Ship of Fools: Can we laugh at ourselves?

Thread: Can we laugh at ourselves? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028517

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I find this hilarious. I imagine some would be offended. I'd especially like some of our conservative shippies who feel the strongest about homosexual acts being sinful to say if they find this offensive, or funny.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I'm not at all offended by this. I don't really see how anybody could be offended TBH.

I didn't find it funny though. At all. Sorry.

Maybe this is a pond thing. Brits tend to like their humour a little less obvious. Which is strange because the voice-over sounded British. [Confused]

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

The funniest thing is that (when I looked, at least) there were > 2400 comments and nearly all of them seemed to be from illiterates.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I find this hilarious.

I laughed. Particularly at the 'parents of a Christian' interviewette.

But I don't think that I was laughing at myself. It isn't a send up of things that I personally believe, but of things that other people believe. That I, and they, are Christian doesn't change the fact that I was laughing at a parody of someone else's deeply-held views.

I am firmly in favour of intelligent parody* of people's deeply-held views, mine included, but I'm not going to congratulate myself on my open-mindedness for enjoying a parody aimed at people I disagree with, just because they are also Christians**.

(*as distinct from unintelligent mockery or scorn. The difference being that parody engages the wits, and provokes thought, whereas mockery engages feelings of contempt, and is a bar to understand).

(**I'm not suggesting you are doing this, MT - and I note that you are asking for the views of the people who are being sent up)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I laughed. Particularly at the 'parents of a Christian' interviewette.

Actually, I'm going to disagree with me immediately - I found that 'parents of a Christian' bit especially funny because it DID resonate with my own fears and anxieties about my own responsibilities as a parent on the issues of sexuality and religion. So on that part, the funniest part, I was, at least a little, laughing at myself.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I don't know whether I rank as a 'conservative Shippie' for these purposes but I didn't find it offensive at all; it was mildly amusing as a pretty obvious parody. I particularly liked the 'practicing Christian'/'practicing homosexual' juxtaposition.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I think it would have been even funnier if instead of all the Christians getting defensive, there'd been a Calvinist who'd exulted that at last they'd found the Elect gene. [Smile]

Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on :

I find it quite funny, but I am not really sure how well it works as a parody - usually it's the conservative Christians who say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not that it is genetic and unavoidable

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I find it quite funny, but I am not really sure how well it works as a parody - usually it's the conservative Christians who say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not that it is genetic and unavoidable

The point, I think, is that Christianity (in the parody) is a condition that is assumed to be obviously wrong and susceptible to some sort of cure. The gay scientists in the send-up are saying "Look, it's not your fault..." in contradistinction to the Christians they are sending up, who would rather condemn.

[ 18. September 2009, 19:52: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on :

Mm, maybe that's it. Well it is funny anyway

[ 18. September 2009, 19:54: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

OK, so I don't fit your designated demographic, MT, but I'll comment anyway. As a gay Christian I didn't really find it funny; not terribly offensive, just not funny.

Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on :

As likely seen as that conservative, it's a non-point. Took a look at the title, hear the first 3 seconds ans clicked it off. It probably was funny, but it's not like I have to watch everything that makes fun of certain Christian demographics.

That being said: Ha!

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

it was funny.
Like Eliab, I resonate to the Christian parents bit.

I came to dead horses to share the following - I've seen similar things before and used similar arguments, but this was so well put I wanted to add it here, sorry if it's been done to death already. Was going to start a new thread, but it doesn't need anyone to respond and it seems to fit here:

Subject: Religion

On her highly popular radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as
an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by
an US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well
as informative:

=============

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-
room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

Taliesin - I was marginally concerned about copyright, following your full extract from the letter. But clearly I needn't have worried - it's clearly been around the world many times already.

But thanks - I was looking for just this sort of material for later use!

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Taliesin - I was marginally concerned about copyright, following your full extract from the letter. But clearly I needn't have worried - it's clearly been around the world many times already.

But thanks - I was looking for just this sort of material for later use!

It's also been ripped-off/homaged in the West Wing!

- Chris.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I've seen similar things before and used similar arguments, but this was so well put I wanted to add it here, sorry if it's been done to death already.

I don't quite understand what argument is being put forward here though.

As others have said this has been around for a while. I've come across it on numerous occasions and always thought, "and?"

It is a legitimate question to ask an Orthodox Jew - hence the context - but I don't see what it adds to the debate on the dead horse threads here.

Christians have interpreted the OT in the light of the NT for, oh, about 2000 years. They argue a lot about how the NT interprets the OT but they all pretty much agree that is how it is done.

I don't know much about the American context - maybe the Jewish community is much larger and more vocal? - but I don't see how this Dear Dr. Laura quote contributes to the debate in the UK or Australia where largely the debate is over how Christians view homosexuality.

