From: Charles Carrigan (cwcarrig@umich.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 11:33:15 EDT
Burgy et al.,
Comments below regarding this particular section of your post. I apologize
to those who are tired of this thread, but this is, in my opinion, worthy
of comment.
At 04:44 PM 8/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
>detestable.
>
>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.
>
>The word "detestable" means "taboo." The injunction was apparently put in
>place to encourage the ancient Hebrews to multiply as fast as possible
>and to distinguish them from the pagans around them.
>
>Now if you decide, as some have, that these verses necessarily are
>operative today, to be consistent you must do two things. (1) You must
>lobby for the death penalty to be applied in every known case of
>homosexual behavior and (2) you must, yourself, be prepared to obey the
>many other Leviticus laws. This includes, among other things, a husband
>must not touch his wife, even to give her a kiss or a hug, for two weeks
>after childbirth. Public stoning of one's rebellious teenager is also one
>of the Levitical injunctions. There are a bunch of these. Most
>Christians, however, see them as superceded long ago. See Acts 15:20 and
>29.
If we follow the logic you present here, it would appear that we have to
throw out the entire book of Leviticus. The question really is whether the
Levitical condemnations of homosexuality can be equated with things like
"don't wear make-up", "don't eat pork", "don't wear ear-rings", etc., that
is, are they of cultural importance only, or rather should they be equated
with the set of moral laws that should be embraced by all cultures for all
time. It is not, as you seem to suggest here, a question of all or nothing.
I think the answer to this predicament is obvious when the verse you
mentioned from chapter 18 is placed in context; I'll paraphrase this
chapter here:
Don't have sex with your sister.
Don't have sex with your mother.
Don't have sex with your father's wife.
Don't have sex with your Aunt.
Don't have sex with both a mother and her daughter.
Don't have sex with animals.
Don't have sex with another man.
Were all of these verses here "superceded long ago"? There are no verses
here about earrings or make-up or tatoos or eating pork. What is there
about this passage of scripture that should make us think we can pick out
sex with another man as morally allowable, but not sex with an animal or a
one's sibling/family member?
One final note: Merriam-Webster online (www.m-w.com) does not appear to
regard "detestable" and "taboo" as synonyms.
Peace,
Charles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 11:32:42 EDT