Comments on: An Investigation into the Bible and Homosexuality

By: Laura H.

Laura H. — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:43:44 +0000

OK. I just didn’t see the clear transition between the evangelical position and his rebuke of that ignorance. I shall re-read it a bit later. Thank you Anita.

By: anita

anita — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 06:22:08 +0000

Laura, the writer, Paul Cahill is saying that very thing but only because he's presenting what are considered the key positions of evanglicals when they offer up the "so-called" clear Scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. His paper is constructed to first state their position and then follow up point by point with his rebuttal.

By: Laura H.

Laura H. — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 04:23:57 +0000

Am I reading correctly the first part which seems to say that gay people are a result of “The Fall?”

By: anita

anita — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:18:56 +0000

Raycol –> While Cahill might be reaching to make a cogent argument against contemporary application of the ancient Hebrew probibitions again male-male sexual behavior, I don’t believe his assumptions are unjustified anymore than anyone who in the 21st century would assume to understand the context and thinking of an ancient people. An assumption could be made by those who hold Cahill’s interpretation that the ancient writer knew of no other context for male-male sexual relations and therefore there was no need for him to state the circumstances because they would have seemed more than obvious in his thinking.

While I don’t hold Cahill’s position in this case and would more align with your idea that what applies to an ancient people doesn’t cross-apply universally to our current context and age, I have issue with “no harm” being the determining factor in engaging in sexual activity, whether that be among straight or gay people. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic having read your essay several times though but I would rather make a case that argues that “love” instead of “no harm” be the primary consideration before moving forward into sexual intimacy.

By: Raycol

Raycol — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:17:59 +0000

It seems to me that the above article is full of unjustified assumptions. For example, it ties the prohibition of sex between men in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to the references to cult prostitution in Deuteronomy 23:17. There is no justification for this. If the Leviticus author had wanted to restrict the prohibition of sex between men to cult prostitution only, he would have said so. But he didn’t. Therefore the prohibition applies to all (penetrative) sex between men.

While the Bible does prohibit sex between men, it can nevertheless be shown that the prohibition does not apply today because it applied only to the ancient Israelite and Roman cultures. Also, the prohibition does not apply today when the sexual activity causes no harm. See the “Gay and Christian” website (www.gaysandslaves.com) for more details.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:14:35 +0000

I am a straight ally. I have held onto this article for years since downloading it from yougogirl.com. I am citing this in a paper due in nursing school.
You might want to check out John S. Morgan’s homepage, http://drswiney.org/john/morgan.html. Click on the “Upstairs Attic” section (I think that’s what he calls it, or it might be “Upstairs Attic”). That guy has some really good info on his website. The subtitle is “What They Never Tought you in Sunday School”.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:10:32 +0000

Thank you for your well thought out writing. I thank our God for his kindness to all things. I am forgiven and have no shame.