Transcription
I'm questioning my faith in Christianity right now due to three main factors.
All right, I'm Christian. Let's see if I can help.
All right, let's see it.
This all started because one of my pastors mentioned Leviticus when he was mentioning why homosexuality is a sin. Now, Leviticus also mentions that it's an abomination to eat shellfish, to wear mixed clothing, and to work at all on the Sabbath.
Okay. Yes, certain laws from the Old Testament do not need to be followed by us today, but certain ones do. So, how do we know which ones we need to follow and which ones we shouldn't follow?
It's simple. You pick and choose and then you make up a rationalization. And to the degree a community decides that that rationalization is authoritative, then people are intuitively incentivized to defend it. Because when you look in the New Testament, you see some authors saying, "No, all of the laws continue to apply." As with the Gospel of Matthew and probably a couple of others, you see others saying, "No, none of them apply." And then you see still others saying, "We're going to whittle it down to these four as we see explicitly in Acts 20." Yet none of those perspectives hold anymore because we've decided those didn't work for the particular set of laws that we have picked and chosen. And so we have to come up with our own rationalization. And so this video is going to be an example of picking and choosing and then making up a rationalization. Now this content creator did not make up this rationalization. This content creator is just repeating stuff that has been passed down for generation upon generation. But it is a madeup rationalization as we're going to see.
Well, start off in the book of Matthew where Christ tells us that it's part of the plan for him to fulfill the law. However, this doesn't mean that he's just abolishing every single part of it. So, some parts of the law are going to be fulfilled and other parts of the law are still going to apply.
So, this is a madeup rationalization. No such thing is stated anywhere in the Gospel of Matthew. In the Gospel of Matthew actually asserts that all the law remains in effect. Now, once you combine the Gospel of Matthew with the rest of the New Testament and you presuppose univocality and you have to make Matthew agree with everyone else, well, you have to impose some kind of unifying framework that can plausibly make sense of Matthew next to Luke because Matthew says, "Not one jot or tithe of the law will fail until heaven and earth pass away," which indicates as long as heaven and earth are still here, every jot and tithe of the law remains in effect. Luke says it is harder for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or tithe of the law to fail, which doesn't give us a timeline. It just says, well, that's harder because for the author of the Gospel of Luke, all the law did not remain in effect. For the author of the Gospel of Matthew, it did. Now you can't have that disagreement if you're presupposing univocality because you're presupposing inspiration and therefore you're presupposing inherency. So you have to come up with some new third thing to impose upon the two of them to get them to agree. And here this content creator is repeating this notion that it's a mixed bag that some go away some stay in effect. And that is absolutely not what's going on in the Gospel of Matthew.
Because they are basic morality.
So here we're introducing this notion of a distinction between a moral law and then we have the ceremonial or ritual law. And then later on we had a third category added the civic law. Now this is not a distinction that holds throughout the entire Bible. It's not a distinction that holds throughout the entire New Testament. It's not a distinction that holds throughout the entire Hebrew Bible. And in addition, some of the stuff that was gotten rid of was absolutely asserted to be moral law in the Hebrew Bible. And some of the stuff that we maintained is absolutely not moral law. So for instance, the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus quite explicitly assert that you must continue to tithe. But that's not a moral law. Additionally, according to Leviticus 18 and 20, embedded within those passages telling you not to engage in incest and bestiality and not to have men sexually penetrating other men, you have another abomination listed, and that is sex with a menstruating woman. That is considered a moral law to the degree that we can identify anything as a moral law in the Hebrew Bible. And that's not a problem anymore. That was basic morality for them, not for us. Because really, it's just about whatever we want because we're picking and choosing. And when you look at the different ways that people divide up the moral versus the ceremonial or the moral versus the ceremonial versus the civic, the things shake out into different categories every time. And once again, none of this is prescribed anywhere in the Bible, much less categorized. In other words, we are the ones who are deciding, oh, that's moral. Oh, that's ceremonial. Oh, that's civic. We are picking and choosing because that's absolutely inevitable because the Bible presents absolutely no instructions whatsoever for how to decide what gets to stay and what's got to go. And to the degree that any author did make a suggestion about something staying or going, it doesn't agree with what this content creator is saying, it doesn't agree with what we ultimately settled on. And it doesn't agree with other parts of the Bible. As I've already said, Matthew said everything stays. Paul says everything goes. Acts 20 says everything goes but these four things. And we've gotten rid of all of that. We said, "No, we'll take care of it ourselves. We'll pick and choose ourselves."
