Does the Bible condemn homosexual activity? -- calebnostro vs. seebs

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between calebnostro and seebs who will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: The bible clearly condemns all homosexual activity.

calebnostro will affirm and seebs will oppose. The debate will tentatively have 5 rounds and calebnostro will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2859567&postcount=25).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142941) is set up in the Biblical History & Criticisms forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

May we have a stimulating debate from both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[calebnostro]

I am Calebnostro. I am here to debate with Seebs whether or not the Bible condemns all homosexual activity. I come in the spirit of mutual understanding that what is presented here is a search for the truth, from the scriptures, nothing else. I encourage everyone who watches this debate to consider all evidence carefully, to think about what is being stated and do not hold to any pre-concieved notions concerning the nature of either myself, or my opponent. This is a debate to ascertain the truth of the Bible and me and my opponent have fully agreed that this is a search for the truth and therefore, leaves no room for anything less.

For this discussion, I have several sources that I will be using and quoting from and they are as follows; The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon and Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. These sources are scholarly and they have stood the test of many, many years and are extremely accurate and extremely credible. These are my sources and they will be used to identify the true meaning of certain Hebrew and Greek words in specific passages to help ascertain the meaning of the passage itself. Remember - the English translation is not the inspired text of the Bible. The BIble was translated "into" English from the Hebrew and Greek of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testaments. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to the roots in order to find the truth of scripture.

When I quote from these sources, I will give the page number and the number referrenced from these books. In addition, I wish to bring to your attention that these books are not composed of the opinions of what people "think". They are not commentaries. Nothing here is a flighty-fanciful attempt to deceive the audience into believing in the wishes of my arguement. These are used because they are factual and I would not do you justice if I didnt use something credible. The Bible is not for my personal interpretation, nor anyone elses. It contradicts the notion of it being divinely inspired by a Creator. I firmly believe that the Bible is the Word of God. However, I also believe in being objective and to the point. Therefore, what I will show you is not my own words. I am not the expert when it pertains to the Hebrew and the Greek. These sources were compiled and produced by the experts "themselves". They made these works, this information possible and I use their work as my evidence; nothing more and nothing less.

This is scholarly evidence and is valid. I do not quote from commentary, nor from people who "think" something is because "they" think it is. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and therefore, these books are "essential" to understand and study the scriptures. Thus, I use these essentials to argue my position.

It should be stated that I will be using the KJV as these scholarly sources use this particular translation.

My argument begins with passages contained within the Book of Leviticus. The first is Leviticus 18:22 and for the sake of the people reading this and myself and Seebs, I will quote this passage and all other passages directly.

Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

The first thing that I must ask you to consider is the context of this passage. Note, that according to verse 5, these are the statutes and judgments of God. In addition note as well that all of those statutes mentioned from verse 5 all the way to verse 20 contain laws that apply specifically to a sexual context. All are about something relating to sex or sexual activity. No one that is next of kin is to approach one another to uncover their nakedness - sexual reference and context.

Another reason as to why I said this is to point out that verse 5-20 are grouped within a single category - family relations. All of them deal with how a man/woman is to treat their immediate kin. Therefore, we have statutes being grouped together dealing with specific things in a specific category. This is also supported by Leviticus 18:21, which, by itself, has no indication that this was done in a sexual context.

Leviticus 18:21: And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the first to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

There is nothing within the Hebrew of this particular verse alone that has anything to do with sexual relations. However, what is clearly referrenced is human sacrifice by fire to a pagan God. In addition, it would be prudent to note that because of this, this is a seperate activity than those mentioned in verse 5-20. Sacrificing your child to a pagan God has nothing to do with sex. That much is clear, thus, the logical conclusion is that this verse is not within a sexual context, but pertains to something different than verse 5-20 and therefore, the following passage, which is verse 22, is classified within a different catagory, which is different than immediate family relations and human sacrifice and is even different than that described in verse 23.

Leviticus 18:23: Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Let us address Leviticus 18:22 first. When concerning Leviticus 18:22, with the English alone, it leads one to believe that you shall not lie with man as you would a woman, therefore, men on men - homosexuality. Yet, it is expected that my opponent will usher in regards of mistranslations according to the meaning of these words and/or the grammatical usage of this passage. Therefore, I quote from my sources.

1. - According to The Strongest Strong's Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word for "lie" in this passage is the Hebrew word "shakab" and it means to lie down, rest; sleep with; (as a euphemism of sexual intercourse). - pg 1573, #7901

2. - According to The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this Hebrew word "shakab" means to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease or any other purpose). When a physical "lying down" is not necessarly in view, the word is used of having sexual relations: "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death" (Ex 22:19). The word is also used of homosexual activities (Lev 18:22). Pgs 847-848. #7901.

3. - According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, this Hebrew word "shakab" means to lie down, lie, have sexual intercourse with. Pg 135. #7901.

4. - According to Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, the Hebrew word "shakab" means to lie, to lie down, to lay one's self down, of those going to sleep, to lay onseself down to sleep, used of those who are sick, of those who are dying(to lay one's self down, used of those who lie with a woman, to be lain with, ravished (used of a woman). pg 820-821

All of these sources point out that the word "lie", which is the Hebrew word "shakab" mean to lie down, for whatever purpose, whether for rest, for someone dying, to sexual relations. However, there is nothing from this passage alone that could conclusively prove that this word "shakab" should mean that it would be for sexual relations. That would be conjecture and personal opinion. Yet, it is interesting to note what the #2 stated - Leviticus 18:22 used of homosexual activities. Thus, more evidence is needed to truly show Leviticus 18:22 as referring specifically to homosexuality, regardless of the implications of the grammatical structure and/or the Hebrew. Thus, Leviticus 20:13 is next.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

This passage is extremely similar to Leviticus 18:22, as you no doubt can plainly see. What you should note, however, is the actual immediate verses prior to this one. They do, in fact, conclusively, deal with sexual matters and so do the verses afterward. This is the evidence that shows that Leviticus 18:22 is speaking in a sexual context, that the Hebrew word "shakab" actually is referring in a sexual context when pertaining to Leviticus 18:22 and not merely resting or dying. Note, as well, that the same Hebrew word "shakab" is used in this particular passage as it is used in Leviticus 18:22.

What I must address next is the word "confusion" in Leviticus 18:23.

1. According to the Strongest Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for "confusion" is "tebel" and it means perversion, abominable confusion. page 1580, #8397

2. According to The Strong's New Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this Hebrew word means mixture, unnatural beastiality. page 880, #8397

3. According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this Hebrew word means pollution, profanation. Gesenius also goes on to state that this word is found in Leviticus 18:23, after the law against "sodomy". page 855-856, #8397

According to these sources, the word "confusion", "tebel", can mean either perversion, abominable confusion, mixture, unnatural beastialy, pollution and profanation. However, what I find most interesting is that Gesenius' Lexicon states that this verse comes after the law against "sodomy", which is Leviticus 18:22. I find this highly intriguing. Do keep this in mind.

I fully suspect that my opponent might also bring up another matter, of which I have heard before, that those stated in this particular passage and Leviticus 18:22 speak not of regular every day people, but of specific people devoted or consecrated to pagan gods and in fact were temple priests/priestess' that practiced such a thing. Therefore, it wouldnt apply to anyone else. I must state that this is wrong and to show this, I point you to another passage.

Deuteronomy 23:17: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

This passage, my friends, is what speaks directly of such a thing. It is the word "sodomite"

1. According to the Strongest Strong's Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word for "sodomite' is "qadesh" and it means a shrine prostitute. page - 1560, #6945

2. According to the New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this Hebrew word means a sacred person, i.e (tech) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry. page 780, #6945

3. According to Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, this Hebrew word means consencrated to Astarte or Venus, and prostituting himself in her honour. page 725, #6945

I state this as evidence against this popular "opinion" that Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 speak of consecrated pagans only. Quite to the contrary, there is a seperate Hebrew word for those who do such things and its a completely different word - "qadesh" - than the ones used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - "shakab". The meanings are different and this statute, Deuteronomy 23:17 is completely seperate and different than what I have been presenting to you. I must remind the audience that "sodomite" is the English translation of the Hebrew "qadesh" and according to these sources, it doesnt state that they were "sodomites", but only shrine devotees, people consecrated to pagan Gods. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.

So what do we have so far?

1. Leviticus 18 is broken into sections that contain laws against specific things and verse 5-20, 21, 22 and 23 deal with specific things but cannot be considered all related specifically as a single contexual group. Verses 5-20 deal with sexual relations between immediate family members, verse 21 deals with human sacrifice to a pagan god, Molech, by fire and verse 23 deals with beastiality. Verse 22, according to the New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, states that this particular verse deals with homosexual relations. However, more evidence is need to show this to be so because this hardly seems enough.

2. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 speak of the exact same practice, whatever that is so far. In actuality, it has not actually been completely determined that what these passages are being referred to is within a sexual context, for the Hebrew "to lie" means either to rest, to lay down to die or for sexual relations. Do not worry, this will be explained shortly.

3. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 definately have nothing to do with being shrine devotees or prostitutes consecrated to pagan gods which perform sexual acts in honor of those same Gods. The evidence for this is what was shown concerning the english word "sodomite" in Deuteronomy 23:17 as being the Hebrew word "qadesh" and not "shakab", which are completely different and have nothing to do with each other.

Before "sodomy" can be explained, I wish to speak of passages within the New Testament as it is also my contention that the New Testament does not contradict the Law and the Prophets, but in fact supports and is based upon the Law and the Prophets as stated by the evidence of Jeremiah 31:31-33 as well as the fact that the only Bible that the writers of the New Testament had was, in fact, The Law and the Prophets (Old Testament).

