Basically Jesus and nerd stuff.

"What if it's disabled?" You say this to an autistic woman. I am married, deeply loved and in love, and have a healthy son. My father is autistic. My brother is an autistic game designer, who married a lawyer-in-training with only one arm. You dare imply that our lives are not worth living?

My brother's prenatal tests suggested potential Downs Syndrome. Same with my son. Abortion was presented as an option in both cases, and denied furiously. Neither were born with Downs. Not that that would have mattered, as they would have been loved anyway, but the tests were wrong. The excuse of potential disability was used to try to murder my brother and my son. How many have been taken by the same, Downs or not?!

But then it hit me

It’s also pride month.

A month where many people celebrate sin….

The one verse that says something about homosexuality? “Man shall not lay with man”? It’s misinterpreted, I’ve gotten multiple pastors to admit that, it’s supposed to be “man shall not lay with boy”. Pedophilia, not homosexuality.

That being said, Gods whole point all the time is love. Love thu neighbor. Embrace sinners. Love. Love is love is love. Why would a God that tells us to love, be against love?

I appreciate your religion, and I appreciate your prayers. But they are unnecessary. I am not going to Hell, and I never was. Love is not, and never will be, a sin.

Can’t eat shrimp.

Can’t wear mixed fabrics.

Can’t get a divorce.

Just saying, if you’re gonna be nit picky about following the Bible’s rules, either follow all of them or let people live their lives. You can’t just go through the Bible and pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. That wasn’t the disciplines intention.

also

“Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), harvest the corners of fields (Lev. 19:9), and that homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).  If homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says so, then shouldn’t we also obey the other laws about shellfish, seed, fabrics, and fields because that is in Leviticus as well?  If not, then why not?  Why would Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow?

First of all, not all of Leviticus is written to everyone.  There were abominations that applied only to the Jews such as eating shellfish, rabbit, and pork, etc., which were things that typologically represented purity before the Lord.  We know this because God says, “Speak to the sons of Israel saying…”  He gives instructions to the Israelites, not to the rest of the nations.

Here is a list of instances when the occurrence of the phrase “Speak to the Sons of Israel saying…” is found in Leviticus, the book under consideration.

Lev. 4:2, atonement for unintentional sins

Lev. 7:23, don’t eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat

Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord

Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat

Lev. 12:2, uncleanness after giving birth

Lev. 23:24, rest on 1st day of 7th month

Lev. 23:34, Feast of Booths on 15th day of 7th month

Lev. 24:15, the one cursing God will bear his sin

So, we can see a host of things that dealt only with Israel.

However, there are abominations that did not apply only to Israel, but to everyone else also.  Again, let’s look at Leviticus.

Lev. 18:22-30, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled 25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.’”

What abominations is Lev. 18:22-30 speaking of?  Contextually, chapter 17 is about blood atonement procedures, so that is for Israel, not for everyone.  In Chapter 18 God says to Israel, “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you,” (Lev. 18:3).  So, now instead of it applying only to Israel, God mentions things that are done by Egypt and the land of Canaan.  What were the things those nations did?  The chapter contains the following.

Lev. 18:6-18, don’t uncover the nakedness of various relatives.

Lev. 18:19, don’t have sexual relations with woman on her period

Lev. 18:20, don’t have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife

Lev. 18:21, don’t offer children to Molech

Lev. 18:22, don’t lie with a male as with a female

Lev. 18:23 don’t have intercourse with animals.

So, we see there are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites, and there are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well.  It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed.  It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.  Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

Three divisions of the Law in Leviticus

A common mistake made by homosexual proponents when discussing the Old Testament, in particular, Leviticus, is the failure to understand the three main divisions of the Law:  civil, ceremonial, and moral.  This is important because the civil and ceremonial law are not in effect now, but the moral law is.  Let’s take a look at these divisions within the book of Leviticus since it is the book under examination.

