This; and as acceptance of homosexuality becomes the norm the opposition of so many Christians to rights for homosexuals will hurt the authority of the Bible and of Christianity in general. It’s going to be one of those embarrassing historical facts about Christianity that can be brought up by its critics and opponents.
I’d guess not very, but it’s beside the point. In no era have mainstream Christians preached or followed the dietary laws of the Old Testament, since the New Testament has clear position on them–see ch. 7 of the Gospel of Mark, among others. Likewise for rules on clothing, washing, or anything like that. None of these things have produced any change in Christian attitudes towards the Bible between the medieval times and now.
Shrimp, pretty common on the coasts. Lobster, crab, and crayfish were all popular in the Roman Empire, and stayed that way after its fall. Cockles, oysters, mussels, clams, etc. were pretty much readily available peasant food in coastal and estuarial regions throughout the Middle Ages.
So inland, not so much beyond the freshwater varieties of the above. But on the heavily-populated coastal areas, shellfish was a common and necessary part of the medieval diet.
(If you’re interested I’ll drag out my old reference books on medieval foods…I was never a very good fighter, but I can whip up a badass feast at SCA events.)
Not for Christians- the Levitical laws have been overridden. Homosexuality is potentially a bigger issue because it’s mentioned in the New Testament as well (a couple times by St. Paul, and possibly once by St. Jude, though the references are vague and murky and it’s unclear what exactly they mean). I say potentially because I think that challenge can be dealt with, as others have been.
Crayfish live in freshwater, and you can take the smallest varieties of shrimp inland by drying and/or salting them. I’ve lived in an African country before, where most people didn’t have refrigeration, and dried shrimp were a common food commodity, even inland.
To bible literalists, no. To them the bible is the one true book, absolute and authoritative for all time.
To other Christians (more liberal, etc), not really because they don’t really consider the bible is meant to be read as completely literal anyway and are open to accept new interpretations or ideas.
To non-christians, no. We don’t accept the bible as having any authority anyway.
(lots of generalities there, I wouldn’t claim to speak for or really understand every potential belief out there)
Yes and its even more explicitly repealed in Acts. So Leviticus’ eating prohibitions are no longer an issue even for literalist Christians. Wearing polyblends on the other hand is still a no-no as far as I can tell.
Homosexuality is not really a very big part of the Bible. It’s mentioned but it’s hardly part of the core message. You can ignore the references to homosexuality without losing much.
As others have said, we’ve abolished slavery and that’s a much bigger scriptural issue. And we’ve legalized divorce - that’s clearly non-biblical. So we’ve already moved past the point of following the Bible when we choose to do so.
Pretty sure Jesus didn’t write any letters to the Colossians.
Covered in post #12.
Of course, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality either.
Whereas the Levitical sexual code also bans incest, bestiality, child sacrifice/dedication to false gods, adultery, and intercourse during menstruation, along with male-male sex. Only the menstruation one is acceptable to the bulk of Christians. And I think to many non-Christians also.
Polyblends & hybridization laws have historically been considered part of the Israel-Gentile distinction laws, and so obsolete by the same principle that made non-kosher food OK for Christians.
Jesus was a Torah-keeping Jew speaking to Jews who at least acknowedged Torah. No one was lobbying for homosexual acceptance. He instead spoke to those evils most prevalent among his people. Now, when Paul went as Jesus’ envoy to the Gentiles, then it became an issue.
Jesus also never spoke about incest or bestiality, which are also prohibited in the Levitical Sex Code.
I’m agnostic-leaning-liberal on the moral issues around homosexuality, but those are entirely separate from the legal issues. It is perfectly possible to believe that homosexual relationships are a sin, or aren’t really marriages in the eyes of God, and also to believe that imposing sexual morality is none of the business of the state and its marriage laws.
Lots of Christians believe divorce is a sin, or believe that contraception is a sin, but don’t have any interest in banning these practices. Actually, some of the most conservative Christians around, like the Mennonites, explicitly withdraw from the political process, because they don’t believe running governments and passing laws is the business of Christians.
Morality is one thing, legality is quite another. So I don’t really see why the increasing acceptance of gay marriage requires you to believe that, for example, St. Paul in Romans 1 is wrong about homosexuality.
Yes. People don’t respect the Bible’s “authority” because it’s moral or because it makes sense or because they have any intention of following most of its rules. They do so because it’s something respected for entirely irrational, emotional reasons that they can quote-mine for support of their personal agenda, which is why I brought up the embarrassment factor. One more rule of the Bible being ignored won’t make much difference, but so many Christians being caught so prominently on the wrong side of social change probably will make at least some difference.
I think it will have virtually zero effect in either direction. For Biblical literalists/innerrants, it will just be another sign of cultural decay, the fall of society, and the impending end of the world. After all, for many of these types, this is exactly what is expected near the end times, that society will become more and more corrupt, the teachings of the church will be turned upside down and all of that.
And for the other Christians, I don’t see why they’d care. Speaking from my own perspective, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but instead taught us about loving eachother, not being hypocritical. To that extent, I couldn’t care less whether people think homosexuality is a sin, because we all fall short of the glory of God and it’s not my place to judge the sins of others. My concern is that, instead, we’re failing to love our neighbors by denying them basic civil rights with very poor justification.
Either way, anyone whose faith is shaken based on such a minor point of the social acceptance of homosexuality, then it probably would have been shaken by something else anyway. So I see it as pretty much a wash.
Since the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and Jesus is an aspect of God, all the words in the Bible are what Jesus said.
Just kidding. Yeah, I misunderstood your objection.
Eh. He overrode plenty of other Old Testament prohibitions (touching lepers, eating forbidden foods, working on the Sabbath, etc.). And he wasn’t speaking only to Jews either (cf. his interaction with the Centurion and his slave). I don’t think you can infer anything from his failure to speak about homosexuality, one way or the other.
Paul and the early church do condemn homosexuality, quite strongly (though what they really condemn is a particular sex act, not whom you do it with. The word that Paul uses in Romans 1 is also used to describe males performing that sex act on females). Of course, you can argue that their condemnations were to some extent premised on an incomplete understanding of human sexuality, biological anthropology, etc., and if they had understood what we understand now, they might be more tolerant of homosexuality. Or not. But the question here should be really about Paul or the early church, not about what Jesus’ silence on the matter indicates.
That’s to say, St. John the Faster said, specifically, “Some men commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives”, and there are other early sources saying the same thing, so whatever sin Paul was condemning may be a little different than ‘homosexuality’ per se.
And yet no one is trying to legalize the persecution of adulterers; indeed, the people who rail most at homosexuals are often those quickest to forgive adultery (see: Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, etc). Furthermore, given that adultery is not only condemned directly by Jesus but by God Himself in the Commandments, it’s funny how homosexuality is the sin that gets all this attention. It’s almost as if people are fine condemning sins that they’re in no danger of committing themselves.
What’s your basis for saying one group of Levitical laws is still in place but others are not? Seems like a bit of post-hoc rationalization to me.
I’ll admit I misattributed to Jesus something in Paul’s letter. I apologize.
The broader point still stands. Many rules from the Bible, even from the New Testament, are viewed as anachronistic today. Adding one more isn’t going to change much.