Xtians quoting Leviticus to bolster their opposition to same sex marriage

[Sandpiper]

Aside from the fact that what the bible has to say is completely irrelevant to the Constitutional issue of same sex marriage, I can't help but laugh whenever a "Christian" has to reach back to Leviticus to find support for a conservative political position.

Last I heard, Leviticus was part of the Mosaic Law; the same Mosaic Law that was repudiated by the New Testament.

[Deep13]

1. Other Xtians quoting ...

... Christ's Great Commandment to support it and admonish hate mongers not to judge least they be judged.

[coloradodem2005]

2. Tell that to those idiots.

[Deep13]

22. I wish I could,...

... but their thinking is so rigid that they just will not listen.

[northzax]

3. but it's in the Koran!

so it must be god's law...right?

[Tux]

63. Don't forget the Dhammapada

[TlalocW]

4. That and...

According to Leviticus, wearing clothing of two different materials is also an abomination. If homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus, then the person pointing that out is just as bad in God's eyes if he or she is wearing blended fabrics, and if they don't like that, then they should be told that what they're doing is typical of abominations before God to cherry-pick from the Bible the way they do.

TlalocW

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ret5hd]

8. wasn't something also said tho...

that if you wanted to live under "the law", it had to be THE WHOLE LAW, not just bits and pieces. As in no shellfish or pork, stoning adulterers and obnoxious kids, etc etc etc.

[Bertha Venation]

14. Is this the one you meant?

It's in the same passage as the one I referred to earlier: Matthew 5

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

[ret5hd]

16. Maybe...i dont know...

just something i remember hearing.

(i prefer a Magic 8-Ball or tossing chicken-bones onto the ground for my divination purposes.)

[Bertha Venation]

25. Heathen! Everyone knows you're supposed to consult the Ouija Board!

:hi:

[Bertha Venation]

26. BTW--deleted message you replied to was a self-delete/repeated in post #6

eom

[Bertha Venation]

6. "the same Mosaic Law that was repudiated by the New Testament" -- but

Christ said he came not to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them.

[On the Road]

13. And Jesus Said Not a Jot or a Tittle of the Law Would Change

I don't think it's a stretch. Personally, I'm an atheist, but the Bible as a whole is pretty firm on homosexuality being a sin.

[Bertha Venation]

23. "the Bible as a whole is pretty firm on homosexuality being a sin" -- nope

actually, it's not. Only a literal, out-of-context (including the cultures from which those writings stemmed) produces that kind of attitude on the issue.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Debatable.

Levitical law is not followed by any Christian sect (and I can't speak to Judaism, but it seems unlikely that many Jewish women still have to offer up a burnt offering of a turtle or a 2 pidgeons to atone for menstruation every month).

And in the New Testament, the only mention of homosexuality is by Paul of Tarsus. Of course, he never met Jesus in the flesh, only in a "vision" on the road to Damascus. Jesus himself never mentioned it (although he lots to say about greed, adultery, divorce, lack of compassion, hypocrisy, etc).

[On the Road]

33. It is True That Paul Never Met Jesus

and was on bad terms with Jesus' family. However, pretty much every existing Christian denomination in history has accepted Paul's letters as part of the Bible. And considered homosexuality a sin.

It is inconceivable to me that Jesus or any of the founders of early Christianity or early Church fathers would have condoned homosexuality. There are basically zero statements of support for that position until the modern area. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just saying it's an attempt to rewrite history.

[Liberal Veteran]

35. I have suspicions about the Pauline epistles anyway....

Jesus didn't lay the foundation for a politically powerful, centralized, patriarchal church.

Most of that comes from the Pauline Epistles.

I suspect that the Pauline epistles were included in the canon as an attempt by the early church to justify things that Jesus never really intended.

[On the Road]

38. I Completely Agree about Paul

the more I study early Christian history, the less I'm sure of who Jesus was or what he stood for.

By his own account, Paul was considered a heretic by Jesus' brother, and by the other leaders of the Jerusalem Church which died out. (If anything, that movement was probably more opposed to homosexuality than Paul's church.)

The Gospels were all written from the Pauline side and were probably a mixture of genuine quotes and stories with additions by Paul's followers. Knowing which is which is impossible.