Civil - Expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government

Ceremonial - Expired with the fulfillment of priestly work of Christ (Matt. 3:15)

Moral - No Expiration because it is based on God’s character.  "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,“ (Lev. 19:2)

Justice practices (Lev. 24:17-23)

Law of property redemption (Lev. 25)

Be just with the poor, (Lev. 19:15)

Do not hate in your heart (Lev. 19:17)

Retain just scales in commerce (Lev. 19:35f)

Robbery, extortion, false witness, and restitution (Lev. 6:1-7)

Various sacrificial offerings for sin (Lev. 1,2,3,4,5,6)

Priestly duties (Lev. 7:1-37)

Laws on animals for food (Lev. 11:1-47)

Cleaning house of leper (Lev. 14:33-57)

Law of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-28;17:1-16)

Regulations for Priests (Lev. 21,22)

Festivals (Lev. 23:1-25)

Do not steal or lie (Lev. 19:11)

Do not oppress your neighbor (Lev. 19:13)

No idolatry (Lev. 26:1-13)

Don’t sacrifice children to Molech (Lev. 20:1-5)

Don’t commit adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc. (Lev. 20:9-21)

You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category.  In addition, as stated earlier, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites.  Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial.  Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said: “speak to the sons of Israel saying…”  These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply to us today.

Should we also dismiss the commands not to lie, steal, or commit adultery?

If, as some argue, we are not under the Law and therefore we can dismiss Leviticus along with its clear condemnation of homosexuality, then shouldn’t we also dismiss Levitical teachings that warn against lying (Lev. 19:11), theft (Lev. 19:13), bearing false witness (Lev. 19:16), hating your fellow man (Lev. 19:17), exacting vengeance (Lev. 19:18), avoiding unjust balances (Lev. 19:36), sacrificing children (Lev. 20:1-5), committing adultery (Lev. 20:10), committing incest (Lev. 20:11-14), and the practice of bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16)?  Of course not.

Furthermore, if we are to basically dump the book of Leviticus because it is Old Testament law, then why are parts of Leviticus quoted in the New Testament as still being valid?

          LeviticusNew Testament

Lev. 19:2, “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.”

1 Pet. 1:16, “because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”“

Lev. 19:18, ”“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.”

Matt. 22:39, “The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”“

Lev. 26:12, “I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.”

2 Cor. 6:16, “Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”“

Are we to dismiss Leviticus along with the idea of being holy, of loving our neighbor, and that God will walk among us in the person of Jesus?  Of course not.  To do so by saying we are not under the Law displays deep theological ignorance and exegetical prejudice. There are certainly aspects of Leviticus which are no longer applicable to us today (civil and ceremonial), but there are other parts that still are, as is stated above in the moral aspect of the Law that was intended as admonitions not just against Israel but the other nations as well.

Finally, when we see that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality, it is clear that we cannot just dismiss Leviticus as a whole along with its moral regulations on sexual activity.  Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Leviticus and its condemnation cannot be dismissed by saying we are no longer under Old Testament Law.”

Marriage is an image of God’s relationship with the Church. The husband is to love and protect his wife as an image of how God loves and protects His church, and the wife is to love and submit to her husband as the church loves and submits to God. This is not a picture that can function in the same way in a homosexual relationship.

Genesis says man and woman should leave their families and become one flesh–sexual relations are for a married couple only. A number of the verses above touch on that, it was considered adultery for someone to sleep with anyone other than their spouse. Paul in 1 Corinthians said that if one was consumed with passion then it was better to marry so he doesn’t sin.

Looking at the Bible as a whole, it paints a pretty clear picture of the role of sex and marriage. Sex is a gift to a married couple to strength their marriage and to produce children. And a married couple is a man and a woman who point towards the union between God and the church. Anything else is not God’s design, and thus a sin.

And yes, this includes causal sex outside of marriage. This includes things such as divorce (though there are situations like unfaithfulness and abuse that have grounds for this). This includes things such as homosexual relationships.

New mothers should receive at least 18-24 months of maternity leave during which they should be paid in full. If they want to become stay-at-home mothers, they should receive at least minimum wage, if not more.

