Oh, I’m quite familiar with Levitical law, believe me. I just want people who cite it to do so clearly.
AFAIC, anyone who visits a fortune teller except to point and laugh deserves to be shunned. But I’m kind of a dick.
I think that’s most likely a prohibition on clergy being remarried.
For example, to be an Eastern Orthodox priest today, you can’t be remarried (whether your first marriage ended as a result of divorce or death).
Well, according to one street preacher I heard, the bible really never had anything against lesbians. And while the whole gay thing will be tougher to digest than the “women can’t ride horses during their period” thing, its probably no more harmful than the prevalence of contraception, pre-marital sex, and not giving a shit about the poor.
There’s nothing in the bible about contraception. I wouldn’t be shocked about the horse-riding thing but I don’t recall it.
But giving a shit about the poor is way, way up there in the bible’s priorities.
ETA: I forgot to add, I think the guy was right about lesbians too.
I love this edition of the Bible.
Jesus said, “No way, dude! What were you thinking, man?”
I’ve always assumed that the Catholic position on this is related to all the admonitions against wasting one’s seed. I heard that plenty of times as a mere Presbyterian. That and advice against building a house on sand. That last bit is good advice, by the way.
There’s nothing in the Bible about contraception. The Catholic condemnation of contraception, today, is based on consistent church tradition and on natural law theory (specifically, on the natural law tradition as developed by Aquinas and his followers).
That being said, however, the early fathers of the Catholic and Orthodox churches did, as far as we can tell, condemn contraception as strongly as they condemned homosexuality (in fact, they considered both of those a subset of the same sin, ‘unnatural sex’.) The prohibition against homosexuality was based on the idea that it frustrates the natural end of sex, which applies equally to contraception. (Or at least to certain forms of contraception, like condoms). A lot of thoughtful people have made the observation, ever since 1960, that if you permit barrier contraception, then you don’t have any particularly strong grounds left to condemn homosexuality. The philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, famously, made that point as part of her argument against contraception. (Besides ‘the Bible says so’, which is not an especially strong argument). I think the Catholic position, which condemns both homosexuality and contraception, is at least coherent and consistent, whether or not you agree with it. The evangelical Protestant position, not so much.
Gay marriage is legal in 6 USA states. Having sex with a horse is legal in 23!
Does the bible endorse horse sex too?
According to Talmud scholars everywhere, the Bible forbids contraception. OTTOMH
G-d said “Be fruitful and multiply”. If you use contraception, you’re actively disobeying this command.
You’re not supposed to waste seed. This includes not only a ban on condoms, but a command that all sex must end in ejaculation in the vagina. You’re wife can perform fellatio as foreplay. But, you can only yeehaw in the hoohah.
You may recall occasional stories about Orthodox Jewish workers refusing to sell condoms.
That’s what being a Protestant’s all about. That’s why it’s the church for me. That’s why it’s the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual’s right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas
I knew it was originally in the Ten Commandments, but Leviticus has always struck me as being such a micro-managing document, that I couldn’t believe that Sabbath-honoring wasn’t addressed:
Fair enough, maybe the Orthodox Jewish exegesis of the Old Testament forbids contraception. Christians who oppose contraception, in my experience, generally ground their arguments on natural law and tradition rather than the Old Testament.
The ‘full quiver’ movement falls back on the be fruitful bit. Some also take the story of Onan as being against contraception, though I find that a pretty big stretch.
How about stoning rebellious sons to death–among many others?
What intrigues me is how many believers will say, “Well, that Biblical law no longer applies,” yet they’re willing to accept a whole lot of other laws.
In fact, I could wear a French tickler!
Depends how you interpret Romans 1:26-27, if it condemns “men burning with lust for each other & the women likewise, leaving behind their natural use…” I think it’s fair to interpret that as against female same-sex activity.
Here’s my (liberal Christian) take on the subject.
The laws in the Old Testament were laws put in place for that particular civilization at that particular time. I believe God looked at the Israelite people, saw that homosexual sex was quite prevalent, and forbade it because it was so prevalent that they ran the risk of not having enough children. By reserving sex for procreation, it gave the Israelites the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”.
Put another way: If a parent says, “Don’t stick your head out the window of the school bus; if you hit a sign, it’ll knock off your head,” it’s a much more vivid image than “You’ll get a concussion”. “You’ll get a concussion” is more accurate, but by telling that little white lie, you make it less likely for your child to repeat that behavior.
Nowadays? There are 7 billion people in the world. And it could easily be argued that that’s way too many. How could anyone possibly have a problem with non-procreative sex? It just boggles my mind.
Something else that bothers me is the belief that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children. So you’re saying a child is better off with no parents at all, than with two fathers or two mothers? Really?!
I would add divorcing and remarrying and a lot of other sins that are overlooked!
Notice that is the words of Paul, not God!
This also raises the question of John’s statement when he called himself the Man Jesus loved !Now days that could be translated that John and Jesus were gay, because he wrote like the love Jesus had for him was different than the other Apostles!
This also follows the quote of Jesus when he was said , “Scripture is good for teaching”,never called it the words of his father. he also used " it says In your law (John 10 ) I said you are gods" didn’t seem to think Scripture was God’s word. A matter of what one believes?