On another MB I post at, someone’s doing a term paper about gays with religion and asked for opinions from the other regulars. The only clearly unambiguous proscription against homosexuality is in Leviticus, and it does not seem to say anything about lesbians, only homosexual behavior between males. A lot of folks are arguing that if you observe any Biblical laws, you must observe them all, or you are “picking and choosing”. I understand why some laws apply only to the nation of Israel that was established when the Jews moved in and kicked the Caananites out (sacrifices at the temple, etc.), but what about the other laws. Is there a website or FAQ where this question has already been addressed in depth? If so, where?
Some, as you pointed out, require the temple to be standing. Absent that, the commandment cannot be fulfilled.
Others aren’t kept because they only apply in Israel. The resting of the seventh year, for example (which is kept by many farmers).
Others aren’t done because they are optional. One example is the commandment of a brother-in-law to marry his childless brother’s widow. There is an “opting out” ceremony that is available. This is universally done nowadays. The marriage is never done.
Some do apply, but are just never invoked. A person, for example, can become a Nazir if he makes the vow today. However, any person doing so would be bound by it’s laws until the Temple is rebuilt, so no one actually does it.
Were there any commandments in particular that you were wondering about?
I don’t think the problem is so visible with Jews as it is with Christian fundies. I find it mildly amusing and revolting when they say “Homosexuality is an abomination against the lord” and then sit down to a plate full of scallops.
Jews who keep kosher are following the laws - it’s the Christians who do things like this that irritate me.
If a man has a wet dream, he is supposed to leave the camp, cleanse himself, and not return for a day. In modern times, I read this as no erotic dreams while in the moutains.
Have enough generations passed that, were the Temple rebuilt tomorrow, the descendants of all those tribes barred from the Temple would be allowed back in?
On a personal note, I have always wanted to go to a major sporting event and hold up a sign reading “Deuteronomy 23:1” (“He who has had his member removed or his testicles crushed …”), and have all of Middle America run to their Bibles and go “Yuck”.
Remember the first half of our bible (OT) is the same as a part of the Jewish bible. We do serve the same God, but we do not have all the same beliefs.
Christians, in general, believe that they are not under the law but under Grace. We seek to live by the example that Jesus lived for us.
All sin is equally wrong. My telling what society would deem as a small lie is just as bad as someone commiting a homosexual act or someone else killing someone. All sin separate us from God. Now, my sin may have less consequences in society that murder or even homosexual acts, but in God’s eyes they are all equal sins.
Let’s look at it this way. You say that there is only one area dealing with homosexuality and that it only covers male to male relations. But it is our belief that God made man and woman to be together and anything else is not natural in God’s eyes. These acts are sin in God’s eyes. If someone prefers partners of the same sex but does not act on that, then they may consider themselves homosexual but they have commited no sin.
Why is it okay to have homosexual sex, but it is not okay for someone to have sex with an animal? Maybe you say because the animal cannot consent, but what if the animal seems to like it? Based on the way my dog likes to hump about anything it can, then if someone helped a dog get off, why is that not okay? What about multiple marriages? Why is it wrong for a guy to marry more than one woman or a woman to marry more than one man? Why can a 14 year old not have consentual sex?
We feel that all of these things are wrong in the eyes of God, but society allows some and not others.
I do not mean to offend anyone who is homosexual and I do not wish to get into a debate on evironment, or genetics, or any other reasons as to why someone is homosexual.
All I am trying to do is express why Christians do not believe they are being hypocritical as some seem to think they are.
Should so much emphasis be placed on homosexuality? Probably not, since there are so many other areas that need to be addressed.
