The Black Vault

Obviously a ton of fuss is made about homosexuality by Christians, as we have seen lately there is a bit of a war going on between the two sides. Obviously, from an atheistic point of view, the whole argument is ridiculous because we believe deriving morals from a book written by primitive humans to be absurd, but Christians believe it to be the word of God, so it's understandable that they would condemn the behaviour.

What I want to address is the double-standard that seems to be present here, where Christians take some passages claiming homosexuality to be wrong and treat them as gospel, whereas other passages are ignored or treated as no longer important because the laws were done away with.

For instance, one of the passages used to attack homosexuality is:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

But, Leviticus also gives instructions on how to sacrifice animals, like this:

"If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering."

And more ridiculous things, such as:

"Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:"

And this about certain foods being abominations:

"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."

And as for menstruating women:

"They are unclean and sinful. Anthing that they touch is unclean. Anyone who touches anything that they touch is unclean. Stay completely away from them."

What do Christians do when their wives are menstruating? Do they literally stay away from them and anything they touch?

Why is so much being ignored but homosexuality is focussed on? Should Chick Fil-A, for example, be banning women on their period because they are unclean and a hazard to everyone else in the restaurant? Or should Christians be picketing the people who are eating bacon? If not, why not?

Am I missing something important in my understanding here?

More rules and comments on menstruation:

"But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the priest shall use one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge."

"“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening."

On masturbation:

"If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening."

Is it that the rules on homosexuality are still valid, but the rules on menstruation and eating bacon and such are no longer valid?

If so, I would like it to be explained to me how that is the case. I am not an expert, and do not claim to know the answer to this, so consider this thread more of a question than an attack.

Pretty obvious that this thread generated from the chick-fil-a news, which stems from a single comment stated by the CEO who has a very strict policy discriminating against gays in his company, he hires gay people, and has a tolerance program in his workplace regarding that, treats all of his employees very well, with benifits. If you are somehow inturpeting him as not being a moral person, and the gay activists certainly are saying this, it is incorrect. As a religous person of Faith, he closes Chick fil a on Sundays, which I didn;t know, honoring the Sabeth. You show me any other fast food place that does this, most are open 24/7 365 days a year.

How do you defend an elected Mayor, Rham Emmanual, for openly boycotting Chick-fil-a and declaring they will not allow other outlets to be built in Chicago? In a time when good jobs are hard to find, what is the morality of stopping the growth of a good place to work, while on the other end of town, they would allow stripclubs, porn shops, and stores selling drug use products? Not only is his moral compass broken, he should be supporting the commerce in his city, and jobs, as his first prioriety.

How do you defend the gay rights groups for waging protests that only hurt people with a job and good benifits, in a place where moral standards are up held? Next step today is a "gay kiss in" protest and making a spectical of themselves to proove what point? They will proove, that our laws only protect their rights, to do that in the United States of America. And while they enjoy those freedoms, they persecute the religious rights of one person for a his believe, and punish thousands of workers in the process. Like the point I made to you about Dawkins and not attacking Muslims like he does Christians, Christians are not the only religion who believes these things. Dawkins never walked the streets of Saudi Arabia with his message, he does it from a save haven, the United States and free speech. Nor would these gay rights protesters, stage a "kiss in" in any middle eastern country, not to even mention a gay rights assembly. The United States, and a predominately Christian/Judeo society(based on these ancient books) has every law in place protecting the rights of gays, AND OTHER MINORIETIES, every place you turn. It was not a Congress or Surpreme Court of Atheists who passed all these laws. So how you can critisize a society for doing this, for "deriving morals from a book written by primitive humans to be absurd", is what is ridiculous. Now compare all of this to what would happen in any middle eastern Muslim nation. Their laws are passed by the most fundementalist of Islamic beliefs, and are so barbaric and beyond belief, its hard to believe it is 2012.

Trying to make your point against Christian belief in this is ludicras, when you consider our laws put in place by the very Christian/Judeo base regarding the gays freedom to protest. The response was not a line of Christians even ranting about homosexuality in the appreciation day, the overwhelming response was the CEO's freedom of speech, for which the gays were persecuting him for. Who's moral compass is way off the mark, now being escalated into the kiss in protest?