As far as Christianity goes, however, Paul's letters were considered inspired. There's pretty much an unbroken record of opposition to homosexuality in the church. I've never seen any evidence to suggest differently.

[justsomegirl]

42. Not quite...

The Gospels were all written from the Pauline side and were probably a mixture of genuine quotes and stories with additions by Paul's followers. Knowing which is which is impossible.

I'd qualify that statement. There are other gospels that aren't Pauline oriented, but those weren't included in the final version of the Bible.

...which of course, doesn't make them untrue, just politically inexpedient for the times.

[On the Road]

44. That's Right -- the Four Gospels

A few, such as Thomas, seem to have come from people aligned with the Jerusalem church.

[Bertha Venation]

36. "condoned homosexuality" Hell, I don't condone elephants, but they're

there.

Jesus Christ ministered to OUTCASTS and saved his righteous indignation for the religous elite, the to-the-letter crowd of his day.

Who is anyone to say that he would have added gays -- if they existed then as they do today -- to his list of "WOE UNTO YOU" people? He sure as hell didn't act that way toward sex workers.

As viewed by American culture, who are the outcasts today? The ground-down-poor, the homeless, the gay, and every third-world country on the planet.

[On the Road]

37. Yes, Jesus Was Certainly Not on a Mission Against Gays

he had other priorities. You are correct that righteous indignation was reserved for the elite. He might have treated someone accused of being gay like he treated the woman caught in adultery: "Go and sin no more."

Gays certainly existed back then. And no Jewish or early Christian figure condoned gay relationships, although they might have accepted a self-professed gay person who simply abstained from sex.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Right

A Christian follows Christ and thus he didn't talk about homosexuality.
:shrug: And the old testament is considered a history book to lots of us.

[KnowerOfLogic]

51. Jesus was covering his ass; and if you *blinked,* you would miss

the bible's alleged condemnation of homosexuality. The few passages that even exist are such an insignificant part of the bible, that they could in no way, shape, or form justify the outrage over homosexuality. And that's assuming the popular translations are accurate and complete, which they probably aren't.

Besides, where is the christian outrage over the 1st ammendment itself, which essentially says that all religions will be treated equally by US law? I'm pretty sure that the bible says that all religions and gods are *not equal;* in fact, i'm pretty sure that's the entire point of the bible, for christ's sake.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Yet we still end up with so-called Christians picking and choosing.

What they want to follow and what they want to ignore.

Jesus spoke at length about greed, gluttony, divorce, and lack of compassion, yet it seems the majority of those who identify as Christians see nothing wrong with the accumulation of wealth, lack of charity, and engaging in serial monogamy.

[amazona]

7. no sane person is quoting Leviticus

I'll hyperlink you to the text of that book starting with Chapter 1--

http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Leviticus/

I think it should be obvious that if they are not making the proper burnt sacrifice of male cattle and all that good happy crap, they are themselves going to hell, so they don't need to be worrying about any gays getting married.

This book has zero application to civilized society, sheesh.

Oh, and if they ever whacked off or had a nocturnal emission and didn't tell the priest to sacrifice some turtle doves or live pigeons for them, then they're going to hell anyway. Check out Chapter 15, it's hilarious.

I think you can be confident that anyone quoting Leviticus has not read the Bible and you should feel free to call them on it.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Squeech]

9. Shellfish

Also according to Leviticus, it is an abomination to eat any seafood that doesn't have scales. Lobster, shrimp, crawfish, even catfish, are all forbidden, according to the Biblical law.

There's a parody website: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com with text and graphics stolen and tweaked from the "Rev." Phelps' slime pit of the web.

On edit: had to tweak the URL

[jilln]

10. As a non-religious person...

.. I've been curious about Leviticus since that "open letter to Laura Schlessinger" which pointed out all the horrible things the Bible wants us to do. I assumed that part of the Bible was out of favor for some reason but never really knew why.

[northzax]

17. it's out of favor primarly

as far as I can tell, because it's a wee bit inconvenient to follow the dicta. Lobster tastes good. and stoning children is frowned upon by our godless government.

