Ascending Mount Carmel - One Step at at Time - Part Two

25 Responses to “Ascending Mount Carmel - One Step at at Time - Part Two”

1. Lorian
   September 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 am

   I see two serious issues with your premise, here, Peter, one of which arises from the other.

   First, you are assuming (or, at least, some of the authors you reference are assuming) that hetersexual behavior is inherently superior to homosexual behavior. You (they) are arguing from the perspective that gay people are “settling for second-best.” I can see where someone who either IS heterosexual, or has been taught to idealize heterosexuality (such as a homosexual caught up in fundamentalist Christianity or an “ex-gay ministry”), might fall for the idea that homosexual relationships are inherently inferior to heterosexual ones. From the perspective, though, of a lesbian who has recognized herself as such since her teens and is a member of a stable, happy, committed relationship of over 16 years duration, I would have to disagree with this premise. Certainly it leads to a high potential for fallacious extrapolations in the reasoning which depends upon it.

   Secondly, your basis for this argument is found in the writings of Western monastic mystics, and their emphasis upon “mortification of the flesh,” purging of ones “baser desires and self,” etc. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, et al, matured in a religious culture in which the body was seen as “evil,” and in which bodily functions and physical desires were to be denied at all costs in hopes of thus purifying one’s spirit. The approach can be carried to extremes which approach the heresies of Docetism, Gnosticism and Albigensianism. Clearly, John and Teresa did not carry their philosophies to those extremes, but many monastics of their day not only practiced the expected poverty, chastity and obedience, but many extremes of “mortification” such as extreme fasts, wearing of hair shirts, infliction of wounds upon the body by various means, flagellation, renunciation of basic hygiene — i.e., remaining unwashed, not changing ones clothing for months or years at a time, etc. — and a host of other means of attempting to purify the soul by denying the body.

   I absolutely believe that purgation has its place in spirituality, and that denial of self is an essential part of the quest for mystical union. The problem with your use of this argument against gay and lesbian people, however, is that in so doing, you are attempting the mental gymnastic of claiming that engaging in a sexual relationship with a person of one’s own gender will make union of the soul with God difficult or impossible in some way which a heterosexual married relationship will not.

   The catholic church walks a thin line between declaring that the married state is as holy as the celibate state, and that someone with a vocation to marriage is no less capable of entering into a union of the soul with God, no less capable of contemplative prayer and purity of life than a celibate monastic, and, on the other hand, appearing to endorse the idea that celibacy, while not “superior” to the married state, leaves the soul in a place where such mystical union is more possible.

   The church insists that it does not endorse celibacy as superior to the married state, but yet finds a multitude of ways to make this underlying supposition clear to its followers, such as by only allowing celibates access to its primary power structure.

   Clearly, non-celibate persons can and do meditate, pray, engage in contemplative communion with God, and seek (and even find) mystical union of the soul to God. Clearly, non-celibate persons ARE as capable as celibates of engaging in relationship with the Divine Being, who desires relationship with non-celibates every bit as much as with celibate persons. That being the case, clearly sexual expression, sexual desire, sexual relationship, is not something which, in and of itself, needs to be “purged” in order to purify the soul for union with God.

   So what is it which must be purged, then, if not sexual desires and the act of sex, itself? You guessed it: sexual desires and sexual behaviors which in some way interfere with the soul’s ability to commune with God.

   Let’s look at that. If, in fact, the married state is not inherently inferior to the celibate state (while recognizing, of course, that celibates may have somewhat fewer relationship complications to distract them from contemplation and maintaining a state of recollection — although this assumes a great deal, since anyone who is not a hermit is in relationship with others, and all relationship, sexual or otherwise, carry the potential for distraction, as well as the potential for acting out God’s love towards others), then what is it which makes it possible for a person to have sex with another person, experience sexual desire for that person, and not have those feelings and behaviors interfere with the ability to also consummate a deep and unifying relationship with God? The church’s answer to that question would be that sexual union within the marital relationship is consecrated and holy and symbolic of the union of Christ with the Church and of God with the soul. The vows and commitment involved somehow change the nature of the relationship such that its sexuality becomes an expression of God’s love, rather than a distraction from it.

