quote:

---

John Earp

As Paul said, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May it never be!" And yes, that includes each and every biblically defined sin.

Iconoclast

Does that include such things as picking heads of grain on the Sabbath? Saying "thou fool" to your brother? A careless thought?

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

Why do we say it speaks clearly about homosexuality, when we have rejected what it says about women, slavery, property rights, food preparation, menstruation, semen, nakedness, sacrificial offerings, dietary restrictions, vengeance, crimes that deserve capitol punishment, stoning people to death for cursing their parents or committing adultery, clothing rules, hairstyle rules, sexist male hierarchy that views women as property, sexist views on adultery, sexist views on prostitution, sexist views on almost everything, and what exactly it means to keep the Sabbath?

---

As a result (or perhaps as a premise), there is no such thing as a "Christian sexual ethic" or a uniform biblical view of human sexuality. As a matter of fact, Greg has stated such on the previous threads regarding this topic.

But before we get too hasty in our acceptance of Winks view, there are some major flaws with Wink's hermeneutical practice. While I think that Wink should not be flawed for highlighting culturally located practices in the Bible, something that evangelicals should consider more seriously, Wink seems pretty sloppy by such an oversimplification of placing all of these within the same category or domain of human sexuality.

For example, one rule of hermenutical practice is that of "closely related issues." That is, a text may be cultural if "closely related issues" are also themselves culturally bound. This is very much like what happens in the legal world with circumstantial evidence. That is, we would need to examine related factors that impact a case. While these factors may not directly be incriminating or vindicating, as the circumstantial evidence adds up, it can play an important part in the final verdict.

Such is the case with Wink's hermeneutical practice as outlined by above. But here's the thing. And this needs to be emphasized. In doing this hermeneutic, we are not simply looking for some other related subject area. The related matter must be intrinsically linked or logically related to the issue at hand. For example take the issue of braided hair in the New Testament. While it falls under the broad category of women it is not directly related to the issue of patriarchy nor is it even an extension of partriarchy. An issue must flow directly into the or from another core issue.

Therefore, on this issue of sexuality, it is not logical to connect two different categories together under the broad category of human sexuality as though they are directly related to each other. So for i.e. though menstrual-intercourse is related to homosexuality in as much as they are a part of the sexual taboo domain, it would not be a sin because that particular law has been repealed. If we grant that intercourse during menstruation is not applicable today, does this mean that homosexuality is acceptable? No. Because:

A. The homosexuality prohibition is not tied to mere ceremonial impurity. This is shown through the death penalty that is invoked. Ceremonial washing doesn’t cut it in this case.
B. All ceremonial laws were repealed. The only ones that were not abandoned were those related to homosexual behavior. As a matter of fact, New Testament prohibitions appear to be directly derived from the holiness code, i.e. compare 1Cor 9:6-11 and 1 Tim 1:9-10 with Lev 20:13 and 18:22. Thus the early church did not interpret these Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual activity as a part of the ceremonial law to be left to a previous era.
C. No intrinsic or logical connection exists between the menstrual intercourse prohibition and homosexual prohibition.

Also the same argument used of the one above is used of semen-emission laws. As semen-emission was considered unclean perhaps homosexuality was considered a double uncleanness because it involved two males. If the semen-emission laws (I just thought about something…imagine having an actual law like this in today’s society? ) are no longer observed, then that would mean that the homosexual laws are no longer to be observed. Yet this argument fails because homosexuality laws are not a part of the ceremonial laws, as again, can be seen by the death penalty and the New Testament handling of homosexuality in contrast to its treatment of ceremonial law. Also, because there would be a double impurity perhaps there would also be a double length of impurity followed by ceremonial washing and not death. But one of the biggest drawbacks of this argument is that there is no inferential connection between semen-emission and homosexual prohibition. Semen emission was acceptable in marital relationships, since it only required ceremonial cleansing at the lowest level. However, there are other sexual taboo laws involved in the act of semen emission such as bestiality, adultery, and incest, but clearly viewed as defilement much beyond ceremonial uncleanness. Therefore, there is no necessary or causal connection between semen-emissions and homosexuality. This same hermeneutical principle applies to polygamy and concubinage.

Surely, any two texts within scripture can be grouped together using some kind of shared category between them. This should caution us against hasty conclusions in cultural analysis based on shared domains. Second, while polygamy and concubinage affirm that some biblical legislation in the sexual domain is culturally confined, this does not decide the case for homosexuality. All it really does is open the question as to whether homosexuality prohibitions are culturally located or not. What has to be found is a necessary connection between the two areas being cited.

A crucial concern in using this “closely related issues” criterion is that the various related issues be culturally confined themselves and have a close and substantive correlation to the issue at hand. When the connection is by means of a broad category it invites fallascious reasoning. I mean any two categories could be made to cover almost any two items under the sun. Putting everything under one broad category is one genus removed from or one genus broader than the actual issue at hand, “homosexuality.” At most what Wink and therefore Semeia show is that some features of biblical sexuality are cultural. Their case would be stronger if they demonstrated through the “closely related issues” criterion that certain components of a biblical development of “homosexuality” not just “sexuality” were cultural. Thus the “one-category-removed” approach makes the homosexual case extremely weak.


Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

quote:

---

The second half of the compound, koitai, is a coarse word, generally denoting base or licentious sexual activities see [Rom 13:13], and in this and other compounds corresponds to the vulgar English word f*cker, i.e., a person who, by insertion, takes the active role in intercourse.

---

.......1 Corinthian............................1 Timothy

KJV....abusers of themselves with mankind......them that defile
...............................................themselves with mankind
RSV....sexual perverts.........................sodomites
NIV....homosexual offenders....................perverts
NASB...homosexuals.............................homosexuals
NAB....sodomites...............................sexual perverts
NEB....those guilty of homosexual perversion...perverts
Moffat.sodomites...............................sodomites
Luther Knabenschaender (child abusers).........child abusers