1 Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

There will be several things that I shall bring to your attention because of this passage, all of them relevant. Therefore, lets start with the first. It is the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind". This phrase is surmized in a single Greek word - "arsenokoites". I quote from my sources again;

1. According to The Strongest Strong's Concordance of The Bible, the Greek word "arsenokiotes" means one engaging in homosexual acts (likely reffering to the male partner), sexual deviant. - page 1595, #733

2. According to the New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of BIble Words, this Greek word means a sodomite: - abuser of (one's) self with mankind. This word means one who lies with a male as with a female; he is a sodomite, a homosexual. - page 989, #733

3. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, this Greek word means one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite. page - 75, #733

The sources that I have here state specifically that this Greek word "arsenokoites" refers directly to homosexual acts, nothing more and nothing less. However, two of these sources stated the word "sodomite". This will no doubt bring some rebuttal from my opponent. However, remember that the word "sodomite" is the English translation and is only stated once and that is Deuteronomy 23:17. However, what do the sources mean when they state "a sodomite"? Well, what does the Bible mean when you state an "ite" after a word? Naturally it means a group of people from a specific person or a place. An example would include "Canaanites" as stated by Genesis 10:19. Another example would be the term "Israelites" from Jacob who was named Israel, therefore, the Israelites being the children of Israel. If you will research the chronology of the Bible, you will not find a single person mentioned to be named Sodom - only a city. Therefore, in this context, Sodomites refer to those that resided within that city; Sodomites.

The evidence that I would show you concerning "sodomites" resides within Genesis 19:4. Men of Sodom, Sodomites. Note what happens within this passsage.

Genesis 19:4-8: (4) But before they lay down, the men of the ciy, the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. (5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (6) And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, (7) And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly (8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have no known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, an do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing, for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Note the word "know" in verse 5. That is the key to this entire passage. It is the Hebrew word "yada" and all sources that I have state that this word means "to know" in a great variety of ways. It couuld mean to know by sight, it can also mean "to know" sexually and I contend that that is the intended definition. The evidence is verse 8.

Lots offers to bring out his two daughters that have not "known" man. Obviously, being a human being means that you know that men exist, that they are part of mankind. Therefore, what is the obvious and logical conclusion? It is that this is speaking in a sexual context. They were virgins and have never known man, but, as stated in verse 5, the "men", the Men of Sodom, Sodomites, wanted "to know" the men and not the women as shown by their rejection of Lot's offer in verse 9. Therefore, a sodomite, in the case of the Bible interpreting itself, means those who wish to engage in homosexual activity as these men, which resided within Sodom, Sodomites, wished to do with the men that came to Lot's House.

The second point of referrence that I wish to make in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the usage of the word "unrighteous". It is the Greek word "adikos". I quote from my sources;

1. According to The Strongest Strong's Concordance of the Bible, this Greek word means unjust, unrighteous, used of things and persons. page 1588, #94

2. According to The Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this Greek word means unjust, by extention wicked, by implication treacherous; specifically heathen. Page 915. #94

3. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, this Greek word means - descriptively of one how violates or has violated justice, of one sho deals fraudulently with others, unjust, of one who breaks God's Laws, unrighteous, sinful. page 75. #94

All of these sources mention the word "unjust". If unrightouesness means to be unjust, then what is "just"? Therefore, let the Bible interpret itself and take a look at Romans 7:12; The Law is holy, just and good. That is a perfect explanation - the Law. Two of these sources mentioned the word "unrightoues", while one in particular stated "unjust" to be the violation of God's Laws. Well, first, what is "righteousness" according to the Bible?

Psalms 119:171-172: (171) My lips shall utter praise, when thou hast tuaght me thy statutes. (172) My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.

Ah. God's Commandments and Statutes are rightouesness. This is an affirmative of Isaiah 8:20 as well, which in turn, supports Romans 7:12. Remember as well, when I showed Leviticus that these were the statutes of God, therefore, the commandments and therefore, the law. Thus, righteousness, by the Bible interpreting itself, is God's Laws.

Therefore, in context, when Paul states the word "unrighteous", he speaks of those violating God's Law and the "abusers of themselves with mankind" is nothing short than a direct quotation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Thus, the New Testament, is based upon the Law and the Prophets, which is evident of the fact that the only Bible that they had back during the time of the disciples and Apostles was the Law and the Prophets, which is also evident of what is stated in Jeremiah 31:31-33. Therefore, Paul quotes from God's Law and God's Law specifically condemns homosexual activity as comfirmed by my sources and the Bible's own interpretation, not mine.

Even more so, 1 Timothy 1:10 uses the same Greek word "arsenokoites" for "them that defile themselves with mankind" and what I pointed out about "abusers of themselves with mankind" in 1 Corinthians 6:9. However, instead of the word "unrighteous", verse 9 uses "the Law". Thus, contextually, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 speak of the same thing.

I would also like to state that there are only two passages within the entirety of the Law and the Prophets that could ever possibly state directly and/or deal with homosexuality. Those passages are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. So, think of this now, as I have shown you, the definition of "righteousness", conclusively stated, is God's Commandments and Statutes as presented by Psalms 119:171-172, which is supported by Isaiah 8:20 and Romans 7:12. Thus righteousness = law, therefore Lawlessness = unrighteousness. Paul spoke of Lawlessness in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and "arsenokoites" deals specifically with homosexual activity and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only possible scriptures that this can talk about. As I have shown, Dueteronomy 23:17 deals with licentious idolatry, not Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 - therefore that argument falls flat on its face. So, what could possibly be the conclusion; The only conclusion is that Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 must be dealing on a homosexuality basis for everyday behavioral activities. If not, then the Bible is contradictory and therefore, a lie. Thus, I contend that it is as I have shown it to be. Else, my arguement fails and is futile.

Continuing on, Lot said in Genesis 19:7 for the men not do so "wickedly". Establishing what the Hebrew word is for "wicked" will show you, the audience, what the Bible states concerning the actions of these men that Lot was talking to.

1. According to The Strongest Strong's Concordance of the Bible the Hebrew word for "wickedly is "ra'a", and it means to be distressed, be displeased; (by extention) to be bad, be evil; to break, shatter; to suffer harm; to do wickedness; bring trouble, mistreat; this refers to what is displeasing from a personal perspective; what is displeasing to God is ethically evil. page 1568, #7489

2. According to The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this Hebrew word means to spoil (literally by breaing to pieces); figuratively to make or be good for nothing, i.e bad (physically, socially or morally). Page 822, #7489

3. According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this Hebrew word means to make a loud noice, to break in pieces, to be evil ( from the idea of raging, being tumultuous, which is referred to an evil disposition, to be noxious, hurtful, of the eye, to be envious, of the face, to be sad. To make evil, to do evil, to do ill, to act wickedly, to live wickedly, to do evil to anyone. Page 775, #7489

Generally speaking, we have several definitions from all these sources, which essentially state the same thing; to do evil, wickedness, to spoil as in breaking, whatever. Apply each and every one of these to Genesis 19:4-9 and you will not be able to apply any of these except to be evil or wicked. The reason as to this is because Lot referred to what they wanted Lot to do, which was to bring those men out so that they may "know" them, which in turn, can only be sexual as stated by their refusal to let Lot's daughters "know" the men and the men "know" the daughters. It obviously evil, wickedly, just as the translation states it to be. It is the only one, objectively, that fits. They were not violent, they werent going to break the house down or spoil it, they wanted to "know", sexually, the men that were in Lots house. Therefore, as I stated concerning the words of Paul, this Hebrew word "ra'a" is essentially the same as the Greek word "adikos". It means wickedness, evil - the opposite of good and righteousness.

Even more so; if we take into account Genesis 18:20-33, the context of Genesis 19, we have even more evidence to show that what I have just stated to be accurate. It is Abraham speaking with the Lord concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sin. Abraham uses the word "righteous" in verse 23. This word is the key.

1. According to The Strongest Strong's, the word "righteous" is the Hebrew word "tssadiyq" and it means righteous, upright, just, innocent; in accordance with God's standard, and so implying innocence. Page 1557, #6662

2. According to The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary, the word means just, righteous. Page 761, #6662

3. According to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, the word means just, righteous, used of a judge or king, who maintains the right and dispenses justice; hence used very often of God as being a just judge. One who has a just cause. Of a private person; just towards other men, obediant to the laws of Gods; hence upright, honest virtuous, pious. page 701-702, #6662

Two sources state righteous, just; 1-2, and #2 states in accordance with God's standard. However, #3 states that of the private person, you or me, "righteous" means "obediance to the laws of God. If you are skeptical of source #3 of being the right one, do not forget what I showed you according to Psalms 119:171-172 and Isaiah 8:20 and Romans 7:12 and Jeremiah 31:33. All of the evidence and no matter which source you so choose to go with all point towards one thing - God's Law. All leads back to God's Law and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 would be the only thing that could cover that actions of the men of Sodom of being wrong, sinful and/or wicked.

Thus, we have the context of Genesis 19 and according to the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their "wicked" acts, yet, Lot and them were saved. In Genesis 18, Abraham pleads that there would be some "righteous" people living in Sodom and if God destroyed it, He would be killing the lawful, the just and that would have been Lot. Lot was saved - this is conclusive proof that Lot was obeying God's Law, observing Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as those are the only two possible statutes that could apply to that situation and the other evidence I showed of the actions of the Sodomites, Men of Sodom, prove this to be true as well.

Conclusion?

1. The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, as stated by my sources, is someone who engages in homosexual activity. Two sources state the word "sodomite".

2. Because of the fact that the sources use the word "sodomite", the evidence of the activity of the men of sodom, in Genesis 19, is completely and very much relevant to the notion on whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual activity.

3. As presented, the men of sodom, in Genesis 19, wished to engage in sexual activity with the men residing within Lot's house, which is completly shown to be truth by their refusal to get to "know" the daughters, which in turn had never "known" men.

4. Paul himself stated, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, that the "unrightoues" shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Therefore, the definition of that word and its opposite is very relevant as well. As shown, to be un-righteous, is to break or violate God's Law as "righteousness" and the aspect of being "just" is keeping God's Law as stated by the evidence of Romans 7:12 and Psalms 119: 171-172 which state conclusively that the law is Holy, Just and Good and God's commandments and statutes are "righteousness", which is the opposite of "un-righteous", which is the opposite of "unjust". Therefore, Paul states that the lawless shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, which points directly back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which are, by statement of Leviticus 18:4-5, statutes of God - God's Law. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 supports this.

5, The evidence of Lot reffering to the actions that the men of sodom wished to do as being "wicked" is nothing short of an affirmation and support of #4.

