|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Leviticus 18:22 and all that
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I had an idle thought over the weekend and, since it's still in my mind on Monday, I wondered if the good folk here could resolve it for me.
Some cite Leviticus 18:22 to support their arguments that homosexuality is immoral. Those who do are often reminded that there are lots of other things forbidden by Leviticus (as Jed Bartlet memorably explained ).
I wondered, has there ever been a counter argument to this? Has anyone argued that Leviticus 18:22 stands but verses prohibiting, say, different coloured threads are not relevant? If so, what is that argument?
My knowledge of the Old Testament is pretty sketchy, so apologies if I'm missing something.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
Gotta get the snark link out of the way before the debate gets serious...
A minor contradiction
PS links to posting which is itself worksafe, but done by someone with a naughty word as a username.
[ 29. May 2012, 01:21: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I had an idle thought over the weekend and, since it's still in my mind on Monday, I wondered if the good folk here could resolve it for me.
Some cite Leviticus 18:22 to support their arguments that homosexuality is immoral. Those who do are often reminded that there are lots of other things forbidden by Leviticus (as Jed Bartlet memorably explained ).
I wondered, has there ever been a counter argument to this? Has anyone argued that Leviticus 18:22 stands but verses prohibiting, say, different coloured threads are not relevant? If so, what is that argument?
My knowledge of the Old Testament is pretty sketchy, so apologies if I'm missing something.
All the time. The usual Christian argument is that Jesus came and lifted the requirements to obey Leviticus except for the ones he didn't which the local preacher can tell you.
The Jewish argument is that this is Noachic law as well as Leviticus. The counter argument is that anything in the Torah is subject to interpretation by many many rabbinical authorities.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wondered, has there ever been a counter argument to this? Has anyone argued that Leviticus 18:22 stands but verses prohibiting, say, different coloured threads are not relevant? If so, what is that argument?
We've been this way several times before, but the argument would usually start something like this:
The council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15, makes a decision as to how the Torah should apply to Gentile believers - 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
The key phrase being 'from sexual immorality'.
Of course then the debate rages over whether homosexuality fits into the category of 'porneia' or not, but at least there is solid ground for selectively applying the Torah to Christians today.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wondered, has there ever been a counter argument to this? Has anyone argued that Leviticus 18:22 stands but verses prohibiting, say, different coloured threads are not relevant? If so, what is that argument?
We've been this way several times before, but the argument would usually start something like this:
The council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15, makes a decision as to how the Torah should apply to Gentile believers - 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
The key phrase being 'from sexual immorality'.
Of course then the debate rages over whether homosexuality fits into the category of 'porneia' or not, but at least there is solid ground for selectively applying the Torah to Christians today.
True though it also means no bloody steak (abstaining from blood is far clearer).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
We did have a thread here some time ago about whether or not you should eat black pudding. It came as a great surprise to me that there were Shipmates who thought that, on the basis of that verse, you shouldn't.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Of course, I'm still wondering why these bronze age strictures are still considered the ideal basis for legislation for religiously pluralist societies? And for those who consider them valid in that regard, why do so many shy away from making homosexuality a capital crime, as also directed by Leviticus?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Or, as Dan Savage points out, a daughter who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be taken to her father's doorstep and stoned to death.
"Yet Callista Gingrich lives!"
And, Albertus, nobody should be allowed to eat blood pudding.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
We did have a thread here some time ago about whether or not you should eat black pudding. It came as a great surprise to me that there were Shipmates who thought that, on the basis of that verse, you shouldn't.
It didn't take a bible verse for me to reach that conclusion. Some things are just self-evident.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
[ 29. May 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Watch what you say, mate- you're perilously close to Ecky-Thump country up your way...
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
That's why they need barm cakes - for body armour ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Has anyone ever considered that the Levitical stricture to "not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" [NIV] is actually an endorsement of gay sodomy (and a proscription against straight sodomy)?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
Certainly many of the lesbians I know take that stricture seriously.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Many Conservative and Orthodox religious groups take the most literal interpretation of the passage, as being a ban on male-to-male sex alone.
Orthodox Jews (like many Christians) have trouble envisaging homosexuality apart from male anal sex, but Conservative Jews have opened their seminaries and synagogues to lesbian and gay people, but request that gay men abstain from that particular act.
According to the Gay Orthodox Jew website:
quote:
Chazal (the Rabbis) understand that here "mishkevei," which is translated as "lie," means anal penetration (Sanhedrin 54). So the Torah, Chazal tell us, says that two men should not have anal sex; it is a to'evah--an "abhorrence" (n.1). We learn that to'evah is a contraction for "to'eh atah bah" ("being led astray") (Nedarim 51a). A man may be led astray from his wife and home by having anal intercourse with men (Tosafos on Nedarim 51a) or go astray from the foundations of creation--from procreation (Torah Temimah on Vayikra 18:22). And while halacha has prohibited other things because they might lead to anal sex (Sefer HaMitzvos 353; Even HaEzer 20), other things are not a to'evah.
