Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

A person does NOT judge a person who openly claims to do X, by pointing out that God's rulebook says that X is a sin and so they would be a sinner.If YOU have an issue with iano's "interpretation" of what God's rulebook says, then that is something else than whether iano is judging people. OR, there is another explanation altogether. God knows and judges sin, and to help people do right he gives them a rulebook with all the rules. In that rulebook he tells people to read the book, so they know the rules, and help others understand them.Hence, one is not judging others, when pointing to said rulebook and saying this is what God says we should avoid doing. Are you not judging at this point? Look, I'm not a Xian at all, but I grew up in a Xian household and I studied the Bible. I am at a loss as to how you have come to an interpretation that Xianity is not inherently anti-homosexual. It is openly labeled an abomination, adherents are exhorted to punish such acts, and it is normally indicated as a sign of weakness.Can you explain how Xians are supposed to act toward homosexuals (quoting from the Bible)?I get people not enjoying iano's position, I don't either, but he doesn't seem extremely bigoted or judgmental at all. He has a system of ethics derived from a specific scripture and he is explaining it. Given the topic of this thread (which he didn't start if I remember right) his statements explaining a Xian concept of homosexuality as sin, only makes sense.Edited by Silent H, : + crucial NOT

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You have a solid point about the unusual weight homosexuality gets treated with by some Xians. I honestly don't know iano's track record on this so I can't claim anything about him... you could be right.As far as this thread goes, his points seem to be appropriate and solid, regardless if he does not practice what he is preaching in theory. I have only been addressing the logic of his ethical system, not how he puts it into play across the board.One defense Xians have availed themselves to, which has some credibility, is that they can only address so many issues and that particular topic is something that is being pushed on them at this moment. Hence more weight is being put on that sin. After all they just lost a series of societal assumptions, traditions, and practices against homosexuality. I think they lost on the shellfish thingy years ago. You know I'd agree this assessment. If you notice it is essentially the same argument I gave to you about your position.As far as iano goes logically however, if someone did do what he claimed to be doing, then they would be fine. I just don't know iano enough to say if he has been heavily inconsistent. And for once you are right. Hahahahaha... just kidding. As an aside I thought we agreed a couple times in the past.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'll answer your last two replies in this post I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. Let's start with one nit-picky issue... there is no such thing as an "evolved contemporary morality". You are simply slapping that rather convenient label on one moral system, which is not even a majority opinion at this time.So let's be accurate, Xians have over time let some passages in scripture fade away in importance, while retaining others. This has from time to time been done as cultural movements rose to effect religious people's convictions, rather than vice versa.That is a point taken, and it seriously contradicts the concept of absolute right and wrong that many Xians claim is set in the Bible. However, it in no way creates an argument that Xians SHOULD or MUST let any other rules go by the wayside. Nor does it create a valid argument that rules they have not changed yet must be because of personal bigotry.One can consider a reductio based on your own argument. Where then should the Xian stop? If your argument is correct then there is no place they should stop dropping rules and all becomes not sin. The only possible line might be whatever is popular right now. Well what kind of religion would that be?Further, I can attack your own morality. Given that secular people have also changed in the past (including on slavery and misogyny) why can't you accept group X? And then keep changing X with whatever group you haven't accepted yet. Don't you have things you simply will not change for because you simply don't like it and don't think it should be done based on your current internal system?I'd have to point out that there are PLENTY of things Xians still regard as sin and don't like, besides Homosexuality. To portray them as having given up on all proscriptions, except homosexuality, does not seem accurate. Well I'd certainly agree with you on this. First that there is no absolute morality from a real God, and religious types are discussing human fictions. Second that people may pick and choose from the menu of moral options in scripture so as to find justification for their own morality.That said, there really are people that believe in a God, and the Bible as his rule book. They derive their morality from what they see in that book. Yes it is likely to be an interpretation, but it may be based on what they were taught, rather than personal picking and choosing. I think the Amish are an excellent example of people that hold strong to an external set of rules, applying them as consistently as possible, rather than for personal convenience. Replace the