What do the Bible texts used to condemn homosexuality actually mean?

[R. G. White]

35 minutes ago, Bravus said:

I'm interested in why people are so determined to get that story in. Do the other 5 texts not get the job done by themselves?

I'm very happy to discuss the Sodom story - in another thread.

I can only speak for myself on this one. I was annoyed by the bogus reason you gave for excluding it. Personally, I think those five texts do indeed get the point across all by themselves, although I can see that the stories have something to contribute. Would you mind telling me why you have been so anxious to keep that story out?

[Bravus]

Because I do not see it as being about homosexuality at all. Yes, in the minds of the people of Sodom these were men, but the story is about rape and it's about the failure of hospitality. 

It is also being brought in in a way that suggests all homosexual men are rapists and pedophiles, which is false and slanderous.

That's why I don't think it belongs in this discussion.

I do have my own personal view and position, and I think I've been honest about that, but in this thread I was hoping that it would be possible to conduct a fair, dispassionate inquiry into what the Bible actually says.

I still hope so, but people continue to try to derail rather than to engage.

[R. G. White]

21 minutes ago, Bravus said:

Because I do not see it as being about homosexuality at all. Yes, in the minds of the people of Sodom these were men, but the story is about rape and it's about the failure of hospitality. 

It is also being brought in in a way that suggests all homosexual men are rapists and pedophiles, which is false and slanderous.

That's why I don't think it belongs in this discussion.

I do have my own personal view and position, and I think I've been honest about that, but in this thread I was hoping that it would be possible to conduct a fair, dispassionate inquiry into what the Bible actually says.

I still hope so, but people continue to try to derail rather than to engage.

Your position seems to betray a lack of basic understanding of the actual story. The two angels, along with Jehovah Himself (i.e. God the Son), appeared to Abraham in the guise of men who just happened to be passing that way. Having enjoyed Abraham's hospitality, the two angels (still in the form of men) eventually go on into Sodom, while Yahweh stops to talk further with Abraham. Lot finds these "men" in the open square, and for obvious reasons urges them to avail themselves of the relative safety of his home. The men of Sodom are clearly looking for someone to rape. Feeling the cultural imperatives of hospitality, Lot offers them his two virgin daughters, but the Sodomites are not interested. They want the "men," and if Lot will not turn them over, the men of Sodom are determined to take them by force. To suggest, as you have, that homosexuality is not a major part of this story, is simply ludicrous.

I don't know who has made the false suggestion to which you refer. The two stories I have mentioned do seem to suggest that homosexuality may tend to prevail and manifest itself more and more in society as a whole, when the general level of depravity has advanced to the point where divine judgment is imminent, but that would never give anyone license to pass judgment on any individuals.

I'm not sure what kind of engagement you are seeking. Those five texts speak for themselves, and so far no one has even suggested a reason not to take them at face value.

[R. G. White]

15 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Well; I actually agree with you, in principle on this statement. I also have grown to view most of the usual "apologetics" that are used against LGBTQ+ as not actually about them at all in some cases. But with the caveat that the story re "Sodom" would add some value to this discussion, if it was done in a fair, and unbiased way. (which, as you have said, is often not done). Lev 18 is another example though. Going by your stated principles here, that should also be "excluded" from this discussion. It is largely about heterosexual, married people, and out of all the verses in that chapter, only one, small line, deals with homosexual behavior. Now in the interest of a fair discussion, why should we not take a look at that one verse, in applying to this discussion? Thats what doesnt fit, in my mind. If even just one verse mentions it, then I would say it should be allowed in this topic. Pundits, I am sure will let us know if its done in a biased or out of context way. Earlier, I had asked you if you have ever considered the possible reasons for Lev 18 only mentioning homosexuality in one line out of the entire chapter? What might that be trying to tell us?