The Torah does not specifically address homosexual conduct between women at all, but halacha says that women should avoid it (Even HaEzer 20). Sexual activity between two women, though, is not a to'evah.
http://www.orthogays.org/faq.html
So if you're going by the passage alone, male anal sex is to'evah but Leviticus is silent on other same-sex sexual and romantic activity. If you believe that the entire breadth of halacha (rabbinical interpretation, tradition, custom and convention) is binding and unchanging, then the prohibition would include other same sex activity. But even observant Jews disagree on that.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, I'm still wondering why these bronze age strictures are still considered the ideal basis for legislation for religiously pluralist societies? And for those who consider them valid in that regard, why do so many shy away from making homosexuality a capital crime, as also directed by Leviticus?
The 39 Articles of the CofE address the point in (what I think is) a pretty common way for Christians:
"Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral."
Which I take to mean:
1. We can ignore all the ceremonial/purity/dietary stuff altogether, because we have a new way of approaching God through Jesus Christ, and the old ways have nothing to do with us any more.
2. The specific ways of governing society mandated for ancient Israel was God speaking into a particular historical context when he was prepared one nation to be his people, and as that is not the case with every civil society, we are not bound to enact all OT laws as legislation.
3. Where the OT shows God's values, what is right and wrong, then those are unchanging moral standards.
I think the basic idea is sound - it takes scripture seriously in its meaning and context, and tries to discern the will of God for us intelligently, rather than assuming either that the OT has nothing to say at all, or that it must be followed uncritically.
It is not without problems. Firstly, because the ceremonial/civil/moral distinction is (IMO) one we read into the text rather than one that is taught by it, or one that would have mean much, if anything, to its original society, and secondly, that granted that making the distinction is possible, it is not always easy to see where a particular commandment should be assigned. There is quite obviously a good case to be made that the prohibition on a man having sex with a man belongs in the mixed fibres/mixed crops/avoiding sex during menstruation class of purity laws aimed at keeping things clean and in order. However just because it can be read as containing a 'purity' element, that does not mean that it cannot also contain an authoritative statement that having the wrong sort of sex in this way is always immoral, and ontrary to God's ethical values.
The fact that there are new testament texts (from writers unconcerned with observing the purity code) in seeming agreement that homosexuality is wrong supports the view that there is an underlying moral value here. I am very far from convinced that that is right as a conclusion, but it does offer some substantial ground from treating this command as of significant more weight and relevance than bans of pork and shellfish.
Bartlett is right as a matter of compassion and rhetoric, but his analysis is wrong. A Christian can believe that God does not approve of homosexual sex as a matter of ethics, without being required by interpretative consistency to support the reintroduction of OT civil law sanctions for breaches of the OT purity code.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
But the New Testament also says (repeatedly):
quote:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[Romans 13:8-10]
...which I take to mean that as long as you aren't causing objective harm to your neighbour, you are fulfilling the law.
Consensual homosexuality at its essence, objectively, doesn't harm others. Unlike theft or lying or adultery, it doesn't involve deceit, break promises, or betray trusts. It is at essence, the breaking of a purity code.
[ 29. May 2012, 18:14: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Consensual homosexuality at its essence, objectively, doesn't harm others. Unlike theft or lying or adultery, it doesn't involve deceit, break promises, or betray trusts.
Agreed. And that's the difficulty in seeing Leviticus 18:22 as a moral commandment. Unlike just about every other injunction in that category, we would never have known that consensual homosexuality was wrong* if it were not for the commandment. And just about every other commandment in the "God has a downer on this for some reason, don't ask why" class we fit effortlessly into the ceremonial/purity category.
(*that is, wrong in circumstances in which the equivalent heterosexual conduct would be right)
I think there is a not-obviously-wrong way of thinking Leviticus 18:22 is binding when the OT purity law in general is not, but I certainly don't mean to suggest it is a compelling case, or that it commends itself particularly to me.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Mary Douglas had a theory, IIRC, that the common theme underlying pretty much all the purity laws was an abhorrence of the mixing of categories, or of blurring boundaries between them. Thinking about it again, I find it reasonably simple to see where commandments against homosexual conduct fit into this (and could therefore be considered by the same standards, whatever they may be, that the rest of the purity laws are.)
[ 30. May 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Watch what you say, mate- you're perilously close to Ecky-Thump country up your way...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) If I can withstand the ferocious Caribbean matriarchs who tried to force me to eat it during my childhood, I'm fairly sure I can handle some tame-by-comparison English northerners.
