Okay, this is my second attempt at this post…

Just wondering if anyone has looked into which of the Levitical Laws are still applicable to Christians.  I have just come from a(n older) debate over homosexuality and Christianity, and one of the points raised was with regard to other forms of "sexual expression", like during a woman’s period, or similar.  Are any/all of those laws still applicable? And how does this pertain to us as the "emergent Church"?  How does it affect our practice of Christianity?

Ta! 

While some within the emerging movement have renounced infant cannibalism, I think it’s time to reconsider the arguments being presented in light of the differences between the culture of our day and the cultures that existed in Bible times…

I originally posted this on my blog without further comment, and I got a few positive remarks, but we didn’t really get into discussing the point of the post.

Obviously, this is a satirical post intended to elicit discussion about the process we use to determine whether a moral prohibition in the bible is applicable today. In the discussion on "A New Way to Dialogue About Homosexuality," I again encountered the argument that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were not an extant category in Paul’s day, nor was homosexuality recognized as a biologically influenced trait, therefore biblical injunctions against it are irrelevant. Can’t the same be said for certain forms of infant cannibalism?

I’d appreciate some sort of summary of the arguments put forward so far on this forum topic (Homosexuality and the new creation).

1. As I see it, Andrew began by advocating an acceptance of practising homosexuals in the church. The church is a ‘sign’ of the kingdom, but not its full expression, and as such will continue to contain some/much of the ‘fallenness’ of creation - homosexuality being a ‘fallen’ sexuality.

The forum thread has seen views develop which call this proposition strongly into question, not least by Andrew himself.

2. Elsewhere, Andrew has argued with ingenuity and insight for a traditional biblical stance towards homosexuality. The parallels between Romans 1:18-27 and Genesis 1-3 point to a much more broadly based argument by Paul than a merely anti-gentile Jewish polemic. The rolling out of the same theme (creation fruitfulness/barrenness in their widest sense) elsewhere in Romans suggests that the passage is a major plank in a theology which integrates not just O.T. but God’s creation purposes - in the old as well as the new creation.

The Schiavo case may be seen, and so the case has been made by some, as a question of theology over a person. As a professed Catholic, the theology promulgated by the faith Ms. Shiavo ascribed to when she could has a very clear answer to the question being asked on her behalf -- that food must not be refused in the face of death.

Can a person's theologies be legally and practically real grounds for action? What if no direct wishes or opinions on the issue are expressed, only the indirect nod of Church belonging? Here it must truly be asked whether theology is a thing that can be soberly taken seriously; whether theology is a "canopy" that hangs over a person in entirety, in system, or an accidental creature of personal opinion. If theology is to be accounted as a real thing of any importance, it surely has some dominion, some answer regarding a silent adherent's consent.