If the secret of great comedy is timing then this reads like a joke delivered 2000 years too late.

[ 16. October 2009, 06:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I would have to disagree given that I see the two Leviticus passages quoted often when the subject of homosexuality comes up particularly in the political sphere in the U.S. Heck there are politician and Christian preachers who advocate that the punishment be observed and I don't just have Phelps in mind.

The overall message of the Dr. Laura letter still rings true (and its something echoed in the Book of James). If you're going to quote part of the law, you'd better follow all of it.

If the Mosaic code is really irrelevant for Christians why are the anti-male-anal sex passages quote BY Christians on such a regular basis?

[ 16. October 2009, 17:52: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I find this hilarious. I imagine some would be offended. I'd especially like some of our conservative shippies who feel the strongest about homosexual acts being sinful to say if they find this offensive, or funny.

Not quite as good as the "God hates a fag" parody song which tricked a lot of people and caused lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth from all sides.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

FWIW, I'm not a conservative as I think mousethief is defining one, though I am somewhat conservative in other ways.

I found it smirk-inducing, cleverly done, and mildly offensive. The parody of "Family Values" arguments didn't bother me so much as the general assumption that Christianity=homophobia.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If the Mosaic code is really irrelevant for Christians why are the anti-male-anal sex passages quote BY Christians on such a regular basis?

When pressed, my experience is that they'll argue from Romans 1 that this was one part of the code that continues into Christianity.

I'm also not in favor of completely ditching Leviticus and Deuteronomy, just understanding them in their proper context (which doesn't mean quoting a single verse and then saying some equivalent of "so there!")

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I would have to disagree given that I see the two Leviticus passages quoted often when the subject of homosexuality comes up particularly in the political sphere in the U.S. Heck there are politician and Christian preachers who advocate that the punishment be observed and I don't just have Phelps in mind.

Okay thanks - in the UK and Australia I've only come across Leviticus 18 as a very minor part of a biblical theology of sexuality. I've certainly never met any conservatives who advocate the punishment of Leviticus to be enforced. Therefore to know that some people do so in the U.S. is helpful to know - so that I can steer well clear of that.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you're going to quote part of the law, you'd better follow all of it.

That's the bit I don't get. That statement doesn't follow at all. Following a trajectory through Mark 7 --> Acts 15 etc. it is clear that (from the very start) Christians have always thought that parts of the Torah are still applied and other parts aren't. Of course there is huge debate (especially with an issue like homosexuality) precisely how Jesus fulfils / completes / abrogates etc. the Torah and how we are supposed to interpret the Torah today - nonetheless I can't see how "If you're going to quote part of the law, you'd better follow all of it" has ever been an argument that Christians would recognise.

Through out church history there is a spectrum over how much of the Torah applies to Christians but that is my point - you are trying to apply a black and white statement (Torah = all or nothing) to a spectrum. It just doesn't work.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
...I can't see how "If you're going to quote part of the law, you'd better follow all of it" has ever been an argument that Christians would recognise.

I think Paul said entirely the opposite. From Galatians, it was only if you got circumcised that you were obliged to obey the entire law. Paul said that the law wasn't salvific in and of himself; I don't think it follows (whatever Luther said) that the Torah is completely irrelevant.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I don't think it follows (whatever Luther said) that the Torah is completely irrelevant.

Where did I say the Torah was irrelevant?

All I said was that Christians have always argued over which bits still apply and how they apply. Your quote from Galatians is exactly what I'm talking about - all or nothing may be argument for Orthodox Jews but not for Christians.

Some have divided the Torah into categories (Ceremonial, cultic, moral etc.) and talked about Christ abolishing or fulfilling some categories. Others have talked either in terms of all the Torah applies apart from which the NT specifically abrogates, or none of the Torah applies apart from what the Torah sprcifically endorses. However, all Christians have said (in effect) some of it still literally applies and some doesn't.

To point that out is simply a truism. Neither side of the homosexuality debate gains any ground from it.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I don't think it follows (whatever Luther said) that the Torah is completely irrelevant.
Where did I say the Torah was irrelevant?

All I said was that Christians have always argued over which bits still apply and how they apply. Your quote from Galatians is exactly what I'm talking about - all or nothing may be argument for Orthodox Jews but not for Christians.

Some have divided the Torah into categories (Ceremonial, cultic, moral etc.) and talked about Christ abolishing or fulfilling some categories. Others have talked either in terms of all the Torah applies apart from which the NT specifically abrogates, or none of the Torah applies apart from what the Torah sprcifically endorses. However, all Christians have said (in effect) some of it still literally applies and some doesn't.

To point that out is simply a truism. Neither side of the homosexuality debate gains any ground from it.

Actually, when I first thought about Galatians, I was going to bring that up because I misremembered Paul as saying "If you follow one law, you have to follow them all," but rereading it, I found that he only said that about circumcision, which is a different matter.