   Therefore, when the great mystics speak of “purging” oneself from base bodily desires and functions, this does not extend to sexual desires and behavior within the marital relationship.

   This is where your first fallacy comes into play: that a homosexual relation is inherently inferior to a heterosexual relationship in its inability to represent the love of God for the soul and the love of Christ for the Church. You believe that a gay relationship cannot be covenantal in nature, cannot be sacramental.

   You have, however, no solid ground upon which to base this assumption. We can go through the blow-by-blow of the ubiquitous “Eight Passages” if you like, but I doubt that either of us will hear anything new. I do not believe that the behaviors described in those eight verses are in any way related to my vowed, covenantal, monogamous relationship with my partner. You do. There it stands.

   Therein lies the rub, Peter. You maintain that gay and lesbian persons are somehow “avoiding” the spirituality of the great mystics because we are, perhaps, afraid that we must “purge” ourselves of our sexual desires and behaviors in order to follow in their contemplative path. I maintain that this is hogwash. We no more need to “purge” ourselves of our desires for and sexual relationships with our spouses than a straight married couple must purge themselves of their desires for and sexual relationships with their spouses in order to seek union with God. There is nothing in the theology of Teresa of Avila or John of the Cross which excludes gay people from the pursuit of mystical union.

   Your statement that gay writers seldom refer to the great mystics (my paraphrase) seems a bit silly. To which “gay writers” do you refer? Are you expecting to see books on “gay spirituality” or “The Gay Man’s Path to Mystical Union”? Spirituality, contemplation, union with the Divine Being, all of these things are no different for gay Christians than for straight Christians.

   If I, as a lesbian, go to school to learn Trigonometry, Calculus or Physics, I don’t seek out textbooks which instruct gay people in these academic subjects. I simply acquire Trig, Calculus and Physics textbooks. If I wish to learn to draw, I don’t study only the works of gay artists. I study the work of great artists of all time, without concern for whether they are gay or straight.

   My life is not defined by my sexual orientation. I am a human being. God wants relationship with me the same as God wants relationship with each and every human being. I don’t have to become straight or “stop being gay” in order to have access to the spiritual guidebooks and other means God has seen fit to provide to assist us in our search for divine union.

   If you are looking for all of the “gay commentary” on the great mystics, then I’d suggest you simply look at ALL of the commentary on the works of the great mystics and keep in mind while doing so that, by extrapolation from historical precedent, a significant number of those writers (probably somewhere between 2 and 10%) are homosexual.

2. Lorian
   September 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 am

   Incidentally, if you believe that gays are truly in some way allergic to the spirit of Carmel and the great mystics of the church, then you need to refine your google searches a bit, my friend. :)

3. Peter Ould
   September 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 am

   Lorian,

   Fundamentally, it comes down to whether those “8 passages” mean what I (and the huge sweep of Christian tradition) think they mean or what you (and others) think they mean. You make some interesting points about long-term gay relationships, but they all crumble theologically if the “clobber passages” mean what the majority of Christians today and down the years think they mean.

   I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of mortification of the flesh. While there are extremes in any group, the 16th/17th mystics weren’t dualist Platonics. Rather, they though that the body was a constient with the soul. Dying to self was far less to do with being spiritually pure and far more to do with the rejection of sin, whether in body or spirit.

   Finally, I think you’re making a confusion over gay practice and gay attraction. I’m not arguing that someone who is sexually oriented towards someone of the same sex is somehow spiritually inferior. The scriptures refer to sexual practice and purgation is to do with dying to the sinful desire, whether it disappears or not.

   In part three I’m going to continue to begin to examine some of the literature of e-xgay / pro-gay writers and you’ll start to see that my argument isn’t just supposition but is actually held out once you examine what people actually write.

4. Lorian
   September 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm

   Thanks for your response, Peter. Allow me to address a couple of points, if I may.

   Peter wrote: I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of mortification of the flesh. While there are extremes in any group, the 16th/17th mystics weren’t dualist Platonics. Rather, they though that the body was a constient with the soul. Dying to self was far less to do with being spiritually pure and far more to do with the rejection of sin, whether in body or spirit.
   “Dualist Platonics,” no. Dualists of a sort, yes. Despite declarations of heresy throughout the centuries, the dualist concept remains an underlying theme in catholicism (and much of Christianity), in which “the flesh” represents all that is evil and “the spirit” represents all that is good. The concept of “mortification of the flesh” is Pauline in origin (Romans 8:13 [show]Romans 8:13
   For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (ESV)
   – “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Colossians 3:5 [show]Colossians 3:5
   Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:(1) sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (ESV)
   Footnotes
   1. [3:5] Greek 'therefore your members that are on the earth'
   
   – “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:”).
   I’m not sure what you mean by “constient.” Clearly, Paul’s concern was not so much for the “deeds of the body,” though that is the phraseology which causes much of the difficulty, but rather for the MISdeeds of the body. He names fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness. The NIV translates the verse as follows: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.” Making the distinction one of “earthly nature” vs. “heavenly nature” is probably less confusing than “flesh vs. spirit” (and also a bit less of a temptation to heresy).
   The monastic writers take this concept of “putting to death the earthly nature” a few steps further than Paul. Paul asks his readers to die to sin. The monastic writers suggest dying to all bodily senses on the premise that they may lead us into occasions which might cause us to sin. I see nothing inherently “wrong” in such systemic “mortification of the senses/body,” if one feels it will be helpful in promoting greater spiritual awareness or if one fears being unable to avoid sinning by any lesser means. I do not think, though, that it is an objective necessity to put all aspects of the body and the senses “to death” in order to be pleasing to God, or even in order to enter into mystical union with God.
   Taking pleasure from one’s senses is not, in and of itself, evil. The monastic writers, founders and rule-writers who advocate complete “custody of the eyes,” for instance, certainly do help their followers avoid many occasions of sin, as well as many distractions from recollection. On the other hand, though, such intense custody of the eyes can prevent one from experiencing the very beauty of the created world which can lift one’s thoughts and spirit to pure praise of the Creator. Aromas are highly evocative, as well, and, from scriptural evidence, God seems to encourage us to take pleasure in this sense, with many references to incense, to “pleasing aromas,” to fine spices and perfumes.
   The point of the monastic writings which is well-taken, however, is that we must attempt to simplify our lives, to reduce the distractions around us, to find quiet spaces in our days in which to contemplate the Divine Being and open ourselves in a state of recollection. This may mean mortifying our desires for distractions – television, computer, noisy environments, chatting with neighbors, rehashing stressful events in our minds, etc. If we are given to bodily sins of the sort which Paul describes (lust, sexual immorality, greed, etc.), then clearly these issues must be addressed, as they obviously distract us from any search for God.
   That said, however, sexual desires and the act of sex, in and of themselves, are neither sinful nor distracting from our relationship with God. While monastics eschew a sexual relationship with another human being with the intent creating more space in their lives for meditation, contemplation, recollection (having financial discussion with one’s spouse or tending to a colicky baby certainly produce an environment less “friendly” to recollection than a silent monastic cell), we must not confuse this eschewal with “putting to death” the sins in our lives which arise from normal bodily desires and pleasures allowed to run rampant (sexual immorality, greed, lust, and so forth, as defined in Colossians).
   You are correct that it DOES fundamentally come down to the “clobber passages,” and whether or not they mean what you claim them to mean. Historical precedent for interpreting these passages as condemning all homosexual relationships, regardless of their nature, means little if it is based upon cultural misunderstandings rather than upon exegetical study of the passages themselves, taking into consideration the actual historical context in which they were written, use of terminology in concurrent literature, etc. Again, I don’t think we need to debate the passages blow-by-blow, as this has been done over and over again in many, easily-googleable (is that a word?) forums.

