I'm posting it here now so I don't have to keep copying and pasting the thing. It won't do any good at getting rid of the fallacious thing, but it'll make me feel better.
First, for reference, the screed:
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger 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. Laura, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as 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 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 PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a
Canadian)
My response:
Yes, God's word is "eternal and unchanging." That does not mean that all verses are to be applied to all circumstances blindly--but nor does it mean that the clear indications of those things God finds morally repugnant can then be ignored. The new covenant does not call on us to punish sins the way the Israelites were called to, but that does not somehow mean that those sins have since become acceptable.
(For reference, I repeat my statement from an earlier post: "The short version is, OT covenant law breaks down into three basic categories, which we might call practical (like the call to build railings around the roofs of houses), cultural (such as the directives about eating and dress), and moral (such as the directives about sexual behavior and punishment). They are grouped within the covenants with relative clarity and are not difficult to differentiate." )
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?
Your friend is a buffoon. Yes, slavery (as a form of indentured servitude and not the version of permanent racial subjugation, which we tend to think of with our own past) is a feature of ancient Near Eastern life--and, by the way, a means of survival. People often sold themselves into slavery so that they could have food and shelter. Since slavery is no longer legal, these, of course, don't currently apply. If a Canadian (or anyone else) offers to work for you for room and board, and the alternative is to let them starve in the street, which would be the better course of action?
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?
Again, since our cultural situation is vastly different from that of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors, there isn't any particular way to apply this today. Today you might argue about what a fair minimum wage would be for her work, though, which is essentially the same issue. If you are unable to provide for your children and you don't find a way to provide for them, I'd suggest it is you who have the moral failing.
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.
Um... You are one disturbing fellow. If we lived in a time of extremely basic hygiene, we too might wish to be cautious about how and with whom we interacted. This is one of those practical guidelines, and is, in essence, giving women a week off each month during which they were relieved of any household duties and did not have to put up with the demands and attentions of men. How very cruel!
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?
If you are still living under the covenantal requirement to sacrifice animals, you are in trouble indeed. And isn't this tantamount to an argument for religious freedom? Shouldn't this be allowed, no matter what the neighbors say? At no point is there a biblical injunction to smite those who dislike the smell of barbeque.
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?
Are you an ancient Israelite living under the old covenant? Then there are no police, and you will have to gather folks from the village, most likely guided by the elders, to carry out this punishment. (Though, of course, since Hebraic law is always given as a guide and all such cases would be decided on a case-by-case basis by a local adjudicator, the man would have ample opportunity to explain and defend himself.)
Oh, wait--you're not an ancient Israelite? Then you are under the new covenant, and God handles all such cases of judgment and punishment. You would be wise to counsel your neighbor against his actions, but you are under no obligation to investigate the crime or carry out the penalty.
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?
As shown earlier, yes, indeed, there are levels of abomination. (It's called a hierarchy of morals--the same reason that lying to the Nazis about the Jews you are harboring is not a sin on the same level as turning those Jews over to the Nazis.) So, yes--according the covenant, homosexuality (a sin of the moral kind--look at what else is condemned in Leviticus 18) is a worse abomination than eating shellfish (a cultural proscription, meant to keep the Israelites separate from other corrupting cultural influences). You clearly just need to actually read the bible...
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?
Sadly, if you are an ancient Levite, a vision problem might indeed keep you from performing the act of presenting the food offerings on the altar of God in the capacity of priest. Of course, given that there was no way to measure visual acuity in the ancient Near East, unless the sight issue was severe, it most likely wouldn't be noticed.
Again, we're talking about God's purity, and as a symbol of such, no defect was allowed in those who approached him: a very powerful visual metaphor. So, ancient Levite, if your vision is so bad that you can't see or you have an obvious wound on your eye, I'm afraid you'll have to carry out one of the thousands of other tasks prescribed for your clan.
Oh, wait--you're not an ancient Levite? And, in fact, there is no altar of God which you could reasonably even wish to approach? Well, I guess it's a moot point, then.