So I was actually posting to agree with you. As I posted above, it's not really accurate to say that the Torah was erased upon the crucifixion. "Fulfilled" might be a closer word, but then we have to finagle exactly what that word means.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

No. What I said is if you are quote the law (to judge others) you have to follow it perfectly, which is different than saying that the Torah is irrelevant. (I am not sure why you made that leap.)

From James:

quote:
8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

James 2

The point is that Laura (as a Jew) and conservative Christians still use the two Leviticus passage to judge and condemn and oppress homosexuals, but as the letter to Laura says, and the witness of the NT says, if you judge others using the law, you have to keep in perfectly, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

That is different than saying that the Torah has no bearing on Christians, though I think St Paul said that its bearing is that we are to love others as ourselves.

quote:
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Romans 13

It seems clear to me that for most of Christian history there was no recognition that gay relationships can be loving, monogamous and lifelong, and fulfil the law. The change that is occurring in the church is due to a recognition that they are.

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog:

I'm also not in favor of completely ditching Leviticus and Deuteronomy, just understanding them in their proper context (which doesn't mean quoting a single verse and then saying some equivalent of "so there!")

But then why quote Leviticus and not stick to Romans. This just adds a distraction to the whole debate which again, the letter addresses. Can't Romans stand on its own?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Sorry. I re-read my post and my last sentence was poorly phrased. I can see why you made the leap. I hope my subsequent post clarified it. I think the Torah is relevant in that it points us towards a love ethic. But I reject the categorization of the Torah into "moral" and "ceremonial", etc. laws because they tend to be arbitrary and based on the prejudices of those who do the categorizing.

That's what I meant, but it came out wrong. Sorry again.

[ 17. October 2009, 14:58: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But then why quote Leviticus and not stick to Romans. This just adds a distraction to the whole debate which again, the letter addresses. Can't Romans stand on its own?

Partly because those who interpret Romans 1 to condemn homosexuality say that Paul is using terms from the Septuagint version of Leviticus.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Romans 1 doesn't come from the Septuagint version of Leviticus. Some say that the 1 Corinthians 6:9 does (though no one made that connection until the 20th Century.)

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

I don't know whether you'd call me a conservative Christian - however, I am a person who has changed my mind about what my sexual orientation is on a number of occasions. And not always so that I can wriggle out of relationships! Honest!

But as a result of that, I have occasionally come into conflict with people who insist that anyone who is gay was born gay, and that anyone who is straight was born straight.

It seems that many people tend to judge whether a person is gay or straight by whether or not they exhibit certain behavioural stereotypes. Yes, even trained psychotherapists, who you'd have thought would know better. But these stereotypes are themselves learned behaviours. I hung around on the gay scene for a bit, and as a result picked up the regional accent and mannerisms that went with it.

Occasionally, I'd turn to friends and hope they'd offer some words of support in hard times - I might say "I've failed my exams", or "I've just lost my job", or "I've just been dumped", or "these little red pills that pep me up and stop me eating so I can lose weight are rather nice, but I'm finding it hard to go without them for more than a day or two" - but more often than not they'd respond, "I think the root of the problem is that you're in denial about the fact that you're gay." Who do they think they are, to think they know what my sexual orientation is, better than I know it myself? It's the height of arrogance! I repeatedly tried to argue this point but they rarely if ever listened.

That's why I think the right to self-determination of sexual orientation is absolutely sacrosanct. The idea that a person's sexual orientation might be determined by a blood test in a pathology laboratory, and that a person might then be expected to comply with that determination, either legally or socially, is something that I personally find absolutely horrific.

But I don't lose sleep over it, because it's not going to happen any time soon. There's no 100% reliable genetic determinant of sexual orientation, and I can't see how scientists could ever prove that there is a genetic determinant, short of sampling the entire population on the planet. If they don't sample the whole planet, they have to be prepared for the possibility that there might be exceptions. And even if they do sample the whole planet, they'd also have to overlook the fact that some people change their mind about their sexual orientation from time to time. You can't always determine a person's sexual orientation from their history of sexual activity, and even if you could, history of sexual activity is something that people aren't always honest about.

So anyway, I was arguing this point on another Christian forum, when someone posted a link to that video. And I thought it was hilarious!

However, I didn't read it as a send-up of conservative Christians. Rather, I saw it as a send-up of the people who think they can tell who's gay and who isn't just by stereotypes, and who are good at banging on about how some people are genetically gay, but aren't quite so good at pointing at peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals about it.

So - which is it more offensive to? Gay activists? Or conservative Christians? Is it offensive to either?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I don't know whether you'd call me a conservative Christian - however, I am a person who has changed my mind about what my sexual orientation is on a number of occasions. And not always so that I can wriggle out of relationships! Honest!

