I often try to argue homosexuality from a Biblical perspective, because my opponents generally hold one, but lately I've been getting tired of it.
*clears throat*
Leviticus was written by a bunch of misogynistic, slave-owning, genocidal, racist, bigoted, polygamist pricks! NOT GOD! NO GOD WORTH SERVING WOULD EVER COME UP WITH THIS HORRIFYING NEAR-EASTERN BULLSHIT!
That is all.
---------------------------
On a personal note, I do apologize for the recent lack of content here, and for the fact that most of it has been theological recently. Since the 1st of the year, my brother visited from America, my dog died, we got a new puppy, I've been exceptionally busy at work, I've applied for grad schools and scholarships, and I got both Fallout: New Vegas and Minecraft. I will try to get back on a more regular posting schedule--with more interesting topics--soon.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
ReplyDeleteOh I see...a surface reading of a particular book of the bible poses a problem for a particular worldview and your response is that the book is not authoritative or inspired in any way. I get it. You are apparently in a better position to comment on what should or should not be authoritative than nearly two millenia of Christian history (never mind Hebrew history). The church has tried to make sense of and put into perspective many aspects of the Torah and, even though it has proved difficult and often left unresolved, has stubbornly refused to go the way of Marcian and simply cut out what seems too difficult. But thank you for correcting everyone instead of trying to seriously adress the issues.
ReplyDeleteThe arrogance of it all, such arrogance.
"a surface reading of a particular book of the bible poses a problem for a particular worldview"
ReplyDeleteYes, scriptural inerrancy is absolutely a surface view, and is tautologically incompatible with the notion of a loving God. We can have one, or the other, or neither, but not both.
"has stubbornly refused to go the way of Marcian and simply cut out what seems too difficult."
At Nicea, they cut the gnostic gospels among other things. Martin Luther cut the Apocrypha: Catholics and Orthodox still use it. Or, since you mention the Hebrews, the original compilers of books like Genesis who slapped together the priestly and YHWH-istic texts cut the Lilith stories while they were at it. Bel and the Dragon, the books of the Maccabees, Adam's first wife, the gospel of Peter ... all present in the original bodies of work, all axed from the modern Protestant Bible.
The ignorance of it all, such ignorance--and a strawman to boot. I never argued that it be 'cut', simply that the notion of its divine origin and present-day applicability be abandoned as nonsensical.
"But thank you for correcting everyone"
Oh, no--thank YOU. Thank you so very much for your anonymous commentary (*cough*growapair*cough*), total ignorance of the history of scripture, and ridiculous strawman of my position.
Part 2 of response
ReplyDeleteFinally, you seem to be in a bit of denial about what you are calling for. Referring to the book of Leviticus as "HORRIFYING NEAR-EASTERN BULLSHIT" is tantamount to calling for its removal. If it has not authority, was of spurious origin, and is actually contrary to the Christian church, then a protestant reading of it (since that seems to be the vein you are primarily addressing) would mean that Leviticus is of the same status of many of the other "non-canonical books." You have, by your original post, argued that it be cut because you presume to know all about its origins (and your primary evidence for these origins seem to be the conflict you feel it has for your worldview).
I am not advocating that we pursue a surface reading of the text, but get at what the Levitical law code was trying to convey. And how this underlying message has impact upon a Christian church in the 21st century. If you are not calling for its removal, but stand by your previous statement, I find that a truly horrifying position, partiuclarly since Leviticus claims absolute direct divine inspiration. Thus it is an outright propagandist lie, but you think it should still be considered part of the christian canon of Scripture? most troubling indeed. But I don't think that's what yo are calling for, I think you are adovcating a de facto removal or it for the reasons previously outlined. I am fully willing to admit that Leviticus makes me uncomfortable, and that this discomfort is a good thing, but rather than leave it in that state, or resolve it by ignoring it, I advocate looking more closely at the text/context/etc.
