This is a good point. Based on reactions to some people in strict Muslim or Jewish societies, women dressing immodestly really grosses them out as well. I guess they follow Paul’s advice better than most Christians. Aren’t there Hasidic Jews who yell names at passing schoolgirls if they deem them not modest enough? And, I’m pretty sure you don’t want to wear a bikini in front of the Taliban.
In Acts the Lord speaks to Peter and tells him that the ceremonial laws and clean and unclean animals is no longer applicable to Christians. This is where the early church got that doctrine and not Leviticus.
I’m not doubting you, but can you provide the section? I’m curious about how clearly it lays out which ones are null and void and which are still applicable. Can you plant different seeds in your field? Wear mixed clothing? Beard laws? Should you be put to death if you curse your parents? For adultery? Should you be shunned for having sex while menstruating?
Acts 10:9-16, though it never talks about anything but food.
RitterSport:
Better believe we do. Bear in mind, of course, that we consider the Talmud to be the definitive interpretation of it. If there’s anything in particular that you’ve seen of our practices that you think are at odds with the literal text of the OT, feel free to ask about it, there’s sure to be some intra-Biblical reason why that law is interpreted differently than you think it would mean.
I was raised very reform and no longer practice aside from Passover with the family. Gay people and gay rabbis have been totally accepted in Reform Judaism since I was a kid in the 70s. What is the Orthodox take these days?
hajario:
Same as it always was. Acts of male homosexual penetrative sex are sinful. Anyone claiming that someone (themselves or otherwise) have some sort of right to do them, would certainly not be considered qualified to act as a Rabbi, i.e., to issue rulings on matters of Jewish law or preach about subjects of Jewish ethics.
Mind you, that speaks specifically to the permissibility of actions, and not to the concept of “orientation” that has arisen relatively (considering the timeline of Jewish history) recently. Someone who has desires for homosexual sex but acknowledges that the Torah considers it forbidden and does not act on them could still be as much a Rabbi as anyone who is fully heterosexual.
puddleglum, did you have some other section in mind? That section is only about clean and unclean food, nothing about ceremonial laws or any of the other laws in that book.
Thanks! That what I suspected. I think getting into Talmud studies and the implications for Leviticus is beyond the scope of this thread. If I ever want to ask about that, I’ll follow Straight Dope convention and start a thread on a Friday evening. 
Forgive the hijack, but I’m curious about this. Your statement implies that a gay rabbi who was married but practised nonpenetrative forms of lovemaking with his husband – and my gay friends tell me that anal sex is much less a factor of gay sex than straights imagine – would be kosher? (Pun definitely intended.) It’s splitting hairs, but then, if Chaim Potok was accurate, splitting hairs is what Talmudic scholars do.
The vision shown to Peter only mentions food. There was a controversy in the early church between James, Peter, and Paul as to whether gentile christians had to convert to Judaism and follow the law. In Acts 15 there is a record of a meeting the church leaders had about it and the resolution was to tell gentiles not to eat blood, eat strangled meat, and abstain from sexual immorality. In Galatians 2 Paul talks about a similar controversy he has with Peter, where he rebukes Peter for not intermingling with gentiles and telling gentiles to follow the law.
The question of how much of the law is still applicable is a complicated one, much of the writings of Paul are about this, especially Romans and Galatians. The orthodox consensus is that the ceremonial law was meant to separate gentiles and jews which is no longer necessary because we are all the same in Christ, and the moral law was given to show people their need for repentance. Paul says in 1 Timothy 1 “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
Thus the law is replaced by the indwelling of the Christ in us, but the righteousness the law demanded has not been replaced by license but by the righteousness of seeking God. 1 Corinthians 6 : “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men a nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Acts 15: 19-29 tells us of the Jerusalem Council in which the Apostles decided the extent to which Torah applies to Gentile believers.
Peter did tells of his experience in evangelizing the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius, which the dream of non-kosher animals opened him up to in Acts 10.
The Council- led by James (Jesus’ “brother”) & Peter - concluded with this…
9 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 dmen who have erisked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
The prohibitions seem to be summarizing what is called the Noachic Laws, given to all humanity, with the specific 613 Commandments being given only to Israel.
Paul builds on this in his letter, such as Romans 1, I Corinthians 6, Galatians, and the rest.
puddleglum, nothing you wrote really addressed my question – how do we know that the rules against homosexuality are still in place, and not the rules about menstruation or adultery, etc.? And, how about the rules about divorce, which actually did cause a schism, but with the Protestants basically rejecting the words of Christ Himself, right?
