GAY TRUTH

The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament . Homosexual Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality.  For example, Boswell ’s attitude appears in his statement, “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.” Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior . The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens , “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the b

Boswell revealed a blatant moral relativism in his struggle with the presence of adultery and incest in Leviticus 18 and 20 . He wrote,  “Although both chapters also contain prohibitions [e.g., against incest and adultery] which would seem to stem from moral absolutes, their function in the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 seems to be as symbols of Jewish distinctiveness.” Boswell must categorize these prohibitions as “symbols of Jewish distinctiveness” (forcing them to fit into his cubbyhole of ritual impurity) or else his entire argument fails. To admit that incest or adultery in this context is “inherently” or “intrinsically evil” would be to admit the presence of non-ritual uncleanness, which is described as toevah. A simple study of the word toevah reveals an insurmountable obstacle for Boswell interpretation. Numerous times in the Hebrew Bible we find that the word toevah refers to the sins that were committed by the pagan nations surrounding Israel . Now, if toevah

REVISIONIST WANT TO REINTERPRET THE BIBLE BUT FAIL Justification of homosexuality from the Bible must take into account the record of Creation in Genesis 1–2. Such revisionist interpreters as Boswell have not overlooked this matter. They so interpret these passages that homosexuality escapes condemnation. The assumption that the record of Creation and the Old Testament emphasis on marriage show tacit rejection of one-gender sexual relationships is “insupportable in a modern context,” asserts Boswell. “It does not seem to have occurred to early Christians.” Indeed, “intense love relations between persons of the same gender figure prominently in the Old Testament.”  Boswell cites Saul and David , David and Jonathan,    Ruth and Naomi . Boswell does not argue that these relationships were sexual. He suggests as much, however, by observing that literature of the Middle Ages sometimes represented these relationships as erotic. He believes that Genesis employs symbols and myt

Old Testament Authority and Hermeneutics - Homosexual sin The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament. Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality. For example, Boswell’s attitude appears in his statement,  “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.” Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior. The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens, “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens.  They would not consider them to be different

Sodom and Gomorrha, Alte Pinakothek, Room 23 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) To understand how the destruction of Sodom was interpreted later, we must turn to Ezekiel ’s reference. According to the revisionist view, Ezekiel 16 lists the sins of Sodom categorically and finds them less serious than the sexual sins of Jerusalem . Revisionists point to verses 48–49. There, they say, we find that Sodom’s sins were pride, gluttony, idleness, and neglect (or, according to Edwards, oppression) of the poor and needy.68 The passage does not mention homosexuality. However, Boswell and Bailey and others interpret these two verses incorrectly because they fail to consider their context, especially verse 50.69 In the passage, Ezekiel compares Jerusalem with her two sisters, the elder Samaria and the younger Sodom. He finds that Jerusalem, is worse than either of the others (note 16:47–52). Sodom obviously is a figurative term here, probably a reference to Judah as a whole.70 Ezekiel 16:2 sets forth

Tony Abbott is completely correct on the concept of traditional marriage being between a "Mum and a Dad." The entire population would agree except a minority who themselves are homosexual and obviously would seek to fin minor variations of marriage throughout different cultures in order to say marriage historically is a free for all.  ABC Fact Checker quotes Yale University's John Boswell and his book entitled: Sex Unions In Premodern Europe. He claims the use of the word friend is misunderstood and really means lover. With regards to Christianity he claims a lesbian relationship between Ruth and Naomi , David and Jonathon, he reinterprets a spiritual fraternity as a homosexual relationship. The author died of AIDS. All of his examples are questionable, minor and insignificant. Writing in The Christian Century magazine, the Candler School of Theology 's historian of theology Philip Lyndon Reynolds expressed "profound problems" with Boswell's pos