In conclusion, I have demonstrated that I am not as ignorant as you presume, but you have failed to show that you are, in fact, just as arrogant as I originally suggested. If you want to advocate for a new reading of leviticus that is one thing, but to advocate for it being expunged is lazy, presumptuous, and arrogant. If, however, you actually engage in the arduous task of exegesis and cultural examination and still find an impasse, then one can either humbly admit that one does not have the answer to an apparent disparity, change positions, or, as a last resort, advocate for ignoring the text. I suspect you are ill-equipped for this exercise though, so I would be hesitant to vest you with such authority. But you ARE arrogant, so you'll probably go on a diatribe, tell me I don't know what I speak of, and try to prove to everyone that if someone disagrees with you, not only must they be wrong and you be right (perish the thought you could ever be wrong or hasty in a decision), but you must demonstrate how you have a superior knowledge base than they do, even when this is demonstrably false.
With that I repeat:
Oh the arrogance of it all; such astounding arrogance.
I see something happened to part 1, allow me to recreate this part of the response as best I can, or at least in a semi-punctiliar form:
ReplyDelete1) you assume I am a full blown inerrantist without knowing me, admittedly this is a warranted assumption, but a mistaken one nonetheless.
2) I have reasons for remaining anonymous in my web presence which are irrelevant to this discussion, nice ad hominem though. You also claim I set up a straw man while setting up your own
3) Re: the non-apocryphal texts. The criteria for canonicity is either, for RCC and EOCs, the authority of the church (which is greater) or, for some RCC and EOCs but all protestants, because it meets certain criteria: 1) It has reasonable historical veracity (unfortunately this is where the Apocalypse of Peter fell short, as everyone knew it was not written by Peter) 2) For the OT, it is those scriptures accepted by the Hebrews/Judaic religion, specifically at the Council of Jamnia 3) for the NT, it has either direct apostolicity (written by an apostle) or written by the next generation who were disciple by an apostle (possible the Timothy epistles and Revelation, definitely 2 of the Gospels and probably Hebrews) and 4) They should not contradict other sections of accepted Scripture (this means first the Hebrew bible, and second those parts of absolutely known apostolicity (i.e. John was well known). Unfortunately the gnostic Scriptures are written far too late to meet many of these criteria and all fail to meet criteria 4). Also, the council of Nicea, despite Dan Brown’s suggestion, had nothing to do with determining Scripture, but was focused on the Arian controversy. I think you are referring to the second council of Chalcedon built, in part, upon the Eusebian Letter.
4) Re: the apocryphal texts (your term). The correct term, to avoid insulting other Christians, is deutero-canonical texts. This includes the first 2 maccabees, Bel and the Dragon, the Lilith stories (which you mention separately) and the introduction and ending of Esther as well as other stand alone books. As the name implies, the deutero-canon has a secondary authority and is not absolute. Also the deutero-canon of the EOCs differs from that of the RCC. Finally, Martin Luther did not alone decide to axe them (if he had his way there would be no James or Apocalypse of John) but did lead a reasoned effort to not include them because: a) if they have no real authority (i.e. the rest of the canon always trumps the deutero-canon) why are they needed, b) there are no (and have been no) early Hebrew sources (in fact it appears, from the language, they were only written in Greek) and c) the Hebrews, towards whom Luther was initially favourably disposed, do not accept them as anything other than interesting stories.
5) Re: the Welhausen-Greisbach hypothesis (which I assume you are referring to in Genesis). 1st you neglect to mention the Elohist (there are 3 in Genesis, Jahwist, Priestly, and Elohist; though according to Greisbach there are also the JE and JP sources). 2nd, this assumes the matter is settled, which it is certainly not (still the debate among well-researched scholarship continues, and the trend has been away from it). 3rd, you fail to account for the work of B.S. Childs and, moreso, his students who look to the final form as the only one which is important. A simplified way to understand this is that since Jesus accepted this final form so should we. Though some would go further to present day. Now, laying these two aside, even if the JEP sources were “slapped together” by a redactor, this does not negate regarding the work of this redactor as inspired, nor the finished product as authoritative.
1) Since the original rant was inspired by inerrancy, further expounding on that theme in the face of criticism is hardly unwarranted.
ReplyDelete***
2) An ad hominen is a logical fallacy whereby one seeks to disprove an argument by disparaging its source. It's often confused with ANY disparagement, but this is a mistake.
Example 1) Deepak Chopra is an idiot, THEREFORE he is wrong.
Example 2) Deepak Chopra is wrong, AND he is an idiot.
Ex 1 is an ad hominem, ex 2 is not. The barb by which I replied to your 'thank you' falls under the second category.
***
"I have reasons for remaining anonymous in my web presence which are irrelevant to this discussion"
Well now you have me intrigued. At first, I had about three different ideas who you were, but you're not the first because you can form coherent sentences; you're not the first or second because you actually know things; and you're not the third because you're fuzzy on the meaning of 'ad hominem' and peculiarly insistent on dealing with what you insist I must mean rather than what I have actually said.
3+4) So what? You categorically claimed that nothing got the axe. Listing a bunch of stuff that did isn't really helping your case. And if even if got the axe in the process of canonization rather than later, you're still looking at an exclusionary principle which your comment seems to deny. And even then the whole idea of cutting is, in the first place, a phantom of your imagination.
***
5) "A simplified way to understand this is that since Jesus accepted this final form so should we."
I really just don't recall Jesus ever mentioning the textual exegesis of Genesis. Besides which, the idea that there are disputes about its nature doesn't undercut the point that I was making in the least.
***
"Finally, you seem to be in a bit of denial about what you are calling for. Referring to the book of Leviticus as "HORRIFYING NEAR-EASTERN BULLSHIT" is tantamount to calling for its removal. ... You have, by your original post, argued that it be cut"
ReplyDeleteThe repeated assertion that I mean X when in fact I have never said X, nor implied X, nor believed X, and in fact am fully prepared to argue against and denounce X (it's rather important to keep Leviticus around as a record of an evolving conception of God) is rather tedious. The repeated assertions that this is not a strawman, as well as the repeated attempts at demolishing said strawman, are equally tedious.
***
"If you are not calling for its removal, but stand by your previous statement, I find that a truly horrifying position, particularly since Leviticus claims absolute direct divine inspiration."
Consider the sentence:
"God appeared to me just now and told me that murder is wrong and slavery is okay."
Do you think murder is okay because God didn't actually tell me to say this? Do we accept slavery, or inspiration, because murder really is is wrong? Do we reject the sentence as a record of my conception, thought, and argument and delete it from our memories just because of the erroneous claim of revelation? Of course not!
I've addressed this point before, so to quote myself: It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that a book cannot be right on some points and wrong on others.
***
"I think you are adovcating a de facto removal"
Please make up your mind about what positions, exactly, you are erroneously ascribing to me. An actual 'expunging', as you later write? Or just the 'de fact removal' seen here?
***
"I have demonstrated that I am not as ignorant as you presume"
Your comment to which I replied is pretty well contradicted by the information that you presented here, so when you made it, I naturally assumed you were in ignorance thereof. Mea culpa.
***
"you have failed to show that you are, in fact, just as arrogant as I originally suggested"
um ... thanks?
***
"If you want to advocate for a new reading of leviticus that is one thing, but to advocate for it being expunged is lazy, presumptuous, and arrogant."
Good thing I didn't. But seriously: if you want to keep arguing with your weird notion of what you think I ought to have said based on what you think I ought to believe, please do so someplace other than my blog.
***
"engage in the arduous task of exegesis and cultural examination"
Just because I needed a little scream therapy in light of repeated dealings with a bunch of genocidal asshats (should have just blocked the last one--my mistake) doesn't mean that I haven't done the heavy lifting of thinking this through. In fact, it was a rather excruciating process requiring some years and no small amount of anguish. I've even written about it on this very blog a few entries down.
***
"so you'll probably go on a diatribe, tell me I don't know what I speak of, and ... you must demonstrate how you have a superior knowledge base"
Do yourself a favor and reread your 1000+ word rant in light of that statement.
hmmm...tedious indeed.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to be quick this time
2) The point was you were invoking an implied ad hominem. Even though you never said my claim should be dismissed b/c I don't reveal my identity, you made a remark about it implying (essentially) that if my remark were any good I would stand by it. It wasn't an outright ad hominem, but neither is my argument a straw man.
