Religion and Sexuality

mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
So I was on Facebook earlier, and I stumbled across a page called "Being Liberal" and on it this very interesting post:

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

It raised some interesting questions for me, and I'm curious to know what people think about it.

One is it possible to maintain a religious connection to a church that advocates these sort of ideas, if you yourself or someone you love is homosexual?

How would you cope as the child of such a person, if you needed to come out to them about your sexuality? prominent examples of such parents would be Sarah Palin or Michelle Bacchman.

Isn't it time for the Church and institutions that surrounded it to modernize itself, so that it does not simply ceased to be important to people?

It kind of makes me lose faith in the world when I see people say ridiculous things like x is an abomination, particularly when its said about something that many people struggle with and indeed cannot change.

I say all this as a straight person, who values the rights and happiness of others. I feel like everyday I'm moving further and further away from this idea or god or the church. How could I support such hateful ideas?

Equality for me its not about being gay or straight, male or female, black or white, its about being a decent human being. We should be able to move above such naive beliefs. Letting consenting adults do what they want to in the bedroom. Its not an issue for the state, and least of all for the church.
 
Isn't it time for the Church and institutions that surrounded it to modernize itself, so that it does not simply ceased to be important to people?
Click to expand...

No, no it is not.

What's needed is a return to thinking that served Christianity right the way from around the 5th century to the end of the 19th.

Why? Well, in that era Christianity and Christians observed the doctrine of the New Covenant. The New Covenant states that Jesus fulfilled the Biblical law, the Prophesies, that make up much of the Old Testament, and includes Leviticus.

By fulfilling that Law, Jesus replaces it with the Word, namely the teachings of the first four books of the New Testament, and the other books from those. This is the New Covenant, this is what 'modern' Christians should be following.

Interestingly, Judaism doesn't hold anyone but members of the Priestly classes as having to hold to Leviticus. Said classes do not exist to this day, beyond the surname Cohen. Further to this, some sections of Judaism only hold 7 laws laid down in the Mosiac texts as ones non-Jews should follow. Just why Chrristians should hold Leviticus 18:22 in the same regard as the Ten Commandants, indeed, even above 4 of them, is unknown.
 
Truthfully, McMaster I'm not sure why Orthodox Jews don't continue to follow Levitical law to this day. Christians, particularly non-Jew Christians, weren't really placed under Jewish law according to Paul (although theologians have debated this for centuries).

When I read the letter from the Emeritus professor, it seemed like he was just citing a number of laws without referencing their purpose. And at the end of the day, the purpose or spirit of a law is more important (imo) than actually just following the law. If I tell me children to do X or Y and they do it without understanding why, then when the proverbial poo hits the fan those laws won't help them.

In terms of your point about "modernizing" the Church, I've always had a problem with this. The problem is trying to fit God into our context instead of the other way around. If we say we believe there is a God and that He created the world, then it's very presumptuous of us to change, rationalize, or in any way discard anything we believe He said just so we can fit Him in our present-day world-view. That's not to say we should never question, but the basis of our questioning should never be that we're trying to fit a circle God in a square peg.
 
A serious answer to a serious question:

First of all, it would be only fair to state that the Dr Kauffmann who is supposed to have penned this letter did not do so, and has been deeply embarassed and inconvenienced by having his name and details appended to an anonymous letter.

On the detail of the letter, it could only have been penned by someone with a very simplistic understanding of the relationship between the new Covenant in Christ and the Old Covenant of Sinai.

This is the same simplistic argument used by those who just selectively quote Leviticus in support of whatever hobby horse they wish to promote at the time.

The reality is that the new covenant puts humanity's relationship with God on a new footing; one not based on obedience but on love. It is less about rules, and more about relationship.

Is God bothered about whether we mix milk and meat in a menu? No, not really. We no longer live in desert conditions (except in Montana) and we have refrigeration etc. Is God bothered about how we live our lives, the values and standards we live by? Yes, I rather think he is. Becuase that is at the heart of the new covenant.

