Good old Leviticus
There’s not much more annoying than zealots who use the Bible to justify prejudice against gay people (or worse, outright hatred or violence), and an oft-cited passage is Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination,” which apparently lets lesbians off the hook, but that’s another conversation).
Frankly, Leviticus says most things are abominations. Here’s a cute breakdown:
“Dear Friend,
Thanks very much for reminding me that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. I would like some further advice, however, regarding some other laws and how to best follow them:
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. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as suggested in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
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.
Lev 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus (Ex 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, and if so, how should I do that?
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?
Leviticus 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 are correctable defects in vision excluded from the aforementioned proscription.?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm on which he violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field. His wife likewise violates Leviticus by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (a cotton/polyester blend). Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 20:14)?
Thanks very much for your help, and thanks again for reminding us that God’sword is eternal and unchanging.”
In other awesome news, Iran is looking to pass a law that would require non-Muslims (specifically Iran’s Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian minorities) to wear colored strips of cloth on their clothing to identify themselves. Yay! (Source)
P.S. I was joking about the “yay.”
I love it.
Aprille,
I like your style.
Thanks, guys. Just to be clear: I didn’t write the above; I just saw it and thought it was worth sharing.
Check out godhatesshrimp.com. Stumbling across Fred Phelps’ site many years ago was one of my earliest clues to the extreme diversity of thought available on the web (and, if anything, it’s even weirder today).
For the record but not to start anything, not all Christians use the Levitical laws to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin. It is actually quite ridiculous to use Liviticus to support the idea because Christians are not held to the old covenant that the laws were meant for. Christians have a new covenant and need to stay true to the ideas of that new covenant, which also suggests that homosexuality is a sin (see 1 Corinthians 6). One thing that Christians also tend to forget is that everyone sins and no sin is greater than another in the eyes of God. I think when Christians get into finger pointing they forget that Jesus taught that we are to love one another before anything else and let Him deal with who is right and wrong.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all Christians are narrow-minded. That’s why I specified “zealots,” which is a term that applies to only a subset of Christians (and Jews, and Muslims, and PETA members, and Pantera fans…).
As a translator, one of my biggest conflicts with using anything in the Bible to justify or criticize any behavior is the fact that it is impossible to know how it was written or intended. Controversy exists about translations of living languages, even of living authors. How on earth could anyone make fundamental decisions based on documents written in ancient languages, handed down in part through an oral tradition, throughout centuries when communication media were shaky at best?
Ever heard the phrase “Traduttore, traditore”? It means “Translator, traitor.”
I respect anyone’s right to believe what he or she wishes, but when it comes to deciding what’s a sin and what’s not, quoting Bible verses to do it is just silly.
Also: thanks for the link, Jack. That’s pretty funny.
Less funny: I was about to re-post your story about Iran legislating Nazi-style minority identification badges, but then I noticed Juan Cole pointing out that the story is disputed by a Jewish Iranian MP.
He goes on to assert that the story is a psyop meant to inflame anger against Iran, similar to the discredited “Iraqi soldiers pulled babies from Kuwaiti incubators” story from the first Iraq war, which seemed like jumping to conclusions to me, but apparently that’s more or less what the aforementioned Iranian MP says, too.
And that’s what we get for believing what we read. 🙁
Huh, now that’s interesting. I guess I gave it more credence because it came from a Canadian source, and I have the positive stereotype of Canadians that they’re not trying to instill anti-Iranian propaganda in me. There goes that one.
What I get from this is that God’s word is apparently changing and apparently not identical for every individual in every situation. Even if you believe in the “new covanant” “old covanant” arguement it still comes down to “God’s Word” is a product of the time and place. If Gods word can change, then who’s to say what applies and what doesn’t apply to us? Who’s to say that the new testament is the final unchanging word. The new testament says that a woman must never enter a church without a head covering. We don’t follow that one. People still pick and choose what they want to follow and use the bible to argue just about anything they want. And why even include Liviticus in the bible if it is no longer to be followed? If it is no longer the word of God, why is it in the Bible?