But as a result of that, I have occasionally come into conflict with people who insist that anyone who is gay was born gay, and that anyone who is straight was born straight.

So wait a minute. You project your experience with discerning your sexual orientation (bisexual perhaps?) on to everyone else and insist that their must match yours?

Oh brother.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

... correct me if I'm wrong, but I see Jessie saying that she(?) sometimes COMES INTO CONFLICT with people who INSIST that people are BORN gay or straight with no room for changes in either direction.

No projection, AFAICS.

It pisses me off, too, when people assume they know what my problem is, regardless of what scenario or symptoms I'm presenting. If they mistrust Christianity, it'll be 'because I'm too involved with/giving too much time to the church' If they aren't married (or are unhappily married) with kids, they assume it's the pressures of family life. If they don't work outside the home, or wish they didn't, they assume it's my job that's too much.

People with genuine insight tend to wait to be asked, or offer their thoughts a bit more subtly.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Romans 1 doesn't come from the Septuagint version of Leviticus. Some say that the 1 Corinthians 6:9 does (though no one made that connection until the 20th Century.)

Not quite. 1 Cor is more obvious, because Paul uses two words - arsenokoitai and malakoi, which are not found in any Greek outside the LXX.

However, as well as an obvious reference to Wisdom 11-15, Romans 1: 27 alludes, according to J. G. Dunn, to Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 (Romans 1-8 (WORD 1988) p. 74

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Romans 1 doesn't come from the Septuagint version of Leviticus. Some say that the 1 Corinthians 6:9 does (though no one made that connection until the 20th Century.)
Not quite. 1 Cor is more obvious, because Paul uses two words - arsenokoitai and malakoi, which are not found in any Greek outside the LXX.

However, as well as an obvious reference to Wisdom 11-15, Romans 1: 27 alludes, according to J. G. Dunn, to Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 (Romans 1-8 (WORD 1988) p. 74

I get the Romans 1 - Wisdom connection but not the connection with Leviticus, unless you are saying that both passages are referring to same sex acts in the context of idolatry, Romans 1 being explicit and the Leviticus passages being implicit. Romans 1 also references same sex female acts which are not mentioned by Leviticus at all.

I agree that malakoi and arsenokoitai are found in the LXX but until recently that commentaries did not made the claim that Paul was directly referencing Leviticus when he coined the word arsenkoitai in 1 Cor.

But you don't find people making these nuanced arguments when they reference Leviticus, at least in North America. I think the verse is used because it seems clear, which works wonderfully with the "bumper sticker" theology you see nowadays, and there is a nasty penalty assigned which is meant to scare people.

And if I misunderstood Jessie's point, I apologise.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Romans 1 doesn't come from the Septuagint version of Leviticus. Some say that the 1 Corinthians 6:9 does (though no one made that connection until the 20th Century.)
Not quite. 1 Cor is more obvious, because Paul uses two words - arsenokoitai and malakoi, which are not found in any Greek outside the LXX.

However, as well as an obvious reference to Wisdom 11-15, Romans 1: 27 alludes, according to J. G. Dunn, to Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 (Romans 1-8 (WORD 1988) p. 74
I get the Romans 1 - Wisdom connection but not the connection with Leviticus, unless you are saying that both passages are referring to same sex acts in the context of idolatry, Romans 1 being explicit and the Leviticus passages being implicit. Romans 1 also references same sex female acts which are not mentioned by Leviticus at all.

I agree that malakoi and arsenokoitai are found in the LXX but until recently that commentaries did not made the claim that Paul was directly referencing Leviticus when he coined the word arsenkoitai in 1 Cor.

But you don't find people making these nuanced arguments when they reference Leviticus, at least in North America. I think the verse is used because it seems clear, which works wonderfully with the "bumper sticker" theology you see nowadays, and there is a nasty penalty assigned which is meant to scare people.

And if I misunderstood Jessie's point, I apologise.

Idolatry, certainly. But the relevant quotation from Dunn, about 'committing shameless acts': Paul could not help but be thinking here of Leviticus 18 and 20 which include homosexual acts within the category of illicit sexual relationships as one of the ‘abominations’ of the surrounding people which Israel should avoid on pain of being cut off from the covenant.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Idolatry, certainly. But the relevant quotation from Dunn, about 'committing shameless acts': Paul could not help but be thinking here of Leviticus 18 and 20 which include homosexual acts within the category of illicit sexual relationships as one of the ‘abominations’ of the surrounding people which Israel should avoid on pain of being cut off from the covenant.

Please allow me to revel in the opportunity of completely agreeing with Leo ... in his reading of 1 Cor. 6. and the semantic origins of arsenokoites. [Big Grin]

Dunn makes a pretty compelling case, ISTM.

[ 19. October 2009, 07:04: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That's a first! Cheers.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0