word homosexuals in the statement above, with X. That statement will be true for everyone, as you have stated everyone judges. So why can't Xians dislike the group their text rather blatantly paints in a bad way, or why can't admittedly self-interested anti-homosexual people embrace Xian dogma as the justification for their personal opinion?The way iano stated his ethical system, he was right that a person would not be judging in that system. Whether he practices something other than he preaches, and so you are right about him personally, is another question.But more to the point here, how can you deride anyone for judging anyone else if you agree we all do it? So what if one set appeals to a fictional being for justification? Why would or should they change their opinion? So to some up against your summation... that Xians have rejected past rules creates no argument they need to for any other rule. It also does not suggest that Xians were correct to have changed in the past. And finally, a person pointing to the Bible and saying Xian theology holds that homosexuality is a sin, is NOT being a bigot. That is pretty much as statement of fact. I'd say the same thing and I happen to engage in homosexual sex acts, and am pro gay rights. If I can do it and not be a bigot, so can they.Also, I want to be able to judge others, be a bigot about things I don't like, so why can't they? I have no illusions that society has to agree with me on everything, nor like everything I do. Vice versa.Frankly I'd prefer it if it was kept out of laws, and left to people discussing such preferences in their churches and local communities. I mean who cares what iano thinks is sin?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sorry, been busy...I agree that what you say is a possibility. I'm just saying I cannot say iano is doing what you say. And to me it is not judgmental to say this particular cosmic rulebook states that X is a sin.In a way I think this point to a slight difference between our positions, related to where ethical and metaphysical claims come from. While we may agree that they are all man made, I do believe people can trust in the reality of external rules and so are not exhibiting personal standards (by which to say personally created).For a hypothetical deconstruction iano may have grown up in a Xian culture and as such believes in the metaphysical reality of God, and his rulebook (and the specific interpretation he now uses). It isn't necessarily the case that he chose the religion or the interpretation because of his bigotry, but rather he was raised up in such a way that he believes the cultural bigotry is metaphysically real and external to himself.In that case iano would not be judging and may not even dislike gays, just stating what external rules say about gays. Any judging would be cultural not individual. Heck, he might even judge gays to be quite nice and he likes them... that wouldn't change their ethical position in relation to God (according to the cultural dogma iano might believe exists).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sorry been busy... I'll answer your last reply to me and iano in this post. I agree with your statement, but I have not seen iano claim that someone is gay. For those that are gay, he points out that a common Xian conception is that homosexuality is a sin. While there is a valid theory that OT proscriptions were predominately formed as direct attacks on temple prostitution, or to indirectly effect that practice by a larger wholesale ban on homosexuality altogether, it seems errant to claim the Bible as a whole is quiet on homosexuality.Outside the OT proscriptions (which we can agree for sake of argument mean temple prostitution), there are statements against homosexuality in the NT which are not in dispute as to what they mean, and in both sections homosexuality is projected as a negative practice which God does not support.It would be an interesting idea that Xian NT writers did not understand that the original proscriptions in the OT... and that is possible. But homosexuality is pretty clearly a negative feature of human life, according to all of them. Personally, I found the most compelling arguments to be the authors who said that it was a general ban on homosexuality to fight the temple prostitution as well as form a symbol of cultural identity. That is not only do they not do the temple thing, they won't do anything like what is done there.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm sorry, then I did not understand your statement regarding X and Y. This is true according to your interpretation and definitions, but that is a bit unfair... or at least not logically valid... to judge his interpretation based on your own.Clearly many Xians and Jews for many centuries (adding up to millenia) have interpreted the meaning of scriptural proscriptions as referring to homosexuality. I am unaware of any Xian Bible... particularly english language Xian Bible, which has not used that specific language. You cannot make out that Iano is errant in his interpretation of english Biblical scripture, even if you want to launch an attack on whether the founding rules (in the original languages) were not so clear cut.We can boil this down to a very simple issue. Let's say for sake of argument that it was always about homosexuality in general. Then wouldn't you agree that an adherent pointing to the text as stating that homosexuality was a sin would not be making a personal judgment?The rest of your post attacks