Justinbaeder.  While I was entertained by your post, I found the article (‘why I am not emergent’) you linked to even more entertaining.  Where do you guys get this stuff?

Anyway, I thought I’d throw in a couple thoughts, for whatever they’re worth.  Your argument does a good job of highlighting the oversimplification of certain revisionist arguments.  It is (and I take this to be your point) absurd to think that the biblical writers were thinking specifically about certain kinds of infant cannibalism (and not others) when formulating their prohibition.  Similarly, the apostle Paul’s thoughts on marriage and monogamy cannot be said to concern solely cultures unlike our own.  And again, his thoughts on homosexuality cannot be reduced to the specific practices he had in mind when writing Romans (for example).

However, your argument unfortunately works against you.  Although you are correct in highlighting the absurdity of suggesting that infant cannibalism was prohibited only because it would lead Israel into Idolatry and because it would result in the death of live infants (and that therefore, other forms of it are ok), you fail to engage the deeper argument of the revisionists who raise points like these.  The basic idea is that temple prostitution and homosexuality (or idol worship and infant cannibalism if you prefer) were so linked in the minds of the biblical authors that they could not be separated.  And so the idea that the biblical authors were only making very specific prohibitions is incorrect (as your illustration demonstrates), but the idea that their prohibitions apply equally to different situations is incorrect as well.

While homosexuality and abusive prostitution may have been inseparable in the apostle’s mind (a claim I think has some credibility), they are separable in our minds.  The question then, is whether this raises new moral situations.  Rephrased, what is it specifically that is wrong with homosexuality?  Paul didn’t have to ask himself this question, but our new context forces the question on us.  Why is it prohibited, or portrayed negatively in Scripture?  If the answer is something which is not shared by modern-day homosexual relationships, then it follows that those relationships are not condemned by the Scriptures that condemn other behaviors (despite the similar label).

PastorPete’s 3 criteria over in the other thread, then, become a tool for answering the question of why something is right or wrong for a disciple of Jesus.  He is right to point out that the discussion of homosexuality in the Church must transcend the specific if it is to be relevant in our choices today.  In this case, the ‘specific’ is Paul’s teachings to a particular context.  The revisionist’s (and hopefully by now, it is understood that I do not mean this negatively) claim is that if Paul’s teachings do apply to homosexuals today, they apply by virtue of some larger principles which ground his advice.  The question is whether such principles exist.  On PastorPete’s principles (which are, I might add, very good principles to identify), homosexual marriages seem perfectly valid. 

This entire issue touches on the question of what makes anything right or wrong.  Unless one adopts a divine command theory of ethics (assuming that Paul’s advice represents God’s commands, of course), the morality of homosexuality is far more complex that some conservatives are making it out to be.

Am I making sense?

Peace,

-Daniel-