   The point is that fornication and adultery (sex with someone who is not one’s spouse), and lust (rampant desires for person or persons not one’s spouse which are allowed to cascade into obsession, sexual fantasy, etc.) are the bodily sins which inhibit our ability to be in relationship with God, not sexual desire and sex, themselves. Acted out within the context of a covenantal relationship, sexual desires are as holy and pure as perfect celibacy.

   Peter says: “Finally, I think you’re making a confusion over gay practice and gay attraction. I’m not arguing that someone who is sexually oriented towards someone of the same sex is somehow spiritually inferior. The scriptures refer to sexual practice and purgation is to do with dying to the sinful desire, whether it disappears or not.”

   No, Peter, it is you who is confusing the issue by your distinction between homosexual vs. heterosexual attraction. It is not “gay practice vs. gay attraction.” It is “sexual practice” vs. “sexual attraction.” As I have said, neither “sexual practice” nor “sexual attraction” are inherently sinful. Sexual practice only becomes sinful when it is practiced with someone not one’s spouse or used in other harmful ways (spousal rape, for instance). Sexual attraction is not sinful. The sin comes either in acting on the attraction with someone who is not one’s spouse, or in encouraging the attraction by fantasy, flirtation, emotional unfaithfulness, etc.

   Again, it comes down to that fundamental difference in beliefs: Yours, that homosexual behavior in any context equals sexual immorality, and mine, that homosexual relationships are no more inherently sinful than heterosexual, each being properly expressed in the context of a committed, covenantal relationship. I know that my partner was ordained for me by God just as much as any heterosexually married person knows their spouse to be so. Whether you choose to believe it or not makes very little difference, though I certainly do appreciate your engagement in the topic.

5. Lorian
   September 3rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm

   Sorry — some of my paragraph breaks did not come through in the above text. I apologize for its being difficult to read.

6. Peter Ould
   September 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm

   Lorian,

   I’m quite happy to accept your statement

   It is “sexual practice” vs. “sexual attraction.”

   but obviously I’m going to argue that the Scriptures will always prohibit homosexual activity. I don’t think that the “clobber passages” have been interpreted with specific, incorrect, cultural mindsets. For example, we now know accept that the Hellenistic world that Paul wrote and operated in well understood the existence not just of homosexual activity but also gay relationships (for example the writings of Aristotle, the sexual lifestyles of Greek and Roman Emperors). It’s becoming harder and harder to argue that the Pauline Corpus was written in a condition of ignorance about homosexuality.

7. Lorian
   September 4th, 2007 at 6:21 pm

   Whether Paul was ignorant of healthy, committed, adult, same-gender relationships really isn’t the point. He was writing to address specific practices found in Hellenistic cultures — specifically pagan sexual orgies conducted as part of idolatrous temple ceremonies, and sexual slavery involving the use of young boys for sexual gratification.

   Both of these practices are putrid, in my opinion, and I have no problem with assigning them to a status of “sexual practices which must be purged.” I’d sooner gouge out my eyes than be involved in either of them.

8. Peter Ould
   September 4th, 2007 at 6:41 pm

   You cannot prove from the text that he was writing to only condemn

   pagan sexual orgies conducted as part of idolatrous temple ceremonies, and sexual slavery involving the use of young boys for sexual gratification.

   Such an interpretation is a particularly narrow reading of the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi, unsupported both by the Biblical text AND contemporaneous literature and, in my opinion, such an interpretation stems out of wanting to avoid the plain meaning of the text.

   You need to deal with textual issues like the fact that the Pauline texts are the first in Greek literature to use the word arsenokoitai for centuries. The use of the word as a descriptor for prostitution and exploitative sex only occurs at least a century later. This begs one to ask “where did Paul get the word from”. The answer of course is obvious - it’s a compounding of the LXX rendition of Lev 18:23 [show]Leviticus 18:23
   And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. (ESV)
   - arsenos koites.

   I’ve written a piece looking at the similarities between Romans 1:27 [show]Romans 1:27
   and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (ESV)
   and 1 Cor 6:9-11 [show]1 Corinthians 6:9-11
   Or do you not know that the unrighteous(1) will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,(2) nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (ESV)
   Footnotes
   1. [6:9] Or 'wrongdoers'
   2. [6:9] The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts
   
   and I’ll try and post that later this evening.

