Leviticus

[themidnightgirl]

With the debate over Jeffrey John, I thought it would be worth reading Leviticus (which is the book of the bible that has the strongest and clearest anti-homosexuality wording).

Leviticus is fairly clear on a number of things. Chapter 11 is particularly good. If you believe in the primacy of the scripture, then I presume you follow this.

You may eat :
Anything that is both cloven-footed and "chews the cud" so Ox, Cows, Buffalo, Venison etc.
Anything that has both fins and scales and is in the water.
All birds except those prohibited.
Locusts, beetles, grasshoppers.

You may not eat :
Camels.
Rabbits.
Hares.
Pork.
Eagle, Ossifrage, Ospray, Vulture, Kite, Raven, owl, cuckow, hawk, cormorant, swan, pelican (marvellous bird), stork, heron, lapwing, bat.
Prawns. Eels. Shellfish of any kind. Crab. Lobster.

This chapter uses precisely the same description as Chapter 18 does to describe "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" - it is an abomination.

*amusement*

Comments

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

Or you could counter quote Romans 14. Especially vv12,13:

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

But then even this was stolen as I am not christian (faith or religion) and have never read the adult bible (kiddie version with pretty pictures, yes) - and this sort of fuss reminds me why.

But yes - interesting how people choose which bits still apply and must be obeyed versus the bits that don't need to.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

For far too long have the oppressed minority of camel eaters been victimised by the bigots in modern society.

Rise up, fellow camel-eaters! Camel-eater Pride!

[kingnat.livejournal.com]

Romans 14 overrides it. Christians are meant to follow the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament, so whenever something is overridden by the New Testament, that is (so to speak) "gospel"

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Well... not quite.

Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Not that I have that thing bookmarked or anything.

[kingnat.livejournal.com]

Except that Jesus himself over-rode many of the things in the Old Testament. How can you follow two teachings when they are not mutually compatible? Obviously you go for the one which is more recent, or the one which is more pertinent to your religion. Since we're talking Christianity here, we're talking the New Testament.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

How can you follow two teachings when they are not mutually compatible?

That's one of the reasons why I am no longer Christian.

In any case, taking the New Testament as your guideline doesn't really help, since both Matthew and Luke refer to the Old Testament laws as immutable.

Sop, out of interest, where in the New Testament does Jesus give you permission to eat lobster?

[kingnat.livejournal.com]

Except that the teachings in conflict are from two different religions. One is the basis for the other, but they are still two different religions.

Let's not talk specifically about Lobster, but let me point you to Matthew 8:22 But Jesus told him "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead" which is basically telling this man that to follow him, he had to leave behind the things of the Jewish religion (amongst other things)

[nevecat.livejournal.com]

Leviticus/Numbers is very handy if you have insomnia...I was trying to read the Bible cover to cover at one point just so I knew where the annoying bits were, but got completely bogged down by those books and gave up.

A lot of the prohibitions on eating make a lot of sense, actually: nothing to do with being spiritual 'abominations' and everything to do with avoiding food poisoning/disease: shellfish is particular is notorious for causing food poisoning, and eating predators/carrion eaters is also asking for problems health-wise. Consider the fact that sickness was frequently considered to be a sign of divine displeasure, and the 'taboo' against eating such things is understandable. With improved standards of food hygiene today, these aren't things we need to worry about so much, so the taboo has lost whatever commonsense reasoning it might once have had.

I'm now trying to think whether there might have been any similar sorts of reasoning behind some of the other taboos, other than merely some bigot shaking a fist and declaring that it was an abomination.

*thinks*

...VD, I suppose, but that's really to do with promiscuity rather than sexuality....

...Possibly also the social effect of homosexual couples not having offspring to support them in old age, within a society that places emphasis on honouring & providing for parents, and therefore has less provision for the childless?

*thinks*

I am at this point having to search around for reasoning, just providing something of a devil's advocate position...


C
(bisexual, non-christian, living in sin, shellfish eater... ;)

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

don't forget 20:15. Great for putting off righteous rednecks.

And 19:27. Grow those sideys, brother!