I think your use of "slanderous" is likely a very poor fit here. Again, we are faced with being characterized for sincerely held beliefs. So far, no one here has actually crossed that line. You will basically have to face the two choices available to you here in this topic. One. Continue to slander the good name of people who disagree with you on this topic. Two. Claim that the Bible is "homophobic."  I would have a much easier time with this if you just said that about the Bible, rather than doing as you say we should not do with LGBTQ+ and maliciously or falsely malign people, instead of ideas. As forum members, we all have to face this kind of issue. Its not always about the message; sometimes its what we do with the message. This holds true for any doctrine worth its Mat 5 Salt.  (Mat 5:13)

I am sincere in asking you to discuss my question here re Lev 18. I would be interested to hear more from you, or others on this: "why is homosexuality only mentioned briefly in one line, one verse here? What does that say about the over-all message of Lev 18?

I think the key to your question is in verse 3. " According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances."

God is trying to purify a people for Himself, and if they follow the customs of the Egyptians -- or of the Canaanites whom He has already devoted to destruction -- that's simply not going to work. This chapter contains a long list of practices that are abhorrent to God. Homosexual behaviour is but one item in the list, except for one thing.

Three items in the list are singled out as being wickedness, abomination, and perversion, respectively. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose that those three are especially offensive to God. That said, we must always bear in mind that pride is the number one worst sin in God's eyes, so there is never any place for us to look down on anyone else.

[Bravus]

You don't think that implying that all gay men are rapists and pedophiles is slanderous?

Difficult to proceed under those assumptions. That is not a matter of 'sides', or of sincerely held opinions. It is false and, yes, slanderous.

[Bravus]

I would be *delighted* to return to discussion of Leviticus. 

[R. G. White]

44 minutes ago, Bravus said:

You don't think that implying that all gay men are rapists and pedophiles is slanderous?

Difficult to proceed under those assumptions. That is not a matter of 'sides', or of sincerely held opinions. It is false and, yes, slanderous.

I assume that this is a response to Wanderer, as I called that assertion false (i.e. slanderous) while questioning who had made it. I don't think he really disagreed either. His objection appeared to be with the inflammatory nature of your word choice. So it's not only unclear whom you are addressing, but it's unclear what's got you so worked up. Are you trying to derail the discussion that Wanderer is seeking to start?

It may be difficult to proceed if we don't know what's eating you.

[Bravus]

It may be worth your while to read the whole thread.

I tend to keep the whole thread in my head and respond to it, rather than to the immediate post prior to my current one. It's a personal difference, and no particular way of doing it is good or bad, but it's something The Wanderer and I have had to try to navigate in order to understand each other in other conversations. I'll try to be more explicit.

The comments I'm referring to come from B/W Photodude. It's hard to quote specifically because he elides the smear across multiple posts, and refers to a specific US legal case with which I'm not familiar, but it's pretty clear.

I'm trying to navigate multiple strands here. The Wanderer is seeking to continue the discussion on Leviticus while chiding me for tone, while R.G. White wants to relitigate the issue of including the Sodom story.

I'm also doing all this in between a busy life as a husband and father, an academic and a member of a political party 3 weeks out from a national election.

Proceeding with the Leviticus discussion seems to me like the most promising way forward from here. Dealing with Sodom either in a different thread or after we have finished looking at the original 5 texts would make sense to me, not as a way of excluding it but as a way of conducting an orderly inquiry.

[Bravus]

I think the place to start in discussing this chapter is at the start, where it *tells* us what it is about, and gives the reason(s) for the list of proscriptions and condemnations that makes up the rest of the chapter:

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

² Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.

³ After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

⁴ Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

⁵ Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

To me, this says that one very important reason for these rules was to distinguish the Chosen People from the people of the nations around them, and the nation in which they had been enslaved during the Egyptian exile. Like the rules elsewhere in Leviticus about tattoos and haircuts and beard styles and clothing of mixed fibres, the dominant rationale for these rules was to differentiate God's people from other people.

Does that seem like a fair summation?

[Gregory Matthews]

I have not gotten involved in a discussion of the Biblical texts often associated with homosexuality and I have wanted to respect the desire of Bavus to suggest that the story of Sodom is actually about rape and his desire to discuss that passage in a separate thread.

As this story continues to be introduced in this thread, I will make a short comment.  In Springett's book which I have previously mentioned, he spends much space in a discussion of the Sodom passage.  I will summarize his position, as I understand it from the book in my following words:   "We  must conclude that the Sodom story addresses a full range of forbidden sexual relations and therefore there is no scriptural basis for reading that story as referencing to homosexual acts alone."   [NOTE:  That statement is my attempt to state Springett's  position in a single sentence.]

I remind you that Springett is not a liberal.  He represents a  more conservative branch of Adventism.  But, while he rejects homosexuality in practice, he clearly suggests that some of the Biblical texts associated with homosexuality are not correctly used.  From that perspective, the suggestions of Bravus of the same should be respectfully considered.
 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Bravus,

4 hours ago, Bravus said:

Like the rules elsewhere in Leviticus about tattoos and haircuts and beard styles and clothing of mixed fibres, the dominant rationale for these rules was to differentiate God's people from other people.

Does that seem like a fair summation?

No. If you read all of Leviticus 18 it will be clear that it is speaking about sexual aberration. The first section is from verse 6 to 18 and is summarised by verse 6:

Leviticus 18:6 (KJV): None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

Thus this first section is speaking about sexual aberration with respect to the near of kin. And for example we know that Paul speaks strongly against one occurrence of this in the NT:

1 Corinthians 5:1 (KJV): It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

 

The next section has a number of items, and each of these are prohibited and the summary of God’s assessment of these is given in the following:

Leviticus 18:24–25 (KJV): 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Both the people and the land were defiled because of these practices. The iniquity of the Amorites was now full, and like Sodom ready for judgement.

Genesis 13:13 (KJV): But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Genesis 15:16 (KJV): But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Kind regards Trevor

[B/W Photodude]

While I will agree with the idea that the story of Sodom was about rape, it consistently overlooks one thing. The wicked crowd outside Lot's door were offered females for the purposes of heterosexual rape (I tend to think the daughters of Lot were not enthused with Dad's offer to these men, for some reason), but they chose to attempt the rape of those who presented themselves as men. Yeah, you can argue that it wasn't about that and they were trying to assert themselves over strangers, or you can dance around it anyway you want, but it was still a same-sex event.

I have no idea how male victims of rape dealt with sexual victimization back then, but it is such a devastating event in the lives of men who are victimized by homosexual rape today that many people do not know that it even occurs. Many men feel like, "How am I going to tell someone that this happened to me?" It is a hugely under reported crime.

So, I guess we can pretend it is not about homosexuality.

[Gustave]

On 4/27/2019 at 9:02 PM, The Wanderer said:

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:28)

The Mosaic Law clearly prohibited adultery (Exo_20:14; Deu_5:18). A person might be proud that he had never broken this commandment, and yet have his ”eyes full of adultery” (2Pe_2:14).

There is no reason to suppose that it would be any different for anything else that scripture condemns or prohibits.

Yes, with the caveat that the "natural" order of things has a man desiring a woman and vice versa - a desire for a man to procreate with a woman is part of the natural law so the desire wouldn't be sinful in that case. As opposed to:

 

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"

 

[R. G. White]

12 hours ago, Bravus said:

It may be worth your while to read the whole thread.

I tend to keep the whole thread in my head and respond to it, rather than to the immediate post prior to my current one. It's a personal difference, and no particular way of doing it is good or bad, but it's something The Wanderer and I have had to try to navigate in order to understand each other in other conversations. I'll try to be more explicit.

The comments I'm referring to come from B/W Photodude. It's hard to quote specifically because he elides the smear across multiple posts, and refers to a specific US legal case with which I'm not familiar, but it's pretty clear.

I'm trying to navigate multiple strands here. The Wanderer is seeking to continue the discussion on Leviticus while chiding me for tone, while R.G. White wants to relitigate the issue of including the Sodom story.

I'm also doing all this in between a busy life as a husband and father, an academic and a member of a political party 3 weeks out from a national election.

Proceeding with the Leviticus discussion seems to me like the most promising way forward from here. Dealing with Sodom either in a different thread or after we have finished looking at the original 5 texts would make sense to me, not as a way of excluding it but as a way of conducting an orderly inquiry.

