Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

The point was that if you can ignore one part of the Levite law, why not another part? It is no more - nor less - logical to ignore all of the provisions, whether or not they victimize others. That's the problem with the "cafeteria menu" approach to such issues.

Many of the prohibitions were directed at preserving the identity of the [Jewish | Hebrew | Israelite] culture in a world where it was a small and weak nation among many larger powers, a method of avoiding what we might now call assimilation or even cultural genocide.

In fact, in the NT, as described in Acts, we have a confrontation and a falling out between Peter/Simon and Paul/Saul over whether or not Gentile converts have to adopt the Levite laws.

BTW, we have no reference to Jesus ever having condemned slavery; therefore, would slavery an acceptable institution?

Perhaps we can only agree to disagree.

As I stated in my reply to Steve/Stereoman, I hoped to base my (dis?)agreement only on what is or is not contained in the set of writings we refer to generally as the Jewish and Christian scriptures - no doctrinal or theological points advanced.

As seen in the NT, there is no indication that Jesus was married, even though - culturally - that would have been the norm. However, the Levite law did grant exceptions such as those having taken a Nazarite vow. And there were indeed itinerant, single [rabbis | teachers | preachers] making the rounds then (I believe that Josephus, among others, refers to them). I think it very likely that Jesus was engaged - that would have been common, arranged by the family - but marriage could have been put off or even replaced by a religious duty.

One can also argue - from scripture - that Mary was widowed and that she was a single parent sometime after Jesus reached the legally/religiously accountable age of 12 and that, as a devoted son, he would have put off marriage to care for his mother. I can also argue from scripture that polygamy is perfectly acceptable for a Christian.

As to Jesus not condemning homosexuality, neither did he condemn slavery; however, I cannot see that as being a rational argument that slavery is acceptable. In fact Jesus says that he did not come to destroy the law - which contains those Levite proscriptions against homosexuality - but to fulfill it; he also says 'not one jot or tittle' of the law will be changed - and that presumably includes the proscriptions against homosexuality.

I simply think it is fruitless to argue the pro-position from scriptures since you have to cherry-pick in order to justify it. There is a better, simpler and far more elegant argument from the totality of scripture that escapes the pitfalls of the cherry-picking approach.

Thanks for your reply, Ron, and your very thorough review of the questions that have been raised. I think you have offered support for the idea that the Bible should not be taken out of the context of its times, and you have offered some good insight into what those "times" were. For example, your explanation of the various prohibitions in Leviticus that the vast majority of modern Christians do not in fact adhere to any more:
Obviously some modern Jews still carry that concern, but for the most part embrace the idea of ethnic assimilation as being independent of and perhaps even advantageous to the preservation of religious heritage. Acknowledging that you have here very well rationalized the "cafeteria menu" approach as you call it, on one basis, why would it not be equally reasonable to rationalize it on other bases as well? It would appear to me that modern Christians would make their "menu selections" for other reasons besides prevention of ethnic dissipation.

I appreciate the distinction you make between Jesus' teachings to his disciples versus his teachings to the general public, and unite with it. Just because we have no reference to Jesus ever having extolled marriage doesn't mean that it should be abolished as a religious ritual. Nor, conversely, should we base a decision on whether slavery is an abhorrent practice on the fact that we have no reference to Jesus ever having condemned it. These, again, are discernments of Divine truth that have come about independently of, and subsequent to, Jesus' sojourn on the Earth. They amplify the point being made by the author, IMHO, that the evolution of spiritual practice did not end with the Council of Nicea, and most Christians I think would readily agree with that.

I have little doubt that, over time, more and more Christians will evolve in their spiritual beliefs regarding gay and lesbian people, and come to recognize that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender presentation or gender identity, are equally endowed with the Divine Light, and as such should be welcome within their spiritual communities, to enjoy their fellowship and share in their spiritual life, including rites of passage such as baptism, confirmation, communion, and marriage.

I think the point of the author was that you also have to "cherry-pick" to condemn it. I agree that the better argument is from the totality of scripture, which is also, as I read the article (by a woman, I should note - so she), the point of the author of the piece. That is almost always my complaint about trying to wedge scripture into illogical arguments - it ignores the substance of it in favor of the "jots and tittles." And, of course, as I have noted, is irrelevant to the legal position altogether.

My argument continues to be quite simple and elegant too: under the Constitution, in order to deny a right or privilege to a person, the government has to have a) legal authority, b) a rational basis for the law, and c) a correlation between the rational basis and the means sought to achieve that end. This is true whether the legislation is through the Legislature or Initiative. In this case, none of the three requirements obtain, and therefore Prop 8 must fall. None of the arguments in favor of denying marriage to same-gender couples have rational or legal bases. It irks me no end to see them perpetuated, especially by ideologically-bound activist courts. What most people fail to understand is that the courts of Hawaii, Massachussetts, Connecticut and California are taking the less activist role.

No, that's easily done from a reading of the OT; there is no bones about it - it is considered wrong conduct. What is missed by the "cherry-pickers" is trying to negate it from the logically indefensible position that in the NT that Jesus never specifically condemned it. Doing so is a form of the faulty induction fallacy. OTOH, Jesus essentially validates the Levite proscription on adultery when, in the Gospel story of the woman caught in adultery, he does not accuse her but tells her to go and sin no more. At the same time, he unmasks the hypocrisy of the mob wanting to execute her.

In fairness, let me say that I have no more truck with allegedly Christian literalists who insist that they have a right to subjugate their wives and families because Paul told women to be subservient; they, too, are cherry-picking in order to rationalize their behavior.

Again, as I stated in earlier agreement with you, the religious issue needs to be kept out of the purely secular - rendering unto Caesar and to God respectively.

I appreciate the God-Ceasar point, Ron, but I am just not getting your "cherry picking" position. Are you saying that a Christian is to adhere to all the rules of the OT? If not, why are some to be followed but not others?

No. The OT rules and regs contained in the Levite law - 613, IIRC - are binding upon those who would call themselves Jews. However, the spirit of the law - the Ten Commandments - are, IMCO, generally considered binding upon Christians. The essence of Christian behavior should be, as Jesus taught, to love God with all your heart and to [love | treat] your neighbor as you would like your own self to be treated.

Jesus deliberately violated Levite laws, as interpreted by the Pharisees - the legalists of Jewish culture - in order to point out the hypocrisy of uncompromising literalism: That they were crossing "T"s and dotting "I"s while the real meaning of the law was buried in sterile rituals. Paul, especially in his letter to the Roman church, rails against the yoke of blind legalism.

A counterpoint perspective from an avowed lesbian and athiest:

Agree or disagree with her, Camille Paglia is always an interesting read.

And another gay point of view on marriage:

Then, Ron, why honor what I still say are questionable interpretations of biblical prohibitions of gay marriage/sex? Certainly I see nothing in the NT, other than Paul's questionable statements, to support such a ban. Or am I misreading you?

Sky,. we discussed Ms. Paglia's commentary on another thread