[XemaSab]

31. Children get stoned here all the time

:smoke:

[seabeyond]

11. not to mention divorce and shell fish, but

especially divorce is the greater issue. you would be surprised the number of second third families i find in fundamentalist church.

[Liberal Veteran]

18. Jesus was pretty clear on that issue.

If you divorce for any reason other than infidelity and remarry, you are committing adultery. And marrying a woman who has been divorced is also adultery.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Other things in Leviticus that are forbidden....

Having tattoos.

Touching anything a menstruating woman has touched.

Eating shellfish.

Eating pork.

Wearing a garment made of two different fibers (God hates cotton-poly underwear).

Sowing a field with mixed seeds (that kitchen garden for fresh salad is evil).

Trimming the edges of your beard.

Eating rabbit.

Cutting the hair on the side of your head.

Eating blood sausage.

[northzax]

19. and you know?

I tried that second one on my girlfriend, to tell her why she should be doing the dishes, and got slapped.

godless heathen.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. Well, according to Leviticus...you should be putting her away...

...while she has an issuance of blood.


19 And if a woman have an issue, her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the even.
22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the even.
23 And if it on bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

[Marnieworld]

40. ...and then Jehovah in the heavens blessed the land with Tampax

and then all was well and clean forevermore.

And then you can toucheth her flesh for she will be clean

Toucheth her bed, her clothes, or any chair she sat upon for 7 days for it is clean.

And there shall be an aisle in every market devoted to her issuance-
Amen!

So it is written- so it shall be.

[Liberal Veteran]

43. But there is still the atonement for it....

You have to sacrifice two pigeons or a turtle to atone for the "sin" of menstruation.

[SemperEadem]

20. my fundamentalist mother said something along the lines of...

Christians being bound to the laws in the New Testement. They are not bound to the laws of the Old Testement because of Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice to God. Perhaps if they tried reading their bibles more thoroughly rather than using it to bludgeon others into submitting to their views, they'd find out that they are so far astray from where they're supposed to be.

They are also admonished to not make themselves a part of 'the world', but to separate themselves from worldly pursuits... politics would come under that heading I believe.

Also, it says you can't serve both God and money, yet television air time is huge money--if you're going to have a television show/network, you need a whole lot of money to buy the time to be on the air---and to obtain money, you must serve it; therefore, those whose 'lust of the eye' includes being on television are serving money and not God.

It's all there in the bible, if one chooses to actually read it.

[no name no slogan]

60. Hence, the Jehovah's Witnesses

That's the reason that they do not vote, server in public office, or serve in the military. They, and sects like the Amish, go out of their way to not make themselves 'of the world'.

Like you said, more Christians should really read their Bibles. Maybe they'd learn something.

[jbnow]

27. Are you mocking Leviticus?

Because man...that's the bible.

Before I sit in a public place or have food serve to me I always make sure as well as I can that no woman having her period or any man with a discharge or who has ejaculated without purifying everything has been on the seat or serves the food.

I scream "Unclean" if I see anyone with a skin lesion like acne or if I see someone eating pork or shellfish. I make everyone show me the tag on their clothing to make sure it is not a blend of fabrics and I make sure they have not shaved or gotten a haircut, because I know ritual impurity when I see it.

Of course I take part in stoning brides that are not virgins and make sure I follow regulations in how violently I beat my slaves.

So of course gay men are wretched sinners. As far as I can tell God doesn't mind lesbians at all, except when they have their periods.

It's the bible after all.

[TWiley]

67. But, isn't that after the part where

Moses gets drunk and porks his daughters, and King David sends a beautiful woman's husband off to be killed so he can screw her?

Also, Abraham was hearing voices and decided that God would let him live a more comfortable life if he only murdered his son. So, he took him up the mountain and built an alter upon which the poor lad was to be tortured and killed. Evidently, God changed his mind, the boy lived, and Abraham became a hero.

Man, you gotta keep this stuff in context!

[Johonny]

28. I can't wait to

go to my first stoning.

