I know for a fact that he uses this reasoning and have called him on it in my review of his “Why Christianity Must Change of Die”.

Just read (or at least skimmed) through most of your review of the book, and didn’t see this reasoning mentioned once.

Having read the book several years ago, I don’t recall if Spong used this reasoning. But I don’t see you mentioning this reasoning at all in your review.

I have read many books/articles from “pro-gay Christians” and have not found this to be a pervasive argument anywhere. While it may be mentioned at times, it is definitely not foundational to any argument that I have seen.

Those who make an argument (at least those who make serious arguments) for the acceptance of homosexuality actually wrestle with the text and the cultural context it is coming from.

i think the discussion about leviticus is not as challenging or compelling as considering NT verses, like romans 1 for instance.

i’m totally with cheapham on the scripture question. good work.

Who are these people? I don’t recall ever seeing this as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality, at least not by any serious thinkers about the issue.

If you haven’t seen this sort of logic (if it can be called that) invoked I’d say you need to read more books by pro-gay “Christians”. John Shelby Spong’s books come to mind, I know for a fact that he uses this reasoning and have called him on it in my review of his “Why Christianity Must Change of Die”.

Andy - I think that you do identify something that all would to well to keep in mind, that arguments from silence are bad arguments. Many Christians and scholars have used this to their own detriment, conservative and liberal alike.

Ham - You make good points, the canon is a contested category. Andy and others are arguing from a certain canon and a specific interpretation of their canon. The context of 2nd Tim seems to indicate the writings are sacred writings. The sacred writings of Andy and those that agree with him are the the writings of the protestant canon. Again, while there are literal contradictions and tensions, ( and the first step of a biblical interpretation is to acknowledge these tensions) a final interpretation of the Bible includes a dealing with these contradictions and tensions. Andy and the others are operating from this final stage, where the contradictions have been dealt with. (such as giving primacy to the New Testament over the Old, etc).

Who says that we have to, in our final evaluation, mimic the views of the ancients? I would agree that we should know and take them into account as we work through the issues, but I know of no reason that suggests we should mimic their ideas and world views.

I’ve never seen a serious scholar use this argument.  however, this is a fairly popular argument in the realm of popular debate.  not to sound all elitest, but there it is… I’ve heard this argument used in several "coffee-shoppe" discussions of various issues.

As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior.

Who are these people? I don’t recall ever seeing this as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality, at least not by any serious thinkers about the issue.

-Edgar

Great timing. My wife was just asking me about these verses. I guess it was on some TV show where they mentioned Leviticus, Homosexuality and Eating Shrimp. Your example of Incest settles the issue. I’ll remember it.

I like Ham’s analysis of your post. He raises some really interesting issues. Inerrancy and Infallibility are of great interest to me so - Ham - consider more of the same! This is a great topic.

for the record, I agree that just saying "Jesus didn’t talk about it" is not a good argument, but I also agree with ham that your post overly-simplifies reading the Scriptures and the doctrine of inspiration… no Christian reads all parts of Scripture equally (do you have indoor plumbing?  Leviticus says you shouldn’t.)