the validity of english language interpretations of OT and NT passages. These are besides the point in the context of this issue. But I would add that you are yourself making a similar error on meanings. The case for the extent of those proscriptions (whether just temple prostitutes or all homosexuality) is not nearly as clearcut or agreed upon academically as you make out.We've both been through at least two threads on this issue, and you have been unable to provide any greater evidence than that supporting a vague possibility the OT proscriptions limited to temple prostitution. And this does not address the other negative references to homosexuality (as an indicator of a slide into dissolution) which do not hinge on odd word choices. It seems beyond dispute that Paul was against homosexuality as he was against much sex all around. I'm not sure how indicting him for making up a word changes the reality of what his words and actions meant for Xian tenets on homosexuality.Finally, your reference to Xian homosexual marriages is essentially a bust. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assume you are referring to that single author's interpretations of a ceremony held for males? This had come up in an earlier thread. That author's ideas are in dispute, and even if granted as real, the practice was neither common nor recent even according to his work.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Why should he do that? This makes no sense other than to say all others must believe as you do. Even iano is not making that demand.Let me put this another way, if there is a God with a rulebook, then it is impersonal to point to that rulebook to discuss what is right or wrong to that God.You cannot logically say a God or its rulebook must be errant, if its rules do not match your own perceived ethical rules. In fact, it would be perfectly rational for iano to say homosexuality is a sin, provided he believes that the God of the Xian Bible is real and so is his text.Now in my case I don't believe in iano's God and so I don't care what that rulebook says regarding ethics. That said, I grew up studying the thing and know well enough that homosexuality is treated pretty negatively. As a rational person, who believes in neither his God nor the veracity of that book, I understand where iano is getting his statement.I might argue that iano should not believe in God or that rulebook, for many different reasons, but that I don't like its tenets (or many people no longer do) has no logical hook on which one can hang such a hat.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Heheheh... well I believe we pick the ethical beliefs that suit us which is exactly why there is no such thing as objective right or wrong at all.But I'd put in one big potential caveat. For those that truly hold tradition as an important principle (agreed that that itself might be a choice) then some amount of ethical principles are external and to a large extent not chosen.A good example would be being a modern day American. There are certain traditions which come with that. Now one can choose to not be an American, but usually people choose to stick with it despite having to put up with things they don't agree with. It would not be judgmental of me to say that using drugs is illegal and wrong in American society, such persecution is a tradition at this point, though I have no personal issue with it and did not choose that reality.Same goes with religion. Iano was likely born into it. But even if not, once he embraced the reality of it (which is too much for me) then the rest sort of follows as a package deal. You are raising an excellent question in general for anyone believing in a religion. If the texts regarding ethics are inerrant, why do the practices (and interpretations) change with time?Ironically, to my mind that does not suggest that they should drop the proscription on homosexuality, but rather they should pick back up everything they've given up so far... or give up the religion altogether.Iano likely does not feel he has a choice (ie it is not possible for him to discard that belief). And as I argued earlier, that other rules have been dropped in the past in no way creates an argument that more should be dropped, particularly now. One might look through past rules that have been dropped and see in what way they compare to the homosexuality issue... if at all.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

But I do choose to be an American and while I do not agree with the anti-drug position, have accepted it as part of the reality of this culture. Indeed, I choose to stay an American despite things I may feel differently about. Yet I can and do state what those things are.In iano's case he already admits to being a sinner so clearly there is something that he likes or wants to do which is ALSO not kosher under his God. If he isn't giving himself a break on his own issue, why is it thought odd for him not to excuse others? Or that he is bigoted against them in accepting that doctrine?What's more, religion is slightly more complex in that while a democracy might mean certain traditions can be changed over time (and that is an okay thing), that is not the case for religion. If there is a God and that is his rulebook, then them are the rules... period. If you believe in that God then those are the traditions you must keep.Heck, let's say it is proven that the Abrahamic God is real. Then I would have to say homosexuality really is sinful. My disliking that point