(Seriously, though, black pudding is such a big part of Craibbean cuisine, available at all fairs, as street food at carnivals, at church and school social functions, and just about everywhere, that it still strikes me as odd to think of it as a northern English dish. The only difference is that it seems to be served dry here - often grilled - while there, you ask for a piece and you watch it taken out of the big pot of water and put in your bowl.)
[ 30. May 2012, 13:20: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) You can withstand Caribbean matriarchs? Really?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
(After nearly 40 years I can still make myself freeze by remembering the way my mate Wally Buchanan's mum - who was actually quite nice- used to call him home across the back gardens: 'Waaal-FORD!')
[ 30. May 2012, 13:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Mary Douglas had a theory, IIRC, that the common theme underlying pretty much all the purity laws was an abhorrence of the mixing of categories, or of blurring boundaries between them.
Yes, of course, because the holiness laws - including all the ritual uncleanliness stuff - are about separating Israel from the other nations. It is all about distinction and difference, not superiority. That's why they don't apply to Gentile Christians, but because they have been abolished for us but because they were never for us in the first place. We aren't meant to follow them, we aren't entitled to follow them, its not our place to follow them, if we did we would be pretending to be Jews, or worse claiming to have replaced Israel entirely.
What the 39 Articles called "civil" laws are those that were the kind of laws you might get in any "commonwealth", intended for for holiness but for good government. Those we may choose to adopt if we want, but don;t have to.
And the supposedly "moral" laws apply to everybody. In the extreme case, held by some dispensationalists and also by some Orthodox Jews, the only unambiguously universal laws are those given in the first part of Genesis, up to and including God's covenant with Noah - which includes all of humanity, in fact all of life on Earth. (Which is why the black pudding controversy).
Because the Law is about holiness, separation, purity, we can't assume it alwasy makes sense. It is not neccessarily functional. So askiong "why should we continue to obey Broze Age laws" is irrelevant. The Torah is not a manual of how to live well in the Bonze Age. Its a way to live differently from everybody else. If all the laws were plain common sense, for the good of the people as a whole, or to promote public health, then why woudln;t separate Israel from the nations, because anyone with any sense would make them up for themselves.
We can't assume that any law has a functional purpose. Sunday-school type teaching loves love to say that the dietary laws are meant for health. People make up "Just So Stories" abotu the supposed health problems with eating pigs or shellfish in the climate of the Holy Land. Its probably all nonsense. China has every variety of climate that Syria does, and then some, but they don't seem to have been held back by their diet.
The laws of holiness are not supposed to be burdens imposed on Israel for their own good. They are supposed to be gifts given to Israel to show that they are chosen by God. They are more like a soldier's medals than they are like his weapons. ("more to be desired are they than gold, yea than much fine gold..."
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Many Conservative and Orthodox religious groups take the most literal interpretation of the passage, as being a ban on male-to-male sex alone.
Orthodox Jews (like many Christians) have trouble envisaging homosexuality apart from male anal sex, but Conservative Jews have opened their seminaries and synagogues to lesbian and gay people, but request that gay men abstain from that particular act.
God post. So many homophobes equate 'gay' with 'anal sex'.
Their own sex lives must be extremely unadventurous if they are unaware of different practices and possibilities.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Watch what you say, mate- you're perilously close to Ecky-Thump country up your way...
If I can withstand the ferocious Caribbean matriarchs who tried to force me to eat it during my childhood, I'm fairly sure I can handle some tame-by-comparison English northerners.
(Seriously, though, black pudding is such a big part of Craibbean cuisine, available at all fairs, as street food at carnivals, at church and school social functions, and just about everywhere, that it still strikes me as odd to think of it as a northern English dish. The only difference is that it seems to be served dry here - often grilled - while there, you ask for a piece and you watch it taken out of the big pot of water and put in your bowl.)
Last year there was an article in the New York Times. It turns out that local Carribean community had found in adapting their traditional holiday cake recipe to New York that Manischevitz Kosher Wine was a critical ingredient.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Last year there was an article in the New York Times. It turns out that local Carribean community had found in adapting their traditional holiday cake recipe to New York that Manischevitz Kosher Wine was a critical ingredient.
Manischewitz Kosher wine is very common in the supermarkets in the Caribbean. Many churches will use only that for communion.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Last year there was an article in the New York Times. It turns out that local Carribean community had found in adapting their traditional holiday cake recipe to New York that Manischevitz Kosher Wine was a critical ingredient.
Manischewitz Kosher wine is very common in the supermarkets in the Caribbean. Many churches will use only that for communion.
Isuppose the pre-cooking of kosher wine isn't going to matter much in the Carribean.,
To return to the thread; I should mention what a thrill it is to be lectured on followng Leviticus by clean shaven,uncircumsized bacon eaters.
[ 15. June 2012, 02:54: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