For example, homosexuality is called an abomination in the book of Leviticus, which is in the Old Testament. Then Christ comes and fulfills the law. But the New Testament still tells us that homosexuality is an abomination, meaning that it is still a sin even though Christ fulfilled the law.
So, a whole host of problems here, and I'm going to start with one that I don't think this content creator is aware of or cares about, but is particularly harmful, and that is the use of the term homosexuality to refer to anything that is discussed in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Because in modern English, the word homosexuality has two senses. There's one majority sense which is what is intended the overwhelming majority of the time and then there is a minority sense which is understood less of the time. Now the majority sense is a reference to a homosexual orientation, people who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, and so that can refer to sexual activity that is same-sex oriented or it can just refer to same-sex attraction. And then the minority sense, what it means far less, is reference to any and all same-sex activity and intercourse, whether or not it is motivated by sexual attraction that is homosexual in orientation. So if you're not clarifying what sense you mean, then the majority of people are going to think you're talking about the main sense, a homosexual orientation. And the way we understand homosexual orientations today is utterly unrelated to any conceptual framework they had in the ancient world. They did not have any concept of homosexuality according to the primary sense in which the word is used today. Now, yes, they reasoned about what might be motivating people to pursue same-sex intercourse, and the conclusions they came to were entirely wrong and entirely unrelated to how we understand the idea of a sexual orientation today. And I'm going to explain the significance of that in a moment. But first, here's why it is harmful to talk about Leviticus and the New Testament as condemning homosexuality as an abomination. Because if you are not clarifying precisely the sense you mean, you will mislead people into thinking that Leviticus has anything at all to say about someone who might have a homosexual orientation who never acts upon it. A child who is 13, 14 years old, knows they have a homosexual orientation, has never had anything remotely approximating any kind of sexual activity whatsoever, will understand you to be referring to them as an abomination just because they have that sexual orientation. And that is incredibly harmful and an abomination in and of itself. And that has driven children to take their own lives in the past because that's what they've understood by it. And other people who are in positions of authority or influence think that's what it means. And so they preach it or they teach it in their home or they try to convince other people to make legislation about it and things like that. So that's phenomenally stupid and phenomenally harmful. And I don't think this content creator has considered that before. But then again, Leviticus 18 and 20 are not condemning any and all homosexual activity. They are prohibiting a man from taking the insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse. So it's not even about all same-sex intercourse. It's not even about all male same-sex intercourse. It's about a man taking the insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse. And scholars have been debating for a long time, do we think this might have included intercrural intercourse? We're not sure. We can't say that it does because what mainly seems to be at issue here is the violation of a man's position at the pinnacle of a hierarchy of domination and penetration. And so the main issue was emasculating, feminizing, subjugating, subordinating a man who is supposed to be at the top of that pinnacle. So, Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are about a very specific type of sexual act between two very specific partners. And you can look throughout the entire Hebrew Bible, you will never find any condemnation whatsoever of female same-sex intercourse, and they had plenty of opportunities. In fact, immediately after condemning a man taking the insertive role in an act of male same-sex intercourse with another man, they condemn bestiality and they say, "Oh, by the way, this applies to women, too." So they are capable of doing that and they do not do it when it comes to same-sex intercourse. So Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 don't condemn female same-sex intercourse as an abomination. Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is that found. So when you say, "Well, look at Paul. He does it, too." No, he doesn't. Paul adds something to what's in Leviticus. And if we take seriously the fact that Leviticus does not condemn female same-sex intercourse, the problem is obviously not just same-sex intercourse in and of itself. There's something else going on. And a lot of scholars have tried to figure out what precisely is at issue that would exempt female same-sex intercourse but condemn male same-sex intercourse. And I talk about this at some length in my book. And here's a wonderful book by Thomas Kasin that you can go check out if you'd like more information on what's going on here. And this is a far more accessible book than some of the other more technical academic discussions of this issue. But no, it's not as simple as saying, well, they said it's an abomination in the Hebrew Bible, and Paul says homosexuality is