would not strike against his reality. What I'd be left with then is whether to accept and worship such a God. If for some reason I found enough benefits, maybe I would, just as I accept being an American even if some irritating facets will be around forever. Actually my point was stronger than what you have taken from it. There are two levels you need to address. First is that homosexuality proscriptions can be dropped. Just because others have been, and so "could", does not mean this one can. Once that is determined, we can move on to whether it should.This is why I mentioned comparing what tenets had been dropped in the past. Why could they be dropped according to those generations which did so? Would homosexual proscriptions fit in the same context?It really does get a negative treatment in the Bible, such that it is hard to think of it as a plank easily dropped.If a person believes in the existence of that God, I don't see getting away from those particular tenets. Then again I do wonder how many have been dropped anyway, and some added with no Biblical support. That wouldn't argue homosexual proscriptions can or should be changed, but that Xians have been wrong in altering the text previously.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello ICANT. Before anything else, as I take it you are fundamentalist, I'm wondering what your avatar is (or supposed to mean)? This is where Rrhain will put the whammy on you. While you are correct that Xian Bibles, particularly english language versions have the translation you mention... and so the obvious meaning... the original text in the original language is not so clear cut.There is scholarly debate on what the original text actually says, and whether translations and traditions have kept faith with original intent.As Rrhain has pointed out, the proscriptions (as originally written) appear to focus on male temple prostitution and not male homosexuality in general. This would have made sense among many of God's other rules to separate his people from the worship of other Gods at that time in the surrounding area. Then again, it can also be argued that the ban meant all homosexuality so that there could be no such worship under cover of regular sex ("I wasn't praying, I was just haveing sex... honest!"), as well as create a form of cultural identity for the Jews. Of course it may have used that reference to male prostitutes to indicate the sexual behaviors God doesn't want, period.It's sort of a toss up, but an interesting question and something I'm often surprised to find devout Xians do not know. If they wish to speak of inerrancy, or true moral messages of scripture, it would seem understanding the actual texts in the original languages would be first and foremost on their mind.KJV is a translation, and that done by men.By Xian I did mean Christ-ian (aka Christ-like). At least that is what I am assuming most are striving for.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think we are reaching the very point of disagreement between our ways of thinking. I think in a way you are actually repeating my own statement. I agree that even given God, we can choose to deny his tenets. But as you state that would be doing wrong. After all if there really is a God, then there really can be an external set of objective ethical standards we are supposed to follow.While we can say screw the rules, and do what we want, we'd still have logically admit that in this universe X is wrong. And we happen to like being/doing wrong!Lucifer made his choice, and so can we. That would not change the nature of reality, only define our position in it. The Xian church has not renounced all proscriptions, so its more on your shoulders to show why homosexuality is like the others that have been removed, not mined (or Xians) to argue why it deserves special privilege to remain. That should be somewhat obvious. The Bible is their rulebook from their deity. Whatever is mentioned in there is already given a privileged status. It took arguments to remove the ones that have been... and that is no guarantee such a move was correct. Yet this is what I have already asked from you. Why is it that the homosexual rules deserve the special class of a proscription invoked by God, that should be ignored? That it is popular or trendy right now in a certain number of nations?About the only thing I've heard is gays saying that being made to feel guilty is hate speech, and they shouldn't have to feel that way. To which I would say wtf? Have they read the Bible? EVERYONE is supposed to feel guilty! All the time! No one is spared this item. Some acts are given a slightly different weight, but so what?And this is where I circle my argument right back to your own argument. Instead of demanding that all Xians illogically change their metaphysical and ethical beliefs to suit the feelings of a group which does not like them, why not demand that the latter group not pay attention or try to join the former group? Why not do exactly what you suggested you would do if God were real? Say screw the rules and be wrong in their eyes?I do not understand the modern demand that all people be accepted as right by all other groups. Legally tolerated I understand, but liked or thought right? It makes no sense and contradicts the concept of freedom and tolerance this nation was founded on. Which were right and which were wrong? I would also note your biased description of what happened? It is telling and something you should consider when reviewing your own position.A conservative Xian might have written it as:Some Anglicans chose to retain the traditional sexual proscriptions stated in the Bible, while other Anglicans chose to celebrate certain sexual practices.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