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?
*snort* Why do you keep insisting on killing people? At what point does Leviticus proscribe death for this?
As another of those cultural markers, the ancient Israelites were commanded not to cut their facial hair (as many neighboring tribes did as part of their religious rites). So since you're an ancient Israelite...
Oh, wait. No you're not.
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?
I know almost nothing about sports, but I do know they haven't made footballs out of pigskin for decades. And if the ancient Israelites played football, they would have been in trouble. They would have had to stay outside the camp for a whole afternoon as punishment. Again, the cruelty of the Old Testament is staggering, isn't it?
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)
One, the burning is only for someone who marries a woman and her mother, not just sleeping with them. So there's that.
But, again, O thick-headed commentator, we're talking about two different kinds of laws: cultural and moral. The clothing and planting issues have never carried the penalty of death. (One good measure to tell the difference is to look at the prescribed penalties: cultural deviations were never punished with death, while moral and spiritual ones often were.)
And yes: the ancients put the same weight on profaning the name of God as they did murder--all those who insist endlessly that we have to respect cultural differences and not judge others should have no problem with this equivalency. And all such executions were public: in a society always on the brink of chaos and starvation and with no margin for social deviation, they would be a public affirmation of values and solidarity.
As a final note: yes, I know some will accuse me of taking this too seriously. "It's just a joke." But it's a joke premised on a thinly veiled attack on belief in and the integrity of the bible, which is not a matter for levity. This is, in it's snide way, a serious attack on Christianity, and it ought to be confronted and buried whenever it rears its ill-informed head.
13 comments:
Does your argument that because times have changed we need to adjust our understanding of the message also provide a means to express the initial point: the bible's prohibition on homosexuality is as anachronistic as these other calls for particular behavior?
And, I'd in all honesty like to hear your rationale (or, if you don't share it, why some folks might) for holding so closely to the english text of a particular edition of the bible when it has seen so many translations, and the moments in history when men gathered to choose what to include in the bible? I've always wondered why so many (not the particular Methodist church where I was raised) hold that the literal type on the page is god's word, as opposed to the message in the words.
I can answer your first question in a relatively short space.
The question about why some of these are "anachronistic" and others aren't lies in the paragraph I posted about the different kinds of laws. Most of the so-called "problems" cited in the piece are of the cultural or practical variety. However, the OT (and Leviticus as a law book in particular) also makes clear that some laws are moral imperatives: examples of the things of which God disapproves. These have not changed, though the way they are handled and punished may have (like points 5 and 8 here).
The homosexuality issue falls into this last category. Really, in this context, the burden is not on those who condemn homosexuality to show why they should alter their stance, but on those who wish us to accept homosexuality to explain why all the OTHER sexual sins listed in the chapter are not also acceptable. In essence, to say we should ignore Lev. 18:22 and accept homosexuality, you must show why we should not also ignore Lev. 18:7 and accept incest with your mother. It is those who claim that that one particular verse should be acceptable in the midst of all those they continue to condemn who are being inconsistent.
The second question you ask has volumes written on it. I don't personally know anyone who believes that the "literal type" is God's word, especially since I can't read it in Hebrew or Greek in which it would have been written. A good place to start reading about why I can believe that the originals were inerrant and that our current translations are easily trusted is here:
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html
Inherent in all this is the fact that it comes down to interpretation. Which is why I see the Bible as no more than tales and lectures whose real purpose is to provide moral guidance and a means for people to live together in relative order. No different than countless other narratives laid down (or passed on orally) by other cultures for the same purpose. Many modern Christians pick out passages that serve their interest while discounting those that do not (or would not largely be acceptable in today's culture). Sadly, they seem to focus on condemnation and hate rather than Jesus' overreaching message of love and acceptance. And it's always been that way throughout the history of Christianity.
That's some fine generalization. I can't say much against vague attacks except that sometimes that is true, and at other times it is not.
