A netfriend wrote:

The forbidden sexual practices listed in Leviticus 18 would be considered by a lot of people, especially Christians, to all still apply. There is incest and sex with relatives, sex with people married to someone else, sex with animals and sex with a person of the same gender. The only one that we don't hear forbidden today is sex with a woman during menstruation - though many may choose to observe that also.

Interestingly, the passage makes an assumption that polygamy is OK (v.8) which most countries have outlawed these days.

When I first heard homosexuality debated (at Monash Uni in the '70's), one argument used by the "against" side was that once you move away from the classical prescription for marriage as set out in the creation narrative and reiterated by Jesus, where will it stop?

One argument used was that children's literature and TV shows will start off portraying homosexuality as normal, and then they will begin a push to show Farmer Tom's great love for his pigs as legitimate and OK. It got a reaction! But is it coming true?

I have occasionally observed references to "bestiality" in the spam that defiles my Inbox, and recently saw a survey that asked respondents which sexual practices they had tried. In some European countries a frighteningly high figure showed they had tried sex with animals (1 in 9, I think?). [The figure was almost nil in Australia - AND in NZ despite its reputation!].

Does anybody feel this is OK? Yet can it not be supported by the same arguments used to counter the biblical teachings against homosexuality? I am not trying to be crass or insulting here, but we are discussing interpretative method of applying Scripture.

In classical Greek culture where homosexuality was widely practised without censure, pederasty was also widely accepted - the love of young boys. Our culture proclaims that boys and girls under 16 (is it?) may not have sex with an older person because even if they want it, they are not old enough to know what is good for them. Will this law be pushed away too?

As for the more common biblical abberations such as concubines and multiple wives, we dismiss them all because Jesus called us back to the creation ordinance of monogamy. I feel that the simplicity of Jesus' call - given to stifle divorce - is an ideal that our fallen lives keep crashing against. For pastoral reasons, we make all manner of concessions and exceptions but it is very hard to balance: - morality and pastoral concern - acceptance and the possibility of redemptive change - concern for the victim and concern for the the abuser.

I could go on, but I think the interpretation of the Bible is the critical factor here, and although Baptists allow for conscience and fresh insight, I suspect that some gay advocates are getting their justification solely from grounds outside the Bible - a belief about the naturalness of homosexuality, and a resultant drive for fair treatment. That may be OK from humanist grounds, but is it biblical, is it Christian?

~~~

I responded:

Just back from holidays and a nice swag of VBMN posts to read. Thanks for the stimulating discussions...

Re sex with animals.

We have one short article on our website on this topic (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/813.htm )

A search of Google to the Web generally turns up 3,930,000 entries. Our article is filed there somewhere (though not in the top ten pages) but - wait for it - it's been our most-frequently-visited article out of 11,000+ for years...

There's a lot of interest out there in 'Net-land on this topic. Another 'nasty' we have to face with compassionate apologetics...

(Now let's wait for Google to put this article up the top of its list!)

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher