Read through the materials of just about any Christian organization that speaks out against gay relationships, and you’ll almost certainly find reference to Leviticus 18:22. The wordings of our English translations of the verse appear very clear, and at face value lend weight to those groups’ political crusade against gay rights. One can, after all, hardly speak positively about anything that God called an “abomination.”
Of course, there are many other “abominations” listed in the Old Testament, shellfish being the most famous example, so conservative theologians have been forced to refine their arguments to explain why some of Moses’ commands are still applicable today and some are not. To facilitate this, a third category was added to the Law; in addition to the ceremonial laws and the purity laws, they argued, there are also universal moral laws.
Whereas the ceremonial and purity laws are easily distinguishable based on context, the primary criterion for determining whether a command falls into the universal moral law is whether it appears to be something that most Christians would agree ought to be considered wrong under any circumstances. Since such acts as murder, theft, adultery and incest are clearly wrong regardless of whether one is an observant Jew, then commands found against those activities must be exceptions to the freedom that the New Testament grants Christians from the Law.
The problem with this approach is that it requires one to pick individual verses out of the Pentateuch while in many cases ignoring other verses immediately before and after. Not in every case – one can make a reasonable case for placing the Ten Commandments in the category of universal law, and few Christians would dispute such a claim – but even here we have a command (observing the Sabbath) that carries little or no weight in many churches.
Of course, the Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality, unless one makes the questionable stretch of expanding the definition of “adultery” far enough to include it. Such a stretch is necessary, we are told, because one wouldn’t want to be forced to defend acts of incest and bestiality just because they weren’t specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
Conservatives do have one option for supplementing the seventh commandment (“you shall not commit adultery”) without cherry-picking individual verses; Leviticus contains two chapters (18 and 20) filled with prohibitions that even many outside the faith would agree with: adultery, various forms of incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and, of course, (male) homosexual sex. Chapter 19 has to be excluded from this context, due to the hodgepodge of odd commands it contains, but one can always go back to cherry-picking to rescue its one relevant command (“Love your neighbor as yourself”).
Unfortunately, we’re still left with one odd prohibition in the mix: Lev. 18:19 and its echo in 20:18, which forbids a man from sleeping with a woman during her period. Some modern-day Christians probably aren’t even aware of this command, and it’s certainly not taken seriously by the majority of those that are. But contextually it cannot be separated from the rest of the commands in those chapters; in chapter 18 it falls between the commands against incest and adultery, and in chapter 20 in the middle of the incest prohibitions.
Granted, offenders don’t receive the death penalty, but exile was only a marginally better fate in ancient times. Exile was also the punishment for several different forms of incest, so clearly this command isn’t to be taken any less seriously just because the death penalty isn’t called for. And granted, it isn’t repeated in Deuteronomy (as most of the commands in Leviticus are), but neither is the prohibition against men lying with men unless one ties it to the command against male and female “holy ones” (Deut. 23:17). Since such a connection would place the Old Testament’s only direct reference to homosexuality firmly within the context of pagan fertility rites, it’s clear that we can’t afford to put too much weight on what is and isn’t repeated in Deuteronomy.
And the command against sex during menstruation is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible; Ezekiel does so twice (Ezek. 18:6 and 22:10), both times in conjunction with other moral issues (adultery, incest, idolatry and various economic injustices). No doubt the first instinct of most readers would be to dismiss this particular command as a relic from the purity laws, but the contexts it’s mentioned in rule out that possibility.
Some might argue that having sex with a woman during her period must not be a big deal since it wasn’t mentioned in the New Testament, but bestiality isn’t mentioned there either, and it’s hard to imagine bestiality advocates finding many supporters within the church. Furthermore, as we so frequently hear in the debate over homosexuality, just because an issue wasn’t mentioned by Jesus (or, for that matter, Paul) doesn’t mean it’s unimportant. The authors of the New Testament may simply have considered it so obvious that didn’t need to be repeated to their audience. In fact, they probably did; most premodern societies contained strong taboos against sleeping with a woman during her period.
Defenders of the sex-with-my-wife-whenever-we-want-it lifestyle would probably fall back on the biblical principle that “the marriage bed is undefiled” to defend their proclivities, but allowing generalized principles to override clearly stated biblical commands opens the door to a potentially endless flood of exceptions and qualifications. A law like this one may not make sense to us right now, but surely God would not issue a command without good reason. If we truly believe that the Bible contains explicit instructions for how we are to order our lives, then the believer’s duty is to obey every one of God’s commands even if we never understand why in this lifetime.
And some researchers have determined that sex during menstruation may have negative side effects. Some others may disagree, but again, God undoubtedly has a good reason for issuing a prohibition.
Furthermore, church tradition was unanimous on this issue all the way into the mid-19th century. Many of the church fathers and major theologians, including Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom and Thomas Aquinas condemned the practice, and none tried to defend it. It’s only in modern times that some Christians have begun to go astray and abandon this universally-held position.
Or could it be that combing through Leviticus for relevant commands causes us to miss the point entirely? Perhaps, by creating arbitrary categories within the Law to satisfy our desire for a rules-based approach to faith, we run afoul of Paul’s admonition in Galatians 3:10-12:
All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the Law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The Law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.”
As followers of Christ we are free from the Law – all of the Law – not because morality is unimportant but because morality is diminished when we reduce it to an arbitrary set of rules. True Christian morality flows outward from the heart; one can appear devout on the surface, consistently obeying every last command issued by their church, and secretly remain an enemy of God. One can even use the letter of the law to justify actions that blatantly violate its spirit.
And strict adherence to the “plain language” of the Bible has caused problems of its own. American and European defenders of the institution of slavery had the letter of the law on their side whenever the Bible was brought into the debate, while abolitionists were forced to argue from abstract principles, yet how many Christians today would defend the notion that slavery is ever acceptable?
That still leaves plenty of room for debating what does and doesn’t fall within the bounds of Christian ethics, but if some of the commands in Leviticus are central to that discussion, then all of them are – shellfish, management of slaves, menstrual cycles and all. Jesus may not have abolished the Law, but he did fulfill its requirements and free us from them all the same.
Why bother even go that far? (menstruation and shellfish)
They already have tactics to squirm out of the definition of remarriage as adultery (Luke 16:18), and the command to have us put to death (Leviticus 20:13).
Personally I think we need more squirming. It’s the only way I see that they’re going to come back to your argument that we are free from the law – Matthew 22:40:
Those commandments being of course, to love God (love to love) and “like it,” love your neighbor as yourself.
I don’t see change until I see them seeing that they need this disclaimer for themselves.
Wow, that’s awesome that those Bible hyperlinks come up automatically.
Good goin’ guys!
Rabbi Hillel too cited that the “whole Torah” (five books of moses) is made up of this commandment: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn.” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a). This was spoken by Hillel between 50 BCE and 10 CE, when he was teaching a proselyte who had asked him to tell him the whole law “while standing on one foot.” This liberal stance, espoused by Hillel and the Pharisee movement he represented (which is what modern Judaism has come from), stood for thousands of years as the most important commandment in Judaism. This “golden rule” is one that stands out in nearly every culture in the world – indeed, this is a universally accepted and wonderful law.
(If some Christians are confused at my calling the Pharisee sect “liberal,” this is because the Gospel representations of Pharisees as staunch, uncompromising hypocrites is grossly inaccurate. Temple Priests were legalistic uncompromising people, but the writings of the Pharisees – the Rabbis of the day – show a very liberal, loving stance for adhering to the Torah. To learn about them further, read about the Talmud. I know that many Christians will refused to believe me because the Gospels for them are literally historically accurate, but I wanted to express the Jewish perspective on it anyway. I don’t expect to change people’s minds.)
I believe you make a lot of valid points. This is very well written.
The best thing you said was, “Jesus may not have abolished the Law, but he did fulfill its requirements and free us from them all the same.”
Now, when we say that Christians are free from the law, we mean that we are no longer bound by it. We are, as it says in Romans 8, not condemned because we have been justified by faith in Jeuss Christ. So He set us free from the punishment of death which is the penalty for breaking the law. 1 Corinthians 9:21 says, “I am not free from God’s law, but am under Christ’s law.” What is Christ’s law? Anything that Christ said while we was on earth. Christ believed everything in the Old Testament was true. We see this time and time again. He quoted scripture from the Old Testament. Therefore, we can assume that Jesus (being God) wrote the law and expects those who follow Him to obey His law. Many times in the New Testament we are told to, “Be holy as Christ is holy,” and to “make every effort to be pure.” What does it mean to be holy and pure? To be holy means to not do what God said was sin. Also to do the things that God said were good. We are not perfectly holy. But God sees us as holy because we have been washed clean of the sin from Jesus. Sanctification is the process of being made holy as God is. So if God urges us to be sanctified, we should not do the things that He says are srong. Here are some things He says are wrong: Romans 1:26-27. If the NEW law says it’s wrong, then it is still wrong, just as it was in the Old Testament.
I’m always baffled at why conservative christians who are opposed to homosexuality frequent a site called “ex-gay watch.” Is it a matter of “keep your fiends close, and enemies closer”?
Dannielle said:
I don’t personally see everything in the OT or even the NT as a command to us, but if you do then you are bound by that via your own conscience. I suggest you make some cheat sheets as you have a lot of rules to follow and the penalty for breaking them is rather stiff.
As to Romans, I suggest you read the entire chapter rather than the one verse – I would question the application. However assuming your belief, I can only say that I never had an attraction to women that I could exchange for that towards men. And “burning lust” for anyone is generally considered a sin as far as I can tell, so that pretty much cuts both ways.
Emily, those who believe homosexuality is a sin are as welcome as anyone else to comment here, but the same rules apply to their behavior as to anyone else’s. Civil debate with a sincere desire to hear all sides, not simply clubbing others with random scriptures or opinion.
Now as to how they find us, we appear in a lot of places I assure you 😉
Here are some things He says are wrong: Romans 1:26-27. If the NEW law says it’s wrong, then it is still wrong, just as it was in the Old Testament.
I am not sure how anyone can quote Romans 1:26-27 while ignoring Romans 1:23 where Paul gives the cause – worship of idols, which he even describes and Roman 1:25 which repeats v 23 in a slightly different way, a common Hebrew literary technique.
Romans 1 addresses pagans doing pagan things and being punished with lusts arising out of that paganism, not Christians with a same sex orientation seeking God.
Emily,
Thank you for your discussion. It looks like Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Jesus* had some thinking in common.
* I think that term is not offensive to you?
Timothy:
I’m not offended. “Rabbi” is Hebrew for “teacher.” Especially in an Ancient perspective, “rabbis” weren’t really “ordained” (as to my understanding) – they were educated immensely but I don’t know if “seminaries” existed so much as “schools” did for learning Judaism.
Actually, rabbis Hillel and Jesus had almost everything in common – except for beliefs concerning divorce; Jews were (and are) more liberal about this.
Romans 1 also addresses a long list of sins a then end of the chapter. But, the homophobic Bible-thumpers just ignore all of those sins.
The beginning of Chapter 2 continues with words to this effect, “Why do you judge others for doing those things, when you do the very same things yourself?”
The full context begins with Romans 1:18 and ends with Romans 2:16. The KJV translators, which other English versions follow, divided all of the books of the Bible into chapters and divided the chapters into verses. In some cases, it is very obvious they divided chapter or verses in the wrong places.
Sometimes they divided complete sentences into two verses.
Danielle, you said “So He set us free from the punishment of death which is the penalty for breaking the law. 1 Corinthians 9:21 says, “I am not free from God’s law, but am under Christ’s law.” What is Christ’s law? Anything that Christ said while we was on earth. Christ believed everything in the Old Testament was true.”
If “Christ’s Law” rests in anything Christ said while on this Earth, I would ask you to please tell me do you believe Jesus meant it when the said in the parable of the Rich Ruler “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” Matthew 19:21?
Do you believe Jesus said “if you’ve done it unto the least of these my brethren you’ve done it unto me?”
And if as you say, Jesus believed EVERYTHING in the Old Testament was true, why did he NOT allow the mob to stone the woman taken in adultery, when the law demanded her death? Why did he not condemn the woman at the well who had no idea whom her husband(s)were, as she was living in perpetual adultery?
I ask you, because I believe you are relying on classic Christian-isms handed down by a poor interpretationof Judaism without logical foundation to support such “isms.”