I apologise. I got into this a bit late, and reading the whole thread seemed, in prospect, not only tedious but distasteful. I appreciate the info on who may have been guilty of stating or implying something false and unfair. This greatly helps my understanding.

If you think I'm determined to bring in the Sodom story, then you misunderstand my intent. I just wanted to know what the problem was, and you have kindly filled me in. A part of your objection is legitimate, as the story has apparently been misused in this thread, and a part is not, because the story has everything to do with homosexuality.

You all keep on talking about discussing Leviticus 18, but so far no one has replied to my comments on that. It might be fair to ask what the word "abomination" means in this context. I get the idea that homosexuality is extremely distasteful, not only to man, but to God. That said, so are many of the sins that most of us consider almost acceptable, so it's not like God is endorsing the unfair judgments that tend to follow homosexuals wherever they go. It's just that He wants to save all of us from ALL of our sins.

[Bravus]

My understanding - and I'm happy to be corrected, and it would be very handy to have a Hebrew scholar/theologian as part of the conversation!) - is that the word 'abomination' applies not so much to disgust as to sacrilege or being dedicated to other gods. In this context, the specific things which are called abominations seem to be specific things that were part of the worship of the Canaanite gods. 

It could be argued that, again, this related to things like temple prostitution, not to loving relationships, but that's not an argument I want to make right now.

When I'm not supposed to be paying attention in a meeting ( ? ) I'll dig into the Hebrew word and its translations, fact-check myself.

[R. G. White]

1 minute ago, Bravus said:

My understanding - and I'm happy to be corrected, and it would be very handy to have a Hebrew scholar/theologian as part of the conversation!) - is that the word 'abomination' applies not so much to disgust as to sacrilege or being dedicated to other gods. In this context, the specific things which are called abominations seem to be specific things that were part of the worship of the Canaanite gods. 

It could be argued that, again, this related to things like temple prostitution, not to loving relationships, but that's not an argument I want to make right now.

When I'm not supposed to be paying attention in a meeting ( ? ) I'll dig into the Hebrew word and its translations, fact-check myself.

Maybe don't make that argument at all. First John 5:3 defines love as the keeping of God's commandments, and the verses we've already seen make it unmistakably clear that homosexual behaviour is a violation. So I don't think we are going to want to mess with the word "loving" in any such way. There are legitimate benefits to be gained by going back to the original languages, but I've seen it used for eisegesis more than once.

[Kevin H]

I have been hesitant to post here because our church finds itself on the one hand getting many converts and reaching out in fellowship to the popular evangelical churches who have a very hard line on this topic, and much of our finances come from appealing to this mindset. 

Yet on the other hand, our leaders tend to be more careful readers of the Bible than the typical evangelical. And they have pointed out that these verses run into three different groupings. 

One grouping is dealing with how the Canaanites would worship Baal. Canaan/Israel is in an area about 150 miles wide by about 50 miles long, yet it has the most diverse geography, and meteorology in a small space and one of if not the most diverse for plants and animals than any place else on earth. California is second but is 17 times the size and does not have nearly the diversity.  This small piece of land is where Europe, Asia, Africa and the Arabian deserts all meet, with their weather patterns and life forms. This variety is what the Bible means when saying that the land if flowing with milk and honey. This also gives both a predictability yet unpredictability to how it will be year after year for things such growing food which one of these four patterns will be reflected this year.

Each year they saw themselves as unsure if the rains from Baal will come from over the Mediterranean sea indicating Baal raising from the dead on the third day and defeating the chaos monster  and brings the rains of life for their gardens to grow or will the winds come from the Arabian desert with dry air and Baal staying dead from his fight with the chaos monster and the gardens dry up and the people starve. 

Therefore at certain key points in the agricultural cycle (which happen to be the feasts and fast of the land) the Canaanites believed that they needed to help out Baal and the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death and famine. They believed that they could help Baal out by uniting their life-forces. They would do this by making bread of mixed grains (Ezekiel 4:9 bread is this unkosher unclean bread talking about the Hebrews being in the unclean lands). wearing clothes made out of different textiles, and everyone uniting their bodies. They would go to the temple and worship Baal on these critical points of the agricultural cycle by having orgies. Everyone having sex with each other. Parents with their children, their neighbors, their neighbor''s children as their neighbors having sex with the parents children, throw in the animals as well. But this was done not necessarily for pleasure but out of desperation that this activity was somehow helping Baal and the gods of life so that they don't starve to death.  