3-4 are meant to demonstrate these books weren't arbitrarily cut. In fact, the argument by the protestants is that books outside of their canon were never really canonical in the first place
5) Way to get hung up on a minor aside. The main argument still stands. The fact is Jesus accepted its canonicity as is by quoting from the book (which was well extant in a form at least strikingly similar to our own). As far as the debate still raging, I was pointing out a) you cannot assume JEDP is the only valid theory, and in fact the general trend is to reject JEDP and b) even if JEDP is true the redactor could be considered inspired (the argument still stands)
Re: part 2
Admittedly there is a bit of rhetoric here (you use quite a bit yourself). Here's the point. Many protestants still argue that the deutero-canon should be kept around and studied as part of the progressive revelation of God. Why then should Leviticus not be relegated to that status if it has no real authority other than information. Besides, your post argues that it in no way reveals anything about God.
"um ... thanks?"
Ok I forgot the "not." It should read "not just as arrogant." This is my real beef with the post. It's the arrogance. Granted, I'm pretty pissed at the arrogance of those who say "God hates Fags" but all arrogance pisses me off.
"In fact, it was a rather excruciating process requiring some years and no small amount of anguish."
Alright, I know it's a little unfair to request that all those who wish to engage in this debate have extensive training in exegesis/theology/etc. I retract this point.
"Do yourself a favor and reread your 1000+ word rant in light of that statement"
The point was not the length, it was my presumption that you would attack me. I was mistaken as your response was a little more mellow than I expected. I apologize.
In the end, I really just think it's arrogant to simply declare that Leviticus is not inspired. I think it a mistake to not "live with the tension" (I can't remember who I'm quoting), until it is resolved. Christians have long done so by accepted all of the Torah as fully inspired, while not always knowing what to make of certain aspects of it that are not explicitly addressed in the NT.
Honestly, it seems that the real trouble are passages in the NT that seem to (on the surface) decry homosexuality as a sin. In particular Romans 1, though Acts 15, which seems to enforce the "sexual behaviour" laws as still applicable should also be addressed. As well as the listing of sins that both Paul and John (in Revelation) give, though if the other two passages can be resolved these should follow that methodology. Here's my thing. People used passages that seemed advocated for slavery and the oppression of women to advance these causes. Current biblical exegesis, for the most part (even among evangelicals), is able to look at these passages and see them as subverting slavery and giving women additional roles in the church. Furthermore, this now seems like the obvious reading for most non-fundamentalists. I think that the passages about homosexuality might be eventually seen in the same light. Maybe I'm just too optimistic.
Ignoring the details and focusing on the essential:
ReplyDelete"Why then should Leviticus not be relegated to that status if it has no real authority other than information"?
That's the question that you should have started with; as it was, I think, you just assumed that I had already gone there.
The answer would very much depend on how one views canon. I view it as a sort of fossil record of the evolution of the conception of God. As such, I would have no real issues with the inclusion of much (not all, mind you) that is currently excluded, and I see no particular reason for giving Leviticus the boot, though its misuse remains highly regrettable.
***
"In the end, I really just think it's arrogant to simply declare that Leviticus is not inspired."
More arrogant or less arrogant than your rejection (I'm assuming) of similar claims made by Muslims about the Koran?
I'm merely stating (albeit angrily) about the Christian scriptures what most Christians believe about the scriptures of every other religion except their own.
What's so arrogant about that?
Look at it this way: imagine you had a Hindu "friend" who kept saying that Ganesha's holy will expressed in his scriptures was for all the Frenchies (his words, not mine) to be killed, and you tried to argue with him from within a Hindu perspective because he would find that argument persuasive. However, finally sick of his continued intransigence, you got on your blog and screamed something to the effect of 'Ganesha didn't really say any of that crap--it was just some mystic's opium-fueled fever dream!'
Would that make you arrogant?
There was a woman in a church that I used to attend who would often ask to stand and read some truly awful poetry that she claimed had come to her directly from God. Was I arrogant for disagreeing with her assessment?
I think not. On the contrary, I hold that it was she who was committing an act of supreme and incomparable arrogance in claiming to be the very mouthpiece of God.