Matthew 19:16-29 is not a parable! It is a real story where Jesus was approached by a rich young man who is not called a “ruler” in that actual text. Mark 10:17-31 tells basically the same story.
In Luke 18:18-30, there seems to be a similar story; but, that man is called a “certain ruler” and he is rich. But, he is not called a “young man.” The ruler does say he kept the commandments since his youth.
When Jesus fulfilled all of the requirements of the Law by his birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension up into heaven, his followers were no longer required to follow the Law. But, he did say that those who followed the Law, would be judged by the Law.
During the whole Bible period, if a king enacted a law, tradition was that he could not declare that particular law invalid and tell his subjects they did not have to obey it. To do so would make the citizens believe that he could not be trusted because he changed his mind at will. But, he could enact a new law of higher importance and that could be followed instead. Those who did not do what the older said would not be punished for disobey it, especially when there was also a better law on the books. If a son of the king inherited his father’s kingdom, he was expected to enforce his father’s laws and not create laws to replace them. But, he could do what his father might have done and create laws of higher importance.
Jesus’ New Covenant was a covenant of higher importance spiritually speaking; but it did not replace the Old Covenant, aka the Law. Before Jesus became the spiritual king, his Father was Israel’s King and the High Priest, a Levite, was the same as his prime minister.
The Rabbinical Schools in Israel during the 1st Century were equal to theological schools, or at least what could be compared to modern denominatinal Bible colleges.
When Paul was still called Paul and before he appears in the book of Acts, he was a student of Gamaliel, who was considered the most honored rabbi of the first Century. See Acts 22 where Paul gives his life testimony after he was arrested because some Jews made some false accusation about him in Acts 21:27-29 and thought Paul took a Gentile into the Temple area since they had seen Paul with him in the city of Jerusalem. Paul would never take an uncircumcised Gentile into the men’s section of the Temple.
I have a better idea. Start treating the Bible as just another human written book, and not something “inspired” by some invisible friend.
While I am certainly not ex-gay I am ex-Christian and a former “bible college” student myself. I would have to respectfully note that the problem with the fundamentalist interpretation is that they attempt to find the O.T. as a coherent, consistent book written by a deity without error instead of a human work explaining the laws of a specific culture at a specific time. The first view implies it is applicable at all times to all people the second does not.
When one takes the first position, as I once did, the result is contradictions and inconsistencies that are unavoidable. So one tries to invent excuses to justify what does or does not apply to avoid the worst cases that would arise. But the problems are built into the premise that O.T. is the word of Jehovah.
If we assume the three categories of law they invent we always going to have problems. Biblical commands to kill “witches” are not ceremonial laws or purity laws thus they would have to be moral laws. If moral laws they are applicable today and Christians ought to be lobbying for the “Witchcraft Extermination Bill” with Congress. And what of blasphemy? Is it merely ceremonial or involved with purity? No, it is a moral offense against the deity who wrote the command. So that law would apply today as well.
And we shouldn’t forget if the law still applies so does the penalty attached to the law. And since the authors of the O.T. were rather barbaric so are the laws. Most of the Ten Commandments do have penalties attached to them, as is clearly stated. And in most cases the penalty is to kill the transgressor. That seems to be the O.T. solution to most everything — murder, slay, kill, shed their blood, etc.
And that is a problem not just for the fundamentalist who wishes to denounce gays based on Leviticus but on anyone who argues that the O.T. is a good source for moral law as well since there is nothing indicating the penalties for adultery, dishonoring parents, not honoring the Sabbath, etc were repealed and execution would still be in effect.
Mark said:
So your response to those who abuse gays and lesbians through inappropriate use of scripture is to do the same to people of faith – gay, lesbian, et al? Again, explaining one’s beliefs (or lack there of) is fine when doing so is necessary to frame the debate, however demeaning an entire group in this manner is not.
You’d be surprised.
I have concerns when we spend all of our time talking about the law and the followers of Christ. Jesus claimed to be God, he died on the cross and rose from the dead three days later. We who believe this believe something that is unreasonable in the natural thinking process. The book of Corinthians was wriitten by the apostle Paul to the Corinthian church to deal with the problem of imaturity in the body of Christ or the “true church”. Those who are the true followers of Jesus are the ones who have been born of the Spirit of Christ. Not all who profess to be Christians are. It is more than obeying the rules or following the bible that makes one a true believer. Jesus stated that there will be “many” on judgement day that claim to be his followers but will be rejected because they relied on their deeds to get in to His kingdom. Jesus said no one will be justified by the law.