6. The contexual evidence of Genesis 19, Genesis 18, of Abraham speaking of the righteous, the just, the lawful, only re-affirms and supports #4-5

7. None of the evidence stated and nothing else within the Bible can prove that that which is stated in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 refers to licentious idolatry, that is, people consecrated to pagan Gods, which, in order to honor them, perform homosexual activity. The proof to this is Deuteronomy 23:17 and what my scholarly sources state the definition of the word "sodomite" to be, which shows that this statute has nothing to do with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, but is, in fact, a law in and of itself that specifically condemns any and all such activity, which is only performed by consecrated shrine devotees.

8. The evidence of Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Isaiah 8:20 show that in the New Covenant, God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments are still applicable and because of the definition of Psalms 119:171-172 and Romans 7:12 and Paul's usage of the word "unrighteous", the statutes of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are still applicable today.

9. By combining #1-8, as well as Isaiah 42:21, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 clearly refer to homosexual activity as these are the only statutes residing within the Law and the Prophets that could possible attain to what has been contended thus far as shown by the definitions of the Hebrew word "shakab" which can, in fact, refer to sexual relations.

Therefore, I contend that the Bible does indeed strongly and completely, in all sense of the word, "condemn" homosexual activity.

[seebs]

I am inclined in general to grant the use of Strong's and Thayer's, but it's important to be careful in how we apply them. The knowledge that a given word has been translated a given way does not prove the translation correct. It is important to be very careful with terminology; for instance, the Bible is never once called the Word of God in the Bible, because the Word is a term of art referring only to the third Person of the Trinity. The Word is God; the Bible is not.

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 1, Verse 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is specifically Jesus:

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 1, Verse 14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And yes, even the longer name Word of God still applies to the person:

The Revelation of St. John the Divine, Chapter 19, Verse 13

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

So, as you can see, care in usage is very important. The fairly small distinction between a lowercase 'w' and a capital 'W' marks the boundary between orthodoxy and formal heresy. That we find something in print in commentaries or whatever doesn't always make it so.

In understanding what the Bible tells us on an issue, we must consider ,at least, three questions. The simplest is simply what words were used; through the non-miracle of translation, we may find that the words used are not the words we are used to hearing, and the familiar readings are wrong. Secondly, we must understand what the author is saying; some of the Biblical writers were fond of rhetorical devices, and it is important to understand their meaning, not only the words they used to convey it. Another aspect of this is understanding the context and the audience; when an author refers to an experience his audience would have had, we must know about the experience to understand the reference. Finally, we must understand the relevance to our own lives as Christians. Paul establishes clearly a theology in which we may not be obliged to follow all 613 laws of the Old Testament. Jesus directly rejects the notion that adherence to the law trumps all other considerations.

I will begin with a discussion of specific passages, in textual order where possible, then continue into a more general discussion of the issue of whether the laws of the Hebrews can be taken as moral strictures in all cases.

First, we look at Genesis 19. Quite simply, Genesis 19 never had anything to do with homosexuality. The Orthodox Jews, who have frowned on same-sex relations for millennia, do not think this passage has anything to do with such relations. Quite simply, it makes no sense; if this alleged mob of gay men wants gay sex, there is no barrier to them having it. The only way the story makes sense would be if what they want is something other than just "gay sex", such as "raping strangers". This is a cultural practice known at the time, about which other stories have been written; for instance, it fits with the similar tale in Judges 19. If we are to declare, based on Genesis 19, that same-sex activity is specifically condemned, we can only do so by claiming that, had a group of people planned to commit opposite-sex gang-rape of angels, God would have found nothing blameworthy here. If you read the story as though gay sex is entirely acceptable to God, it still makes perfectly good sense; there is no basis fqr an inference that gay sex is the problem.

Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jesus all refer back to Sodom. Ezekiel's references are perhaps the most interesting:

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapter 16, Verses 49-52

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done. Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.

This, I think, is the most unambiguous. The single reference to "abomination" does not get you anywhere near a specific condemnation of gay sex, when the Pentateuch is chock full of abominations. The condemnation is primarily focused on pride and lack of charity. In fact, we see that the Hebrews, who were rigorously following the text of the law (and thus, presumably, avoiding all the various prohibited sex practices) were nonetheless much less "righteous" in God's eyes than the people of Samaria, who ignored the law, but may have been more charitable.

Jesus speaks also of Sodom:

The Gospel According to St. Mark, Chapter 6, Verse 11

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Once again, we see the context as one of hospitality and pride, not of sexual activity. The Sodom story was not about sex medieval scholars came to it. The story is simply not about homosexuality, and applies much more closely to modern America's "me-first" attitudes than to anything gay people do. The story's relevance to this debate is only in what it shows us about the presumptions some translators have brought to the table.

Which, I suppose, brings us to the word qadesh. This word is translated as "sodomite" once, but is also translated in many places as "the unclean". This word shows up, and once it shows up they can't use it enough... But so far as I can tell, the word was never used in Leviticus. Now, you might conclude that this is because they never had occasion. I would argue that it is instead because the word came into usage later than the writing of Leviticus. Instead of looking for this word, we should look for descriptions which match it.

This brings us to Leviticus 18 and 20. What are they about? Are they about the same thing, or are they about different things? If they are about the same thing, it seems repetitive. If they are about different things, then at most one of them can be about gay sex.

Leviticus 18 begins with a description of context. This context appears to describe every practice we see for several chapters.

The Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verses 1-3

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

In every case in Leviticus 18 (and on at least through 20), we find that practices being condemned are specific practices, most often religious ones, of other people in the area. The incest condemnations, while sound genetic advice, are also a fair match for the practices by which Egyptian royal families lived. This is reaffirmed again later in Leviticus 18:

The Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus, Chapter 18, Verses 24-30

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, anf that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

Of particular interest in both Leviticus verses is the word for "mankind". This word (Strong's 2145, in both verses) is interesting in that it is not the word for adult men; it is often used to refer to children, and is contrasted in 20:13 with a word for adult males. Why is this? Perhaps it has to do with many of the qadesh being underage. Perhaps, as many believe, it was about pederasty all along.

We then have the counterargument that, if the intent had been to condemn the qadesh, the word would have been used. But did it exist? Hebrew, like any language, changes over time. Do we have examples of that word being used when Leviticus was written, or do we not see it until later? There is an interesting parallel to note between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which is that condemnations in Leviticus often reappear in Deuteronomy. However, unless these verses condemn the qadesh, this Leviticus 20 condemnation is unusual; it calls for the death penalty, but is not reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. Instead, we find descriptions of the practice of using the qadesh. This practice is affirmed as unacceptable... But where's the original? It must be in Leviticus somewhere; what's condemned in Leviticus that sounds similar?

It is also important to note that the word translated as "abomination" had, at the time of Leviticus, a meaning closer to "ritually unclean" than to the tone of moral outrage implied by the English term. Eating shrimp, or eating with gentiles, was abomination.

The Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus, Chapter 11, Verse 41

And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Are we to infer that caterpillars are gravely immoral? I don't think so.

As the topic of this debate is homosexual sex, not just gay male sex, we should note that neither of these verses could possibly be taken as applying to women. In fact, the only passage which could possibly apply to lesbians is the famous Romans 1 prooftext, which brings us into the New Testament.

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 22-27

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

A few things are interesting here. The first is that verse 23 suggests strongly a context of idolatrous worship. The second is that we never actually see anything about women boffing other women; in fact, a much simpler reading would be that both women and men were participating in anal sex. What's hard to find out here is what exactly is being condemned; this passage rather rambles all over the place, and the passing reference to sex may or may not have any general applicability. This passage makes a poor basis for condemnation in general; it sounds more like a description of competing practices (there was, after all, a temple to Aphrodite/Venus in Rome) than anything else. Of particular import is the danger of putting too much weight on "against nature" here. Paul refers to "against nature" again:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 11, Verse 24

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

I think that, as a gentile Christian, I will refrain from complaining about God's decision to act "contrary to nature" in this respect.

We come now to 1 Corinthians 6:9, and the mystery word arsenokoites. What does this word mean? Frankly, we just don't know. We have many translations of it, but very few period uses. At least one of them appears to refer to heterosexuals. The connection to Leviticus 18:22 is a weak one, but it may have been an intended reference. Period sources are more likely to associate it with prostitution or child molestation. One thing is clear, though; the term is definitely exclusively male: it may refer to gay males, but it does not refer to lesbians.

Studies of period usages don't help us very much; there are very few instances of the word, and most of them are simply stuck in lists of vices, without additional clarification.

The translation of this word in some contexts as "sodomites" highlights a problem we face. By the time that the English language was starting to come into existence, cult prostitution was a forgotten memory. Medieval writers did not have access to modern archeology and communications, and generally didn't have access to huge libraries of historical texts or discussions of the cultures whose writings they were translating. In short, they had condemnations of some behavior, and no way of knowing what it was; that they erred can be shown by their misappropriation of the Sodom story as a sexual story, when it had been nothing of the sort previously.

The entire pattern suggests a consistent misunderstanding of exactly the sort we would expect if the Bible truly condemned cult prostitution, but no one in 1000AD remembered the practice to recognize it in the condemnations. Ironically, we are defeated here by our own victories; Paul's exhortations against the practice were so effective that it was forgotten, and rather than imagine that every so often the good guys win a round, the medieval translators tried to find something -- anything -- that the terms and descriptions could possibly apply to.

Since 1 Timothy is the same argument as 1 Corinthians, there's not much point in addressing it separately.

Throughout the New Testament, we see many places where gay sex could have been condemned, but wasn't. The closest Jesus gets to addressing the question is buried in Matthew 19:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 19, Verses 11-12

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

This does not, even though it may seem like it, refer exclusively to celibacy or surgery. One class of people that would likely have been included in this description, called "eunuchs" at the time, were men physically capable of procreation, but generally uninterested in it. Such men might be given jobs as harem guards, and some men pretended to be "eunuchs" to get such jobs. Obviously, this is not an externally detectable difference. What class of men can we think of, physically capable of procreation but mostly uninterested in it? Gay men.

