Madam, - Michael O'Driscoll (September 2nd) believes that "toevah" implies total incompatibility with the law of God. One can only wonder what he makes of other uses of toevah in the Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 14:3 uses the term in reference to eating animals that don't chew their cud and have split hooves and aquatic animals that don't have fins and scales. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman who dresses like a man, or a man who dresses like a woman is toevah. 2 Kings 16:3 refers to Gentiles as toevah.
The Old Testament can be understood only in its theological and cultural contexts. It is simply ignorant of basic exegesis to posit that "the language of Scripture is therefore wholly clear and unambiguous". It is an abuse of sacred scripture to attempt to reinforce social views under the guise of scripture-based morality. - Yours, etc,
MÍCHEÁL Ó BRAOIN,
Caisleán Críon,
Droichead Abhann
Uí gCearnaigh,
Co an Chláir.
Madam, - Does Michael O'Driscoll believe homosexuality is immoral just because it says so in the Bible? Would it be immoral if it was not mentioned in the Bible? If so, under whose authority? If it was declared to be moral, or not immoral, in the Bible, would it still be "an abomination"?
Inspired by the Bible's teachings on homosexuality, he wants to "assist [his] neighbours along the road to their eternal destiny by equipping them with the truth".
I suggest that Mr O'Driscoll leaves his neighbours alone; doesn't the Bible also say: "Judge not, least you be judged"? - Yours, etc,
EOIN O'LOUGHLIN,
Drimnagh,
Dublin 12.