Rather than focusing on whether or not homosexuality is wrong. We should focus on the fact that all are sinners and all are in need of salvation. If a person comes to that point and is willing to recieve Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour because he paid the penalty for the wrong we have all done, the Spirit of God, which he promised will reveal through the word of God the truth about what God would have that person turn from. The person if they are true will turn out of love for God, which by the way Jesus said is the greatest command. Love God with all your heart, soul and mind. If we did this we wouldn’t be looking for ways to satisfy what we want but would be looking for what pleases Him. Conversion to the true Christian faith comes first then comes obedience to the bible not the other way around.
In response to the slavery issue. Abraham Lincoln who was the president of the United States at the time of the civil war was willing to go to war because he believed slavery was wrong. He was a born again Christian.
John Newton was a slave trader and then became a born again Christian. He then became instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade in the Bristish Commonwealth in 1806. He is best known for writing the hymn Amazing Grace.
What no one could do by trying to convince these men that it was wrong, God did when they became “True Christians”.
Abraham Lincoln who was the president of the United States at the time of the civil war was willing to go to war because he believed slavery was wrong. He was a born again Christian.
I don’t think this is quite accurate. Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a born again Christian; he was more of a deist. And he went to war because of Southern secession, not because he was convinced of the evils of slavery.
I am having trouble with some passges, for example:
“When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand without mercry. (Deuteronomy 25:11)
Would this be ceremonial law, purity law or universal moral law? Do we still have to amputate if a woman in our congregation does this? And, how about this one:
“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever.” (Leviticus 25:45-46) Is child slavery still OK?
Or this: “‘Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women…” (Ezekiel 9:5)
Getting theologically correct here because I know what really is in the Greek Text of the New Testament books. There is no such thing as a “born-again Christian” in any of the writings there. Jesus literally told those who came to him when there was no one else around when he was asked by them what they needed to do to have eternal life, “You must be “born-from above.” (Emphasis mine) I have never heard George W. Bush say, in a taped or live interview or in a news media quote, “I am a Believer in Jesus” or “I am a born-again Christian.” “Believer” was the name Jesus’ followers gave to themselves.
Abraham Lincoln was never a member of any church. From what I read in all of the Lincoln bios and those who personally knew him, he had little positive to say about Christianity until after he became President of the USA. He did not want to have anything to do with Jesus the Christ because of all of the hypocrites he knew who claimed to be Christian.
If Abraham Lincoln were alive today and not yet a President, I personally believe that he would either claim to an ex-gay or an ex-ex-gay. Back during the early 1990s, on one of the major TV networks, there was a 2-night mini-series on the life of Abraham Lincoln where readers quoted from well-documented sources with related vintage photos. The quotes were from Lincoln’s contemporaries either as journalists or writers of personal diaries.
As a person who has done extensive study on the psychology of sexual orientation and also reading case studies of homosexuals were in denial of their sexual orientation or having problems with dealing with it, I feel that what was in those quotes about Lincoln’s difficult relationships with women all during his adult life were similar to those that modern day homosexual men have experienced in similar situations.
Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed met in Springfield, Illinois, during the 1830s. I am writing from memory here about Lincoln’s relationship with Speed. You can do your own research on that.
When Lincoln went to Springfield to study law, he was going to live in a completely unfurnished room. So, he went to Speed’s general store to buy things for the room and that included literally building his own bed, frame and all. After Speed got everything his list and added it up, Lincoln told Speed that would take all of his money and he would not have anything to spend of food.
To save space here I am going to use nicknames now. Josh told Abe that he had a bed which he himself slept in in the upstairs at the back over the storeroom. He told Abe that if he would like he could stay and share that bed with him while he was doing his studies. Since Abe had very little belongings, he took them up to look at the room.
Abe came back down into the store at the front without what he had brought with him. He told Josh, “I am moved!”
Abe and Josh shared the same bed for 4 years. When Abe found out later that his best friend and bed-mate of 4 years was getting married, he went into deep depression.
