Original image (shared by a friend with a comment about personal history growing up in an evangelical environment, and a current bisexual identity)
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1355750756588756&set=a.348964100600765
Note: This post contains my comments only, without the context of the original post or comments by others I was responding to. I have removed the names of any mentions.
My comment in response to the original poster's response to someone else:
First
of all, what the government is doing to these people is unjust and
wrong. Especially after having taken them in as asylum seekers because
of the threat on their life because of their LGBTQ+ identity, to reverse
that and seek to send them back, washing our hands of the consequences,
is a betrayal of our word as a nation and our hospitality. It's part of
a larger pattern of mistreatment of immigrants and vulnerable people
that this government, especially under Stephen Miller, has pursued.
We
absolutely are right and in line with God’s love to seek to rescue our
fellow human beings, and to welcome them into our society, even if we
believe that their practices and identity are not in line with God’s
calling for His people. A society which is built on the (very
Christian) principle that our own religious beliefs should not be
imposed on others who believe differently using the power of the state.
I
don’t think it’s fair to be dismissive of [commenter]’s “rhetoric”
regarding what the Bible says about how God views homosexuality and
transgenderism.
To
disagree with you about the moral standards that God has for people who
claim His name is not the same as to agree with the betrayal of such
people to their deaths. Similarly, refuting an inarticulately made
argument you were given growing up does not mean that the position it
was defending is incorrect. We all *do* have desires that would draw us
away from what God has given for human flourishing. We all *do*, make
choices about what we define as good and evil, and our choices shape our
future desires: our desires grow where they are watered, though
obviously we know that each of us has weeds in our garden that we do not
intentionally water, but still persist.
You
have concluded that “consensual adult relationships can look different
ways and be OK in God’s eyes”, yet you accuse others of refusing to
confront their cognitive dissonance. You say, “Love is love” as if it’s
a tautology, but what you mean is [sexual expression and relationship,
including expressions that the Bible says are abhorrent to God’s
character] is [a fulfillment of God’s ideal for humanity]. I’m sure
you’re familiar with the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20, where God
tells the Israelites not to engage in homosexuality or gender-fluid
cross-dressing (Deut 22) because such things are an “abomination to the
LORD your God”.
These
prohibitions are repeated in the New Testament in several places. In 1
Cor 6:9-20, to Christians who said “All things are lawful unto me”,
Paul counters with: “All things are not helpful”, and “I will not be
dominated by anything”. Christians who wanted to exercise sexual
“freedom” with their bodies said, “Food is meant for the stomach and the
stomach for food, and God will destroy them both”, but he counters,
“The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the
Lord for the body.” He points to the future resurrection of the body,
our body’s membership in Christ’s body, and the indwelling Holy Spirit
in our present bodies. “You are not your own, for you were bought with a
price. So glorify God in your body.”
You’re my friend and I love you. I don’t want to see you deceived or trapped in sin.
A follow-up comment responding to a different person who responded to my comment:
It
doesn’t sound to me like you take the Bible very seriously beyond
repeating what others have said about it that you like, but I will go
ahead and address your arguments anyway, in case someone who does care,
but doesn’t know much about the Bible, sees your comments and takes them
as accurate.
In the OT law, there are 3 categories of regulations: moral, ceremonial, and civil:
- Moral laws are universal prohibitions on human behavior that is considered wrong in any context: murder, theft, false witness, rape, adultery, etc.
- Ceremonial laws have to do with cleanliness/uncleanliness, worship, and cultural markers for Israelite society, e.g., sacrifices, dietary restrictions, circumcision, sabbath observance, etc.
- Civil laws have to do with the particulars of how Israelite society should be governed, e.g., how trials are conducted, sanctuary cities, how to conduct a divorce, etc.
You
assert that ALL of the Levitical law is in category 2, which is not the
case. Wearing clothes that are all of one material, and adding
tassels, etc. is ceremonial. Failing to do these things is never called
an “abomination”, and it is never required/expected/judged of
non-Israelites.
The
prohibition on cross-dressing is not culture-specific. It does not say
for Israelites that “women must wear X and men must wear Y.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 says that men and women must not to dress in the
garments of the opposite sex (whatever that entails), and it says that
“whoever” does these things is an “abomination” to the LORD. Clearly
what is meant is dressing with the intent to appear as a member of the
opposite sex or as seeking attraction from the same sex. Israelites
reading this would understand that even foreigners who did this were
under God’s judgement, even those who did so in non-Israelite contexts
with non-Israelite clothing customs.
Beyond
the Old Testament arguments, though, the New Testament clearly
re-iterates the prohibitions on cross-dressing and on homosexual
intercourse of both male-male and female-female varieties. Someone
further down on this thread mentioned a documentary that supposedly
debunked one of the words translated ‘homosexual’ in modern English
translations, but the argument given does not stand up to scrutiny.
ἀρσενοκοίτης is a contraction of the phrase from the Septuagint of
Leviticus 20:13 “ἄρσενος κοίτην”, meaning “with a man lie in bed” and is
best understood in the context of that verse. Besides which, there are
other Greek words and descriptions of homosexual sex in the New
Testament, all of which are forbidden to Christians.
You
say that Paul is against all sex, and I have heard others try to
characterize him that way as well, but the evidence we have in his New
Testament writings does not support that claim.
In
1 Corinthians 7 (the passage which immediately follows the one I
summarize in my comment above), Paul is *responding* to a question from
the Corinthians as to whether as they put it, “it is good for a man not
to have sexual relations with a woman” (v1), and he instead recommends
that each man have a wife and each woman have a husband (v 2), that
husbands and wives *not* deprive each other of conjugal rights, except
for limited times and by mutual consent (v3-5), and that it is up to
unmarried widows whether or not they should be remarried.
He
refrains from giving a rabbinical ruling applying to all about
celibacy, but instead gives his personal recommendation that those who
are able to live in celibacy are choosing something “good”, but it is,
again, NOT a commandment from God that all should do so.
In
Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul uses the marriage of a husband and wife, as
instituted by God in Genesis 2, as a typological picture of Christ with
the Church.
Does that *really* sound like a man who is against all sex?
No comments:
Post a Comment