While I admittedly do not believe in the truth of the Bible, I have read it (and was raised in that faith). What's more important however is that I am discussing issues related to translations by people that DO believe in the Bible.I assume you would acknowledge that the original text of the Bible is not english? What has happened is that people who are knowledgeable in the original text languages are discussing what it actually says, and debating its meanings and reasonings.It may be that Rrhain is right and that the proscriptions began as targeting male temple prostitution alone, which makes following translations and practices deviations from original intent. However, it is possible that he is wrong and that homosexuality was proscribed altogether to create an identity for the Jews, in addition to nixing temple prostitution.About my use of the word temple, I am not discussing the Jewish temple. In the lands around the Jews, were cultures where prostitution (including male prostitution) was part of regular worship. The Abrahamic God clearly did not want people to worship other Gods at all, and not to take part in practices dedicated to other Gods (even if there was a belief that it might help them with things like harvests). In Lev and Deu you can find many laws which are simply proscriptions of activities related to worship by others in the area.I think it is without scholarly controversy that the actual words used in Lev and Deu translate not to "homosexual" but to "male temple prostitute". This is something you might be interested in looking up for yourself, and as I said it is not relegated simply to apologists for homosexuality. I had a feeling it had some evc significance. Is there a reason that galaxies could not have been formed within 3.7 billion years? We do not have to debate this, it is simply side info, since I have not heard of this controversy using scientific evidence before.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Oh, maybe we have more points of disagreement than I thought. By the way, I should note that while I am clearly challenging your position, I hope you do not take my words as angry or demeaning. I like your writing style and appreciate this debate. You are helping me examine my own thoughts on this issue.Let's start by getting where we agree out of the line of fire. It seems we both agree that there are no objective, external ethical rules and people largely choose what they believe.I think where we start to deviate is that I do provide a caveat for people that choose to believe in a metaphysic, which comes packaged with some ethical standards. In that case I cannot agree that one having to believe in the standards is the same as choosing them.A more clear analogy might be made to believing in pure materialism (the universe is purely material-mechanical activity). That brings with it a sort of blank slate ethical rule set. It is a logical outcome.If someone were to believe in the Abrahamic God's existence, the rules against homosexuality really do come along with it. To choose not to observe the rules is a choice to act irrationally and arbitrarily delete realities found inconvenient. It would almost be like a materialistic atheist going to seances to talk to dead relatives... they can choose to do that, but it is irrational.So to try and sum up this part, I agree that people have a right to choose, but some choices made based on one set of criteria entail acceptance of the REALITY of something else (not covered in the original criteria)... whether one likes it or not. Actually God was in the sentence, it was just that I used Bible, instead of God's rulebook. You are right that Anglicans made choices. Some stuck with the rather clear word of God, and others did not.If one really believes (metaphysically) in the existence of that God, then the ethics come along whether you like it or not. I think it is unfair to create an argument that a person must be choosing the ethics, rather than the metaphysics.Again, if it were proven that metaphysically their God did exist, Id have to logically admit his rules are THE rules. How could it be any other way? Only I do get the choice to follow his rules or not. Do I stand up to God or not? I think that's a pretty personal decision. I have to dispute this entirely, as it is another issue altogether. You are in fact using a slippery slope fallacy. The real problem you are discussing is allowing religion or religious practices into our legal system. I am all behind eradicating that... as our constitution just as clearly proscribes incorporating religion into law as the bible proscribes homosexuality. That is something Xians need to come to terms with as Americans.If we hold a tight reign on gov't practice, then religious justifications would go by the wayside as a matter of course.Your position seems to be to alter individual religious beliefs so that it creates the gov't you want, which to me is the total reverse of what we should be seeking.Earlier in this thread I argued that abolition of state marriages altogether would end all of the inequalities you suggest. Would that not be easier, than arguing Xians should all change their personal beliefs about God? I'm sorry but I have to go back to my own case. There was a time before I was