Lincoln also went through two major bouts of depression with two women in his life whom he had dated. And the latter one had to do with the woman whom he later married. I believe that Lincoln got married because of his need to have a public image as a husband to get ahead in the political arena.
We need to be very careful what we read in the “Christianized” biographies of famous men. Sometimes we read those things in our public school and college textbooks without realizing that the publishers of those books were actually from Christian denominational publishing houses. A number of the textbooks I had in elementary school, grades 1-8, were actually from those publishers. I did not know that until after I studied the history of education when preparing to become a teacher.
The expression, “True Christian,” seems to be a late 20th and early 21st Century coined phrase. The story of John Newton is a great one and his testimony of receiving salvation in and by Christ Jesus is an interesting. But, according to what was in the recent movie release, “Amazing Grace,” about Newton’s friend, Newton still doubted his salvation and I would say that he had low spiritual self-esteem because of that doubt. He still thought of himself as a “wretch” near the end of his life. When one really gets born-from-above receiving the free gift of salvation, as far as what one was and did as an unsaved sinner no longer exists on the person’s record in God the Father’s “Lamb’s Book of Life.”
While Newton could never forget all of the evil that he did to folks when he dealt in the slave trade, the pain related to the memory of that should have been erased from his spirit. As a theologian, Newton should have known that since the Bible he used was the very same one I used until regularly as a Sunday school teacher and an occasional preacher until I was in my 30s.
The “Fundamentalist, ultra-conservative Christian right-wingers” have done similar things to Gays and Lesbians in the spiritual sense that Newton did to the slaves from Africa. (Oh, it was the fundamentalists who kept slavery legal in the USA all of those years and why slavery in this country was not abolished until 30 years after it was outlawed in England.) Those slave-owning folks believed that Black folks were animals and less than human. Well, I know for a fact that Jerry Falwell said on a live radio broadcast, “Homosexuals are brute beasts.” He never apologized for saying that; nor did he tell anyone that he had asked God to forgive him for saying that.
Michael:
Rabbi Maimonides, in his commentary on Leviticus 25:11, says that this is actually an expression meaning that the wife shall pay the man a monetary compensation for his embarassment that she caused. It doesn’t literally mean “cut off her hand.”
Thank you for this interesting post Eugene. I’ve enjoyed your blog Paradoxy for awhile and I’m glad to see that you have joined this one as well. I’d like to read more from original sources on what the Fathers had to say about sexual intercourse during menstruation. Do you know of anything good online that references such sources? About all I could find from Google was this page from a site advocating female Catholic priests. It would appear to be a mixed bag.
“When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand without mercy.” (Deuteronomy 25:11)
Since women were property and owned by their husbands if married, what was on a man’s body was more important than a woman’s whole body. In Hebrew thought, a man’s “seed” came from those private parts, “maboosh” from the root Hebrew word “boosh” meaning “shame.” (In the Old Testament, an adult was not naked if only his genitals were covered. He was only naked if he showed the “full monty.”)
The Jewish men, and other men until the invention of the microscope, believed that in the head of a mans “seed” was a fully developed miniaturized baby. Since all seeds need a place to be planted to grow, the woman’s womb was the little “garden” to “plant” that “seed.” A woman only had “seed” AFTER she gave birth to the man’s “seed,” which of course, was a fully developed and perfect baby. If the baby was born with deformities during those historical periods, it was the woman’s sin which caused it.
Oh, in Leonardo Da Vinci’s human anatomy drawings is an “illustration” of one of those perfect babies in the fetal position in the head of a man’s sperm (even he believed that to be true).
While we who are Believers in Christ Jesus should read what is in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) to have a better understanding of some of the things in the New Testament, it is not necessary to study the OT to find salvation. I find it oddly interesting when a “Christian” writes about what one should do as a “born-again Christian” or a “True Christian” and yet every bible verse, quoted or cited, is from the Old Testament in what they write with not one reference to what Jesus himself said about what one must do to live for him.
I think we need to be equally careful about finding homosexuality where none existed as well. Was Lincoln gay? Perhaps, but the evidence is very thin to indicate such. It was not unusual at that time for men to sleep together in the same bed, use seemingly romantic language in letters to each other, etc. They had a concept of friendship which differs from our own and didn’t involve sexual relations. Lincoln spoke freely of his time with Joshua Speed, which would be striking if he were hiding a romantic involvement. It is also noteworthy that none of his political enemies made any charge of homosexuality against Lincoln, unlike what his predecessor James Buchanan faced. Perhaps the worst part of all this speculation about Lincoln and others is that this makes a loving platonic friendship between two men, especially heterosexual, seem impossible without a ton of B.S. to avoid whispering from others. We have the John Wayne image entrenched in this country with men avoiding overt displays of affection or emotion for fear of being labeled queer. It’s absurd and frankly IMO is a contributing factor to why gay men are subjected to such discrimination.
It is also noteworthy that none of his political enemies made any charge of homosexuality against Lincoln
That isn’t quite the complete story. According to C.A. Tripp there was a certain amount of nudge-nudge giggle-giggle type speculation about Lincoln during his White House years.
John,
While the evidence isn’t convincing, it also is not baseless.
It wasn’t as common as some claim for two adult men to share a bed in a city setting. Much of the “he couldn’t be gay” argument sounds to be excuse making rather than a real reflection of the times.
They used the same arguments to say that Whitman wasn’t gay. It’s kinda funny but the claims that “all men wrote in affectionate terms” seem only to apply to men for whom there are questions about their attractions.
John, what you write is partly true about the platonic relationships of the 18th and 19th Century American men. Anthony Rotundo’s book, American Manhood, discusses the platonic relationships which men had during those time and their personal letters to each other seemed almost like love letters. Rotundo writes about how American men’s attitudes began to change due to the Industrial Revolution. Men, even in the private lives, stopped doing things just as equals with their friends and turned everything into competition. Men instead of showing (biblical style) natural affection towards the males in their families and their male friends changed from hugging and kissing them to wrestling or boxing with them so that they could still have body contact.
In some of those very works cited in that TV mini-series, it was stated that when Lincoln was in the military and even in the White House, he chose not to sleep alone. When the First Lady was off buying furnishings for the residence, he never slept alone and a member of the guard would share his bed in the room now known as “the Lincoln Bedroom.”
I don’t mean to dominate the comment sections here at XGW; but, I see that there are enough facts revealed in Lincoln’s whole life to appear to those who have studied the psychology of sexual orientation and how to recognize signs of an individual’s sexual orientation by their public lives and their emotional states that Lincoln was not a heterosexual.
As far as I am concerned, Marion “John Wayne” Morrison’s private life had no connection with his movie screen persona. The real Morrison was not even a real cowboy, he only played one in the movies. He did not even have the spirit of a cowboy. BTW, Reagan was not a cowboy and neither is G. W. Bush.
We also know that Roy Harold “Rock Hudson” Scherer’s private life was not anything like his show business persona.
Well, Emily, that calms my mind a bit. I could just see all the women guilty of this “sin” (protecting their husbands) walking around with blody stumps where hands ought to be.
Point is, people who claim to obey the Bible and take it literally DON’T. They do what others tend to do — pick and choose the passages they want to impose on others and disregard the rest. Convenient, huh?
John,
Most of what I found was in bits and pieces; the best summary I found was here: https://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Contraception.html
It doesn’t contain much in the way of actual quotations, unfortunately.
Emily: Does anyone have a coherent and readily understood system for which passages still apply today and which don’t? Which we are still oblicated to obey? Which were not intended to be taken literally?
Michael: We Jews read the Talmud and the Midrash – texts written by great Rabbinical Sages of my people – to help us understand the Torah. However, even THESE books can be very difficult to connect to. therefore, if you have difficulty with a certain passage, search for a rabbi’s commentary. one interesting thing about Jewish “legalism” is that there is no such thing as the ONLY right answer. Example: In the conservative branch of Judaism, the policy concerning homosexuality is that homosexual acts are against the Torah, and that rabbis may bless homosexual unions if they want to. In conservative Judaism, homosexual unity is both blessed and looked down upon, depending on the Jew.
As a result, every sect; every rabbi; indeed, every individual Jew will have their own interpretation.
After all, Israel (Yisro’el) means “wrestles with God.”
“As a result, every sect; every rabbi; indeed, every individual Jew will have their own interpretation.”