1 Corinthians presents us with another interpretive challenge, beyond even the meanings of the words. The book as a whole appears to be a diatribe; a rhetorical device in which both Paul's position and the position he is rebutting are portrayed alternately, allowing him to explore objections to his positions and rebut them within the same letter. Some of Paul's writings take this form, which is excellent exposition but allows for easy misunderstandings. In fact, a reasonable case can be made that 1 Cor 6:9 is part of a section that is shortly rebutted, with Paul's "And such were some of ye." In this case, the actual point under discussion is whether certain forms of sin prohibit one from becoming Christian; Paul's answer is "no". This doesn't mean the things in question aren't sinful, but it does tie in with Paul's other writings about legalism in the early church.

This brings us, then, to a passage which I think is crucial in understanding the relationship of Christians to the Mosaic Law. That passage is Romans 14. In Romans 14, Paul sets out the notion that whether something is sinful or not is a question of faith, and that a given thing may be acceptable to one person but not another. Some people argue that this applies only to "minor" issues; in fact, it applies even to the Ten Commandments. What? You doubt this?

Let us see a commandment, first:

The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus, Chapter 20, Verses 8-11

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is not ambiguous, nor subtle. No work, at all, on the Sabbath. No food to be gathered, nothing. But what does Paul say?

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 14, Verses 1-6

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Paul says that, if a man esteemeth every day alike, that there is no problem. One of the Ten commandments can be simply ignored, and it is none of our business. Of course, we could argue that Paul is wrong here, and appeal to Jesus to resolve this troublesome Sabbath question.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 12, Verses 1-8

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

This creates for us a small theological problem. It is not enough that Jesus can suspend the law; in fact, He appears to think that there were already some exceptions, such as David's behavior. The Sabbath itself may not always rule us. It appears that the question of what the Mosaic law teaches may have limited relevance to us. We must look into this further. What is the nature of the law?

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Chapter 3, Verses 23-29

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We are no longer under this schoolmaster. The entire question of whether or not the Hebrews were prohibited from gay sex is simply irrelevant to the question of what the Bible as a whole teaches to Christians; it is no more relevant to our moral duties than the commandment not to trim the corners of your beard, or not to wear mixed fabrics. Whatever was condemned was a matter of ritual purity which is of no import to us. We care only whether something is compatible with the teachings of Christ.

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 13, Verses 8-10

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Ironically, then, it turns out we come back to a single verse in Leviticus, a verse which could have answered the whole question all along:

The Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus, Chapter 19, Verse 18

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

This brings us around to the question of what "righteousness" is. The problem is that there are two words, both sometimes translated as "righteous"; you have identified only one of them. One refers to adherence to laws and statutes; in this sense, the Pharisees were righteous. The whole family of words (6662-6666) refers to moral rectitude, which is not always the same as rigid adherence to laws. Christian theology focuses on righteousness rather than adherence to statutes. Jesus preached this over and over, and it is crucial to our understanding of our relationship to the Mosaic law.

The statutes, as is reaffirmed throughout Leviticus, may not be things that we see as moral issues:

The Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus, Chapter 19, Verse 19

Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

The Mosaic law may condemn homosexuality, although I think the balance of evidence is that it condemns only specific male-male sexual activities, possibly in a ritual context, or possibly only specific activities. Other activities may not be condemned; nothing in the Mosaic law even hints at condemning lesbian sex. Modern Orthodox Jews eschew gay sex, in general, but then, modern Orthodox Jews use separate cutlery for meat and dairy because the Bible says:

The Fifth Book of Moses, called Deuteronomy, Chapter 14, Verse 21

Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

That one sentence at the end has grown into an elaborate set of rules and prohibitions; I think it is safe to say that in some cases, kosher requirements are beyond the terms set out in the Bible. That the Orthodox Jews avoid a practice does not tell us that it is unambiguously condemned by the Bible.

However, even if we grant that the Mosaic law condemns homosexuality, the Christian moral standard does not. We are not merely not required to adhere to the Mosaic law; we are directed to avoid mistaking it for righteousness:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Chapter 5, Verses 2-6

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Adherence to the Old Testament law is not a requirement for Christians, because the Old Testament law is not entirely a moral law, but a ritual law. The Hebrews were called to eschew all of the ritual practices of their neighbors, whether immoral or not. In the teachings of Christ, we find no basis for condemnation of gay sex in and of itself. We find ample condemnation of many things which were entirely permitted by the Old Testament law, but we find no hint of condemnation of one sex act over another. Instead of a list of acceptable and forbidden physical acts, we find a teaching of acceptable and forbidden ways to interact with others.

In short, the Old Testament does not even refer to lesbian sex, and its condemnation of particular same-sex activities could very reasonably be seen as specific, rather than general. Furthermore, we find that these condemnations occur in the middle of lists of things we see nothing wrong with doing today. In the New Testament, we have even weaker cases for condemnation of all same-sex activity, and in general, a move away from the empty formalizations that the Pharisees so effectively demonstrated to produce no true righteousness. The Bible does not condemn gay sex, any more than it condemns shrimp, shaving, mixed fabrics, cheeseburgers, or choosing to work on the Sabbath.

It is possible that there is a Biblical teaching against gay sex, in general, and that this teaching is even meant to apply to Christians as well as Hebrews. It is possible, but it is not clear. Every passage cited (except Genesis 19, which seems to be rather about rape than gender) fits just as well with the cult prostitution condemned elsewhere, leaving us no definite condemnations of gay sex per se.

[calebnostro]

My opponent has made the argument, primarily, that scholarly resources, such as Strong’s, Thayer’s, Gesenius and Vines are not entirely what is needed. It is mostly because he puts forth an argument based on opinion rather than fact.

My sources are nothing less than actual fact. They have been put together by people who knew their material, the Hebrew and Greek and no theologian, no scholar of the Hebrew and Greek would dare question them. That much is evident by the simple fact of these books being published by every major bookstore out there. The fact remains is that these sources all agree with each other and one needs them in order to understand the Hebrew and Greek text, the original inspired text of the Bible, else, you have what opponent has brought forth – opinion.

You cannot bring forth opinion here to this debate. My opponent seems to forget that such as formal debate requires no less. I must point out first and foremost that instead of answering the evidence of my sources, he has instead danced around them, making them of none effect as if they are to be used as such.

Now, my opponent has made his opening statement with a simple focus in mind – to discredit the notion of the Bible being the Word of God. This, I shall endeavor to show un-true. The reason being is that the only reason that you would state such a thing is to also discredit the notion of the Bible being clear, for if it is not stated to be the Word of God, then one might find excuse to use whatever personal interpretation that they might wish to use, in effect, making whatever the Bible states to say what that person wants it to say. If the Bible “is� the Word of God, then you cannot justifiably do so, primarily for the fact that it would not be up to “your� or “my� interpretation.

Mark 7:7-9, 13: (7) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. (8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. (9) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (13) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Note carefully what is being spoken of in the beginning verses. It speaks of certain people teaching the commandments of men as doctrine. Then, in verse 8, it speaks of the commandment of God and puts the doctrines of men on the opposite side. Christ states specifically that these people are putting the doctrines of men in the place of the commandment of God. These doctrines are then called their tradition. It is interesting to note that in verse 13, Christ correlates “Word of God�, with “commandment of God� in the previous verses, equating “Word of God� with “commandment of God� in contrast to the traditions of men.

Therefore, we see, clearly, that as a result of Biblical context, the Word of God = Commandment of God. In addition, it would be prudent to note Isaiah 8:20.

Isaiah 8:20: To the Law and the Testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

What book contains both the Law and the Testimony? The Bible is of course. Mark 7:7-13 states “commandment of God� alone – it doesn’t not mention the testimony, but this passage states both the Law, which is the commandments of God, as well as the testimony. Therefore, by Biblical context, if you would couple Isaiah 8:20 with Mark 7:7-13, then one understands that the commandments of God cannot be without the testimony and therefore, the Bible is in fact, the Word of God.

However, I fully expect my opponent to usher in something in the regards to discredit this, stating that the Bible clearly states in John 1:1-4 that Christ is the Word of God and because of this, the Bible cannot be. To this, I state, use your head. If the Bible is called the Word of God and Christ is called the Word of God, then put them together and what do you get? You get that the Bible “is� Christ symbolically and metaphorically. Therefore, this argument, as if to say that the Bible holds no absolute authority on what it states itself and because of that “Hebrew and Greek Lexicons are not readily factual� is absurd and ridiculous. You cannot push aside these works.

My opponent speaks of Genesis 19, but then states out-right that is has nothing to do with homosexual relations just because “orthodox jews� don’t hold it as such. That is not the issue. The issue is not what a specific branch of religion holds it as, for Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Seventh-Day Adventist and all other branches of so-called “Christianity� holds several things within the New Testament itself as meaning something different. You cannot use this argument as something to disprove the evidence that I have given. The issue is the Bible itself, not the opinions of people outside of the Bible. The “jews� adhere to the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism not the Bible. That is a fact and they will tell you so in their own books.

My opponent also speaks of the events of Genesis 19 as something that must be interpreted by human beings and makes no mention of the context of Genesis 19, of the acts of the men of Sodom, which is Lot speaking of their acts at “wicked� as well as Abraham in Genesis 18 beseeching the Lord not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the fact that he might destroy “the righteous�. As stated in my previous post, I have shown scholarly evidence as to what these two words mean according to the Hebrew. Strong’s and Gesenius’, both state these words to be exactly as I have shown them to be – a violation of God’s Law. I have even shown the Bible’s own interpretation of “righteousness� and that is Psalms 119:171-172.

I have specifically made the point that what the men of Sodom did, in order for the Bible to state them to be “wicked� and “unrighteous�, was a violation of God’s Law. I then specifically state that there are only two statutes within the Law and the Prophets that could possibly attain to such a thing as being a violation of it and those are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. The evidence is already there, one must be willing to see it. I have shown it. Biblical context has shown it and my scholarly sources have “definitely� proven it.

Simply saying that Genesis 19 doesn’t refer to homosexuality is not enough. You must show evidence and my opponent has not shown anything concerning such a thing. He has given conjecture and speculation, not fact. I have shown according to Biblical context how my argument is true.

