Changes

Pro-homosexual revisionists labor to find ways of restricting the Levitical prohibitions against male homosex to the context of formal idolatry, rather than male and female homosex being a result of idolatry in general (Rm. 1:16-26), as illicit sex also can be, (1Cor. 10:7,8) while also striving to equate these general prohibitions to ceremonial laws, such as forbid eating such things as bacon,<ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref> though laws against illicit sexual partners are seen as confirmed as a class under both Old and New Testaments. Another recourse is to contend that these sexual prohibitions were based upon male dominance, which is held to be wrong and must be disallowed,<ref>E. Schussler, "Toward a Feminist Biblical Heremenutics: Biblical Interpretation and Liberation Theology, ref. by The Challenge of Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis 1981), p. 108</ref> rather than such being established and confirmed by God as historically transcendent. (1Cor. 11:3-12) Additionally, the condemnation of homosex is sometimes partly attributed to ignorance on the part of Biblical writers,<ref>Walter Wink, Homosexuality and the Bible http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf</ref><ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref><ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> thus denying their particular Divine inspiration. Another common polemic is to dismiss opposing scholarship as being due to [[homophobia]]<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>  

Pro-homosexual revisionists labor to find ways of restricting the Levitical prohibitions against male homosex to the context of formal idolatry, rather than male and female homosex being a result of idolatry in general (Rm. 1:16-26), as illicit sex also can be, (1Cor. 10:7,8) while also striving to equate these general prohibitions to ceremonial laws, such as forbid eating such things as bacon,<ref>Countrymen, Dirt, Greed and Sex, pp. 98-123</ref> though laws against illicit sexual partners are seen as confirmed as a class under both Old and New Testaments. Another recourse is to contend that these sexual prohibitions were based upon male dominance, which is held to be wrong and must be disallowed,<ref>E. Schussler, "Toward a Feminist Biblical Heremenutics: Biblical Interpretation and Liberation Theology, ref. by The Challenge of Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis 1981), p. 108</ref> rather than such being established and confirmed by God as historically transcendent. (1Cor. 11:3-12) Additionally, the condemnation of homosex is sometimes partly attributed to ignorance on the part of Biblical writers,<ref>Walter Wink, Homosexuality and the Bible http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf</ref><ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible_Wink.html</ref><ref>Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.</ref> thus denying their particular Divine inspiration. Another common polemic is to dismiss opposing scholarship as being due to [[homophobia]]<ref>Richard Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion</ref>  

In response, traditional scholars evidence that the injunctions against homosex are foundationally based upon the uniquely established sexual union of the man with the women, which alone is sanctioned by marriage.(Gn. 1:26,27; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:11,12;  Eph. 5:31) And that the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are not culturally bound, but instead are universal and transcendent, with homosexual relations being fundamentally contrary to God's design and decrees, with homosex being only condemned in wherever they are explicitly dealt with, (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27) and being just as universally applicable and immutable as those against illicit heterosexual partners.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow%3F+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA36,M1 Straight & Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=sodom+in+Mishnah&source=web&ots=ZjUCW3j8F9&sig=F5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA245,M1 Homosexuality  By James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Gordon J Wenham]</ref><ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR]</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges]</ref><ref>[http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/11-21.htm Duncan Heaster, Gay Christian Arguments Considered]</ref><ref>[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm Homosexuality and the Old Testament P. Michael Ukleja]</ref>  

In response, traditional scholars evidence that the injunctions against homosex are foundationally based upon the uniquely established sexual union of the man with the women, which alone is sanctioned by marriage.(Gn. 1:26,27; Mt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 11:11,12;  Eph. 5:31) And that the laws and principals concerning human sexual partners are not culturally bound, but instead are universal and transcendent, with homosexual relations being fundamentally contrary to God's design and decrees, with homosex being only condemned in wherever they are explicitly dealt with, (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27) and being just as universally applicable and immutable as those against illicit heterosexual partners.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Zeotd-ylKtwC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=quotes+Straight+and+Narrow%3F+Compassion+and+Clarity+in+the+Homosexuality+Debate&source=web&ots=WOXT85Pbxk&sig=8W9pkL8rcJ_7PS6oXbZ1QQBWCxQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA36,M1 Straight & Narrow? By Thomas E. Schmidt]</ref><ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon]</ref><ref>[http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/124/89/ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HOMOSEXUALITY, by Kevin L. Howard]</ref><ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=sodom+in+Mishnah&source=web&ots=ZjUCW3j8F9&sig=F5r2UCKKoWPAAbUnK3kYO-VdgVE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA245,M1 Homosexuality  By James B. De Young]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_attitude_wenham.html The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Gordon J Wenham]</ref><ref>[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html "That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR]</ref><ref>[http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology by Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges]</ref><ref>[http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/11-21.htm Duncan Heaster, Gay Christian Arguments Considered]</ref><ref>[http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm Homosexuality and the Old Testament P. Michael Ukleja]</ref>  

Premier pro-homosex polemicist D.S. Bailey confessed, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion,"<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality, p. 30</ref>  while his compatriot Robin Scroggs states, "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1,"<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> though he himself attempts to do so. Noted Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>  

Premier pro-homosex polemicist D.S. Bailey confessed, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion,"<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality, p. 30</ref>  while his compatriot Robin Scroggs states, "It might seem that only a series of verbal pyrotechnics could eliminate the seemingly obvious reference to homosexuality in Romans 1,"<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 14</ref> though he himself attempts to do so. Noted Bible scholar [[Greg Bahnsen]] stated, "God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other...they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion."<ref>Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 36.</ref> Calvin Smith objectively concludes, "the  weak revisionist exegetical arguments, together with far more convincing traditionalist rebuttals,  have  led me  to  affirm  the  traditional  view more firmly than ever.<ref>CONCLUDING REMARKS, Homosexuality Revisited in Light of the Current Climate</ref>