an abomination as well. Because Paul also distinguishes between people who seek out the insertive role and men who seek out the receptive role. Treats them as distinct categories and there's no versatile role anywhere in the New Testament. And his rationalization of what's going on here is wrong as well. Paul has no concept of a homosexual orientation as we understand it today. And the way Paul makes sense of it is wrong. And Paul's notion in Romans that same-sex intercourse is really just an outcome of God turning people over to their baser desires if they don't adequately worship God. That's also wrong because that would mean there would be no homosexuality, no same-sex attraction, no homosexual orientations among people who were adequately and appropriately worshiping God. And if you think that's true, then you have no business talking publicly about anything related to the Bible because you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. All kinds of people who have spent their entire lives appropriately and adequately worshiping God according to the communities of which they are apart experience a homosexual orientation because it's something perfectly natural and is not a curse from God and is not an abomination and is not immoral. So no, it's not as simple as saying, well, they condemn it in Leviticus and they condemn it in Paul, too. So it's an abomination. That's remarkably sophomoric and jejune and you don't know what you're talking about. They are talking about different things there and they have rationalizations for those different things that are asinine and outdated and obviously not true. And if you're going to talk about sexual mores and your sexual ethic, Paul also says everybody should be celibate. Now, you don't have that anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Suddenly, Paul comes out of nowhere and gets to tell you, you shouldn't be having sex at all. You should only get married if you can't hack celibacy. I don't see anybody out there preaching about that. Hey, remember, you're all supposed to be celibate as long as you can hack it. Paul's sexual ethic was built on a foundation of an imminent eschaton. He thought the world was going to come to an end at any moment, which is why he suggested people not worry about procreation. People not worry about getting married. We already reject most of Paul's sexual ethic, which a lot of it is entirely unrelated to whatever was going on in the Hebrew Bible. It's an outgrowth of Greco-Roman period, Jewish philosophical conventions and mores, and you're not going to consider any of that as you sit down and try to make a video about why homosexuality is an abomination. You don't even begin to know what you're talking about.
Now, you also brought up the example of shellfish. In the Old Testament, it was sinful to eat shellfish. But now under the new covenant, Christ explicitly says that he declares all foods clean, so we don't need to follow that anymore.
I think an awful lot of scholars would disagree with you that that's what's going on in that passage, but also that passage disagrees with another part of the New Testament. In Acts 20, it explicitly prohibits eating blood. So, no, not all foods are clean, and blood is a food for a lot of societies around the world. Um, and I have a friend named Logan Williams who recently published a very persuasive paper that argues based on the Greek that this passage ought to be translated that the body renders all foods clean. In other words, the passage is talking about impure foods making the body impure. And his argument is no. Consuming foods that have become impure not because they are categorically impure but because they may have come in contact with impurity, the body renders those foods clean. The body cleanses those foods of those ritual impurities. So eating something that may have come into contact with ritual impurity does not transmit that ritual impurity to the body because the body renders it clean. So you can check out this paper by Logan Williams if you would like to see that argument in full and you can check out this episode of the data over dogma podcast where we talked with Logan about this paper. But again, this is an example of picking and choosing because according to Acts chapter 20, they explicitly said these are the four things that you're still required to abstain from. And two of those things had to do with food, blood, but also anything sacrificed to idols. And that disagrees with Paul who says, well, that's only a problem for the weaker Christians. And if you're around weaker Christians, yeah, you should avoid it, too. But we know that an idol is nothing in the world. And this is no big deal. So again, you've got a lot of disagreement within the Bible. There is no single standard. And the standard that is being imposed in this video and by the overwhelming majority of Christians who try to impose these standards are arbitrary. They're just picking and choosing. It's post-biblical rationalizations of why it should be the way you want it to be. But again, there is no single standard in the Bible. It is not univocal. And so, you have no choice really but to negotiate with the text and come up with your own standard if you want there to be a standard. But you should be aware that you're relying on your own authority and your own reasoning. You're not relying on anything that's actually in the biblical text.
Typically, questions about fulfillment are answered within the Bible. So, if you have a question about whether or not something still applies, you can just read the New Testament.