My opponent brings up Ezekial as a supposed rebuttal to the evidence as I presented concerning Genesis 19. He states that the fact that it mentions being prideful, not helping the needed and poor is the cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I do not dispute that, but what is not stated here is Isaiah 58:1-2, 6-7

Isaiah 58:1-2, 6-7: (1) Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, an show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. (2) Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God; they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God. (6) Is this not the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, not thyself from thine own flesh, (7) Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Verses 6-7 speak of the things that those of Sodom did not do, that which is spoken of in Ezekiel 16. The poor, the needy, the naked, the heavy burden and oppressed. What is the context? It is verse 1-2 - God’s righteousness, God’s Law. That is the correlation and that is the Biblical context of Ezekiel 16. To do such things, which Sodom and Gomorah did not, was nothing short of a violation of God’s Laws. From Exodus 20-24, there are laws to help the poor and needy. This argument, to say that Ezekiel contradicts the notion of the Sodomites violating God’s Laws, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, is not accurate and credible.

I find it interesting to note that my opponent has not mentioned a key word within the same verses used. It is the word “righteous� in verse 52. All who read my opening post know what my sources state this word to be. This word means to do all that is “right�, righteousness, right, justice, whatever you wish to call it. I have shown through Biblical context, Psalms 119:171-172, what “righteousness� is and that is keeping God’s Law. Therefore, since this is in fact a key word, it has an incredible amount of relevance to my opponent’s argument. The scriptures speak of a comparison of Samaria to Sodom, with Samaria being more “righteous� than Sodom itself, which means clearly more lawful.

Even more so, my opponent hones in on the word “abomination� but gives not the Hebrew definition of it, according to scholarly sources that is.

1.According to The Strongest Strong’s Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word for “abomination� is “toebah� and it means something detestable, loathsome thing, abomination. Page 1581, #8441

2.According to The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this word means something disgusting (morally, an abhorrence; especially idolatry. Page 882, #8441

3.According to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this word means abomination, something abominable.

Specifically, the words themselves do not speak of homosexual sex, no, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that this word is used in Leviticus 18:22 in contrast to the context which is Leviticus 18:4-5 – God’s Law. That is how these practices were an abomination because they were a direct contradiction of God’s moral standard.

My opponent then brings up Mark 6:11 as supposed rebuttal as well. He states that there is nothing in here which could possible concern homosexual activity. What he does not bring up, however, is the relevance of the word “judgment�.

1.According to The Strongest Strong’s Concordance, this Greek word is “krisis� and it means judgment (human or divine), justice, the concept of determining the correctness of a matter; negatively, punishment. Page 1623, #2920

2.According The Strong’s Expanded Dictionary, this word means descision; by extens. A tribunal; by implication justice (specifically of divine law) page 1199, #2920

3.According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, this word means a separating, sundering, separation; trial, contest, selection, judgment; i.e opinion or decision given concerning anything. Page 361, #2920

This is mentioned in the phrase “day of judgment� and is mentioned numerous times throughout the New Testament as being a day that will soon come. I don’t think that could be argued, but judged according to what? – that is the question. Therefore, you must ask the question of what could we possibly be judged according to? I point you directly back to Isaiah 8:20; To the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Both, the Law and the Testimony for “righteousness� is God’s Commandments and Statutes according to Psalms 119:171-172. Thus, the only possible standard that we could be judged by the Bible, for it contains both the Law and the Testimony, but more specifically, the Law; God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments.

Therefore, for my opponent to try to use this passage as a means of rebuttal is wasted. The fact that it speaks of “judgment� and judgment needs a standard, shows that the concern of the matter is nothing less that God’s Law, which points right back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

My opponent then brings up Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 and starts off by calling most of the practices mentioned to be “religious� ones. My opponent does not define what he means by “religious�. More over, the Bible doesn’t specify, it merely states practices and abominations that were done in those lands, but gives no indication if they were specifically done in a religious “worship� service or whatnot. That is irrelevant. What is relevant however, is my opponent’s description of the word “mankind�.

1.According to the Strongest Strong’s Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word for “mankind� is “zakar� and it means a male, man. Page 1495, #2145

2.According to The Strong’s Expanded Dictionary, this Hebrew word means remembered, i,e a male (of man or animals), as being the most noteworthy sex. Page 441, #2145

3.According to Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this word means a male, as being he through whom the memorial of parents is continued. Page 245, #2145

None of these sources state that the Hebrew word “zakar� is translated “child� as being really young in years. It merely means a male and gives no distinction concerning the age. Therefore, this clearly shows that my opponent’s argument is not even on base with the evidence. It contradicts the actual evidence because my opponent says that it speaks of “children� and not just “males�, which is completely non-existent. There is no distinction.

My opponent then brings up Leviticus 11:41 as supposed rebuttal, but the fact of the matter is that this word “abomination� is a different Hebrew word than “toebah�.

1.According to the Strongest Strong’s Concordance, this is the Hebrew word “sheqets� and it means detestable thing. Page 1579, #8263

2.According to The Strong’s Expanded Dictionary, this word means filth, (fig. and spec.) an idolatrous object. Page 873, #8263

3.According to Gesenus’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, this word means an abomination, something abominable, used of unclean persons and things, especially those belong to idolatry. Page 849, #8263

The word is similar in definition to “toebah�, but the reason as to why this is labeled as such is because these were part of the statutes designating what animals were either clean or unclean to eat. Note the context of the previous verses. The scriptures state that God is making a distinction between clean and unclean food. All food that the people were not to eat were called unclean or abominable. The usage of this word here in this passage cannot be justifiably used in correlation to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 because the practices mentioned in those two passages are different than what is stated in this passage. You cannot combine the two; it is like comparing apples to oranges.

My opponent then brings up Romans 1:26-27 and goes on to say that the passage is very unclear and that Paul says one thing, then says another. However, what my opponent has failed to do, time and time again, is go into the original text, this time it being Greek text. He gives no facts, just speculation and conjecture.

I completely agree that verses 23 and 25 of Romans chapter 1 define the context. It speaks of licentious idolatry, which, in turn points right back to Deuteronomy 23:17, which, is as I have shown according to my scholarly evidence as speaking of shrine prostitutes, devotees. However, my opponent seems content to bring up a passage that is completely irrelevant to this discussion, primarily because it does not address specifically homosexual activity, but that same activity done in the service of pagan gods. That is the context of this passage – pagan gods, licentious idolatry, things done in the service of a different “deity�. The issue is not homosexuality in the aspect of doing it for pagan gods, but homosexuality in general.

As of now, my opponent refers to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and merely states, outright, that the Greek word “arsenokoites� is a mystery word, that we cannot garner the actual meaning of the word simply because its not used that much. He then says one of the instances of when this word is used “appears� to refer to “heterosexuals�, but then fails to given evidence of it, that is, point to where it is as such. My opponent seems content with spouting speculation, conjecture and opinion – not fact.

I must state again that my sources have explicitly stated that the Greek word “arsenokoites� means. It means a homosexual and two of the sources state “sodomite�. I show on how this is not referring to Deuteronomy 23:17 and how on how “sodomites� means Men of Sodom as shown from Biblical context and from the fact that there are no group of people collectively referred to as “Sodomites� as you would have those of the Israelites. Therefore, a Sodomite, is and are those that resided within Sodom. I then showed the evidence on how the actions of the men of Sodom, according to the context of the words “wicked� and “righteous� used by Lot and Abraham, on how Psalms 119:171-172 coupled with Romans 7:12 and Isaiah 8:20 equate God’s Law and the Bible, specifically God’s Law and then showed on how Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only statutes that possibly could have applied to that situation, for they could refer to sexual relations.

According to the context, it does indeed refer to that. As Lot and Abraham could not have said what they said if they were not violating God’s Law and Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 could not have used “the law� and “unrighteous�. I have shown specifically how they all point back to God’s Law and my opponent, except in one manner, has not shown otherwise. He wishes to discredit the notion that God’s Law are still applicable for those that would call themselves a Christian. He then names these passages; Exodus 20:8-11, Romans 14:1-6, Matthew 12:1-8, Galatians 3:23-29, Romans 13:8-10, Leviticus 19:18-19, Deuteronomy 14:21, Galatians 5:2-6.

This is a common belief, that because of Christ, you don’t have to keep God’s Law. However, what my opponent is either knowingly or unknowingly aware of is there are “two� Laws within the Bible, not one. There is not a single unified law within the Bible. You have God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments and you have the Levitical Priesthood System. I state that God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments are the Laws that still apply to day and that it was the “Levitical Priesthood System� that was abolished with the sacrifice of Christ. My evidence is as follows;

Beginning with Exodus 20 all throughout until chapter 24, you have Moses relaying God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments to the people of Israel. Note, that on Exodus 24:3, the Old Covenant is officially signed. The Israel people agreed to do all God had commanded them. In these chapters, you will not find any statute concerning the Tabernacle, the Levite Priesthood, the Shewbread, the Holy of Holies, the procedures of the sacrifices – nothing. It is only “after� Exodus 24:3 that these things come into play. If you continue reading, you will find the commandments given concerning the Levitical Priesthood System. This is fact and no one can deny this. The Levitical Priesthood System came not into play until after the Old Covenant was signed, with the Israel people already agreeing to keep God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments.

Jeremiah 7:22-23: (22) For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices; (23) But this thing commanded I them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the “WAYS� that I have commanded you; that it may be well unto you.

This is direct proof, conclusive evidence, of what I stated previously. The “ways� here could only refer to God’s Laws and not the Levitical Priesthood because of the fact that this passage makes a distinction between sacrifices and offerings and the “ways� that God commanded them to follow and that the Levitical Priesthood Laws came “after� Exodus 24:3.

This is also shown to be true by Exodus 24:12 on how God commanded Moses to ascend the mountain to receive law and commandments that God had written. Next, in Exodus 25, we have the statutes concerning the Levitical Priesthood System. This is absolute proof that this system was “added� afterwards. For the Israel people had already agreed to keep God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments prior to this event occurring as stated conclusively by Exodus 20-24:3.

Galatians 3:19: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was “added� because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

This book was quoted from by my opponent, but he failed to mention the context of the scriptures that he spoke about. According to the context of Exodus 24:3, the Levitical Priesthood was “added� later, as an addition, because of the transgression of God’s Law. Even more so, it was not God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments that pictured the coming of Christ, the Messiah, but the Levitical Priesthood System. The Levitical Priesthood System is what pictured the atonement of the people by putting all the sins upon an animal, just as Christ did. This was the schoolmaster, not God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments.

Jeremiah 31:31, 33: (31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

If it is as my opponent says, then this is a lie. God’s Law, in the New Covenant would be in the hearts and minds of the people of Israel, therefore, how could it be abolished? If it’s a single, unified law-system as my opponent has lead everyone to believe, then this is a contradiction. However, if the Levitical Priesthood was separate from God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments, then there is no contradiction, for God’s Laws would still exist, God’s moral standard.

Romans 3:20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall not flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The Key word here is “deeds�. It is the Greek word “ergon�.

1.According to TSS, this word means work, deed, activity, task, job. Page 1612, #2041

2.According to TNSED, this word means to work, toil (as an effort or occupation). Page 1111

3.According to TGL, this word mean an act, deed, thing done; th idea of working is emphasized in opp. To that which is less than work. Any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, mind. Romans iii. 27; with a suggestion of toil, or struggle with hindrances. Page 248

It does not take work, in any sense of the term, activity or tasking to adhere to God’s Law, but it took tremendous work to sacrifice animals. The Levitical Priesthood System was a hindrance, not God’s Law. Paul never speaks against God’s Laws, only the Levitical Priesthood System, there is a difference.

Thus, one can understand on what Paul speaks of in Romans 14:1-6. Because of the fact that Paul continually makes a distinction between The Levitical Priesthood and God’s commandments, statutes and judgments, this passage is brought into its proper light. This is speaking outside of keeping God’s Law, not contradicting it. God’s dietary law allows for one to eat certain types of meat, but then Paul states that some weak in the faith do not eat meat, but herbs. Therefore, if they wish to do so, because of their conscience, don’t ridicule them, don’t slander or abuse them, for they are not doing anything wrong.

My opponent has stated that by what I have shown concerning “righteousness� the Pharisees would be righteous. However, what he has failed to mention in the context of Matthew 15:2-9 and Mark 7:3-13. The Pharisees did not keep God’s Commandments, Statutes and judgments as commanded in the Law and the Prophets, they kept the “Traditions of the Elders�, which later became the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism. This is how the Pharisees were not righteous. They transgress God’s Law because they kept their own traditions.

Even more so, his quotation of Matthew 12:1-8: is not in its correct context. This speaks of the Levitical Priesthood System, not God’s Law. Even more so, as stated previously, the Pharisees kept their own traditions, so whenever they try to badger Christ, they do it in context of that same system, the Traditions of the Elders.

According to all this evidence, God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments still remain and are applicable today. It is only the Levitical Priesthood System that was abolished as also expressed by Hebrews 9-10, for we must now rely on Christ, the Messiah, however, we must also do what he said for us to do, for he is our example and He told people repeatedly to stop “sinning�. He told the Rich Young Man in Matthew 19:16-17 that if he would enter into life, keep the commandments. We know that we must accept and follow Christ, therefore, put these two together and you get the result. Keep God’s Law and have Christ as your Messiah and follow him and he told people to keep God’s Law.

Therefore, my evidence remains. Paul spoke of the “unrighteous� not inheriting the Kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and “arsenokoites� means exactly as I have shown it to be. The scholarly sources all state it to be and some of them point back to Genesis 19. The contextual evidence of that passage concerning the words of Lot and Abraham point back to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as being used in a sexual context, thereby condemning homosexuality and therefore proving that God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments are still applicable today.

Challenge - If you still believe that all of God’s Laws are a single law, then answer this; Romans 2:13 states specifically that those that “do� the Law are justified by God and not the hearers. However, Galatians 3:11 states that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God because the just live by faith.

If it is as you say it is, then you have a very big and serious problem.

However, if it is like I show it to be, then there is not a problem at all for by the “deeds�, the physical toil, act and labor of the Law shall not flesh be justified, that is, sacrificing animals, because Christ has already come to take the place of that same sacrifice, thereby abolishing it, therefore removing the schoolmaster, the Levitical Priesthood, because we are not justified by sacrificing animals, but by relying on the sacrifice of Christ and keeping God’s Commandments, Statutes and judgments for that is what Christ told people to do.

My opponent, nor anyone else can get around Jeremiah 7:22-23 – this proves everything that I have shown to be the truth and no one can deny it.

God’s Law includes Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as these statutes “themselves� has nothing to do with sacrificing animals, showing once again that homosexuality is indeed condemned, by all the contextual evidence presented, as being a violation of God’s Law and therefore, is not a practice worthy of someone who would endeavor to call themselves a Christian for Christ Himself would state – “If thou would enter into life, keep the commandments and that is God’s Laws.

[seebs]

Of course, what I have is opinions. Everything we believe about the Bible is, in the end, opinions. We form opinions based on the information available to us, but they remain only our opinions. When we say "this source shows", what we mean is "I have drawn the following conclusion". Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are not so right. Charity in all things.

That Jesus is the Word of God is clear and unambiguous. That the Bible is the Word of God is never once stated within the Bible, and would result in the formal heresy of bibliolatry, raising the Bible to a level where it is in some way equal to God. This is a grave error, and must be avoided. The Bible is not the Word, and should not be mistaken for it. If you have any citation for the Bible being "the Word of God" (not mere words, but the Word, an eternal part of the Trinity), please suggest it; I have not found one. This may seem a side issue, but it goes to the heart of how we interpret the text. To the best of my knowledge, any conflation of the Bible and the Word is a modern invention without historical or scriptural precedent.

As I said in my previous piece, Thayer's and other such sources are opinions. It is a fact that Thayer's offers a given translation; it may or may not be a fact that the translation is correct, or is the best one. More modern scholarly works, based on a broader range of sources and greater access to historical documents, often disagree in subtleties of usage. (In fact, the lateness of and lack of detail in this response are tied directly to attempts to sort out such sources, which I will be starting to get into in more detail in my next response.)

For now, let us focus precisely on the Sodom and Gomorrah tale.

For the first thousand years or more of Christian history, this tale was not associated with "homosexuality". For hundreds of years of Hebrew history, it was not associated with gay sex. The abominations performed by the people of Sodom happened before the events in the story; the angels are there because the city has already been condemned.

As you note, the only action we can see directly as an "abomination" in the story itself is probably gay sex. Gang rape was not an abomination (and may not even have been a sin, formally). However, many kinds of interactions between Gentiles and Jews were unclean; furthermore, we do not know what else the people of Sodom did.

What we do know is that no commentator associated this with male/male sexual activity until much later. Early commentators, including divinely inspired ones, felt that the issue at hand was clearly a much different one. Ezekiel speaks of failure to strengthen the hand of the needy, not of fondling other men's bottoms, when he refers to the sins of Sodom. The circular argument that, if what they were doing is what other passages condemn, then this passage can be used to show that they condemn that, is unpersuasive. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that gang-raping angels would have been condemned regardless... But most importantly, the city was condemned before the angels were even sent.

Apart from this, we come now to a series of assertions about the Mosaic law and its place. Unfortunately, a key component is missing; I don't have in front of me a clear way to identify which rules are part of the now-abandoned sacrificial system, and which are to be considered moral law. Many rules, such as those governing mixed fabrics, shaving, and the like, seem to have nothing to do with the sacrificial system, but very few people would argue that Christians violate any moral law when shaving away their sideburns!

Christ preached a law under which people could be judged, most notably in Matthew 25:

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 25, Verses 31-46

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

This speaks directly to the question of what law we are judged by, and the source is presumably authoritative. Throughout His ministry, Jesus appeals to love. "Love the Lord thy God, and love thy neighbor", He says. No mention is made of honoring the Sabbath, avoiding unclean things, or any of the other aspects of the Mosaic law. We could argue that these things are implied by the commandment to love God, but then we find that both Jesus and David have apparently failed to love God, which is rather contrary to the rest of what we are told about them.

On the subject of righteousness, I will point out again that there are two kinds of righteousness being discussed; one has to do with adherence to law, and one has to do more with morality independent of law.

Unfortunately, as some of the sources I wished to use arrived rather later than I'd hoped, the more detailed analysis of these terms will have to wait until next time.

However, I would like to suggest that a key subject would be the question of, given a verse in Leviticus, how one is to determine whether or not it is a binding moral law. Is the division by chapter? By subject matter? The book as a whole obviously contains a broad variety of rules.

It seems likely to me that, in Galatians, we are seeing a reference to the formal law of the Hebrews, the whole kit and kaboodle, which the Pharisees followed rigorously and precisely, but to no profit, and that in Romans, Paul is referring instead to that law made obvious to everyone through general revelation; see 1:20, which is part of our context still. Thus, we have the moral law, and the ritual law. The ritual law, which includes the Levitical law, is of no effect anyway; the moral law matters, not because you've been told of it, but because it is the moral law.

In any event, I would appreciate more insight into the distinction you are drawing between types of laws, because I am not sure I fully understand your position, and it seems to be one I am not entirely familiar with.

I apologize for the poor ratio of substantive material to time spent waiting, I ordered some books right in time for the Thanksgiving weekend. :) I am going to go start the more detailed linguistic research now that I have a reasonable selection of sources to use for cross-checking.

[calebnostro]

My opponent admits that He uses “opinions� for his argument, that much is obviously true. However, he then goes on to say that everything that we believe concerning the Bible is based on opinion and because of that, not fact. This is simply not true. The Bible “itself� tells us what “sin� is. The Bible “itself� tells us what “love� is. The Bible “itself� tells us “who� Christ is. The Bible, “itself�, tells us what the Men of Sodom and Gomorrah did which based on the records of Ezekiel and Genesis 18-19 and a couple of another passages which shall be mentioned shortly.

All of these statements are “fact�. They are not formed of the wanton imagination of myself, nor anyone else. They are “true� and can be proved and have already been proven to be true. Therefore, for one to say that all that we believe concerning the scriptures is not true at all – it is the opposite.

My opponent then states that my sources “are� opinions and not fact. Yet, I do find it curious that my opponent, who wishes to discredit these sources as much as He can, would then “order� some other sources to try to show that my “scholarly opinions� are out-dated compared to the ones that he will bring into this debate. If all of these sources “are� opinions, then my opponent is contradicting himself and therefore, the sources that he ordered wouldn’t be much help either, for all one merely has to do is claim that they are “opinions� as well and therefore, are irrelevant and unnecessary. Thus, we can see, that the actions of my opponent merely prove my argument, for one would not act in such a manner if what he said were actually the truth.

My opponent continues to contend that the Bible is not the Word of God, yet, my same opponent, who has stated many things, which cannot be proven by scripture, has not addressed my evidence to the contrary as stated by Mark 7:7-9, 13. My opponent has outright asked for a declaration concerning the words of Christ Himself to show and prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Yet, my opponent has ignored all that evidence that I have given concerning this. It is stated quite clearly in Mark 7:7-9, 13. It is the very first passage used in my rebuttal to my opponents opening statement and therefore, I will merely direct the audience and my opponent back to it as it clearly shows that my opponent is in error regarding the fact that the Commandment of God = Word of God. This, coupled with Isaiah 8:20 = The Bible. Thus, by Biblical “context�, that is, the “Bible� telling us itself – all that I have shown regarding this is the truth. The Bible is The Word of God. Christ told us that the Bible is the Word of God, yet, the Bible itself, without the words of Christ, states that Christ Himself is the Word of God. Therefore, the Bible, symbolically and metaphorically = Christ Jesus.

It is not contended that the Bible, the parchment and words, is a god in and of itself. This is not the case calling for “idolatry� in any sense of the word. Christ, Himself, completely and wholly, resides at this moment within Heaven with the Father. That much is true. However, according to this evidence as shown, the Bible, is symbolically and metaphorically Christ Jesus “with� us today. The Bible is how we learn concerning the nature and personality of Christ Jesus and God the Father. We understand their will from this book. One cannot obey God the Father and Christ Jesus without first studying this book as it is the Word of God – The Law and the Testimony – Isaiah 8:20 – Mark 7:7-9,13 – 2 Timothy 2:15

My opponent then uses Ezekiel yet again as what Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for, that is describes what they were doing specifically in that book and that book alone. Yet, my opponent also ignores the context of the other passages given to show what Ezekiel is talking about. He promotes the idea of this being a circular argument in that all I would have to do, in order to explain a specific verse, is to bring into the matter what another verse states and therefore, I can ignore the context of that verse itself. – this is not true.

Verse 52 in Ezekiel, within the same chapter that my opponent quoted from, the word “righteous� is used. I have shown that this word “righteous�, according to Psalms 119:171-172, equates God’s Commandments and Statutes. I have also shown that Lot describes the actions of the Men of Sodom as being “wicked�. Wickedness is the opposite of Righteousness. Therefore, by clear reasoning as shown by the scriptures, to be wicked is to transgress against God’s Law. I have also shown the contextual evidence of Genesis 18, of the words of Abraham, beseeching God because He was afraid that he might destroy “the righteous�. The “righteous� equate those that would keep God’s Law. Therefore, when analyzing the actions of the Men of Sodom, we have a standard to go by and therefore, we can understand that the Men of Sodom were violating and transgressing against God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments.

I have shown, by all of this contextual evidence, that the Men of Sodom, to be called such things as “wicked� and for Abraham to be concerned that some “righteous� people might be killed meant that something within the Laws of God would have to be violated in order for the Bible to justifiably call them as such. Therefore, I present Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as being the only statutes within God’s Law that could possibly attain to what they were trying to do with Angels that came to Lot’s house.

Indeed, they also violated other statutes of God, as stated by Ezekiel. One cannot ignore that evidence, however, the account that is specifically and explicitly give within Genesis 19 has nothing to do with what is stated within Ezekiel. Therefore, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only statutes of God that could possibly apply to the situation of Genesis 19 specifically, regardless of the account of Ezekiel.

The abominations committed by the Men of Sodom were done before the angels arrived there, yes, that is not disputed, but there is nothing within the scriptures to state that what the Men of Sodom were doing specifically in Genesis 19 had to do with something outside of the attempted transgression of these two statutes; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. My opponent’s argument does not fit the available facts at hand.

My opponent, as of now, has nothing to say concerning all of the evidence that I have given concerning the fact that God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments are separate from the Levitical Priesthood System. He has not addressed any of the evidence and they are as follows.

1. My opponent has not addressed Exodus 24:3 – which “proves� that the Israelite people agreed to follow God before the Levitical Priesthood System was brought into existence.

2. My opponent has not addressed Jeremiah 7:21-23 – which “proves� that The Levitical Priesthood System is not part of God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments.

3. My opponent has not addressed Jeremiah 31:31-34 – which “proves� that there is indeed a “law�, God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments, that is still in effect in the New Covenant.

4. My opponent has not addressed Isaiah 8:20 – which “proves� that if one speaks not according to the testimony “as well as� the law, it is because there is no light within them.

5. My opponent has not addressed Matthew 19:16-17 – which "proves" that Christ gave a condition concerning Eternal Life to the Rich Young Man – “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments�

My opponent has not addressed “any� of this evidence, which only shows that my side of this argument, according to all the contextual, Biblical evidence, in addition to my scholarly sources, is true and right.

However, my opponent then wishes to bring into play another tactic, which is frequently used by those who would tell the people that they don’t have to adhere to a law, which is the condemnation of the Men of Sodom to begin with and that is to use the Words of Christ concerning the phrase “Love thy neighbor and Love the Lord thy God�.

1. Matthew 22:37 – “That shalt love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, mind and soul.�
2. Matthew 22:39 – “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself�

These are the two great Commandments and that is quoted by from my opponent, but what my opponent is either knowingly or unknowing unaware is of that these are direct quotations from the Law and the Prophets.

1. Deuteronomy 6:5 = Matthew 22:37
2. Leviticus 19:18 = Matthew 22:39

Even more so, my opponent has failed to give another verse concerning these same words of Christ and that is Matthew 22:40. All of the Law and the Prophets hangs on these two great commandments. In other words, this is what the entire Law and the Prophets entails. Keeping God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments = Loving your neighbor and Loving God. The absolute proof of this is as follows;

Christ’s gives the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:30-37. This is the example given for “loving� one’s neighbor. However all these things are stated for us to already be doing according to the context of Isaiah 58:1-8. All that is described within this passage was done by the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan fed the men, clothed him, took care of him and paid for his lodging at an inn. Isaiah 58:1-8 states to take care of the needy, to cloth the naked – to do all the things that this one person did in Jesus’ parable. That is how we show “love� towards our neighbor. Even more so, Romans 13:10 states that “love� is the fulfilling of the Law. Therefore true love = fulfilling of the Law. However, since Isaiah 8:20 cannot be ignored, this means the Bible. Therefore, to love your neighbor is to treat them according to the Bible and that is what the Good Samaritan did and that is what Christ told us, therefore, Christ was teaching The Law and the Prophets!

When concerning “loving� God, all one has to do is read 1 John 5:1-3. To “love� God is to keep His commandments and His commandments are not grievous. Therefore we have the following;

1. Loving God = Keeping God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments
2. Loving one’s neighbor = Treat people according to God’s Law

1-2 = Isaiah 8:20

This is how Christ quoted from the Law and the Prophets. Christ taught God’s Law, there is no way that one can justifiably get around this.

Continuing on, my opponent quotes from Matthew 25: 31-46, yet does not show on how Christ is speaking from the Law and the Prophets. It is Isaiah 58:1-7 as shown above. This is the context and that is what Christ is speaking in accordance to, for if Christ spoke “against� this, then He would be contradicting his words within Matthew 5:17.

As of this point, the argument of my opponent is not very valid at all. There is a large amount of evidence that has not been addressed and that cannot be readily addressed nor even begun to be so, because of the fact that my opponent’s argument is based on “opinion�, rather than fact. What I have shown is fact, and I will endeavor to show more as of now.

2 Peter 2:6-8: (6) And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; (7) And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (8) For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds;)

Obviously, the context is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as stated by verse 6. The context, as well, concerning the destruction of these two cities, is “Lot� as stated by verse 7.

The Book of Ezekiel mentions several things that these two cities were doing wrong, that is, transgressing and violating God’s Law as stated by the contextual evidence of Psalms 119:171-172 and verse 52 of the passage in question with the word “righteous�.

Yet, this passage is concerned “only� about Lot. Therefore, we see a writer from the New Testament talking about the even that happened within Genesis 19 concerning the Men of Sodom and Lot and the Angels. Therefore, we must also analyze the key words within this passage and they are the words “filthy� and “conversation�.

“Filthy�

1. According to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for “filthy� is “aselgeia� and it means debauchery, sensuality, lewdness. Page 1596, #766

2. According to The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this word means licentiousness (sometimes incl. other vices). Page 993

3. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, this word means unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence. 2 Peter ii. 7; wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males or females. Page 79.

Do not forget that the context of this entire passage is “Lot� within Sodom and Gomorrah. The only scriptures that speak of such a thing is specifically what is mentioned within Genesis 19, therefore, these definitions would have to describe the actions of the Men of Sodom themselves and nothing other.

“Conversation�

1. According to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for “conversation� is “anastrophe� and it means a way of life, behavior. Page 1591, #391.

2. According it The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this word means behavior. Page 951

3. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, this word means prop. ‘walk’, i.e. manner of life, behavior conduct. Page 42

We see that according to these scholarly sources, this word means to behave in a manner, no matter what it might be. The context to this particular word is “filthy�, which in turn is based entirely on the context of Genesis 19 itself for it is the “only� place mentioned within the Law and the Prophets that deals with Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah at the same time, within a specific place.

Therefore, we must examine Genesis 19 itself based upon the context of this passage as well as “all� of the previously mentioned context of Lot calling the actions of the Men of Sodom to be “wicked� and Abraham using the term “righteous�. Therefore, by all of this evidence, as shown previously means that in Genesis 19, by the Men wishing to “know� the men that were within Lot’s house, “shakab�, they intended to so in a sexual context, which would only have been in violation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as these are the only two statutes that could possibly apply to this situation. Therefore, homosexuality is completely and utterly condemned by all the contextual evidence provided thus far.