9. Lorian
   September 4th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

   You are reaching, here.

   First, let me point out that Leviticus 18:23 [show]Leviticus 18:23
   And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. (ESV)
   refers to having sex with animals and has nothing whatsoever to do with arsenos or koite/koiten/koithn. Perhaps you meant Leviticus 18:22 [show]Leviticus 18:22
   You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (ESV)
   , or Leviticus 20:13 [show]Leviticus 20:13
   If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (ESV)
   ?

   In any case, the fact that the original (and extremely obscure) Hebrew passage referring to “man” and “bed” and “woman” and “lying” was translated in the Septuagint using the Greek words “arsenos” (male) and “koitEn” (variously translated as “bed,” “marriage bed,” “lie with,” etc.) hardly proves that Paul used the Septuagint as his source for this word conflation. For one thing, it has not been clearly established that the Septuagint was complete by the time of Paul’s writing, or that he accessed it as source material.

   The meaning of the underlying text in Leviticus is obscure to begin with (”and next male do not lie with in beds of woman”). You are assuming that the Septuagint translators understood the Masoretic text (assuming they were actually working from the Masoretic text, which is not clearly established, either) referred to homosexual activity of all kinds — which is not clear, either. You are then assuming that Paul understood the Septuagint translators to be referring to homosexuality of all kinds, and chose their words as some kind of specific condemnation of homosexuality of all kinds. That is a lot of assumption.

   The fact is, neither the Pauline references, nor the Septuagint translation of Leviticus, nor the underlying Hebrew text of Leviticus can be clearly understood to mean “all same-gender sexual relationships are condemned.” The writers, had they meant this, could have been absolutely clear in saying so, and yet, this is not what they said at all. Instead, we have well-documented cultural practices in both the time of Paul and the period in which Leviticus was written involving idolatrous worship by means of homosexual activity with temple prostitutes/priests, and the Greek practice of boy sex-slaves which are extremely likely candidates for condemnation by both Paul and the Levitical author.

   Speaking of contemporaneous literature, there is nothing in the literary context of Paul’s day to support your rendition of his terms. There were many Greek words which clearly referred to sexual relationships between adult, consenting men. He did not choose any of these terms. Had he intended his Greek-speaking audience to understand that he was condemning consensual, committed sexual relationships between adults of the same gender, why wouldn’t he have used an existing Greek term with that meaning, so that there would be no doubt among his readers as to his intention? Why be obscure? Paul doesn’t seem to have any problem being direct regarding other topics.

10. Lorian
    September 5th, 2007 at 5:55 am

    What happened to the comment suggesting that you should have nothing to do with me and that I would, in a more “enlightened country,” be burned at the stake? It was sweet.

11. Peter Ould
    September 5th, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Yeah, it was so touching.

    Sinner provided a false email address so his post was treated as spam. It’s one thing to have conservatives spouting borderline homophobia, it’s another to have revisionist pretending to be conservatives doing the same thing.

    I#m out all morning but will attempt to reply to your points this afternoon.

12. Lorian
    September 6th, 2007 at 12:19 am

    So you’re suggesting that there are no conservatives who wish to see gays ostracized, homosexuality criminalized, punished by imprisonment or even death? It’s not the first time I’ve heard the opinion expressed, so I’m not quite naive enough to accept your assurances that “sinner” was being disingenuous.

13. Peter Ould
    September 6th, 2007 at 7:35 am

    I’m suggesting that I have very good evidence now to suggest that Sinner is a revisionist pretending to be a conservative. He also gave a false email address and on that specific ground I removed his post (and will continue to remove any future comments until he provides a valid email address).

    You and I both know that there are those on the conservative side who would want to see homosexuality punished in the same way that there are those on the revisionist side who would wish to see conservatives view outlawed.

14. Peter Ould
    September 6th, 2007 at 7:55 am

    Lorian,

    Firstly, thanks for correcting my typos.