In one of the most wonderful pieces I’ve ever read, Walter Wink writes in “Homosexuality and the Bible” that yes, the Bible condemns homosexual sex, but at the same time the Bible lists many other sexual mores that we would consider downright facist if we were to enforce them today. His examples include forbidding sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), adultery punishable by stoning (Deut. 22:22), including the inequality between punishments for men and women, nudity being reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3), Polygamy and concubinage were regularly practiced in the Old Testament and never condemned by the New, levirate marriages (Mark 12:18-27 par.), sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults were allowed in the OT as long as the woman’s economic value is not compromised, semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24), social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution determined largely by considerations of the males’ property rights over women, prostitution considered natural (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7), endogamy, Jesus categorically forbids divorce (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity), celibacy is considered abnormal, yet it is required of priests and nuns, a woman’s hand must be cut off if defending her husband (Deut. 25:11f.), and the OT & NT both regarded slavery as normal and never condemn it, (Lev. 19:20f., 2 Sam. 5:13 and Num. 31:18). {Please note I’m paraphrasing his 12 points, and I’m not familiar with the passages referenced - please read the link above for his complete discussion and defense of his positions.}
So how come these are all now considered outdated but we still rail against homosexual sex? If all sin is the same, and it all comes from the Bible, how come these are now “wrong” but homosexual mores aren’t?
Wink says:
I’m in agreement with him here, but keep in mind I’m not Christian myself.
You have to remember that most of the Christian fundies aren’t really Christians but, to coin a term, western civilizationists. Hence the picking and choosing. If something which happens to be wrong in the current western civ viewpoint, and happens to also have been wrong 2500 years ago in the judaic civ, guess what? It is in the bible as forbidden by “god” and batabingbataboom, you are going to “hell” if your don’t conform. Now if something is not wrong in modern western civ, but was wrong in judaic civ 2500 years ago, who cares? Certaintly not the western civ fundies for obvious reasons. They also get an easy out of any logic traps because they aren’t Jews per se, and hence only have agree with the judiac civ viewpoint when it suits their needs.
Another “justification” I’ve heard for the difference between Jewish and Christian observance of Biblical law (especially pertaining to Leviticus) is that the Jews were chosen by G-d to be a holy people, sort of like a nation of priests for the rest of the world.
Of course, some Christians argue that, since Jesus showed up, the Jews aren’t necessary, or that they have been replaced, in G-d’s heart, by Christians. I disagree. I have some Jewish friends who have, in addition to being good friends in the secular sense, have helped me to get a better perspective on the OT and the state of Israel (both politically and culturally) during the time of Christ. After all, we do worship the same god. I can’t see G-d condemning a people for honestly trying to stay faithful to Him.
I agree that the “Fundies” appear to be picking and choosing. I figure, however, that I’m responsible only for my own behavior. Their problem, as I percieve it, is that they want to force others to conform to their standard, rather then leading by example.
So, another related question I have is this: Why do some Christians drag out the Ten Commandments, then go back and supplement it with bits and pieces of other Biblical law that appeal to them?
I would beg to differ. The two worship completely different gods. I’ve heard followers of Islam say they worship the same God as well, but I’d like to find a Christian out there agree with that one.
jullaney said:
Which NT are you reading? J.C. claimed not to have come to change one smidgeon of the law. He summed it all up with the “love God with all your heart, mind and soul” and “your neighbor as yourself”, but that goes along the lines of if you love God with all your being you won’t kill, steal, etc. because of that love. Of course he never claimed to be God either and thought he was the Messiah. It was the people that came afterwards that f’d up his whole message and started adding their own idealogy and theology to it. And they are still doing it today. But that is a whole different story.
Fundies certainly pick and choose, but they have a blanket excuse of “freedom in Christ”. That freedom only goes as far as the leaders choose it to go though.
Got a Biblical reference for that one? I think the message was that wealth is a gift from G-d. Therefore, anything surplus to your needs ought to be used to help others (by way of employment, charity, etc.) in a way that honors G-d.
I’m not certain about that one. You can honor your parents without obeying their every whim or putting your stamp of approval on their every act, right or wrong. After all, you answer to G-d, too. It isn’t honoring my father to give him money for booze when he has a problem with alcohol, nor am I required to back mom up in snubbing Aunt Gladys for disagreeing with her. Your parents deserve special respect because G-d chose them to give you life. It does not mean that you therefore have to help dad hide out from the law if he robbed a bank (you very respectfully turn him over to the authorities :D).</Ramble>
Once again: Biblical reference?
As far as the others, I agree. “Love G-d” and “Love Your Neighbor” are the foundation for all the rest. Any elaboration on the law must agree with those two or it is wrong.
In fact, I would sooner say that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, since their veiws on the nature of God are almost identical.