[Mari333]

29. They are cafeteria Christians

pick n choose passages..it also says in Leviticus not to eat shellfish, and for women to sit on the roofs of their homes during their menstrual periods..but you dont see them bringing that up
They use the NT Romans and pick n choose passages from that too..but when I bring up to them , (if they are women), do you cover your head or speak out in church? they say NO and then get mad when I point out to them the NT says they should do that also..
pick and choose Christians,,hell, many of them dont even READ the Bible...dont even get me started on the many passages about the sin of GLUTTONY that so many of them ignore (ever been to a Baptist potluck..good lord!)...
Pharisees and hypocrites.

[coloradodem2005]

32. Where did that phrase come from?

[Mari333]

50. I made it up n/t

[noonwitch]

30. Well, then we need to start stoning a lot more people than just gays

1. Urban rape victims that don't scream for help
2. Children who disobey their parents
3. Adulterers
4. Being unable to prove one's virginity after being wed (women only)

I'm sure the religious right would add a few categories of their own making.

[BiggJawn]

34. No Gay Marriage, but LOVE that "Surf and Turf"!

And cotton-poly clothes, or cotton undies with a wool suit. And how many of these fundies obey the command to "round ye not the corners of thy head"?
Rare steaks with the blood dripping out of them? Pork BBQ? Are you SURE that chicken wasn't throttled to death or drowned in boiling water?

Do their wives go away when they're raggin' and return ONLY after the full moon?

Hypocritical bastids.

[Deep13]

45. You said it!

Of all the weird-ass rules in the Old Testament, why are they so obsessed with this one? They are rules on house construction in the Old Testament. Are people committing abominations against nature for following modern building codes or having indoor plumbing? The issue is not whether the Bible condemns homosexuality, after all there are more passages in there promoting slavery than objections to gays, but what the right thing to do now is. Seems to me that the Golden Rule mandates allowing gays to live like normal people.

[TWiley]

49. Why yes they are

Hypocritical bastards. And thank you for noticing !

[Arkana]

39. Doesn't Leviticus 25:44

also say you can possess slaves? :shrug:

EDIT: It does indeed. I guess having a Catholic Study Bible in your dorm room is good for something. :P

[TWiley]

46. Frankly, I am shocked that anyone takes those blithering idiots seriously.

Many of them believe the end of the world is coming soon. Wasn't the mainstream belief that these folks were crack-pots?

It is frightening all by itself to have an idiot in the white house that believes the end of the world is coming soon.

[lastliberalintexas]

52. Problem is their votes count the same as ours

And actually more, if Diebold has anything to say about it. But while they are laughable on the surface, these people are actually very dangerous to the general welfare of the world.

[TWiley]

64. I feel one solution could be for the Democratic party

to encourage the growth of a Christian voice that supported liberal values. After all, if Jesus was political, he sure as hell would not be a conservative Republican.

I believe that over time, the liberal Jesus would win out over the hell mongering icon.

I feel the exact same way as you. Those people ARE very dangerous to the welfare of the world.

[Deep13]

65. Good idea.

Normal Christians need to stop the wackos from hijacking their religion.

[TWiley]

66. Yes they do. And, nobody will do it but them.

The "Christian" voice has been void of any genuine morality for far too long. American Christianity resembles a "bowling shirt". Each patch that is sewn on is a qualifier for their "goodness".

First patch is anti-abortion, next patch is anti-homosexual, next patch is anti-liberal, the next patch is anti-evolution, the next patch is anti-sponge bob, the next patch contains an incoherent combination of bible verses taken out of context used to explain the need for blood sacrifice in order to pacify God enough to forgive the rest of us for being the humans that he created.

The patch "sewn on the shirt" and worn by the believer demonstrates the same relationship that republicans actually have to God. They are merely a patch sewn onto an obscure limb of a very large tree. The branch where fungus and rot under their patch begin to poison and kill the entire organism.

Myself, I donate to the "Interfaith Alliance". They almost rabidly oppose the conservative influence on religion.

[MsTryska]

47. one question for a leviticus-quoter....

Do you eat ham?


if so, then shut up.

[maveric]

48. Leviticus was a self loathing gay.

[lastliberalintexas]

53. Actually, the Levites were a tribe

Leviticus is simply a detailed set of rules and laws crafted by the Levites, the ruling elite of their day and region, to keep the rest of their peoples in check and under "control". Most of the laws in Leviticus didn't apply to the Levites, as they were special and were allowed to do as they wished. Because they held the political power, they were able to keep the masses in line. Sounds a lot like what the modern pseudo-Christian churches do, now doesn't it?


Leviticus has absolutely no application to a modern society, or even a free and democratic one. But you'll rarely if ever find a fundie who even knows the background of the book, much less its full contents.

[Taxloss]

54. Isn't it JUST WONDERFUL that this is still relevant?

These stagnant, hate-filled texts are going to pollute public discourse until they are called out for what they are: as ancient and irrelevant as Caesar's boxer shorts. The Christian church, in its first centuries, was happy to convene council to decide what was and what wasn't in the Bible; why is this no longer the case?

[LittleClarkie]

55. Please try to remember there are "Xians" Democrats

We Dems are not necessarily the "secular" opposition.

"Progressive" and "liberal" and "person of faith" are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Sorry, I consider "Xian" to be a form of hate speech. It's Christian. I wouldn't think of misspelling Muslim, for instance, despite the fact that I'm not one. And I've never seen any other religion ridiculed in that way, unless it was a Freeper doing the ridiculing.

Won't you consider being tolerant and sensitive to those on your side who might take offense?

[Taxloss]

56. "Xian" or "Xtian" is not hate speech.

It was common Christian shorthand since the foundation of the faith. The X represents the cross. Do you object to the abbreviation Xmas? None of this is meant offensively, and no one has suggested that you canot be a person of faith and a progressive and a liberal.

[LittleClarkie]

57. Sorry to ass-u-me, thanks for your reply.

I've hung out on atheist messageboards, and to me, the only ones I've ever seen use that abbreviation was militant atheists who were quite hostile to Christians.

I was their token theist :-)

Sorry if I assumed hostility where none existed.

[Taxloss]

58. No problem.

As I said, it's just shorthand.

I love the painting of Kerry on your sig - very Wolfgang Tillmans!

[Ilsa]

62. My understanding is that it represents Chi, the first letter

of "Christ". My husband corrected me on this recently.

[Deja Q]

59. Id quote the following in retailiation to their greed and selfishness:

*

Ecclesiasticus 13:3-8 (1)
*

Ecclesiasticus 13:16, 18-23 (1)
*

Ecclesiasticus 20:1
*

Ephesians 2:8-9
*

James 2:14-17
*

James 5:1-6 (paralleling today's economy)
*

1 Timothy 6:10
*

Proverbs 22:16
*

Deuteronomy 24:5

*

Mark 12:38-44
*

Matthew 5:44
*

Matthew 7:1
*

Matthew 25: 37-40
*

Matthew 25: 42-45
*

Luke 6:31
*

Luke 14:12-14
*

Luke 17:21
*

Revelation 3:17
*

Revelation 22:12

(1) The New Jerusalem Bible, Doubleday Publishing, 1989. This is the fun part about organized religion. So many people have translated the original texts in so many ways, no two versions are alike. Then there's the validity of the "original" text to consider...

Which reminds me: Michael Powell of the FCC wants to restore dignity in the media. While this is overall a good thing, why not look up Ezekiel 23: 1-27 and ask just how far back Mr. Powell should go. :-) Preferably from the New International Version, as the King James Version has some unintelligable censorship in that passage. Which is ironic, as some of the KJV's passages seem less fettered with a political agenda and speak of the truth (e.g. greed and unruly selfishness being the cause of a city's demise rather than a purported orgy)! And Genesis 19:31-36 is good for a chuckle too.

[Malva Zebrina]

61. The old testament is crucial to the New Testament because

of the prophecy of the messiah that the writers of NT declare was fulfilled in the man , Jesus.

Without the OT, there would be no justification to declare Jesus the messiah, and a god according to the Christian interpretation, so, it is necessary to hold on to that ancient book written by a people in a tribe, amongst other challenging tribes in the region, that was seeking to establish for itself a territory and what better to convince the people, than to declare that a god gave a certain territory to them as their own to defend no matter what the violence involved. No matter it's brutality, no matter it's ancient beliefs that are woefully out of sinc with today's science, people will cling to it as a guide to modern day life. I find that incredible.