I have nothing much to add to the modernising of the church, except to say that the church that weds itself too much to the current age will find itself a widow in the next. Part of the role of the church is prophetic - to stand apart from current society and be able to speak into the ethics and viewpoint of the day. that is how SOME of the church (not all) were able to spearhead the campaign against slavery, for example. If they had "modernised " in the 1780s they would have wholeheartedly supported slavery - as most in society did at the time.
 
Thank you all for your answers - when I say modernizing however I do not mean modernize god, I more mean modernize the institutions that apparently speak on his behalf. It doesn't help the case however that many well known public figures, tend to spout hate speech and at the same time strongly associate that to god. This is not limited to some of the organised church's opposition to having women as priests or bishops etc.

It also doesn't help when the Pope says things that suggests he considered paedophilia to have been normal in the 70's.

What that letter suggests to me (real or not) that there is a fundamental misunderstanding portrayed by some very loud 'religious' politicians/groups, and that this pushes people away from religious beliefs.
 
flemingovia:
I have nothing much to add to the modernising of the church, except to say that the church that weds itself too much to the current age will find itself a widow in the next. Part of the role of the church is prophetic - to stand apart from current society and be able to speak into the ethics and viewpoint of the day. that is how SOME of the church (not all) were able to spearhead the campaign against slavery, for example. If they had "modernised " in the 1780s they would have wholeheartedly supported slavery - as most in society did at the time.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing there is that, as I understand it, the Church opposition to slavery was based not on biblical text (which, in the old testament, condones it) but more on the reasoning that God is Good and Slavery is Bad therefore God is against Slavery. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)

It seems to follow that if homosexuality is not a choice then God would not prohibit it. Of course this leads some to reason that because they believe God does prohibit it therefore it is a choice, but I would favor more a more reality-based approach, and the evidence we have suggests that homosexuality is not a choice (though bisexuality also exists).

As a post script I'll note that that letter appears to be lifted directly from The West Wing.
 
Eluvatar:
The interesting thing there is that, as I understand it, the Church opposition to slavery was based not on biblical text (which, in the old testament, condones it) but more on the reasoning that God is Good and Slavery is Bad therefore God is against Slavery. (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)
Click to expand...
IT is a little more nuanced than that.

There are Bible texts that accept slavery as an institution, but temper its effects by legislating the treatment of slaves and ordering the manumission of slaves after a few years (six or seven, i forget which).

It is easy to be harsh about this, but I do wonder if, morals having changed, in five thousand years time people will be horrified that 21st century people were so evil as to put collars on cats and dogs and keep them as pets.

My pont is, morals change, and it is not always helpful to judge people long past by the standards of today.

But the debates concerning slavery in the C18 and C19 were largely framed around the interpretation of Biblical texts, especially in Nonconformist and American churches.
 
The whole idea brings up a number of theological questions.

Now, in Judeo-Christian religions, God is considered a perfect being. If God changes his mind then it would be proof that God was indeed and imperfect being and the whole shebang crumbles and rabbis kill themselves by beating their heads, en mass, into the Wailing Wall and the Pope runs off to San Francisco to go bar hopping.

Technically speaking, in the book of Leviticus, the physical acts of homosexuality is condemned, not the basic propensity. In Catholicism, the thought is considered as bad as the deed.

But the basic problem with most religions is that most religions concern something that happened to someone else, somewhere else, 2000 or more years ago. When religions fail to remain relevant to what is scientifically known about the world/universe, those religions tend to crumble or change.

Being of the Deistic bent, I personally think that if there is indeed a God, he created the Universe and then hung up the cosmic "Out to Lunch" sign and said, "Have ye all at it, thank you very much, good night. Ye are all on your own."
 
