption about the text or that the text somehow implies something that is not in the text. If the prophets were against homosexuality, then they appear to have remained silent on the subject with the exception of Leviticus. But even Leviticus has to be read within the context of it being a Holiness Code.So, you don't believe that the prophets were against homosexual activity? Were they not a part of the society you explained above? Maybe it was so obviously wrong that they did not feel they needed to spell it out for the people. Unlike today, where many confuse good for evil and evil for good, and modern prophets are constrained to speak out on the practice more directly and forcefully. Just a thought. But, if the teaching is not in the text, I agree we should not force it in to fit our needs. The great thing about continuing revelation is we are not required to force what the OT or NT leaders revealed for their day to fit what we wish would have been taught for our day. We are free to teach what God is revealing for our day, while still learning from the lessons revealed in previous times. It's wonderful, isn't it? God is aware that different times/circumstances requires different revelation and teaching.
Damien the Leper Posted January 31, 2013 Author Posted January 31, 2013 So, you don't believe that the prophets were against homosexual activity? Were they not a part of the society you explained above? Maybe it was so obviously wrong that they did not feel they needed to spell it out for the people. Unlike today, where many confuse good for evil and evil for good, and modern prophets are constrained to speak out on the practice more directly and forcefully. Just a thought. But, if the teaching is not in the text, I agree we should not force it in to fit our needs. The great thing about continuing revelation is we are not required to force what the OT or NT leaders revealed for their day to fit what we wish would have been taught for our day. We are free to teach what God is revealing for our day, while still learning from the lessons revealed in previous times. It's wonderful, isn't it? God is aware that different times/circumstances requires different revelation and teaching.I don't know. I won't attempt to presume to know what they believed. Their silence cannot be seen as affirmation or otherwise. I am trying to deal 1) with what the actual text says and 2) what the cultural understandings and practices were.But I do have to also consider the fact that the text doesn't deal with very real and personal stories of individuals who do not identify with the negative characteristics portrayed in scripture.
rpn Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 The linquistic origin of the WORD "sodomy" would surely shed some light on this. If the sins were fornication or adultery, as opposed to acts where body parts are mismatched to their intended purpose, why is the current definition what it is?
Recommended Posts