    I think you’re wrong when you describe the Levitical prohibitions on homosexuality as only dealing with cult prostitution. A cursory read of Gagnon would put that idea to rest. To date no-one has refuted his arguments (and see also the address made by Gordon Wenham to the 2004 NEAC gathering in Blackpool, UK, which addressed the prevelance of homosexual activity in the Ancient Middle and Near East.

    The problem with Paul’s words are that, as you say correctly, there are no contemporaneous usages in Greek literature - the words only appear over a hundred years later so we can’t ascribe those later meanings to his writing. We’re then left asking where Paul got his compound Koine words from and the only reasonable explanation is that he lifts Lev 18:22 [show]Leviticus 18:22
    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (ESV)
    (and others). That then brings us to what Lev 18:22 [show]Leviticus 18:22
    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (ESV)
    actually meant, to which I refer you to the masterful work of Gagnon.

15. Lorian
    September 6th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    You and I both know that there are those on the conservative side who would want to see homosexuality punished in the same way that there are those on the revisionist side who would wish to see conservatives view outlawed.

    I’m not personally aware of liberals who wish to see conservative views outlawed, though if you say so, I’ll have to trust you on it. Most liberals of my acquaintance are of the “live and let live” persuasion, in that they have no interest in dictating what you should be allowed to believe, as long as you do not impose your beliefs on them. For instance, if you wish to only acknowledge the authority of male priests, then they would have no issue with you attending a church in which the Rector was a man. Nor would they have a problem with you refusing to receive communion from a woman priest. You should, after all, be free to live by the dictates of your own conscience.

    On the other hand, if you actively try to prevent a woman from accessing ordination, then you are not protecting your own beliefs so much as you are interfering with the rights of others to follow their God-given vocation.

16. Lorian
    September 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    I think you’re wrong when you describe the Levitical prohibitions on homosexuality as only dealing with cult prostitution. A cursory read of Gagnon would put that idea to rest. To date no-one has refuted his arguments

    I never said that the Leviticus passages dealt solely with temple prostitution. What I will say is that temple prostitution had a great deal to do with how homosexual acts were perceived and addressed in the culture of the day. Another factor relates to the status of women in society and how sexual intercourse reinforced the social hierarchy, with the rape of a male by a male being the lowest form of degradation and humiliation.

    Your claim that no one has been able to refute Gagnon’s arguments surrounding the Levitical passages is incorrect. There have been many excellent analyses and refutations of Gagnon’s position.

    Here is a piece by Edward Campbell of McCormick Seminary:

    Certainly the references in Leviticus relate to male homosexual behavior of some sort. What Gagnon (and you) fail to prove is that it would be applicable to a committed, adult, faithful union between two men. And what it clearly does not apply to, incidentally, is a committed, adult, faithful union between two women.

    Having, therefore, failed to prove that Leviticus is a blatant and sweeping universal condemnation of all homosexuality, it would be impossible to then extrapolate that Paul’s use of the Greek terms for “male” and “bed” somehow constitute a similarly blatant, sweeping, univeral condemnation of all homosexuality and that such condemnation is justified by his alleged oblique reference to Leviticus because of his use of the Greek words for “male” and “bed.”

17. Lorian
    September 6th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Sorry for messing up the link in the above post. I didn’t realize I needed to close the tag, and can’t edit it after the fact. :D

18. Peter Ould
    September 6th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    I’ve edited it for you!!!

19. Peter Ould
    September 6th, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    Thanks for the link to the article. For me the problem with it is that it has an assumption that faithful monogamous gay relationships are not sinful and that then guides the rest of the interpretation. There are also another number of speculations made that then become theological justifiers.

