(This is a continuation of an earlier post)  mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes: >For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can >be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about) >it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to >determine why you "pick" one and ignore another.  I frankly think the >whole effort misguided.  Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything." >But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this, >the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor.  If you cannot go >through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then >your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy.  In this >context, it is remarkably offensive to say: >  >>I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the >>verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse.  (I am sorry you found this offensive.  It was not my intent to offend.  I was  leading up to another point, which I discuss in more detail below.)  >Well, la-ti-da.  So what?  This is almost as slimey an argument as the >one that homosexuality == rape.  I know of no one who argues seriously >(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality.  It is >absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do* >raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human >adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant >than the laws of kashrut.  If you cannot address the actual issues, you >are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the >world.  If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not >mine.  And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in >our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing >us as human beings.  You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means >you can think of to do so.  I can see you have a revulsion for bestiality that far exceeds my distaste for  homosexuality.  Certainly if I spoke about homosexuality the way you speak of  bestiality, nobody would have any trouble labelling me a homophobe.  Let me ask  this gently:  why are you so judgemental of other people's sexual preferences?   What happened to "No doubt I am free to do anything"?  I think you have a  serious double standard here.  When you describe a comparison between  homosexuality and bestiality as "slimey" and "sleazy", you are making an  implicit judgement that bestiality is perverted, sinful, disgusting,  unnatural--in short, all the things that society once thought about  homosexuality.  Not all people share your view.  You claim not to know any  sincere zoophiles, but this does not mean that they do not exist.  They even  have their own newsgroup:  alt.sex.bestiality.  Are you going to accuse them  all of being mere "jokers"?  I notice you deleted the main point of my comment:  the fact that the only  Biblical condemnations of bestiality occur in connection with the Levitical  prohibitions against homosexuality.  While there are some New Testament  passages that can arguably be taken as condemning homosexuality, there are none  that condemn bestiality.  One of your main points seems to be that Christian  homosexuality is acceptable due to the lack of any "clear" New Testament  statements against it; if this is a valid argument, then should not Christian  zoophilia be made that much more acceptable by the fact that the New Testament  makes no reference, clear or unclear, to the subject at all?  I am quite serious here.  If I am going to accept homosexuality as Biblically  acceptable on the basis of your arguments, then I am going to be fair and apply  the same standards to everyone else's declared sexual preferences as well.  If  the arguments you make for homosexuality can be applied to other sexual  preferences as well, I'm going to apply them and see what comes up.  I'm not  trying to "torpedo a serious issue" by using what you label "a ridiculous  joke".  I posted a question about how we should interpret Biblical guidelines  for Christian sexuality, and I don't think such a question is "irrelevant" in a  group called "soc.religion.christian".  The Bible discusses homosexuality and  bestiality together in the same context, and therefore I feel I have a good  precedent for doing the same.  >Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length, >the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to >love one another, and ALL else depends on that.  Gay and lesbian Christ- >ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get >in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues.  I don't know whether it makes any difference, but for the record, this is not a  side issue for me.  I believe loving one another includes not encouraging  people to defile themselves, therefore it is of high importance to determine  whether God regards certain sexual acts as defiling.  I can read in the New  Testament that "God has joined together" heterosexual couples, and that the  marriage bed is undefiled.  I can read in the Old Testament that homosexual  intercourse and bestiality defile a person whether or not that person is under  the Law.  If gay Christians can validly put aside the Old Testament standards  of defilement, then I want to know so that I can fairly apply it to all the  sexual practices that defiled a person in the old days.  I don't think it's  right to take just bits and pieces of the Law and try and apply them to  Christians today, e.g. bestiality still defiles you but homosexuality doesn't.   That was pretty much what you said earlier, right?  You used different  examples, but I think you said essentially the same thing about it being wrong  to apply only certain parts of the Law to Christians.   >Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every >corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same >old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never >even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with >the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can >manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great >emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even >taking the trouble to find out what it is.  It was not my intent to stir up such an emotional reaction.  I personally don't  get all that upset discussing alternatives to the monogamous heterosexual  orientation; I'm afraid I naively assumed that others would have a similar  attitude.  Please note that I have never intended to equate homosexuality with  child abuse.  I have merely noted that, for all the lack of "clear" NT  condemnation of homosexuality, there is an even greater lack of NT condemnation  (or even mention) of bestiality, a practice which a number of people (e.g. on  alt.sex.bestiality) consider to be their true sexual orientation.  >Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ. >WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to >condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN >to BEFORE you start your condemnations?  Is that loving your neighbor? >God forbid!  Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or >condemn others?  Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in >insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are >SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do. >  >Why, for God's sake? > [quote from John 3:17ff omitted for brevity]  This is an excellent question, and I pray that you will not treat it as a mere  rhetorical question, but will genuinely seek to discover and understand the  answer.  I recommend you begin with a little introspection into why you  yourself have much the same attitude towards zoophilia.  Why do you find  bestiality so repugnant that you regard it as slanderous to even mention in  connection with other alternative sexual orientations?  Why do you not apply  all the same verses about love and tolerance to zoophiles the way you apply  them to homosexuals?  Is it because you automatically experience a subjective feeling of revulsion at  the thought?  A lot of people have the same experience at the thought of  homosexual intercourse.  Is it because you regard the practice as socially  unacceptable?  A lot of people regard homosexuality as socially unacceptable.   Do you feel that it violates the traditional Judeo-Christian standard of sexual  morality?  Many people feel that homosexuality does.  Do you feel the Bible  condemns it?  Many people think the Bible says more to condemn homosexuality  than it does to condemn bestiality.  Why then do you think comparing bestiality  with homosexuality is insulting to homosexuality?  If you can honestly answer  this question, you will have come a long way towards understanding why many  people feel the same way about homosexuality as you feel about bestiality.  Also please note that I am not in any sense condemning *people*.  I am merely  pointing out that when I read the Bible I see certain sexual *practices* that  the Bible appears to condemn, e.g. sex outside of marriage.  When I say I think  adultery and pre-marital sex are sinful, do you take that as me failing to love  my neighbor?  When you treat bestiality as something disgusting and  unmentionable, are you disobeying "repeated orders not to judge or condemn  others"?  When you say other Christians are guilty of sinning by condemning you  and judging you, are you by that accusation making yourself guilty of the same  offense?  Or are you and I both simply taking note about *practices* the Bible  brands as sinful, and leaving the judgement of the *people* up to God?  >For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from >evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and >rejected.  Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do* >show a sinful shunning of God's light.  Blessed are those whose spirits >have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified. > >However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity; >and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who >fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow >it with the darkness of false witness against us. >--  >Michael L. Siemon               I say "You are gods, sons of the >mls@panix.com                   Most High, all of you; nevertheless >    - or -                      you shall die like men, and fall >mls@ulysses.att..com            like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7  I'm not sure what you mean by the above two paragraphs.  If you mean that Jesus  is the Truth, and that He accepts sinners, and does not reject them, then I  agree.  If we were not sinners, then we would not *need* a Savior.  Our  salvation in Christ, however, does not mean that sin is now irrelevant for us,  and we can now do whatever we want.  Nor does Christ's grace mean that those  who refer to sin as "sin" are being judgemental or intolerant.  I am speaking  in general terms here, not specifically about homosexuality.  If the Bible  calls something "sin", then it is not unreasonable for Christians to call it  sin too.  As applied to Christian homosexuality, I think the only definitive authority on  Christian sexuality is the Bible.  If you make a list of everything the Bible  says on the subject of homosexual intercourse, I think you will find that every  verse on the list is negative and condemning at worst, and "unclear" at best.   The most pro-gay statement you could make about the list is that there is some  dispute about the New Testament verses which many people interpret as  condemning homosexual intercourse.  That is, from a gay perspective, the most  positive thing you can say about the Bible's treatment of homosexuality is that  some verses fail to clearly condemn it.  That's it.  Jesus declared all foods  clean, the council at Jerusalem declared that Gentiles were not required to  keep the ritual Law, but nobody ever reclassified homosexual intercourse from  being an abomination deserving of death to being an accepted Christian  practice.  You have verses describing homosexual intercourse as an abomination  that defiles both Jews under the Law and Gentiles not under the Law, and you  have some verses which are at best "not clear" but which some people believe  *are* clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior, and that's the sum  total of what the Bible says about same-sex intercourse.  I can appreciate (from personal experience) your desire to have everything  simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white, what-I-want- is-ok, and  those-who-oppose-me-are-wicked.  However, I do not think the Bible makes your  case as definitively as you would like it to.  In fact, I don't believe it says  anything positive about your case at all.  Yes, I know the verses about loving  one another, and not judging one another, but that's not really the issue, is  it?  You know and admit that there are still things that are sinful for  Christians to do, since you say it is wrong for Christians to condemn you.   Therefore, the issue is whether the Bible says homosexual intercourse is a sin.   Even if you do challenge the clarity of the New Testament verses, you are still  left with the fact that the only thing the Bible does say clearly about  homosexual intercourse is that it is an abomination that defiles both those who  are under the law and those who are not.  - Mark