Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 144:
Line 144: − +
→Lev. 18:22 and 20:13: Male homosex: ref
Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class and ofte idividually. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.
Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws, which (they delight to point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now is the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld, as just as the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class and ofte idividually. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.
As part of extensive substantive documentation the prohibitions against homosex are immutable and universal, the most noted scholar on this subject, Robert A. H. Gagnon, provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.
As part of extensive substantive documentation evidencing that the prohibitions against homosex are immutable and universal,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm</ref> scholar Robert A. H. Gagnon,<ref>http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html</ref> provides seven reasons for their contemporary relevance of the Leviticus 18:22.
*Part of an interconnected Old Testament witness
*Part of an interconnected Old Testament witness