Question for Literalists on Lev. Laws

Does not Jesus say not one jot nor title from the law shall pass away until heaven and earth pass away?
and is it not said that when we are baptised into the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, that we are cloaked with Christ?
The difference that I percieve from the old to the new is how we as humans relate to the law... in the old the law was for spiritual cleansliness, and in the new it has no such meaning for us, for God now see's us through the eyes of his son as though we wear Christ as a cloak or a garment...
There is obviously some good wisdom in the levitical law... read Rex Russel 'What the Bible Says About Healthy Living'.....
This is a huge issue and many books could be written upon it... but thank God that he has given us an intercessor so that we do not need to carry this burden which not one of us could carry.

John,Because Rrhain's post is so long, and it is all as bad as the quote you quoted from him, I will probably not bother responding to him, except maybe to add a couple examples to the one you gave.Rhrain wrote: Because the whole verse says, "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."So, despite your illustration about South America, which I would agree with if it applied in this instance, "that which is unseemly" refers to homosexuality, because Paul talks about men burning in their lust towards men.Is their something difficult about this?I'm assuming you hadn't looked up the verse, but just commented based on Rrhain's and my discussion, which I understand, and I'm assuming that Rrhain doesn't really care what it says, because I can't get him to discuss it reasonably.But, you can tell me if you think I'm missing something.

Jesuslover,I'd be interested in your thoughts about the interpretation I got from the early church fathers in the last part of my post #4 in this thread.

quote:

---

I'm assuming you hadn't looked up the verse, but just commented based on Rrhain's and my discussion

---

You are correct in that assumption. I hadn't really looked deeply into the verse. Having looked a bit closer, I don't see anything that clearly indicates this to be a reference to male temple prostitution specifically and exclusively. I don't see why it couldn't be a reference to such activity, either, but it seems reasonable to think that wording would have been more clear if it were meant to be that specific.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So since the ancient audience didn't divide the world up into "heterosexual" and "homosexual," what on earth makes you think "that which is unseemly" means homosexuality?

---

​

Because the whole verse says, "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."

---

But as I asked you before, what do you think aschemosunen means? That is the word that is used that has been translated in the KJV as "that which is unseemly." So please tell us, what do you think aschemosunen means?According to Strong's, it is a reference to female genitalia.How does one get to homosexuality from a reference to female genitalia?

quote:

---

So, despite your illustration about South America, which I would agree with if it applied in this instance, "that which is unseemly" refers to homosexuality, because Paul talks about men burning in their lust towards men.

---

You're focusing on the single verse and not the whole passage. And once again, you're attaching a modern understanding to an ancient text.Romans 1 goes on and on about idolatry.So what is connected to idolatry at the time?That's right, ritualistic sex. And yes, that included same-sex sexual activity, but once again, nobody at the time period divided the world up into gay, straight, bi, etc. So how can we possibly state that the condemnation is specifically about homosexuality when nobody at the time would have understood it?Paul is going on and on about worshipping something that isn't the One True God:Rom 1:21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,1:23: 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.And here we hit the big point:1:24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:What do you think Paul is talking about? Homosexuality as we understand it? How could he when he, as a person living in Roman culture didn't see the world that way?Instead, he's talking about what's happening right then and there:Temple prostitution.He's going on and on and on about it. He's ranting about it, when you get right down to it. Paul's on a tear about pagans, people who don't worship the One True God and how they're all going to suffer for it.Well, how do you identify who they are? By their actions, of course.Surely you're not saying that being pagan means your gay, are you?But it might mean participating in rituals for your god, wouldn't it? And if those rituals included sex, you'd rail against it, wouldn't you? You'd call it unnatural, wouldn't you? And in a Roman culture that worshipped the priapus, you'd reference that, wouldn't you? But do you really think that every male that took part in the cult surrounding the priapus is gay?See, this is the part where your modern notions are conflicting with the ancient ones. A man who took part in sex rituals with other men as required by his god is not a gay man, despite the fact that he's engaging in sexual activity with another man.If you're going to say that Paul is railing against all of homosexuality in Romans, then you're going to have to say that he's railing against all of heterosexuality, too, since he's got a thing against fornication.

quote:

---

Is their something difficult about this?

---

No, not at all. I've been through it quite thoroughly:Paul whines about idolatry, fornication, adultery, and sex.Put them all together and what do you get? Temple prostitution!

quote:

---

I'm assuming that Rrhain doesn't really care what it says, because I can't get him to discuss it reasonably.

---

Read: If you don't agree with truthlover, you're "unreasonable."

quote:

---

But, you can tell me if you think I'm missing something.

---

Why not the whole chapter rather than a single verse. Why not the whole verse rather than a single word.Why not stopping putting your modern vision of how to describe the world onto the ancients and using their vision of how to describe the world?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Truthlover, I think that is a very interesting interpretation by the early Church Fathers, worthy to chew on and consider... I have not read from any of those men, but I do know who Polycarp is.

Hi. Been pretty busy the last couple days--still am, but I wanted to get this in. According to Strong's, it means unseemliness, and it is used once of female genitalia. It is also used once of nakedness in general. It's from askemon, which means uncomely or deformed.When unseemly is used about female genitalia, then it is referring to female genitalia. When it is used about men burning in lust for other men, then it is referring to homosexuality. You'd better provide something to prove this, because I think this is ludicrous. So, nothing else at all is attached to idolatry, not even statues, burning incense, nothing? So when someone says idolatry, we should think ritualistic sex.I don't think anyone who has read the Bible or the Christian writings of that time period would even give thought to your statement. Yes, ritualistic sex occurred, it was hardly the only thing meant by idolatry.I have read Romans 1, btw, and I don't think all those references add up to ritualistic sex only at all. This is silly. Of course he could see the world that way. No one said anyone "divided the world up into hetero's and homo's." But everyone who has ever lived knows the difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, and homosexual sex was banned in Jewish culture, so it is no surprise he calls it unclean and unseemly.You listed Deut 22:5 as a prohibition of homosexuality, and then you suggest that Paul, a student of the law, couldn't separate homosexuals from other people.Good grief.Now, on to the pettiness of your previous post. I expect better behavior out of my children. My statement was that I hadn't looked it up prior to that post, and I went on to describe what I found, which was that your definition was inaccurate. But your "perhaps you should" was typical of the rest of your post; flippant comments, assertions with nothing to back them up, and wishful thinking. Wow, it was Matt 5:18. I was a verse off. I'm sure that threw you way off, and left you frustrated at having to debunk my reference, which was one verse off. No, it's not. I gave you a reference. Give me one. Your wishful thinking does nothing for me.Anyway, everything else you've written has been just like this, assertions or petty complaints, so I won't go through the rest of it.
I rest my case. I see no point in going further, as I think my case is obvious.

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

According to Strong's, it is a reference to female genitalia.

---

​

According to Strong's, it means unseemliness, and it is used once of female genitalia. It is also used once of nakedness in general. It's from askemon, which means uncomely or deformed.

​

When unseemly is used about female genitalia, then it is referring to female genitalia. When it is used about men burning in lust for other men, then it is referring to homosexuality.

---

No, it isn't. You want it to be, but there is nothing that indicates that it is.The word, as you just said, refers to genitalia and nakedness.Where do you get homosexuality out of this? Since there was no modern concept of "homosexuality" in the time period, how can you possibly claim "that which is unseemly" means "homosexuality"? There was no word for such in Greek, Latin, or Aramaic. So where do you get the idea that it means that?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So how can we possibly state that the condemnation is specifically about homosexuality when nobody at the time would have understood it?

---

​

You'd better provide something to prove this, because I think this is ludicrous.

---

I did.You complained that it was a book.I gave you another reference, too, but it is also a book.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So what is connected to idolatry at the time? That's right, ritualistic sex.

---

​

So, nothing else at all is attached to idolatry, not even statues, burning incense, nothing? So when someone says idolatry, we should think ritualistic sex.

---

When someone is going on and on about sex and idolatry, it is natural to assume the person is talking about the sex practices of the idolaters.Once again, since you seem to keep missing it, Paul goes off on idolatry, fornication, and adultery before mentioning the temple prostitutes and the male temple prostitutes.Tell us: What is fornication?
Tell us: What is the defining action in adultery?So when a person is talking about idolators and fornication and adultery and then you mention temple prostitutes, what do you think is the point? Homosexuality as we understand it? It was never mentioned before, so why the sudden shift in a single sentence?Think about it: If you're talking about the sex that goes on inside of a prison, are you assuming that everybody is gay?

quote:

---

I don't think anyone who has read the Bible or the Christian writings of that time period would even give thought to your statement.

---

Strange...lots of people have and have come to the same conclusion. The Bible simply doesn't say anything about homosexuality as we understand it. There were no words to describe what we call homosexuality in Greek, Latin, or Aramaic.

quote:

---

Yes, ritualistic sex occurred, it was hardly the only thing meant by idolatry.

---

When you're ranting about the sex practices of idolators, it does.

quote:

---

I have read Romans 1, btw, and I don't think all those references add up to ritualistic sex only at all.

---

Of course you don't. You've made up your mind. You've fallen for the modern theology.It's not unusual. Take a look at the recent sex scandal in the Catholic church. Their response? Get rid of the gay priests. They don't seem to understand that most of those priests who are molesting the children are straight. But instead, they see that the sex is between two people of the same sex and thus they conclude that the priests must be gay. They are so stuck on the "sin" of homosexuality that they cannot see past their personal squick factor to see what is actually going on.

quote:

---

quote:

---

1:24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
What do you think Paul is talking about? Homosexuality as we understand it? How could he when he, as a person living in Roman culture didn't see the world that way?

---

​

This is silly. Of course he could see the world that way.

---

If he did, why such a roundabout method of saying it?Why are there no words that translate as "homosexual" in Greek, Latin, or Aramaic?

quote:

---

No one said anyone "divided the world up into hetero's and homo's."

---

In those specific words, no. But you seem to think that if people of the same sex are having sex, then that means they're gay. The Catholic priests are gay because they're having sex with children who happen to be the same sex. All the people in prison are gay because they're having sex with people of the same sex. Anybody who has sex with someone of the same sex must be gay because only gay people would have sex with someone of the same sex.

quote:

---

But everyone who has ever lived knows the difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex,

---

We're not talking about sex. We're talking about people.

quote:

---

and homosexual sex was banned in Jewish culture, so it is no surprise he calls it unclean and unseemly.

---

No, the Torah doesn't say anything about homosexual sex, either.By the way, Judaism doesn't condemn homosexuality. At least, neither Reformed nor Conservative Judaism does (and they're the larger sects). The sin of Sodom is inhospitality. Sodom was a rich city that did not give of its prosperity to those in need. It welcomed strangers by subjecting them to interrogation.Who do you think is more likely to understand what Judaism thinks: Jews or Christians?

quote:

---

You listed Deut 22:5 as a prohibition of homosexuality, and then you suggest that Paul, a student of the law, couldn't separate homosexuals from other people.

---

I said nothing of the sort about Deuteronomy 22. In fact, I said the exact opposite (Message 12):

quote:

---

I expect better behavior out of my children.

---

I am not your child. I learned a long time ago that adults are fallible and often need to be treated directly and sternly in order to show them that they have made a mistake.

quote:

---

No, it's not. I gave you a reference. Give me one.

---

I did.You complained that it was a book.I then gave you another one that goes more into the general question of how the early Christians dealt with homosexuality and you have yet to respond.But then again, it's a book, too. Should I expect another complaint?I'm sorry, but you have been so heavily indoctrinated that the Bible has something to say about homosexuality that it is going to take more than a simple sentence to get you to change your mind. You're going to have to get off of your ass and do some research in a library. I can't make you read the books. I can only point you to where they are.Think about it: If I could get you to change your convictions simply by talking to you for 10 minutes, then those weren't really your convictions in the first place.What I am telling you is not something small like whether or not the Bible says pi equals three. It's a big thing. The Christian church has made a lot of political, social, and monetary hay out of the mistreatment of gay people. Look at the hoopla that has arisen with the Canadian court decision...they're acting as if letting gay people get married will somehow destroy life as we know it as if somehow their own marriage is affected by other people getting married. To come along and show them that their entire basis for this attitude is based on a lie, it is understandable that there will be extreme resistance. People don't like being shown that they're wrong. And when they have become so emotionally invested in the mistaken foundation, they will fight tooth and nail to preserve it.

quote:

---

I rest my case. I see no point in going further, as I think my case is obvious.

---

Indeed.You're stuck in your theology.Read the books I've suggested.Look through the telescope, truthlover.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

One of the forum rules is "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided."This is applied all the time here at this forum to people who send people to a web site as though they expected others to go read the whole web site. How much more does it apply to a book, as most sites referenced are smaller than a book.You have discussed things, but you drew no supporting evidence or information from that book of yours. You say you sent me to a book, but I asked you simply where you got your definition from, and you did not answer. You had previously sent me to a book, asking me to read the whole thing, not look up your definition. Forum rule # 2 says, "Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration."You asked this question once already, and so did John. I answered it well enough that John agreed that my point at least seemed the most reasonable conclusion at the time. You didn't respond to me but asked this same question again, using pretty much the same wording.I have told you that I don't believe your assertions, and you name a book. Quotes and references are what are expected of participants here, not a demand that others read a book or a general assertion that a book's contents are true, and we'll believe it if we read it.

I don't believe that the law was replaced at all! It is because of the law that we know what sin is. If you read the 600+ levitical laws you know that this law is impossible to follow completely. If you break but one law you have broken the whole law. Once we have died to the flesh and been made alive in the spirit, the law which once was like shackles on a prisoner becomes a welcome guide to follow.Our flesh (sinful nature) is at emnity with God, and if we walk in the flesh we cannot follow God's law. We are slaves to sin and death, can a slave choose to follow any other law than the law of his master? Not until he has been made free from his slavery can he follow another law.Not until we have recieved the spirit of life which comes through faith in Christ Jesus, can our hearts delight in God's law.I believe the law is still a guide to holy living as it was intended originally. The only difference being that we have an eternal high priest and sacrafice. No-one was ever justified by the law, but by faith. Now I am free from the slavery of sin, because Jesus Christ has set me free, the law is light unto my feet and a lamp unto my path.I should have just posted the whole book of Romans and the book of Hebrews. They are much clearer than my bumbling paraphrase. I pray God will bring clarity to the ramblings of this fool.------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

I'm a Christian, but not an inerrantist, and to me it's fascinating to read Romans. Paul had a real genius for explicating his internal arguments. Romans is almost a stream-of-conciousness account of his coming to grips with what to him was a totally new idea: justfication by faith outside the law. He was raised on the law, he had believed in it and followed it his entire life -- his prior soteriology was completely based on it. Now he has found something he realizes is even more important: salvation through faith and grace. Yet he can't forsake the importance of the law, and Romans is the psychological and philosophical chronical of his attempted reconcilliation of the two.For a Christian, its like a time machine to the foundation of our faith. Even for a non-believer, it's an interesting look at someone wrestling with the ideas of law vs. intent, justice vs. mercy, and tradition vs. universals. Like a first-century Les Miserables.-Neil

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I did.
You complained that it was a book.

​

I gave you another reference, too, but it is also a book.

---

​

One of the forum rules is "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided."

---

And I did give supporting discussion...or do you not recall our days of posting regarding words such as arsenkoitai?Are you saying you want me to quote from Boswell's books? I don't happen to have a copy of them so I'll have to go back to the library. But since you don't seem to have a copy of them either, how are you going to respond? If I happen to mention something but not manage to anticipate your potential responses, I'll end up having to quote even more and more tracts from a book you don't have.Hang on...(rustle, rustle...where are my notes on this...ah, here we go):Here's an example, from The Content of Historic Same-Sex Unions:10. SIANI 966 [thirteenth century] [Greek]Order for Solemnization of Same-Sex Unioni
Those intending to be united shall come before the priest.shall place his hand on the Gospel, and the second on the hand of the firstiv
Lord our God and ruler.who didst commend the union of thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchusdo Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one another and abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their livesv
Grant them unashamed faithfulness, true love.vi
accept now these Thy servants N. and N to be united in spirit and faithto prosper in virtue and justice and in sincere lovevii
that they be joined together more in spirit than in fleshix
And they shall kiss the holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.This ritual ends with a kiss, you will notice.Here's another ritual documented (from The New Republic review of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe:Office for Same-Sex Union[Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin]i.The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:ii.In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.
For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That these thy servants, N. and N., be
sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of
their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment
of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and
sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord....
Have mercy on us, O God."Lord, have mercy" shall be said three times.iii.The priest shall say:Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.iv.Another Prayer for Same-Sex UnionO Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.v.Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.Again, it is sealed with a kiss.

quote:

---

This is applied all the time here at this forum to people who send people to a web site as though they expected others to go read the whole web site. How much more does it apply to a book, as most sites referenced are smaller than a book.

---

And yet, we do it all the time. People ask for information, people respond, "Go look at Talk Origins and then say nothing more.I said a lot more. I gave you plenty of information to show you why the comments in the Bible have nothing to do with what we would call "homosexuality" in our modern view and mentioned that there is evidence that the Catholic Church used to practice same-sex marriage, pointing you to a source where you could read the actual liturgy used.How can that possibly be considered "no supporting discussion"?Look, I am not here to do your homework for you. I understand that I do need to provide evidence to back up my assertions, but if that evidence comes from sources offline, that is not a fault against me. I provided you plenty of bibliographic information that would enable you to go to your local library and look it up for yourself. I can't force you to read it.

quote:

---

You have discussed things, but you drew no supporting evidence or information from that book of yours.

---

You mean the actual liturgy used by the Catholic Church that I asked you to go look up? It's an offline source. You're going to hold that against me? We can only mention sources that can be looked up online?

quote:

---

You say you sent me to a book, but I asked you simply where you got your definition from, and you did not answer.

---

What definition? Of arsenkoitai? Did you look at the other book I pointed you to? Boswell points out the usage of "arsenkoitai" is a reference to male prostitution.I can't make you read the information. I can only point it out.

quote:

---

You had previously sent me to a book, asking me to read the whole thing, not look up your definition.

---

That's because this discussion is much deeper than a simple definition.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where do you get homosexuality out of this? Since there was no modern concept of "homosexuality" in the time period, how can you possibly claim "that which is unseemly" means "homosexuality"?

---

​

Forum rule # 2 says, "Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration."

---

I know. That's why I responded the way I did. You merely repeated your same point without elaborating.

quote:

---

You asked this question once already, and so did John. I answered it well enough that John agreed that my point at least seemed the most reasonable conclusion at the time. You didn't respond to me but asked this same question again, using pretty much the same wording.

---

That's because you didn't answer it. You merely repeated your same assertion that made me ask it in the first place.To boil it down, your argument is simply, "That's what it means."

quote:

---

I have told you that I don't believe your assertions, and you name a book.

---

Yep. The assertions are dealt with in exquisite detail in the books I have mentioned. It would behoove you to go read them. I cannot make you read them. And I find your resistance to reading them very interesting...going even so far as to try and get me banned from the board for forum violations.

quote:

---

Quotes and references are what are expected of participants here, not a demand that others read a book or a general assertion that a book's contents are true, and we'll believe it if we read it.

---

I didn't say that.I said read it and we'll have a basis from which to discuss.Hint: A book is a reference.I'm sorry it isn't online. I'm sorry that it's a huge book that covers a lot of material. But that doesn't let you off the hook.As I pointed out before, you have a huge block regarding this subject. It isn't something that I can discuss with you using only 500-word essays every other day or so. If I can make you change your convictions just by talking to you for a little while, then they weren't your convictions to begin with. In order to make any progress in this subject, you're going to have to do a lot of the work on your own. I can't do it for you. A web site article isn't going to do it. You're going to have to turn off the computer, go to the library, and do the research on your own.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

And I did give supporting discussion...or do you not recall our days of posting regarding words such as arsenkoitai?

---

Perhaps you'd be interested in another discussion of this term. BGreek: "ARSENOKOITAI" in 1 Cor. 6:9------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Because Rrhain's post was so long, I want to sum up the argument, from my side, in one short post, to get past the vast amount of words Rrhain tried to bury them under.The verses in question say:Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, 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 (KJV)1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God...neither effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankindIn Rom 1:27, Rrhain is arguming that the Greek word for unseemly matters here, and that it means "woman's genitals." Try fitting that into the sentence! Sheesh. It doesn't mean that, according to Strong's the word unseemly was once used of a woman's genitals, just as unclean might be used by a Jew about a pig, but it doesn't mean pig.The all-knowing Rrhain has also decreed that context of Romans 1 is about temple prostitution, but I don't see it, and I doubt anyone without an agenda would see it, either.In 1 Cor 6:9, Rrhain is arguing that the word arsenokoites means temple prostitute, even though Strong's says it is made up of two words, arseno meaning man, and koites, meaning sex (coitus, the web site John referenced suggested that it meant sex in marrigae). Rrhain doesn't agree with this.That's about it. He also doesn't agree that Deut 22:5, which says it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, is about homosexuality, either.Oh, well.The original question was from someone else about whether the NT is against homosexuality like the OT is, and I gave her Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6. I stand by that as patently obvious.I rested my case earlier, but I think it got lost in Rrhain's many words, so these are my "final remarks." Very simple, in my opinion.