a solid agnostic/atheist. While Xianity never made sense to me... it always felt alien... I was being raised in it and it was a concept of God which was possible. I could very well consider it a possibility and if so, it was clear where homosexuality lay according to that God's worldview. If I ended up choosing to believe in Gods, and that God in particular it would not have been for sake of that one rule, but most certainly I would then have had to accept that rule.In the end I would NOT have been personally condemning homosexuality, but rather have felt a great sympathy and pain for their plight. Indeed since I would have fallen into that category to a large degree, as I fall into so many other categories of "sin", it would be odd to claim that I personally condemned it.It would simply be an acknowledgment of logical fact.To this I have to repeat a question you have not answered adequately. Iano admits to being a sinner, and there are still many rules which Xians have against many other things. Why are they thought to be personally condemning homosexuality yet not all those other things?And finally, homosexuality has been vilified by many different cultures and people, including atheists. It does not take a Xian to point out that marriage in fact really has been defined as between opposite sexes, for no bigoted reason, and maybe that would be an emotionally important concept to preserve (for some). I don't think ridding Xianity of that tenet will reduce efforts to constrain sexual activity of minorities. Witness gays against polygamy and other sexual orientations.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I've been through at least two well written debates (not just by me) on this at EvC already, and I don't feel like reinventing the wheel. They came out of a land with a culture, and were heading to new lands with other cultures. They were surrounded by them, would be effected by them in the future, and had been effected by some already. That they were presently in a desert is meaningless and is forcing your own definition on my use of the word area. In fact I am a bit insulted given the statements made at the beginning of Lev... and after its proscriptions against homosexuality... You can insult me for not believing in it, but kindly retract any statement insinuating I don't understand it. These passages are very clear. This I would agree with, though there is a real caveat. It states that it is abomination (in english) and so they would be killed.In the original hebrew the word we have translated as "abomination" in fact denotes ritual uncleanliness, not merely something which is repulsive (which is our usual take on that word). Put in context with other condemnations of rituals for other Gods (where practitioners should be put to death as well) and the use of that word in that section relating to practices found in other lands, arguably indicates the proscription is on homosexuality in religious ritual not all by itself.As I have stated there is debate on whether the proscription was broad so as to ensure no backsliding to ritual under cover of pure sex, but it is possible the original intent was ritual homosexuality.In 1 Kings 14, (at least in the NIV) you will find direct reference to male prostitution as being the source of ire for God in other lands. The KJV calls them "sodomites" but that is likely not accurate at all.Again, I find it amazing how many devout Xians have to be dragged to actually understand their own text. I would assume such work would be a joy if not a duty, rather than jumping on isolated quotes as if that provides accurate meaning. God was verbose, presumably for a reason.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'll let Rrhain bring in any scholarly links he might have on the subject, or you can search it on your own... including past threads at evc. I simply do not have the time to get in depth on this.However, I can deal with what we have seen already. I have read Lev 20 and what's the difference? They are very similar passages, practically a retelling. So the first one was a bit more explicit up front?Why could you not admit what I said was shown in Lev 18? But let's move to 20 if you insist on putting the cart before the horse... How can you not see that that plainly opens with a discussion on ritual, particularly ritual stemming from other nations? You do know what giving one's seed to Moloch is a direct reference to, right? And like 18, 20 ends with nearly identical admonitions... These sections are on customs and rituals, specifically separating Jews from the customs of the nations around them. It may be true that the proscriptions mean all acts so as not to allow anything similar to those rituals, but that is open to reasonable debate.If you look at the usage of the word you "looked up" in a lexicon, as it appears in the Bible, it was routinely used in the sense of 1a) ritual uncleanliness. Scholars have noted this, and that different terms are used consistently for other "wicked" things. Yes, if I am trapped into reading only that line, and other lines, on a line by line basis, unable to set it in context with the full passage as set out by its opening and closing remarks, and willfully ignoring the scholars I have read discussing the usage of the term that was later translated as "abomination"... I see where I would agree with you.Without all those limitations, a legitimate debate on what was being discussed in that passage actually exists.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard