A matter of emphasis

The Book of Leviticus has many many more verses (indeed chapters) about redistributing wealth to the poor (via tithes, the prohibition against gleaning, etc) and preserving the fertility of the land through compulsory fallow periods, as well as rules preventing any slide into feudalism/indentured labour (the laws of Sabbatical and Jubilee years) than verses which mention sexual behaviour at all, let alone verses which arguably talk about homosexual behaviour.

Categories: ethics & philosophy, religion


5 replies

  1. I’ve sometimes wondered in my more obsequious moments whether fundamentalists take all their moldy cloth, etc. to their priest.

  2. The standard rebuttal is that the New Covenant of Christ did away with all that nit-picky Old Covenant stuff (despite Jesus specifically saying that he came not “to abolish the law and the prophets”), but that it’s OK to still abhor Teh Gay because Jesus said Teh Gay was bad too (actually it was Paul).
    Again, there’s a lot more verses where Jesus berates greed and verses that talk about the disciples sharing everything in common etc than those that deal with sexuality at all (and where they do deal with sexuality it’s about adultery). I for one would have a lot less trouble with many doctrines of Christianity if they had not been corrupted (in my opinion) by the authoritarian teachings of Paul.

  3. I’ve recently read/am reading a couple of Bart Ehrman books on NT textual criticism and I highly recommend them for readable background to all this.

  4. There’s an interesting post that was made last week over at Backyard Missionary disucssing this exact topic. Most of the commenters are mixed in their approach but it is an interesting discussion particularly since it was from a Christian perspective but questioning the ‘church’ position.
    Grendels last blog post..Spring Garden Sunday

  5. I have often thought the same thing Tigtog, about it being a matter of emphasis. No good Christian would consider stoning a woman to death who was not found to be a virgin on her wedding night, nor is a man who rapes a woman obliged to pay her father the bride price and not divorce her as long as she lives (Deuteronomy ch.22) but homosexuality is still considered to be an ‘abomination’. This ‘cherry picking’ of biblical verses is something I wonder at. Why can we ignore some verses as an out dated product of their time, but other verses of the same book are considered to be continued divine relevation?
    Rayedishs last blog post..Sorry for the silence (or ‘the youtube clip of the week edition’)

%d bloggers like this: