Homosexuality and Witchcraft

[_MrStakhanovite]

I recently posted an open letter to a Christian apologist on the issue of gay marriage, I thought I’d reproduce it here in full, since I think this line of reasoning would probably be more effective against LDS types than Reformed Baptists:

Dr. White,

I want to begin this letter with expressing my gratitude for your ministry, even though I am an unbelieving atheist with no interest in conversion, the material you’ve produced has been enormously educational for me and an eye opening experience in just how ignorant I was (and still am) of orthodox Christian theology and church history. I would also like to mention that your character and attitude when engaging others in the public arena has inspired me to elevate my own standards of personal conduct. I think your public debates and interactions with John Dominic Crossan, Mitch Pacwa, and Robert Price are fine examples of how two people can respectfully and substantively engage one another without combative rhetoric and fiery invective.


I’m writing this letter to pose a few questions to you about the issue of homosexuality, in hopes of advancing the discussion a bit further. At the outset of this, I want to state that I believe the scriptures are very clear in condemning homosexuality as an abomination to God, and that if I held a high view of scripture I would be taking a stance similar to your own. My questions to you are aimed towards a perceived inconsistency with your own position, and I’m seeking clarification in hopes of either resolving the issue or developing it further for my own studies. As you are prone to say, “Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument” I felt compelled to seek you out on this issue.

To begin with, I’d like to examine the first two passages that condemn homosexual relations (all scriptures are NRSV unless otherwise noted):

Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

(Emphasis mine)

These two passages occur within the Holiness Code, which itself is embedded in Leviticus. The broader context of these passages have to deal not only with the holiness of God, but also to holiness of his followers (something I will be returning to later). The Hebrew word often translated as holy (Hebrew: kodesh) carries the primary meaning of separation or being separated, the sacred is separated from the profane, the clean from the unclean, pure from impure, the unique from the ordinary. In the 20th chapter of Leviticus , God explicitly states that He is holy and that He has separated Israel out from the other nations to be holy (verse 26), I imagine that this passage brings to mind what Paul wrote in Ephesians chapter 1; that God chose his own before the foundations of the world to be made holy (Greek: hagias) through the work of Jesus Christ.

The underlined term abomination (Hebrew: toveah) is conceptually related to the biblical notion of holiness, an abomination is that which is disgusting because it is ruining that which should be pure, clean, or otherwise acceptable. One does not offer a sheep or ox with a physical blemish as an offering to God, because God commanded that such offerings should have no blemish, offering a blemished animal to God is an abomination (Deut 17:1), Being dishonest in your conduct towards your fellow human beings is an abomination because one’s conduct should be honest (Deut 25: 16), men and women should not wear each other’s gender specific garments because it goes against the assigned purpose of those garments and is an abomination (Deut 22:5). From the text, it seems abomination can apply to the ethical as well as the religious, for example, if an activity goes against the established God given code of conduct it is an abomination. Similarly, if an action blurs or crosses the line between the sacred and the profane, it is an abomination and unholy.

I think Paul revisits this theme in the first chapter of Romans (verses 20-28):

Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

Though the scriptures say precious little about homosexuality, they still send a pretty clear message that it is unacceptable in the eyes of God. During my studies of the texts mentioned I did stumble across a certain pattern that I found interesting, when homosexuality was condemned, witchcraft was not far behind.

For example, the punishment for homosexuality and witchcraft is the same:

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 20: 27: A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death, they shall be stoned to death, their blood is upon them.

Both condemnations homosexuality and witchcraft are immediately followed by prohibitions of bestiality:

Exodus 22:18-19: You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live. Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.

Leviticus 18:22-23: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is a perversion.

Both homosexuality and witchcraft are ascribed the status of ‘tov’eah’ and are linked to Canaanite practice:

Leviticus 20:13 and 23: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them…You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. Because they did all these things and I abhorred them.

Deuteronomy 18:10-14: No one shall be found among you who makes a son or a daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consult ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You must remain completely loyal to the LORD your God. Although these nations that you are about to dispossess do give heed to soothsayers and diviners, as for you, the LORD your God does not permit you to do so.

So this brings me to the heart of the matter, from the scriptures we can plainly see both homosexuality and witchcraft are very much alike, their practice makes one unholy in the eyes of God and is outright forbidden and this attitude was carried over into the Greek epistles of Paul, Christians don’t participate in Roman festivals because they pray to demons. Homosexuality is not more grievant than witchcraft, legislation banning both has a long history in he Western world, indeed, witchcraft was even more common and more violently suppressed than homosexuality ever was. Orthodox Christendom is unanimous in it’s condemnation of witchcraft.

Yet, from Christians we rarely hear anything about witchcraft or legislation concerning witches. Where was the Christian uproar over the governments agreement to allow Wiccan pentacles on military gravestones? Why is there no protest over Wiccans being allowed to legally marry two people? Why was there no outrage when Wiccan religious groups allowed tax exempt status like Christian Churches?

Have there been any “hate speech” laws enacted against preaching that Wicca and other forms of witchcraft are demonic and evil? Have pagan ceremonies invoking what you would consider demonic ruined marriage? If one feels like God will surely pass judgment on the United States for its growing acceptance of same sex marriage, it seems like the slow and quite embrace of witchcraft has already given cause.

As a Baptist, I’m sure you have a strong interest in the freedom of religion, do you feel two wiccans holding a marriage ceremony that would be federally recognized is protected by the constitution? If so, why cannot two gay men have a religious ceremony that is federally recognized?

If same sex marriage goes against tradition, so does allowing public acts of witchcraft, that too goes against over a thousand years of Western tradition. Both are contrary to God’s law in almost the exact same way.

This is the inconsistency I see, you seem to be very passive about witchcraft gaining wide acceptance, but have been very vocal recently about homosexuality. Why is that? Does Algo recall a show where you discussed why or why not the military should recognize and allow Witches to actively serve? I’ll have to ask him. Perhaps it is because homosexuality is such a hot topic these days, but you don’t strike me as someone who will allow the secular side frame the debate at all, nor someone who let casual acceptance of abominations go unchecked.

Any light you could shed on this would be greatly appreciate.

[_Darth J]

As a Baptist, I’m sure you have a strong interest in the freedom of religion, do you feel two wiccans holding a marriage ceremony that would be federally recognized is protected by the constitution? If so, why cannot two gay men have a religious ceremony that is federally recognized?

The probable reply would be that the Constitution specifies free exercise of religion, while it does not say anything about sexual orientation.

The response is that the Constitution specifies equal protection of law, and to then ask what the rational basis is for denying marriage to same-sex couples. In other words, what are the legal elements (not religious dogma elements) of marriage that necessitate the parties being of the opposite sex.

[_MrStakhanovite]

bumps

[_EAllusion]

Where was the Christian uproar over the governments agreement to allow Wiccan pentacles on military gravestones? ... Why was there no outrage when Wiccan religious groups allowed tax exempt status like Christian Churches?

I've seen those two and more out of the religious right. The recent funding of a pagan/wiccan/etc. stonehenge-like monument comparable to, though smaller and cheaper, than other military worship sites was characterized at the time as an attack on Christian liberty in several religious right sources I read. You would be right to argue that the protest isn't nearly to the same degree, but it is there. It wasn't even that long ago that Wiccan and pagan symbols were banned on military gravestones until the Department of Veteran Affairs backed down under threat of lawsuit.

[_sock puppet]

As a Baptist, I’m sure you have a strong interest in the freedom of religion, do you feel two wiccans holding a marriage ceremony that would be federally recognized is protected by the constitution? If so, why cannot two gay men have a religious ceremony that is federally recognized?

The probable reply would be that the Constitution specifies free exercise of religion, while it does not say anything about sexual orientation.

The response is that the Constitution specifies equal protection of law, and to then ask what the rational basis is for denying marriage to same-sex couples. In other words, what are the legal elements (not religious dogma elements) of marriage that necessitate the parties being of the opposite sex.

What Madison and Jefferson overlooked when writing the Constitution, thankfully William O Douglass added 37 years ago: a right to privacy that extends freedom regarding one's sexual reproduction, including use of contraceptives.

But then in 1987, Byron White (JFK's only appointee to the Supreme Court) wrote a decision for the Court that such privacy right did not keep the State of Georgia from making homosexual fellatio and sodomy a crime.

White's reasoning was rejected by several state legislatures that later repealed their sodomy laws and by the supreme courts of other states (holding such laws violated their state constitutions) including Georgia's supreme court in 1998.

By 2003, only 13 states' sodomy laws remained until the Supreme Court (Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, writing the majority's opinion) then ruled that Texas' state sodomy law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause (adult consensual sexual intimacy in one's home is a vital interest in liberty and privacy), overturning Byron White's weakly reasoned 1987 opinion.

Of course, in this legal mish-mash came DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996--surprisingly signed into law by Clinton). However, states refusing to recognize as married gays that want such probably helps keep gays sexually liberated, with no-strings-attached sex and numerous partners.

The funniest aspect of religious groups opposing gay marriage is that the lack of marriage probably contributes in some way to gay promiscuity. But as one of my neighbors, who lives in an 1,800 sq ft home said to me when a new, 5,400 sq ft house was being built in our neighborhood: someone the new house and its size did not make my neighbor's home one sq ft smaller. It would yet be 1,800 sq ft even after the 5,400 sq ft home was built and finished, and a family moved into it.

If the state where I live were to recognize gay marriages, it would not reduce my marriage one iota.

[_lulu]

The funniest aspect of religious groups opposing gay marriage is that the lack of marriage probably contributes in some way to gay promiscuity.

And now we've been tamed.

[_sock puppet]

The funniest aspect of religious groups opposing gay marriage is that the lack of marriage probably contributes in some way to gay promiscuity.

And now we've been tamed.

All good things come to an end, I suppose.

[_Shulem]

The funniest aspect of religious groups opposing gay marriage is that the lack of marriage probably contributes in some way to gay promiscuity.

And now we've been tamed.

Hey lulu, I have a new boyfriend and he just turned 18 last month. Yeah, I know, just call me sugar daddy. Oh well. He looks a lot like your avatar, very much like Tom Welling. He has a pierced tongue too!

My gay boy is coming to see me Monday -- I'll have four kinds of salmon ready and all kinds of good stuff. Hell yeah. I'm such a slut.

Paul O

[_lulu]

Hey lulu, I have a new boyfriend and he just turned 18 last month. Yeah, I know, just call me sugar daddy. Oh well. He looks a lot like your avatar, very much like Tom Welling. He has a pierced tongue too!

My gay boy is coming to see me Monday -- I'll have four kinds of salmon ready and all kinds of good stuff. Hell yeah. I'm such a slut.

Paul O

"The kind you can't take home to mama. Super freaky."

[_Shulem]

"The kind you can't take home to mama. Super freaky."

I swear (I never lie), my mom (age 75) knows about it and is delighted! I kid you not. It's not freaky, just a bit unusual. I'm damn lucky to be able to pull this off. It's a thrill and come tomorrow morning when I wake up I'll be 18 all over again. This is not something that very many people are able to do. You're not jealous, are you?

Paul O