Jude 1:7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The context, obviously, is once again Sodom and Gomorrah. They gave themselves over to fornication and went after “strange� flesh, being an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to have a clue to what this passage is talking about. The Book of Ezekiel is not mentioned in context – nothing about the needy and poor, being proud and full of idleness. However, an analysis of the word “strange� shall put this all into perspective.

1. According to The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for “strange� is “heteros� and it means other, different. Page 1612, #2087

2. According to The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, this word means other or different. Page 1115

3. According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, this word means the other; another, other. (1) To number – other, another, another or any other person whatever. (2) To quality – another i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind; different. Page 254

This word “strange� means simply something other or different. The context is Sodom and Gomorrah. Since nothing concerning what is stated in Ezekiel is mentioned here, the only other way this could be applied, contextually, is according to 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Genesis 18-19 specifically and it fits the evidence at hand. The Men of Sodom wanted to “know� the men that came unto Lot’s house. They desired not women, but men. Therefore, they went after “strange� or “different� flesh, that is, sexually, something other than that which is natural. Therefore, the context, is homosexual activity, which is verified by 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.

Therefore, all of this evidence, based upon God’s Commandments, Statutes and Judgments, shows that “homosexuality� is indeed condemned as being something that is a violation of God’s Laws, which could only be Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 as those are the only two statutes that could possibly apply to the situation contained within Genesis 19.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of what is stated in 2 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 among other things, but the contention within these specific passages is what happened specifically in Genesis 19, not Ezekiel, even though, in some way, those things mentioned within Ezekiel played a part.

Therefore, as my opponent is still content with opinion, I cannot help but rest my case. What I have shown is “not� opinion – it’s what the Bible states. All is based upon “evidence� not speculation, conjecture and opinion and no one could rightfully say otherwise. Therefore, the evidence proves my case and the actions of my opponent, in not addressing everything mentioned above concerning points 1-5 completely and utterly shows that my case is the correct one and therefore, those that would endeavor to call themselves a Christian, would, in no sensibly fashion, walk in such a manner as is described of those in Genesis 19, that is, homosexual activity.

[seebs]

The Word of God issue is relevant because the question of what it is to obey Christ depends very much on whether Christ was the man who died on the Cross, or a book. The erroneous belief that the Bible is Christ is damaging, because it can create crippling misunderstandings of the teachings of Jesus.

Mark 7 refers, not to the Word, but to the word. Quite simply, these are not the same thing, any more than the word God in the Bible refers to every god which has ever been worshipped. The words are not the Word. The capitalization matters in English; it makes the difference between a regular noun which refers to any thing of a type, and a proper noun which denotes exactly one thing. The conflation of Jesus with the Bible is simply indefensible, and depends on a misunderstanding of the term.

The word "Word", with a capital W, occurs very rarely in the Bible. In the King James, it occurs only in the Gospel according to John, in the First Espistle of John, and in Revelation. In each case, it refers to Jesus. The Bible is not Christ, the Bible is not Jesus. Not metaphorically, not symbolically; not in any way. That is simply the formal heresy of bibliolatry. The Bible is not a part of the trinity.

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 1, Verse 14

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Bible has not been made flesh. It did not die for our sins. It is not the way in which God is with us today; it is a record of how He was with others in the past. God is with us today in the Spirit, not in paper.

On to the sources. I do not deny that these sources also contain, ultimately, the opinions of men about the meanings of terms. What I argue is merely that these opinions are based on a much broader range of research than went into, say, Thayer's.

For an example of the distinction, let's compare explanations of a word near and dear to this discussion; toevah.

The Enhanced Strong's gives:

8441 [tow`ebah, to`ebah /to·ay·baw/] n f. Act part of 8581; TWOT 2530a; GK 9359; 117 occurrences; AV translates as "abomination" 113 times, "abominable thing" twice, and "abominable" twice. 1 a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable. 1a in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages). 1b in ethical sense (of wickedness etc).

TWOT gives:

The nuances of tô..bâ are numerous indeed (for the most complete recent study of both the noun and the verb, cf. p. Humbert, "Le substantif to..b. et le verbe t.b dans l.Ancien Testament," ZAW 72:217.37). As with the verb, so also with the noun the abomination may be of a physical, ritual or ethical nature and may be abhorred by God or man. Sharing a meal with a Hebrew was ritually offensive to an Egyptian (Gen 43:32), as was offering certain kinds of sacrifices (Ex 8:22). homosexuality and other perversions are repugnant to God and fall under his judgment (Lev 18:22.30; 20:13). Idolatry (Deut 7:25), human sacrifice (Deut 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Deut 14:3.8), sacrificing defective animals (Deut 17:1), conducting one.s business dishonestly (Deut 25:13.16), practicing ritual prostitution (I Kgs 14:23f.), and similar acts of disobedience (for seven more abominations, see the list in Prov 6:16.19) were sure to bring God's wrath on those who perpetrated them. Twelve times the book of Proverbs uses the phrase, "is an abomination to the Lord". In Ps 88, a prayer for help written by a man close to death, the physically repulsive appearance of a tô..bâ is stressed; the man's former friends avoid him because they consider him to be a thing of horror (Ps 88:8 [H 9]). Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Page 977). Chicago: Moody Press.

You will doubtless take heart at noticing that the more complete reference does assert that "homosexuality" is the topic of Leviticus 18:22. However, the purpose of a semantic reference is not to answer theological questions, but linguistic ones. What we find here is a more precise discussion of the kinds of uncleanness and impurity that are thus denoted. In fact, what we find is that this term is very broad; it does not necessarily donate any sort of immorality at all. We can hardly imagine that eating with Hebrews was immoral; it was merely culturally repugnant to the Egyptians.

Now, we get to the interesting question of the exact words used in Genesis 19, in Leviticus 18, and in Leviticus 20.

The argument on Genesis is still circular. We are expected to reject a thousand years and more of commentary because medieval translators coined a word. The wrongs of Sodom are described in the Bible, and the primary wrongs are not the "abominations"; after all, most cultures performed abominations, and most were not destroyed. No, their gravest crime was their absolute lack of charity. Look at Lot's argument:

The First Book of Moses, called Genesis, Chapter 19, Verse 8

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

He argues, not that such activity is "abomination", but that he has extended protection to these people. The topic of discussion is hospitality, and how strangers are to be treated. The men of Sodom are not looking for gay sex; if they were, they would go have it. They are looking to see and harm strangers in their city, as is their way. It is this that God condemns.

Ezekiel's comments on righteousness can hardly be said to take precedence over his clear and specific indication of which rules the people of Sodom have ignored. The duty to the poor is also one of God's statutes, and it is the one Ezekiel specifically identifies as having been violated. There is simply no basis for ignoring his direct statement on the issue in favor of an elaborate chain of conflations. To repeatedly jump from the general ("violation of God's statutes") to the extremely specific ("they violated this single verse of Leviticus") without any support from Ezekiel's writing is unsound. Ezekiel chose to condemn the men of Sodom for their inhospitality and lack of charity, and there is no reason to suspect that this condemnation was intended to be completely ignored in favor of the description of a sexual practice which, it is to be noted, did not even actually occur within the story.

The claim that these are the only statutes the men of Sodom could have violated is implausible on its face. First, we must note that God has pronounced judgment before the angels even arrive; they are arriving only to, at Abraham's request, see whether there are even fifty righteous men within Sodom. Whatever the men of Sodom have done wrong, they have already done it before the angels arrive. They have had years to develop their reputation; in a period of years, they could have violated many statutes.

Furthermore, it seems to me that it is entirely possible that a considered reading could yield some possible wrongness to gang-raping angels without appealing only to homosexuality. Are we to imagine that, had a couple of angels manifested in female form, and been gang-raped, this would have violated no statute, no commandment? It hardly seems plausible.

On to Leviticus. Leviticus 18 discusses cultural practices. We are once again right in the middle of the natural sense of toevah. It is unacceptable for the Hebrews to adopt the practices of these other people:

The First Book of Moses, called Genesis, Chapter 19, Verse 8

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

These practices are condemned, not because of moral qualities, but because they are the cultural norms of the people the Hebrews must remain separated from. (It is crucial to keep in mind the purity and separation of the Old Testament, which inform us later as to how Christians must view these laws.)

Leviticus 18 consists of a series of practices, predominantly sexual in nature, which are typical practices of the surrounding people. Egyptian royalty had sexual relations with other Egyptian royalty (as no one else was pure enough for them), and indeed, Leviticus 18 condemns such practices. No distinction is made between lying with your neighbor's wife, lying with a woman during her "uncleanness", or lying with "mankind". (Like most Hebrew law, this discusses only the behavior of men; women cannot break this law.)

What word is used in Leviticus 18:22 to denote those men are not to lie with?

Male, man, man child, mankind (ASV similar; RSV translates "man child" by "son" in Isa 66:7, Jer 20:15 and "mankind" by "male" in Lev 18:22; 20:13). The word z.k.r denotes the male of humans or animals. It is used in Gen 1:27 in its basic sense where it occurs with "female" (n.q.bâ) describing the creation of mankind. The word occurs frequently with n.q.bâ denoting the sexes of humans (Gen 5:2; Lev 12:7, etc.) as well as of animals (Gen 7:3, 9, 16, etc.). In short it is used for the male sex when sexual distinctions are in view. Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Page 243). Chicago: Moody Press.

It is interesting to note that this word, while referring to sexual distinctions, also refers to children. Why was the word chosen not the word used for adult males?

Leviticus 20:13 makes the distinction clearer; in general, Leviticus 20 recaps some of the condemnations of Leviticus 18.

The Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We see two words used for "man" and "mankind". Different words. Why not the same word both times? Why wouldn't we just say "if a man lies with a man", or "if mankind lies with mankind"? One of these words is never used for children, only for adults; the other can be used for either. Is this distinction an accident? If so, it is a strangely convenient accident, given that we see it in a list of cultural practices which pederasty would have fit with quite nicely.

Note that