I'm not even getting into your other questions, but we do not live in 4000BC, and our laws reflect that. I go to probably one of the best Jewish deli's around here, and they serve everything from bacon, ham, and clam chowder. Red lobsters are all over the nation selling forbidden bottom feeders too. All minorieties, including gays, are given every freedom, that everyone else has, and the laws bend over backwards to do that. I think the free world, and the USA, Christian/Judeo beliefs have done this. You can not make this claim in Nations that are other than these values, like Muslim countries, Buddist and Hindu counties.

The answer, Hum, is that tribalism in every form loves easy targets. It's much more convenient for churches to attack outsiders and whip up their congregation's self-righteousness by preaching about the motes they perceive in others, rather than to focus on the beams in their own eyes.

Greeney, you are attempting to derail right from the get-go. I did think of my question after hearing the Chick-Fil-A nonsense, but it could be asked regardless of what happened there.

Homosexuality is made a big deal of, and attacked, primarily because of passages in Leviticus. Leviticus also states that menstruating women are unclean and should be avoided like the plague. Anything they touch is also supposedly unclean.

Would you sleep in the same bed as your wife if she was menstruating, or do you completely disregard what the Bible says in regards to this, but accept what it says about homosexuals?

There is a clear double-standard here, and that can be highlighted without even making mention of the Chick-Fil-A debacle.

I'm not even getting into your other questions, but we do not live in 4000BC

You didn't get into any of them. You derailed the thread, avoided all my questions and went off on a rant.

This is what you always do because you are unable to debate the topic at hand.

The question is, why do Christians treat Leviticus as gospel when it says gays are an abomination, but ignore it entirely when it says menstruating women are basically unclean, and disgusting, and should stay home and not be allowed near anyone? You guys pick and choose passages as you please.

I did not derail anything, you summerized your own spiel citing the chick-fil-a situation which was the last 2 days in the news. I addressed your exact analogy of the Bible, and how our laws do everything to refute your claims. I stated to you that our current laws have been enacted, not by athiests, but the vary people you say have a double standard, which are Christian/Judeo based elected offices and Supreme Court appointees. While you seem to be claiming all this oppression of Gays, you forget the laws protecting them, were put in place by those you think are the oppressors. You also forget we a Nation stating "One nation, under God", which only the Atheists disagree with.

What I said very much answers whatever the coorelation is you are getting at, that the Christian/Judeo has protected the rights of gays. Nobody is lorded over by this government in any of the passages you are referring to, nor is their any laws or penalties for doing them. Conversely in countries that are Muslim, Buddist, and Hindu, the human rights are deplorable, and things like Homosexuality are crimes punishable by death. They have laws against them, and sentance people to death for some of them. I think you need to take a good look at those religions and how they treat homosexuals, not to mention Christians in those countries. As far as I can see, the Christian/Judeo believing base of this country, has not oppressed anyone, they have done just the opposite. If you want to cite things from 4000 BC, you need only go to the middle east where they do incorparate these things as crimes in their justice system. You are barking up the wrong tree demonizing the Christian/Judeo stance on these issues, when you see how our laws reflect the protections of minorieties.

A much bigger question might be if your wife as raped in Pakistan by 4 men, if she could not produce 2 eyewitnesses, she would be tried for adultry, and could be sentenced to death. Or maybe, if a male OB/GYN was her doctor in any number of those countries, he would be the target of an honor killing. Probably a dozen plus other Muslim questions to be raised, not to mention India that is mosly Hindu, or the human rights violations in Buddists nations, like China alone.

You brought up the chick-fil-a news, and I gave my opinion. If you don't like my answer to bad.

Hum, Greene is unable to defend or explain the inconsistency/hypocrisy because he's unable to think for even one moment beyond the bounds of his warped religious tribalism, so for him no inconsistency/hypocrisy can be acknowledged as even possible. All he has are emotional justifications that amount to no more than childish obfuscation.

The simple answer is, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament. Remember: Christians claim to be under a New Covenant. Jesus and St. Paul belabored the point over and over and over again... the new replaces the old.

A heavy sigh is in order as this point seems to be completely forgotten; as if this Christian tenet goes in one ear and out the other.

Now, don't take this as an opportunity to do the usual, "Ok well if THAT's the case, then why don't you just throw the Old Testament in the trash can?" How many times have we had this debate.

But that's the simple answer and it's all that's necessary.

Yet Jesus himself may have been gay.