The Raving Redhead: Got Milk?

Hey Teresa,

I'll clarify a few things and then go back to some original questions I had. First, by no means did I point out that I have gay friends to pat myself on the back. I pointed it out to show I still had a functioning loving relationship even though I had a different view point. Pointing it out to pat yourself on the back would be pretty shallow.

For the Old Testament stuff, those are 2 good examples and fit to my previous point that there is a reason for all of the laws and some point toward Christ, some are for hygiene, and some are moral. I looked through what I believe are most of the slavery points in the Old Testament. Once again, I'm not an expert but here is my take. First, there is no verse that says by law you must have slaves. The laws regulate the slavery position that already existed. Secondly, I think it is relevant to clarify that slavery back then would appear to be different then what we automatically think of as slavery today. It wasn't going and kidnapping people and forcing them to work. This may be the case for prisoners from war back then, but most of the verses seem to deal with people that owed debt. If someone who was poor owed debt and couldn't repay it, they would become a slave for that person to work as payment. A lot of the laws had to do with the well treatment of those individuals. Slavery doesn't exist any more in that capacity and the Bible would also clearly condemn the poor treatment of slaves our country participated in back in the day, so of course those rules don't apply.

As for the menstruating point I found 2 main parts about it. Leviticus 15 talks about how a woman is unclean during her period and Leviticus 18:19 says that you shouldn't approach a woman to have sex during her period. The stuff in 15 doesn't say that you can't touch a woman during these times. It just points out that you will be considered unclean and gives instructions on how to cleanse. It also gives similar instructions for men when they have an emission of semen. These rules are meant for hygiene purposes. They didn't have feminine products back then. They also didn't have soaps or Purell either. These rules were meant to protect from disease transfer since they were dealing with especially since there was blood involved. It also seemed to apply to cleanliness before God. Now that we have Christ's forgiveness we are seen as clean before him. The whole curtain being torn down deal.

As for the not having sex with a woman during her period. Personally, I'm not sure why you would want to. I've talked to a few of my other married friends and nobody seems to want to argue for being allowed to have sex during a woman's period. If there is a strong argument for that let me know.

I did pose the question as to what your thoughts are on the reason that God would not allow homosexuality and call it detestable (Leviticus 18:22). I would still be interested in your thoughts on that.

I'd like you to elaborate on why my comparing incest to homosexuality weakens my point. I was using the same exact arguments you were using. 2 consensual adults, not mentioned by Jesus, in the same chapter as the Homosexual verse in Leviticus. As I mentioned before, I think that Child Molestation and sex with animals are poor comparisons when it comes to homosexuality. Incest seems to match up though. Yes they are different sexual acts (unless it's incest between the same sex), but both considered by the Bible as sinful and as I said the same argument you are using for homosexuality would fit for incest. If society were more accepting of incest in 50 years, then the same arguments would apply.

I didn't mean to directly compare alcoholism and homosexuality. With that and the whole premarital sex thing, I was trying to make the point that just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean I have to support it if it's sin. I can be just as loving though. I think there is a danger in automatically throwing around hate when it's just not there. Let's break it down simply with a question: Because I don't support premarital sex (because I view it as sin), but maintain loving relationships with those who participate, am I being hateful because I don't support their right to sex?

As for hanging on to it when Jesus never mentioned it, I go back to my first comment that there are a lot of things that Jesus didn't talk about that we consider sin today. Also, Jesus does condemn sexual immorality (Matthew 15:19) and that is what homosexuality is considered in the Bible (Leviticus 18, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9) Here are a few things Jesus never mentioned, and by no means am I directly comparing them to homosexuality. I am just pointing out things that Jesus never talked about:

-Kidnapping (He does say in Matthew 5:41 that if someone forces you to go one mile, go 2. If you want to say that Jesus condones kidnapping, run with it)

-Rape

-Prostitution (A good example going back to my point of being loving but not condoning rights. Back then prostitution was common and even legal I believe. Jesus hung out with them. No where in the Gospel does he directly condemn prostitution. He says in Matthew 21:13 that they are entering into heaven ahead of the religious. Neither one of us would argue that Christ accepted their lifestyle or would condone legalizing prostitution. It doesn't deny his love for them or their opportunity for salvation, but the lifestyle is not accepted.)

-Drug abuse

-Incest

Finally, sorry about the feminism comment. Maybe I worded it incorrectly. What I meant is that if someone were a sexist male or female they could misinterpret Paul's writings to view their own bias. Would you agree that a female can be sexist? Anyway, what points that Paul makes about male/female relationships are the problem? I know that he says that Husbands are the head of the wife in Ephesians, but it says that he is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. It is meant to be the same kind of relationship. The husband is meant to be loving, sacrificing, and present at all times. Because of this comparison, if one has a problem with a husbands position here, do they have the same problems with Christ's being the head of the church? Are there husbands who suck at this? Yes. They aren't perfect, but that doesn't take away from Paul's point as to what the relationship should look like. Also, he doesn't come out and call relationships that don't fit this mold as sin whereas he does homosexuality.

I know this response is long, but I am trying to address all of your points and don't want to make ignorant general statements as some Christians are in the habit of doing. I want to show you that my opinion is based on the Word and not some personal bias I have. I think to me the issue is more so about whether or not homosexuality is a sin as stated in the Bible, as opposed to the whole rights thing. Honestly, if the country were to recognize homosexuality marriage there is nothing I can do about it. I won't be a jerk to married gay couples, just as I'm not a jerk to unmarried couples living together. If it's sin then the heart of the matter isn't that they are married or living together. My point is that if the Bible defines it as sin I wouldn't go out of my way to make it happen.

Thanks for your time.