SCOTUS rules in favor of independent redistricting

[*michaelsean*]

(07-01-2015, 08:11 PM)Harmening Wrote: These restrictions, which come from the Book of Leviticus, have no barring on life in the 21st century. People who read the Bible and just accept everything word for word miss the point of the books that make it up. It's not enough to know WHAT Leviticus says. You should ask yourself WHY it says it.
Leviticus is interesting, and quite useful, from an academic standpoint. It gives us a peak into a mindset and lifestyle of pre-Common Era/AD Judeans, a culture that's long-since vanished. As a guide for living in the contemporary world? That's just silly. It would be like replacing the criminal code with the Code of Hammurabi. Being historically significant doesn't make it applicable to the times we're living in.

So let's try to understand Leviticus. You have a small tribe of Jews in the middle of the desert. Surrounded by enemies on all sides. Survival is going to be the community's top priority. So shellfish? Out. Why? Well shellfish eat a lot of bacteria, and if you don't cook them right eating them can be deadly. Same with pigs, actually. So they're out too. Homosexuality? Communal survival starts with the next generation. So be fruitful and multiply. Any sexual activity that can't result in pregnancy is going to be discouraged.
Leviticus is a guide for communal survival in a harsh environment in the ancient world. It is not a timeless code of conduct.

Now some might ask "well what about condemnations of homosexuality outside of Leviticus?" Sodom and Gomorrah are prime examples. That's a case where G-d destroyed two entire cities because of homosexuality! Except He didn't.
It's a common misconception that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. They weren't. G-d destroyed them because their populaces were jerks who turned strangers away.
The Bible, perhaps sensing that some people might take the wrong message from the Sodom and Gomorrah story, is kind enough to clarify.

Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

So now, if you're a Christian, that just leaves Paul as the one carrying the anti-homosexual message. Except even he agrees that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality.

Hebrews 13:2
"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it."

That's in clear reference to the Sodom and Gomorrah story where Lot, the nephew of Abraham, is living in Sodom. Lot is visited by angels disguised as men, and they stay in his house. The people of Sodom, being jerks, don't like that he's letting strangers stay with him and demand they leave.

Now if you're still determined to harp on the homosexual thing, yes. Paul makes it clear elsewhere that homosexuality is supposedly a sin. Except...Jesus doesn't. Jesus never mentions homosexuality. At least not directly...

Matthew 19:11-12
“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

That's from Jesus. And the word we must concern ourselves with is "eunuch." Today it has a very specific meaning. A man who has been castrated. Back in 1st century Judea though? It had a broader meaning. It referred to any man who didn't sleep with women and, in fact, was known to be used in reference to homosexuals.
So when Jesus talks about "eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others" he refers to men who have been castrated. "[E]unuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" are the priests who practised celibacy.
And "eunuchs who have been so from birth"? Men born without the desire to sleep with women. Spoken in a time when "eunuch" was a common term for a gay man. I'm no Christian but I have to think that Jesus' own words trumps Paul's when it comes to what qualifies as a sin or not.

Another thread perhaps?