Nope. As I've already pointed out, you will get different answers. Again, Matthew says it all still applies. Paul says none of it still applies. Acts 20 says these four things still apply. So, no, you will not find answers in the New Testament. You will just get confused unless you accept the unifying framework that has been asserted by whatever tradition you believe to be authoritative. And again, that is post-biblical, that is arbitrary, that is the result of picking and choosing and rationalizing.
Now, for the ones that aren't mentioned, you have to go to the Catholic Church, the one that Jesus set up. Because it says in the Bible, the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
We don't need to get into all of the many problems with trying to understand the Bible to be referring to the Catholic Church specifically, but um, yeah, again, this would just be post-biblical picking, choosing, and rationalizing.
Now, you brought up a couple other very good points. So let's hear those too.
Timothy, it mentions that women cannot have authority over men. They can't teach in churches or even speak in church. Yet we all have women pastors now. And obviously that's just transformation. It's cultural progression. But then if you can apply a cultural progression lens to that, what can you not apply a cultural progression lens to?
Well, that's sort of the thing. What is said in the New Testament goes and we should not apply progressive ideologies to it.
As we've already seen, it is not what is said in the New Testament that goes. What goes is whatever unifying framework our community has agreed upon despite what is said in the New Testament. We've already pointed out we actually have multiple different perspectives on how to engage with the law of Moses in the New Testament diametrically opposed directly contradictory statements. And we have imposed a unifying framework upon them to make sense of them to harmonize them. And it is that unifying framework that goes that is why we don't believe that slavery is okay anymore. That is a progressive lens unifying framework that we've imposed upon the text and you've accepted the rationalization that has come out of the imposition of that progressive lens because it is all about the unifying framework. It's not about what's actually in the text.
You brought up the example of female pastors and how some Protestant churches have female pastors. However, the Catholic Church has never had a female priest because the New Testament says that's not okay.
The New Testament says there were female apostles. And the only parts of the New Testament that say that's not okay are the parts that were written by somebody lying about being Paul who was writing decades after Paul's death. So again, you're not concerned with what's actually in the text because the text has it both ways. You have to impose a unifying framework and decide which way is going to be given priority by you and your authority and which way is going to be renegotiated away. And you have very clearly sided with agreeing with the liar and rejecting Paul. And you are welcome to not like that as much as you want. And you are welcome to feel like it's inappropriate for me to say that the author of the pastoral epistles was lying about being Paul. But that's precisely what they were doing. They were trying to arrogate Paul's authority to change the standards and the values to overrule what Paul was saying. They were lying.
A big one is tithing. Now tithing is only mentioned in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament at all. Now, 90% of Old Testament laws are ridiculous and completely disregarded by churches. They seem to harp on this extremely hard that this is still applicable because it pays them.
You claimed that tithing is only mentioned in the Old Testament, but that isn't true. God commands us in the New Testament multiple times that we must give. Now, Christ fulfilled the part of tithing where there is a set amount that you have to give. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't tithe at all, especially because it's repeated in the New Testament. So those references to giving are not necessarily references to tithing. And there is no part of the New Testament where Jesus said, "Oh, we're still going to tithe. I'm just taking away the amount that you're supposed to tithe." As I've already pointed out in the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus say explicitly that you should not leave the tithing undone. You should continue to tithe and doesn't qualify it in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. That's the only explicit reference to tithing in the New Testament. So if we're following Jesus, tithing has never gone away. It has never been changed. But you got other parts of the New Testament that are going to disagree somewhat with that. But this content creator's presentation of the renegotiated understanding of tithing that they have accepted based on the imposition of the unifying framework that serves the needs of the particular community that they hold up as authoritative has resulted in this notion that Jesus said we're still going to tithe. We're just going to get rid of this set amount which is not found anywhere in the New Testament.
Pretty much any question that you have about the Bible can be answered by the Catholic Church because we are the ones that were set up by Christ. God bless. Um, this content creator doesn't begin to have the foggiest idea what he's talking about. I've demonstrated that many times in the past. And to continue to treat homosexuality as an abomination is phenomenally harmful and stupid. And you need to grow the hell up and do so much better.