And thus we find in the Bible instructions on what the Hebrews can and cannot do when they come to worship Yahweh. Yes, they were allowed to worship on the say days that were critical points of the agricultural cycle with some of their less objectionable traditions such as the two goats for Yom Kippur and the unlevened bread for the spring feast, and the grain sheaf for feast of first fruits. But they were NOT to do any of the uniting of the life forces. They were not to be like the Canaanites feeling fearful that Baal might loose and thus need their help, but rather they were to not trust in works but rejoice that Yahweh is victorious 

(One interesting question of discussion. Do any of us eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread? Do any of us wear clothes of mixed textiles or do we only eat bread made of one grain and wear clothes made of 100% of the same textile? If we are doing some of the same things in the same sin list as homosexual activity why do we say that some of it applys to them but does not apply to us.?)

So the first context were we find texts about homosexual activity is when the Bible says that the Hebrews can and cannot do when coming to  a worship service.  

[Bravus]

It's why I posted the entire chapter, early in the thread. I'm keen to include context and trying to do so.

I've talked about how the chapter introduces the topic, and noted that that forms an important part of the context.

Are you saying that the relevant context is the rest of the list? If so, we can definitely get into that.

There are a number of items in the list, all of them about sex. Some are about actual incest (in which there is a risk of genetic issues, as well as a social taboo), some are about 'social incest' (sleeping with people who have slept with people with whom you have a blood relationship). I think the only one that is not in some way family-related is the one about same-sex (male) contact, yes?

An interesting piece is that the reason given not to do things is many times, in my view, in terms of 'ownership': don't sleep with your father's wife (who is not your mother) because she is his, don't sleep with your brother's wife because she is his, and so on.

The homosexuality one is different, in that the reason given is 'because it is abominable/an abomination'. So indeed we need to know what this word means in this context.

I have to disagree that simply using the English connotations of the English word constitutes good exegesis, though.

[Bravus]

Bestiality is described as 'it is confusion', which is interesting. I think in English we'd want a stronger word...

[Bravus]

Verses 26 and 27, though, and 29 and 30, suggest that the whole list constitutes 'abominations'.

[Kevin H]

A second context is again with the location of Canaan/Israel. It is the major intersection for the trade routes where again the routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa all meet. It was quite literally the center of the ancient world. The Canaanites made quite a fortune in the tolls of the trade caravans passing through. However a time came when this was not enough for the Canaanites. Somehow they came to believe that if they rapped someone, especially a man, that they were stealing some of their victim's life force.

This meant that the Canaanite believed that in raping a merchant  that is passing through that they not only get money to pay the tolls but that some of what will grow in that merchant's garden back at home will now grow in the Canaanite rapist's garden. That some of the animals that would have been born to the merchant's family's flocks back home will now be born to the Canaanite rapist's flocks. That some of the children that would have been born to the merchant's wife will now be born to the Canaanite rapist's wife. 

This is the issue with Sodom and Gomorrah. This threatened the word's economy. This major intersection of the great trade routes, the center of the world, was also the most dangerous place on earth. God putting the Hebrews here was to change this dangerous place into a very safe place, and to where the merchants could tell about the people and the religion and the God of the people who lived here.  

[Kevin H]

When we get to the New Testament the Roman's text is not God talking about punishing people for being homosexual, but that because of sin God punished people for their sins by having them go against their natural affection. In the about 2 contexts from the Old Testament one is where heterosexual men were involved in same sex activity out of terror that if they did not do it then Baal might not be strong enough to have the victory and they and their wives and children would starve to death in famine. In the second  it is again heterosexual men thinking that they can create a better life for their wives and children by stealing the life force from someone passing through the land. 