My two questions would be these:
(1) How should these passages be interpreted, other than in the light of their cultural context and what they say in a straightforward fashion? (Since this is a law book and not, say, prophecy or wisdom literature, its messages would seem to be fairly direct.)
(2) If the purpose of the writing is to provide "moral guidance," why would relativists argue that we shouldn't follow the moral guidance they provide? In essence, you seem to be saying that the work is given to show us how to live, but we should not really pay attention to it unless we like it or the notions are currently popular--which isn't a means for people to live together in order at all.
1)The passages should be taken with a grain of salt. Not as a law book (which is really the problem here), but as general wisdom.
2)The guidance was for life 2,000+ years ago! Should we not expect (or at least hope) that human morality has progressed in that amount of time, making the Bible outdated? If one studies history, the modern world certainly seems slightly less brutal (though obviously we have a long way to go). But if you want to argue we have not progressed, then that would seem to indicate that the Bible isn't making much of a difference!
Could I recommend to someone to read the US Constitution as a guideline to general wisdom and not as a legal document? Or a legal decision as only a guideline? You cannot divorce a document from its genre: if it is written as a legal contract, you cannot just decide to read it as a fantasy novel. (Conversely, too many people read wisdom literature such as Ecclesiastes as a legal document or a new report, which leads to its own troubles.)
Secondly, the bible tells us that human nature is what it is and will not be changed by our efforts. Indeed, it is not a guide to social revolution (as so many might want us to believe) but personal holiness. (A major shift between the Old and New Testaments was between a broad social contract and a personal relationship, though, of course, the spiritual connections are far more complex than simply that.) If enough people believed in and (vastly importantly) acted on the bible's tenets, the world would be a better place. But not many do the first, and even fewer do the second. And the "better world" the bible calls for is one that many folks (including you, I suspect) would object to for robbing too many of the freedom to do whatever they wished.
How often are people told that they should stop eating badly or smoking? How many people continue to do what they know hurts them because of the pleasure they derive from the destructive act? How much more will they resist change with moral instruction?
One of the major reasons I believe the bible is that it describes the world as I see it accurately. The bible says that the world is absorbed in self and the trivial, and that few follow the narrow way that leads to salvation. That's precisely what I see in the world. My job is to introduce as many as possible to the glories offered by Jesus, which indeed can transform the world--one person at a time.
One more note: you're coming close to committing the genetic fallacy here. Just because a moral law is old in now way affects its moral force. Since laws against murder are--around the world--the oldest laws we have, does that mean that those laws are outmoded? Should we now teach people they should not honor their parents, or that it's okay to steal, or lie, or commit adultery?
I see little to no advance in human morality. I have seen stronger social control over and guard against some kinds of immorality (though we have opened the floodgates for others), but no essential improvement in overall morals. We have police forces to deal with theft, so we no longer have to chase thieves ourselves, but theft in general continues as powerfully as ever it has (and has, in many ways, become worse because we have the technology and lack of social control to allow it on a greater scale).
Those who accuse Christians of picking and choosing their sins (which sometimes they do) are almost always doing the same things themselves.
Like in most of these conversations, I think we are missing an important gulf between our positions: I believe the bible to be a collection of writings by fallible man, and you believe it to be a collection of universal truths from an infallible source... I have to imagine this sits at the root of our disagreements at how to utilize the wisdom therein.
You have placed unspoken definitions on "homosexuality" that I will not grant you. It is not deviant - not on par with bestiality or the like. It is, in fact, not solely related to the sex act. To argue against it from its one facet of physical intimacy is unjust, if not pure shenanigans.
I listened to callers to a local NPR radio show today, and honestly the joy they shared for their upcoming weddings brought tears to my eyes. They were not randy and looking forward to the bedroom - its was expressions of love - the same emotion I have for my wife. I just don't see how that piece of this is so often omitted by its detractors.
(one of two)
omething that you say, and others whom we both know have said, really catches in my craw. I firmly believe that I live an unselfish life: I care for my family, friends and community, and I find the right thing to do most times. Those times I don't, I am thoughtful and contrite, and seek a better outcome the next time. All of this I achieve WITHOUT the structure of a religion, or a sense that an uncertain infinity of consciousness awaits me when I die.
