Leviticus Laws
There is a story in The Isthmus this week about the Salvation Army in Dane County not allowing gay couples to be together if they come to the Salvation Army for shelter. They say that the laws of Dane County force them to do it (they don't) and that the Bible forbids homosexuality.
Indeed many supporters of the move in Wisconsin to pass a constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage say we have to do this because it's in the bible. So I looked, and there it is in Leviticus, Chapter 18. And then I read the rest of Leviticus and I see that this movement to pass a constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage must be the first of many new items those supporting this amendment are going to put in the Wisconsin Constitution. They must be working silently to get the rest of the amendments ready to go because to only pick out one rule in Leviticus that specifically goes after one group of people would be, well, un-Christian.
Leviticus has a lot of rules in it. After reading it, I think Moses may have broken the first set of tablets in protest of the fact that he was going to have to carry about 1000 more down the mountain and then he and God negotiated down to two. Leviticus has a lot of animal sacrifice requirements in it as well. So many that you start to suspect that it was written by a man that sold livestock for a living.
However, Jesus pretty much rejected the rules set out in Leviticus. And don't take my word for it, take it from Americancatholic.org. They had this to say:
Human care and compassion, not cultural values of honor and shame, direct Jesus' action. He calls into question the purity code, which alienates and oppresses people already in need.Leviticus is the type of purity code they are talking about. But, according to many of the constitutional ban on civil unions and marriage supporters, they must be wrong so I'm starting a new series called Leviticus Lawbreakers to help folks learn about the new laws that we are going to have to pass and live by down the road. I'll also give the punishments required when possible.
The first Leviticus Lawbreaker is, alas, me. A couple of nights ago I had a really good spicy scallop role from Wasabi and that is against the rules. (Leviticus Chapter 11-You can't eat anything out of the seas or rivers that do not have fins) I'm pretty sure I won't be forgiven either because I'd do it again.
So Leviticus Lawbreaker #1 - Me
posted by whatsleftwi @ 1:27 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Oh good, another Leviticus reader. Yep, pork is a no-no. In fact there is an entire chapter about animals that may not be eaten.
Not that I agree with the Salvation Army, but I will point out that Leviticus is not the only place. While not specifically condemning homosexuality, Jesus did define marriage in Mt. 19 as between a man and a woman.
I would add that there are many of us who hold to dispensationalism, which believe that although the whole Bible was written by God, the Law, in particular the ceremonial law as found in Leviticus, was particularly for early Israel. We look for items in the law repeated in the New Testament. The prohibition of homosexuality is in Rom. 1:26-27. The prohibition against eating scallops is not found in the New Testament as the prohibition against eating pork is not.
Thought you might be interested.
I am interested, it just doesn't change my belief. Exodus says you can sell your daughter into slavery and I don't think Leviticus backing that up by saying you can own male and female slaves makes it right just because it is mentioned more than once.
I think society has evolved for the better since the Bible was written and I think Jesus would agree based on his actions of including people society normally pushed aside when he was alive.
And the editorial your link to listing feminism as one of the things attacking marriage is the subject for an entire post. (as is your comparison of gays to drunks).
I'll leave the feminist thing for now with just the definition from Webster of feminism: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.
Crazy idea.
The article did not mean to imply that feminism was bad. I was merely listing stresses for conservatives to see that homosexuality by itself will not "destroy marriage." It's a stress on marriage. There are lots of stresses on marriage, some are not wrong, some are, in my opinion. Your opinion may vary.
By being repeated, I meant taking the Bible as a whole and not plucking isolated comments to prove a point. If you do that, you can make the Bible say anything you want, even that there is no God, which would be a silly thing for a God to say about Himself.
I must say Dean, I find you pretty interesting. I don't think we'll agree on a lot but that doesn't mean we won't have some interesting discussions.
Post a Comment
<< Home