Certain Christians like to use bible verses against us. Unfortunately, they don't always understand the meaning of the words they use. Here are portions of postings to Usenet that discuss the word abomination. 

From: rcpilot@megaweb.com
Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 06:16:31 GMT
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <47hkf7$qk6@news-e1a.megaweb.com>

Here is the 1987 Easton's Bible Dictionary definition of the word [Toevan] "abomination".

This word is used,

  1. To express the idea that the Egyptians considered themselves as defiled when they ate with strangers (Gen. 43:32). The Jews subsequently followed the same practice, holding it unlawful to eat or drink with foreigners (John 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:3).

  2. Every shepherd was "an abomination" unto the Egyptians (Gen. 46:34). This aversion to shepherds, such as the Hebrews, arose probably from the fact that Lower and Middle Egypt had formerly been held in oppressive subjection by a tribe of nomad shepherds (the Hyksos), who had only recently been expelled, and partly also perhaps from this other fact that the Egyptians detested the lawless habits of these wandering shepherds.

  3. Pharaoh was so moved by the fourth plague, that while he refused the demand of Moses, he offered a compromise, granting to the Israelites permission to hold their festival and offer their sacrifices in Egypt. This permission could not be accepted, because Moses said they would have to sacrifice "the abomination of the Egyptians" (Ex. 8:26); i.e., the cow or ox, which all the Egyptians held as sacred, and which they regarded it as sacrilegious to kill.

  4. Daniel (11:31), in that section of his prophecies which is generally interpreted as referring to the fearful calamities that were to fall on the Jews in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, says, "And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Antiochus Epiphanes caused an altar to be erected on the altar of burnt-offering, on which sacrifices were offered to Jupiter Olympus. (Comp. 1 Macc. 1:57). This was the abomination of the desolation of Jerusalem. The same language is employed in Dan. 9:27 (comp. Matt. 24:15), where the reference is probably to the image-crowned standards which the Romans set up at the east gate of the temple (A.D. 70), and to which they paid idolatrous honours. "Almost the entire religion of the Roman camp consisted in worshipping the ensign, swearing by the ensign, and in preferring the ensign before all other gods." These ensigns were an "abomination" to the Jews, the "abomination of desolation."

This word is also used symbolically of sin in general (Isa. 66:3); an idol (44:19); the ceremonies of the apostate Church of Rome (Rev. 17:4); a detestable act (Ezek. 22:11).

("detestable acts" and the other meaning given DO NOT describe things that are "moral" or "good".) 

From: Nguyen Tri Duc 
Subject: Re: Where does which Bible condem Homosexuality?
Date: 5 Nov 1995 19:32:45 GMT
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <47j3gt$jki@central.server.swt.edu>

You have cited places where Toevan (abomination) is used in context but you have not really touched on the intrinsic meaning. Essentially, it means "unclean." Furthermore, it is important, in understanding that homosexual acts, particulary annal intercourse, as proscribed in Leviticus, were part of the *purity* codes dealing with things toevan. Other laws, dealing with adultry for example, dealt with PROPERTY concerns. Most of the discussions concerning the Hebrew law and homosexuality are taking place today within a Post-Victorian ethnocenticism far removed from their original tribal context.

Within the first century christian communities, the first major controversial issue concerned purity and the law's proscription of things toven (or unclean). The issue concerning the law was whether 1) [the unclean] Gentiles were to be admitted among the followeres of the Hebrew Christ, and 2) whether if [the unclean] Gentiles were admitted, would they be required to observe the Hewbrew Laws concerning purity such as the dietary laws, etc. The response of the early chruch was based upon spiritual _experience_ of devine revelation. The means of "knowing" God's will (epistemological issues), such as the standard rabinical method of authority based upon the interpretation of the Hewbrew Law itself were held secondary to the use of an epistemological method of direct experience. Since Moses had been graced by direct experience of the Devine, and since the inheritence of this prophetic tradition was assigned to Arron and to the tribe of Elders, and since the Apostles, themselves, were a recognized as a metaphor of the New Covenant with this tribe of elders who were to administer devine revalation in the Spirit of Christ, the DIRECT experience of the devine was held over any authority of the law. The law was recognized as only a secondary expression of the Devine which had been experienced DIRECTLY by the tribal leaders who served in the role of prophet for the Devine.

The apostles depended upon DIRECT experience of the spirit above all and the law itself was considered a "living garment" subject to new revelation (evolution). Thus the basis for interpretation of God's Will concerning the "unclean" became direct experience:

  1. Jesus often ignored the purity codes, himself, and was often attacked by Pharasees and others in authority who administered the law. "It is not what goes into a person that makes them unclean; it is what comes out of them."

  2. Peter's Vision on the rooftop of the household of the Gentile Corneleus in which a cloth was opened in heaven spilling all sorts of unclean food (animals). Peter heard a voice proclaiming, "Do not call unclean what God has pronounced clean." The apostles did not interpret this experience LITERALLY so much as in the CONTEXT of the ongoing debate concerning the conversion of the Gentiles.

  3. The Jeruselem Conference, which conveined to consider whether the Gentiles would be held to the observance of the Hewbrew Law, was a time of prayer for direct revelation and a time of consideration of the spiritual experience of Peter at the house of Corneleus, where the entire household of Gentiles were "Baptized in the Spirit." That Conference decided that the Gentiles would NOT be held to the observance of the purity codes, such as for circumcision, dietary laws, and other observances.

Furthermore, Paul of Tarsus, whose ministry was to the Gentiles, and he was so commissioned by the original deciples, exhorted in the Letters to the Romans and to the Galatians that the members of these communities place thel direct experience of the Diety through the "life in the Spirit" above the law. Especially in Romans Paul exhorted that Jesus himself was declared "unclean" (Tovan/abomination) under the law and that no one comes to purity/salvation/unity in God through the law.

Why is it that after centuries of freedom from the law that you would rather return to Egypt and into the slavery of another time, another purity code? I surmise that it is NOT you who would return to Egypt, but you would sell Joseph, your gay brother, into slavery among the Egyptians. (Pardon the heavy metaphor).

Paul of Tarsus said in Galatians something I really admire, "To those among you who insist on the Circumcision (a metaphor for the entire law), I hope the knife slips [and you castrate yourselves]." To those who demand that gay people observe the ancient purity codes but who ignore the codes themselves I sould suggest the same. If the knife would slip again and again on these neo-paharsees who are so adamently in condemnation of gay/lesbian people, there would not be so much controversy if you had your own lack of reproduction activity in your hands to examine.