FriarTed, same question for you, I guess. If only the 10 Commandments (I assume that’s what the Noachic Laws are) are now operable, then there’s no real prohibition on homosexuality and no reason to separate based on that.
Paul wrote a couple lists of sins, things he did not approve of, (and outside the 10C), which include drunkenness, adultery, and gay sex.
Romans 1:
*24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.*
Now that was just a complaints about some backsliders. However, we then have:
1 Corinthians 6 King James Version (KJV)
9* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.*
So, like I say, Paul does condemn homosexuality, but only along with fornicators, adulterers, covetous and drunkards. All of whom likely exist in large numbers among the portion of the Methodist Church that doesnt like homosexuality. But being hypocrites, they are Ok with that. *“Let those without sin, cast the first stone”.
*
1 Timothy 1 (likely not written by Paul)
*9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;*
So I read something very interesting a few years back which made a lot of sense, in that the New Testament was really a massive reinterpretation of the Scriptures in light of God’s appearing in the flesh. Peter’s vision was part of that reinterpretation and the new Church re-evaluated Scripture on the basis of Jesus’s teachings and the general gist of Jesus was trying to say.
Now, Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to help guide the Church. So it would make sense that God’s revelations continue and the Church needs to reinterpret Scripture every so often - now Protestants are generally ok with that when it comes to, say, Martin Luther vs. the Pope, or Abolitionists arguing slavery is incompatible with God’s will. So I struggle with why it doesn’t apply for women preaching in Church or same sex relationships - and why those words in Scripture are un-re-interpretable.
Slow Moving Vehicle:
An interesting question. I would hazard a guess that just by calling a two-males relationship a marriage (even if only by secular law) he would be on pretty thin ice. However, I am neither a Rabbi nor a member of an organization that ordains or censures Rabbis, so it’s possible that this would not be a disqualifier as long as he’s very transparent about the limits in which he keeps his relationship. I’ll say this much, his theological views would certainly be under the microscope.
The Ten Commandments are part of the Law handed down by Moses. Jews regard them as more categories of commandment, with over three hundred different commandments in total. The Laws of Moses are mostly regarded as binding only on the Jews: A Jew does not, for instance, think that there’s anything sinful about a non-Jew eating pork, because the prohibition against pork is part of the Law of Moses.
The Noahide Commandments are seven (total) commandments that were given through Noah, and are therefore considered binding on all descendants of Noah (that is to say, everyone). A Jew would consider a non-Jew who violated the Noahide Commandments to be sinful.
There are lots of places in the new testament that talk about sins. The overall message of Peter’s vision is that clean and unclean no longer apply since Jesus’s death and resurrection render everything clean, Romans talks about this as did Jesus in Matthew 12. This would cover things like menstruation and cleansing.
Plenty of places in the new testament talk about sins, like murder, lying, fornication, drunkenness, adultery, and homosexuality. Homosexuality is listing specifically in three places, Romans, first Corinthians, and Timothy. It is also alluded to in Jude.
Adultery and divorce in most cases are still forbidden to Christians, I am not sure what you are referring to there.
Let’s take divorce, for example. The United Methodist Church allows it, even for their pastors:
(Below the video is a transcript)
From what I understand, divorce is allowed by most Protestant churches, but not by the Catholic Church. There you have to go through the charade of an annulment.
Divorce being permitted in Christian congregations doesn’t mean it *should *be.
And I am always enthralled by the various ways in which churches, churchgoers, and random people on the street manage to twist scripture to support whatever view they might hold. The best way for an atheist to pick apart scripture is to find two Christians who disagree and let them have at it. It’s been going on since Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church got together and then (perhaps respectfully, perhaps not) agreed to part ways, and it will keep on going until we all agree that there is no truth to be found in scripture, only words that may happen upon the occasional truth now and then through sheer coincidence.
It’s one reason why I generally refrain from asking for a scriptural basis for Christian religious dogma. Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s in there somewhere, or you’ve at least convinced yourself that it is if you omit every 49th word from the book of Acts, in keeping with some “totally related” prophecy in Daniel (hypothetical example).
Which is to say, in not so many words, that I am satisfied that divorce both is and is not compatible with salvation through Christ. Ditto with homosexuality, eating pork, and a whole host of other activities that I consider to actually be morally wrong (as opposed to the things I just mentioned), and so won’t list out of respect for anyone in the aforementioned categories (I myself just had pork chops for lunch).