Statesboro, GA, USA
Adultery and homosexuality aren't analogous, Stephen, because one is a betrayal and the other is not. Any "significant love, feelings, and commitment" in adultery is at odds with an earlier promise to NOT pursue or act upon such feelings. There isn't necessarily any such similar conflict in a sincere homosexual relationship
Ron, I never said that adultery and homosexuality were sins for the same reason. I was merely giving Essorant an example of a sin where often love and deeply felt emotions are operative. It is also an example of a sin which is often rationalized and self-justified because of the presence of those very things. But you misunderstood if you thought I was claiming adultery and homosexuality were the same. One similarity between them though, is that they both depart from God's plan for human sexuality... one by betraying their spouse, the other by betraying their own (and their partner's) gender.
Why should we care, beyond simple historic curiosity, about the Judaic mind? More importantly, why should we accept their interpretation of God's deeply objective order? The culture of 2,000 years ago shouldn't dictate the way we live our lives today, especially when we know they were wrong about so very many things.
I wasn't refering to mimicking an ancient mindset on every particular. Of course when true correction comes, I don't want to deny it. What I was referring to was refusing to surrender their basic world-view, which was given by Revelation. (Remember that word? ... which means a vertical invasion into culture from beyond, not something merely derived from culture). That basic worldview is virtually the same as that of Christianity. It is the Theistic one which says that one God created all things according to an order and plan as revealed in Old Testament (and New Testament) scripture. So for you to disparage the "Judaic" mind as if there were something intrinsically undignified about learning their wisdom, or acknowledging that perhaps God gave them something we need to acknowledge, is amazing to me considering your profession of faith.
Scripturally speaking, you and I are still only an ingrafted branch in the same Olive Tree. Where it gets touchy is when the question involves rejecting non-essentials versus rejecting essentials. Shedding a dead limb or leaf, versus claiming autonomy as a spurious seedling. It's my opinion that your tendency is to deny foundational things, based on the spirit of this age. Your feelings about the homosexual issue seem to stem from the mood and mindset of contemporary culture, from ultra-tolerance. While mine is derived from scripture (which I consider authoritative) and Church history (which I consider persuasive). Neither of us are holding some kind of empirical "proof" to devastate the opposing view. Our ideologies, philosophies, or theologies seem to be at odds. And really I think it's our whole attitude of what scripture is, and the scope of its immutability and authority, which differs.
But even by your standards ... you can't reject something merely because it is ancient. And I think, for the purpose of determing what scripture actually says, (which was the subject of my exchange with Essorant), determining what the Jews thought and understood in the area of sexual ethics was perfectly proper.