And yet, it seems you (both you personally and others of faith generally) hold the belief that my actions, minus faith in the right version of god, are meaningless. How does a good and just atheist fit inside your worldview? Am I lost to damnation for my lack of belief (as I have been most lovingly told)?
I chance these questions, because we've built a space here for long-form conversation. I AM NOT MAD, or sarcastic, or intentionally caustic. I am remarkably curious, for you are among my better friends - one of few who can talk with me about deep things. If you find yourself needing to defend rather than explain, tell me so and I will bow out, for I don't want that to be where we end up.
(two of two)
Argh - I kept getting errors, yet apparently it posted every time. Sorry for the deluge of comments - and deleted comments...
Mike--Don't worry about the errors and repeated comments. They happen to the best of us. And I think I cleaned up all the repeats.
Your questions are good ones deserving of some thought, which I hope to give them on a day when I'm not in meetings for 8 hours. I will try to get back here soon, especially in regard to question 2.
In very brief, a couple of thoughts on your first point. You are attempting to define my position in ways I would not agree with. You say homosexuality is not deviant--I would say it is. You have posited a statement as black and white as mine: what is your defense of that position? It is a moral interpretation of a fact of reality. One cannot argue that it is "natural" and therefore acceptable, given that we do not accept many other "natural" behaviors as acceptable (and, in fact, expend a huge amount of time and resource training people not to follow their natural instincts). We are both making moral statements; neither has more force without further elucidation than the other.
You also claim that homosexuality is defined by those who condemn it simply because of the sexual acts involved. This, too, is untrue (at least in the circles of folk I converse with). At no point have I framed an objection to homosexuality based solely on the act of sex in whatever form.
Finally, while our emotional reactions to stories of love are fine in their place, they are no basis for a rational argument. This is a card played by people on both sides, but I do find it used far more often by supporters of same-sex marriage. People crying tears of joy, or cheering delightedly, or choking up with repentance when they've seen "the error of their ways" are regularly trotted out, as if this forms a logical basis for discussion. It is emotionalism, and again, while that has its place, it is not in a debate about morality or legal standing. It is, perhaps, not mentioned by homosexuality's "detractors" precisely because it has no relevance to the discussion.
As always, sir, I am happy to have your comments, questions, and even detractions: I respect any thinking person's inquiry, especially those from people I also like and respect, and I hope I am contributing to these discussions in a useful way.
I suppose "deviant" isn't the word I should have chosen, for it is morally defined by each of us. I would say rather that homosexuality is a natural part of human existence - a variant created by some as-yet-undiscovered component of our biochemistry.
This, of course, jumps headlong in front of your next statement that "you cannot argue that it is natural", which of course I certainly can argue. I suspect that we could both lay forth our evidence and reasoning and not make any headway towards consensus, so I shall not.
My other comment is that, in several spots you suggest that the proper way to approach this subject is from a place of ration or logic. I struggle to understand how this can be true when you foundation your entire argument on an act of faith, one which you seem to suggest is unassailable. In fact, you seem to give away all the traditional points of contention, comfortable to express your entire case saying "god said so".
This leads me here: it is no surprise, I suppose, that this issue never gets any closer to a resolution in our culture when the base of it (perhaps abortion too?) is that the groups (I'm obviously generalizing) disagree on the fundamental structure of reality.
Another question you can link me to an answer? How can the "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" and all the other classics from Jesus that most of us know not equal a christian stance that is much more sympathetic towards gay rights?
Hey, Mike--
I just wanted to drop in and say I haven't abandoned this discussion: far from it. Whenever I am gone for some time, it's usually because of important outside concerns, but this is really important to me as well. Honestly, I've spend a great deal of time in the past few days mulling over your questions, analyzing my thoughts and beliefs, and, frankly, praying. I will be back with answers for you soon, because the questions deserve answers.
Post a Comment