[percy-l] God's Gender and Ham Sandwiches

Tim Cole tcole at adobe.com
Thu Aug 14 13:56:38 EDT 2003

> In addition, the surrounding words of this name of God have feminine
> inflection, further emphasizing the feminine nature of this side of God.
> I think it¹s reasonable to think that God is a mix of what we would label both
> male and female traits...and it has implications in what Genesis says about
> marriage between man and woman.
> In Jewish tradition, to say that God is only male and not female is blasphemy
> because it is limiting God.
> Agreed. We see through a glass darkly...
> And I firmly believe not only should we not judge, but we accomplish nothing
> (only harm) by judging.
> We are called to love.
> We are also called to discern, test the spirits, test doctrine, hold fast to
> that which is good. We can¹t do that without making moral or epistemic
> judgments. If you¹re saying that not judging means not being able to do this,
> then I disagree and think you have problems with both the OT and NT in what it
> affirms and commands with regard to conduct.
> I think what we¹re told not to do is judge the hearts of others...things that
> only God can know.
> Jesus also never said anything against homosexuality.
> Which is not surprising since there wasn¹t a gay rights movement in 1st
> century Palestine. It wasn¹t an issue, like divorce, around which there was
> much theological debate. The Pharisees tested Jesus on the hot potatoes of the
> day...homosexuality wasn¹t one of them because Hebraic culture and theology
> condemned it una
>  Leviticus DOES say a man shall not lay with a man as a woman, but the literal
> interpretation means "DRESSED" as a woman (hence literally it's a polemic
> against cross-dressing???)(!).
> The literal interpretation of what word(s) in Leviticus 18 or 20, exactly?
> Shakab means to lie with sexually. Odd that an admonition about cross dressing
> would be so badly misinterpreted by Jewish scholars for so many centuries.
> ;^)
> Leviticus says it's an "abomination" for a man to lay with a man as a woman.
> However, Leviticus says exactly the same thing about eating pork - that is,
> uses exactly the same word - translated an "abomination" - to describe the act
> of eating pork.
> At the risk of getting sidetracked into a protracted debate about the Bible
> and homosexuality, the revisionist arguments of Boswell and others have been
> refuted thoroughly and frequently. Suffice it to say that ham and
> cross-dressing comparison isn¹t valid (there are both ceremonial and ethical
> abominations...they are different...one is associated with the Works of the
> Law that defined Jewishness [and about which Peter had to be sorted out via a
> vision in light of Gentile believers], the other is a fluxless universal
> ethical standard), and the Biblical teaching in the subject goes way beyond
> the statements in Leviticus. There¹s Romans 1, and, perhaps more importantly,
> there¹s the description of marriage in Genesis. You can understand the
> Biblical position on homosexuality not just based on the prohibitions, but
> also the affirmations.
> The marriage of man and woman is a picture of the full nature of God (as
> referenced above), and it is the divine plan...according to the Bible, at
> least. This union is what the Bible affirms and what both OT and NT morality
> are designed to protect and help flourish.
> Of course this is not an excuse for real Œhomophobia,¹ whatever that is, or
> gay bashing, but it does constitute Biblical grounds for condemning the
> behavior...or so I believe. ;^)
> Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20030814/4d682ae9/attachment.html>

More information about the Percy-L mailing list