    For example:

    Or we may ask what happened at the threshing floor in Ruth 3 [show]Ruth 3
    Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, "My daughter, should I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? Is not Boaz our relative, with whose young women you were? See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your cloak and go down to the threshing floor, but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. But when he lies down, observe the place where he lies. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do." And she replied, "All that you say I will do."
    So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings(1) over your servant, for you are a redeemer." And he said, "May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. Remain tonight, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good; let him do it. But if he is not willing to redeem you, then, as the LORD lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning."
    So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another. And he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor." And he said, "Bring the garment you are wearing and hold it out." So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley and put it on her. Then she went into the city. And when she came to her mother-in-law, she said, "How did you fare, my daughter?" Then she told her all that the man had done for her, saying, "These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said to me, 'You must not go back empty-handed to your mother-in-law.'" She replied, "Wait, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest but will settle the matter today." (ESV)
    Footnotes
    1. [3:9] Compare 2:12; the word for 'wings' can also mean 'corners of a garment'
    
    , or whether Boaz and the nearer kinsman were previously married. Would that mean adultery? Or even incest?

    The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Ruth passage simply doesn’t address that issue (previous marriage etc). Let me give another example:

    The Holiness Code passages are unequivocal so long as we know precisely what is being described.

    Problem here is that no alternative hermeneutic as to what Lev 18:22 [show]Leviticus 18:22
    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (ESV)
    mean is given. A doubt is cast but no evidence actually delivered. No contemporaneous documents. Nothing. Here’s another:

    If one reads Genesis 1-3 [show]Genesis 1-3
    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
    And God said, "Let there be an expanse(1) in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made(2) the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven.(3) And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
    And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth,(4) and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
    And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants(5) yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
    And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,(6) and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
    And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds(7) fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
    And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
    Then God said, "Let us make man(8) in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
    So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
    And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
    Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
    These are the generations
    of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
    in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
    When no bush of the field(9) was yet in the land(10) and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist(11) was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground-- then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
    The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat(12) of it you shall surely die."
    Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for(13) him." Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed(14) every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam(15) there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made(16) into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,
    "This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
    she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man."(17)
    Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
    Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
    He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You(18) shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,(19) she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
    And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool(20) of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"(21) And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
    The LORD God said to the serpent,
    "Because you have done this,
    cursed are you above all livestock
    and above all beasts of the field;
    on your belly you shall go,
    and dust you shall eat
    all the days of your life.
    I will put enmity between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring(22) and her offspring;
    he shall bruise your head,
    and you shall bruise his heel."
    To the woman he said,
    "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
    Your desire shall be for(23) your husband,
    and he shall rule over you."
    And to Adam he said,
    "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
    of which I commanded you,
    'You shall not eat of it,'
    cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
    thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
    By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
    till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
    for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return."
    The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.(24) And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
    Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (ESV)
    Footnotes
    1. [1:6] Or 'a canopy'; also verses 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20
    2. [1:7] Or 'fashioned'; also verse 16
    3. [1:8] Or 'Sky'; also verses 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; 2:1
    4. [1:10] Or 'Land'; also verses 11, 12, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 2:1
    5. [1:11] Or 'small plants'; also verses 12, 29
    6. [1:14] Or 'appointed times'
    7. [1:20] Or 'flying things'; see Leviticus 11:19-20
    8. [1:26] The Hebrew word for 'man' ('adam') is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name 'Adam'
    9. [2:5] Or 'open country'
    10. [2:5] Or 'earth'; also verse 6
    11. [2:6] Or 'spring'
    12. [2:17] Or 'when you eat'
    13. [2:18] Or 'corresponding to'; also verse 20
    14. [2:19] Or 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed'
    15. [2:20] Or 'the man'
    16. [2:22] Hebrew 'built'
    17. [2:23] The Hebrew words for 'woman' ('ishshah') and 'man' ('ish') sound alike
    18. [3:1] In Hebrew 'you' is plural in verses 1-5
    19. [3:6] Or 'to give insight'
    20. [3:8] Hebrew 'wind'
    21. [3:9] In Hebrew 'you' is singular in verses 9 and 11
    22. [3:15] Hebrew 'seed'; so throughout Genesis
    23. [3:16] Or 'against'
    24. [3:20] 'Eve' sounds like the Hebrew for 'life-giver' and resembles the word for 'living'
    
    as focusing not on gender complementarity so much as on violating covenantal faithfulness…

    Once again a theological argument with no support. Is