Christians, however, worship a three-in-one God. In the former two religions, God would never have a son, corpify Himself or die. In Christianity, all of these do happen.
I’m refering to Matthew chapter 5, mostly. As for sentence 17: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.”
I guess I get what you are getting at, but c’mon. When you read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Act 3 scene 2, where Antony says:
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
you know that is not exactly why he gives his speech; in fact quite the opposite. I think the tone of Matt 5:17 is exactly the same – he is not abolishing, just fulfilling, but really that means abolishing based on everything he says afterwards.
Islamic tradition holds the idea of “nafq” (spelling???) or “abrogation” to be extremely important. It basically means that clerics and muftis can decree that some religious law no longer applies in modern times. Hence we see that polygamy is illegal in the vast majority of Middle Eastern states.
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Luke 4:12
And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
StrTrkr777 said:
This is basically what I believe.
Joel said:
Please don’t presume to speak about such things. Fundamentalist Christians are just as Christian as any of the other “watered-down” sects of Christianity.
Fundamentalists don’t worship the Bible. They just happen to believe that God wrote the Bible (through men) and that it is inerrant. If the Bible contains one error, it could contain one million, then who is to say what is right and what is wrong? The Bible is all we have to go by, so it is imperative that it is flawless. Luckily, God states in the Bible that He will preserve His word.
I’m not asking you to believe this. I’m just explaining the Fundamentalist’s point of view.
And don’t start pointing out what you think are “errors” in the Bible, as this issue has been covered. It will just end up with non-believers posting links to biblical contradictions pages, and fundamentalists (okay, probably not plural) posting links to biblical inerrancy pages. I don’t have the time.
And yes, I know that non-believers consider quoting the Bible as proof of biblical inerrancy circular logic. Fundamentalists just call it faith.
I can’t believe you are asking an atheist to give biblical references! This is very trying. Obviously, if you read the Gospels once or twice and didn’t “get it” there isn’t much I can say to make a difference. You might recall the part about the crow snatching away the seeds before they have a chance to take root. You might think this is about farming – I don’t know. I really can’t prove, via biblical reference, that it isn’t.
Don’t trust people who worship books.
I realize western civilizationism has a strong thread of Calvanism. The following is of course, a statement of much of Calvanist doctrine when it comes to property:
This is wonderfully diabolical because it opens the door to define anything as being within your “needs.” I mean, jeez, employment? I thought a man couldn’t serve two masters was in there somewhere too. So, you want to use your wealth to encourage people not to serve god? And this is why god give you wealth? That honors him? Nuts!
But the parent’s reference is easy. That part where J.C.'s mom and cousins show up and he says something like: “who is my mother, who is my brother? it is he/she who does the will of god”
(it’s Mark 3.33 and Luke 8.21 for those of you playing the home game)
Are you saying there are no sects that aren’t watered down? Please don’t presume to say that either. I did misspeak; I didn’t mean that only fundamentalists are effected by this – I could have said “organized religion” but who are we to judge the organization of true-believers? – but the biblical literalists do seem to be especially blind – I think a severe lack of faith in the h.s. leads to statements like this:
All? So there is no god, just a book to fundamentalists and this was my basic point.
El Guapo, what the hell are you talking about? 'Course Allah is the Judeo-Christian G-d. How do we know for sure? Muslims say he is, and if you read the Koran, it is obvious. Why else would Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mary, etc., end up in there as holy figures unless Allah was G-d? In fact, in the very early days, Muslims faced Jerusalem rather than Mecca when praying.
Jews and Christians may disagree with how Muslims worship G-d, but no serious religious scholar of any of the three religions would claim that Allah is a different entity.
As Zev pointed out, it’s really the Christians who have some 'splainin to do. They/we are the ones who diverged from the unitary G-d.
No. I was just using the term “watered-down” as a contrast to the use of fundamentalist. In hindsight, “less strict” would have been a better choice of words. Sorry about the mix-up.
No no no. It is not “just a book” to Fundamentalists. To them (us), it is the word of God. It is how God communicates with us now that he is no longer in the fire-sending business.
Fundamentalists don’t pray to the book. They pray to the God OF the book. They don’t worship the book. They worship the God OF the book. They consider the Bible VERY important, but they don’t worship it.