My point exactly. And so do Christians. There simply is no readily understood approach — and by readily understood, I mean readily understood by the average reader trying to decide what parts of the Old Testament still apply and which don’t.
Christians who claim they obey all of the Old Testament are clearly not telling the truth, otherwise they would stone their kids when they disobeyed.
While the evidence isn’t convincing, it also is not baseless.
One could say that about any claim, Timothy. Look, it’s no skin off my nose is Abe were really gay I just find this claim made far too often with little basis. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and thus far this one is as thin as gruel.
I don’t mean to dominate the comment sections here at XGW; but, I see that there are enough facts revealed in Lincoln’s whole life to appear to those who have studied the psychology of sexual orientation and how to recognize signs of an individual’s sexual orientation by their public lives and their emotional states that Lincoln was not a heterosexual.
Joe, without something more of substance from the historical record or the ability to interview Abe himself, such studies are nothing more than guesswork which IMO is shoddy work. One can raise the possibility and explain what the times were like, but to come to any firm conclusions that Abe was gay is just ridiculous.
Ah yes, Pharsea’s website. Thanks, Eugene for posting that. It’s been awhile since I’d gone over there.
John,
I read CA Tripp’s book that made the claim and I read the criticisms of the book.
Tripp presented that which can be researched. Those who took to task seemed to do so either on issues of “yeah, but” or on arguments about “missing evidence”. And some of the more interesting aspects of Lincoln’s bed habits are simply ignore by those who champion his heterosexuality.
For me, it came down to this – the only way that Lincoln could be reasonable assumed not to be same-sex attracted would be if you start with the assumption that he wasn’t and then made excuses for all evidence to the contrary.
We do know, for example, that he shared his bed in the White House with a man. And we know that the White House was not short of beds. We know that he viewed marriage as an undesireable obligation and that his emotional life seemed to be directed towards men. We do know that some of his contemporaries assumed that he was sexually involved with men.
Now it is entirely possible, as Tripp’s detractors claim, that Lincoln was just a cuddly heterosexual. We don’t have any Lincoln porn nor do we have a stained dress.
But the evidence Tripp presented was sufficient and the objections that his heterosexual objectors presented were so flimsy that I (tentatively) believe that Abraham Lincoln was primarily sexually and emotionally attracted to men. I am open to further revelations.
If you think otherwise, I have no complaint with you. As I said, the evidence is not convincing – or perhaps I should have said it is not absolutely convincing, though I was convinced – so I cannot fault those who require more.
Tripp aside (I didn’t find him all that convincing personally), the issue seems moot since we will never really know. More to the point, this is way off the topic 😉
I have never read CA Tripp’s book; I have never seen a copy of it either. I just did a search online with the local library system that it has 4 copies of it and it was published in 2005.
What I read in the book I checked out in the early 1990s, had been written at least a couple of decades earlier than that.
And, not long after I read that information as well as reading similar things in other sources, quite a few of the quotes in that Ken Burns type TV miniseries were from the very books I read.
This reminds of “The Grey Fox,” the historical movie about Bill Miner, aka the Gentleman Bandit, who was first well-known in the 1900’s as a stagecoach robber.
Because of knowing advance the library was getting the book, I was the first person to check out and read The Grey Fox: The True Story of Bill Miner – Last of the Old-Time Bandits by Mark Dugan and John Boessenecker (Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, c1992.) Boessenecker is a San Francisco attorney and historian. Dugan is a writer and has taught at the university level.
The screenplay writers of the movie invented a lady photographer who lived in Kamlooops, BC, Canada, as Miner’s love interest when he was making plans to rob a train up there. According to what is actually in the thoroughly researched book, she never existed.
While I read their book, I did see somethings differently that they did. They wrote that Miner was only homosexual when he was in prison. But, all of Miner’s relationships with women, other than his mother and a sister, were for a cover for his reason to be in any location. Miner, who was raised near the mining camps in California, went back to the Mid-West to the town where he was born. He lied about being a rich gold miner and the owner of a mercantile there decided that if his daughter married him, it would give him higher social status with the community. Just before the wedding was to take place, Miner high-tailed it out of town, heading back west, and he took another man with him.
No matter where Miner traveled, he ended up having a much younger man working with him. A few of them had been his prison cellmate and they joined up with him after they got released.