The New Testament is probably even crazier than the Old Testament - which says that God chucks nonbelievers off to hell to be tortured for all eternity. I guess if Hitler repented and accepted Jesus right before he killed himself he's good to go, while Anne Frank goes to hell for being a Jew.
 
flemingovia:
Is God bothered about whether we mix milk and meat in a menu? No, not really. We no longer live in desert conditions (except in Montana) and we have refrigeration etc. Is God bothered about how we live our lives, the values and standards we live by? Yes, I rather think he is. Becuase that is at the heart of the new covenant.
Click to expand...
Wtf I live in a national forest :pinch:
 
flemingovia:
Is God bothered about whether we mix milk and meat in a menu? No, not really. We no longer live in desert conditions (except in Montana) and we have refrigeration etc. Is God bothered about how we live our lives, the values and standards we live by? Yes, I rather think he is. Becuase that is at the heart of the new covenant.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what does that mean? Isn't that you just cherry picking the bits you consider should be applied still?


I have nothing much to add to the modernising of the church, except to say that the church that weds itself too much to the current age will find itself a widow in the next. Part of the role of the church is prophetic - to stand apart from current society and be able to speak into the ethics and viewpoint of the day. that is how SOME of the church (not all) were able to spearhead the campaign against slavery, for example. If they had "modernised " in the 1780s they would have wholeheartedly supported slavery - as most in society did at the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's entirely the right way round of looking at it. The Church evolved to spearhead the campaign against slavery - that hadn't always been the view of the Church at all. So the Church did "modernise" beyond what society considered acceptable at the time.

In current times the Church(es) seem to be more backward looking, it is behind the times whereas the Church which opposed slavery was ahead of its time. I think there's quite a difference.
 
Honestly I don't like religions at all, especially the religious radicalism.
Many tradions are outdated and limit the human freedom. In my opinion sexual discrimination is against this freedom. Everyone has a right to love.
Btw early Christianity was not against slavery, which is strange to me. And the women's rights were very small in this patriarchal system.
 
For reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion, a lot of people don't like gays. I think they thump the Bible on the issue because it is both convenient and powerful. It sounds better to say "I'm a Christian and the Bible says..." than to say "I'm homophobic," or "I'm an intolerant bigot."
 
Great Bights Mum:
For reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion, a lot of people don't like gays. I think they thump the Bible on the issue because it is both convenient and powerful. It sounds better to say "I'm a Christian and the Bible says..." than to say "I'm homophobic," or "I'm an intolerant bigot."
Click to expand...
As always, you are correct.

The issue I think is that religion in some ways - particularly the organized side of things assists in the spreading of such views.
 
Great Bights Mum:
For reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion, a lot of people don't like gays. I think they thump the Bible on the issue because it is both convenient and powerful. It sounds better to say "I'm a Christian and the Bible says..." than to say "I'm homophobic," or "I'm an intolerant bigot."
Click to expand...
:hug:
 
mcmasterdonia:
Great Bights Mum:
For reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion, a lot of people don't like gays. I think they thump the Bible on the issue because it is both convenient and powerful. It sounds better to say "I'm a Christian and the Bible says..." than to say "I'm homophobic," or "I'm an intolerant bigot."
Click to expand...
As always, you are correct.

The issue I think is that religion in some ways - particularly the organized side of things assists in the spreading of such views.
Click to expand...
:agree: Hate becomes justified when it is masked with religious Self-righteousness. Unfortunately most religions in general end up serving a dark purpose whither or not that was the original intent.
 
Hmmm let's embrace every day, because people die everyday.. :(
We're really lucky, while we are not aware of it..I'm sorry, one friend of my friend is just dying :(
 
215418_506716659357792_714776259_n.jpg


^ taken from George Takei on facebook, then it was apparently spread to tumblr.

Just as a note with the Jews bit, my Reform synagogue's been doing ceremonies for lgbt couples for years (ceremonies, they can't marry them in actuality because Florida has both a constitutional ban on "gay marriage" and a law against it).

Oh and as a note, I agree with Durk. >.>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top