And we apparently come to a third issue in the New Testament. Again I will remind you that language is my weak point and I have to depend on others who do much better with language. But apparently there is a word that is always translated in the New Testament as "Homosexual" but which is a very specific word not about homosexuality in the broader sense but specifically a word that is used for older men having sex with little boys, and thus the linguists are suggesting that the world should not be translated as "homosexual" but as "pedophile." 

[Kevin H]

So you see what our church leaders are struggling with. There is the questioning whether to use the narrow reading to the texts and limit it to what the Bible is specifically talking about; the perversions where heterosexual people where performing same sex out of desperation or thinking they could steal from the merchants passing through and the Bible condemning pedophile, or if we should and if it would be proper take a wider interpretation of the text going beyond what the text is saying. I'm glad that I don't have to make this decision. 

[Gregory Matthews]

In comment and response to the suggestion that a Hebrew scholar might be helpful in looking at Leviticus 18:22:

*   I am not a Hebrew scholar.  My knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is dependent upon reading others.

*  The English word "abomination" in Lev. 18:22 is a Hebrew word that has been transliterated as "toebah."

*  According to Young, toebah has been translated in the English KJV as "abomination" some 111 times and on three (3) occasions has been so translated by some other form of the word "abomination."

*  Strong expands upon this to tell us that toebah is related to that which is "disgusting" and often related to idol worship.

*  However, in my opinion, Strong and Young may be best used to tell us how a word has been translated into the English KJV.   But, they are not best used to tell us the meaning of that word.  This is likely due in part to the fact that in the common language of that day, the word is likely to have had meanings additional to those understood to be in the Bible.  That could be due in part to a simple failure to recognize that an additional meaning of the word, common to that culture, could provide insight as to the Biblical meaning.

*  Under my understanding, a lexicon is best used to understand the meaning of a Biblical work in the original language.  A lexicon, gives us additional meanings of a word in the culture, that may (?) (or may not) be part of the Biblical meaning.  

*  Springett discusses Leviticus 18:22 in comments on six (6) different pages of his book.  These comments tell us how that Hebrew word has been understood.  They clearly lay out the thesis that there is more than one way in which this Hebrew word has been understood.

*  From this perspective, the ideas that Bravus may propose are clearly worthy of consideration, regardless of whether or not they are accepted.

*  On a personal note, I consider that the context of the Biblical passage must be considered and  a verse should not be considered in isolation.  Springett addresses this   in some of his comments. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I have decided that I will post here, some of the comments that Springett makes as to how Leviticus 18:22 has been understood.  I will make my comments brief, and in my own words.  They will sum my understanding as to what Springett has said.  It should be noted that will not be stating whether or not Springett agrees with his statement as to how the passage has been understood.  In addition, in actual fact, Springett  may believe that there is more than one valid understanding of the passage.  Here is how he presents the passage as being understood, as I understand him:

*   Israel needed to increase its population and therefore discouraged homosexuality.

*  In that time, homosexuality was associated with idolatry.

*  Homosexuality is a reversal of the natural order of sexuality.

*  Homosexuality is associated with male prostitutes.

*  Context includes homosexuality with bestiality, child sacrifice, incest and adultery.

*  Homosexuality in not condemned outside of idolatry.

*  Homosexuality was not considered tot be intrinsically wrong, but was considered to be ritually wrong.

*  Homosexuality was considered to be a violation of Jewish culture.

*  The LXX translation gives additional light on homosexuality in the Bible that is not reflected in the KJV.

*  Certain Hebrews words that may refer to sexual intercourse, also have an ethical meaning that goes beyond the mere sexual sense.

*  Children were given to the god Molech both as child prostitutes to e sacrificed by being burned by fire.

*  Christ did not speak against homosexuality as it was not a subject of contention in the time of Christ.

*   The KJV use of the English word "Sodomite" may not be a correct translation.

*  The KJV word "dog" as applied to a human, has other applications than to a homosexual.

*  The book of Jubilees attributes the destruction of Sodom to general wickedness, fornication, and uncleanness.

 

 

 

 

NOTE:  I have generalized the above comments to go a bit beyond Lev. 18:22.  But, I have not cited all that Springett says on other passages.