I do believe that among all systems, capitalism is the only one that respects freedom. However, we have to admit that it is mostly used in immoral ways nowadays. It reminds me of communism (i.e. people are treated as machines, the notion that everyone is replaceable is everywhere etc).

I agree that one income should be enough to support a whole family but at the same time I also support women being financially independent. Also, if one income is enough then what will happen to the family if that income is gone e.g. cause of the father's unemployment, inability to work due to accident or illness, or death?

Unfortunately, many men today do view women as their property. What will happen to those women?

Regarding who is gonna pay the women, I don't see why it's wrong if the government does so. I mean, there are jobs out there paid by the government. If a right wing government truly supports and promotes traditional families in theory, they should do so in action too. If a left wing government truly supports women's rights in theory, they should show that support in action too.

The issue is that while raising children is work, it shouldn't be treated as employment. We should not be paying people a government salary to raise their own children. It is not the government's responsibility (which would really be the taxypayer's burden) to compensate parents for parenting. Parents are supposed to take care of their children, and that relationship should not be viewed through the lens of employer and employee.

In a capitalist society, employment is the result of a voluntary agreement. Someone needs a job done, and another person agrees to do that job in exchange for compensation. Most people are not paid by the government, and I see no reason why we should start lobbying for the government to pay stay at home parents a salary. That would be an enormous expansion of government involvement in people's personal lives.

People make their own choices about whether to have children, whether to work outside the home, and whether one parent will stay home. Taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize those personal decisions. Everyone is responsible for supporting the life choices they make. I think the best way to support stay at home moms is by supporting the nuclear family structure, not by putting them on a government payroll.

And just imagine the incentives that would create. If the government started paying a salary to women who chose to stay home with their children, it would fundamentally alter the labor market. Many people would choose not to work if they could receive a government salary for staying home instead. Some would inevitably have children primarily for the financial benefit. It would create a massive additional burden on taxpayers and introduce all kinds of unintended consequences.

Small additions:

Capitalism is not "mostly used in immoral ways". What you're referring to when you say "It reminds me of communism (i.e. people are treated as machines, the notion that everyone is replaceable is everywhere etc" what you're mostly talking about is corporatism, which is more like communism than capitalism because it involves the government interfering in the free market for the benefit of a few massive corporations. The "too big to fail" phenomenon is one part of this, where the government bails out failing corporations that should naturally go out of business. Capitalism itself is morally neutral.

As for the rest, the people I had in mind was those who are genuine and not those who exploit the system. I should have clarified this in my post so, again, my bad. I still wonder though what could be done for those who don't intend to exploit the system? as I said to anamericangirl, I don't like the government interfering into our personal lives either, so I thought about my solutions as the necessary evil. But how can families who struggle to survive with one salary and don't intend to exploit the system be supported? I'm thinking of myself for example, I would love to take the tradwife route but the lack of support is one of the reasons I hesitate.

@m00nxtal I liked what you suggested. Far better than government interfering to our lives.

A family with only one breadwinner can more easily relocate, and thus can look for new job opportunities much far away. A family where one person is holding a job and one person needs to find a new job has to limit the search to places close to the workplace of the other partner.

A family where the lone breadwinner loses his/her job can, in many cases, have both adults start looking for jobs. It's more likely that one out of two finds a job than that one given person finds a job.

Sure, a two-income family who could theoretically live on only one income is much better off. But how many such families do you know? The few couples I know in that situation are empty nesters who are approaching retirement. Young families with children usually live in such a way that most of their income is accounted for, with a mortgage, car loans, student loans, subscription services, sports clubs etc. If they lose one income, even if the other partner is still working, they tend to be in the red from month one.

Unemployment support and social support tends to work the same, regardless of whether the family needs support because they lost their only income, or because they lost one out of two.

that’s what Susan is

but no, we have to invent the most uninspired, surface level take on her story possible and peddle that as the big takeaway of a book series that hardly ever gives you such an on-the-nose “moral”

Actually preaches from the Bible

Sin is called what it is

Members love and serve one another

Capitalism

Feminism

Individualism

Evangelical

Woke