Because I provide occasional hints on my Yahoo! 360 page about my beliefs -- spiritual, sociopolitical, personal, and what have you -- I'm sometimes asked candid questions about them. More often I receive confrontational and/or hostile comments. Here I hope to set everything straight. Consider it a FAQ.
But before you begin reading my missives on various issues, here are a couple of things to keep in mind:
1. The term "Christian" is always a negative word in my vocabulary. Much like the slur "nigger," innocently spawned by the Latin word for "black" and once casually accepted by whites and blacks, "Christian" has since become a slur against true Bible-believers. Just as "nigger" no longer simply means "black," because of the way it's been used over the centuries, "Christian" no longer means "Christ-like"; it has been institutionalized, particularly by the Roman Catholic Church, and is more often associated with false practitioners and hatemongers, from the Crusaders and Catholic inquisitors to Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps and, apparently, the general "Christian" public who use the Bible to justify their hatred and closed-mindedness. I resent that the term "Christian" has been so abused throughout time, and that these false people have led or pushed so many astray. I would never call myself a Christian, for to do so would be to align myself with some of the most violent and wicked criminals in human history. I prefer to call myself a Christ-follower, a Bible-believer, or a disciple of Christ. While reading my opinions, then, remember that "Christian" is, in my view, the diametric opposite of "Bible-believer" and "Christ-follower." A "Christian" in modern terms is a bad thing.
2. Any Scriptures I quote or reference are from the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible. (It is sometimes called the "Authorized" version, but this only means it was authorized by King James and not by God.) It is the most accurate translation from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts, simply because it has been altered least.
3. If you wish to address any of the points I make, feel free to e-mail me. I'm always prepared to discuss my beliefs, but I do hope that I am expressing everything clearly here. Ultimately, this is all about my personal rhetoric. If you don't like it, don't read it.
This website is hereby dedicated to God and my relationship with Him and His Word.
I define abortion negatively: it's murder, a form of genocide, generally the selfish outcome of an irresponsible act. I believe that there is no such thing as a "potential life," but that life either exists or it doesn't. A zygote or embryo -- a fertilized egg and what it eventually grows into -- is a living person. It stands to reason that if something can be killed, its growth and maturation processes halted, it is alive to begin with. Zygotes and embryos and fetuses, despite the clinical terminology designed to dehumanize them, are essentially children. A woman's body begins changing the very moment a zygote finds purchase in the walls of her uterus; these changes are, of course, intended to nourish the baby and keep him or her safe. The baby's heart develops at 4 weeks' gestation; limbs, features, movement, and reflexes are evident at 8 weeks; brain waves become measurable around 6 weeks, and the baby begins dreaming in the 8th or 9th week -- all this before some women even know they're pregnant. The bottom line is that abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human life. I believe many who approve of abortion hope to appease their consciences by thinking of it as a medical procedure to excise a lifeless mass of tissue (yet another act of irresponsibility in what appears to be a very long line of them). I find it funny, in a sad sort of way, that the people who condemn the Holy Bible as an ancient book of primitive tales are so often the same people who advocate abortion -- perhaps our most primitive tradition -- as birth control.
This being said, however, I may be described as pro-choice. The term "pro-choice" is rather vague. We only assume it applies to the abortion issue because it has, for a long time, been mentioned in association with abortion via the media. In my view, the Bible and Jesus' teachings emphasize the concept of free will: in the Old Testament Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, in the New Testament Jesus chose to allow His own sacrifice, and many other choices occur in-between; neither God nor the Adversary forces anyone to do anything. Though we may receive guidance from many sources, we still make ample mistakes, and should remain free to do so. Control is not what God had in mind when He created us. In the case of abortion -- whether it's legal or illegal, and even if vehemently against it and find it an utterly disgusting act (as I know many do) -- we should not condemn any woman no matter what choice she makes. While I disapprove, especially when abortion is used by the lazy and/or irresponsible as a means of birth control, I am appalled at some pro-lifers' penchant for violence, and for calling these women "whores" and "murderers." Pro-life activists whose repertoires include violence and/or verbal and psychological abuse cannot be Bible-believers of any sort. They can only be hypocrites, and are themselves in the process of making bad choices and mistakes.
To so-called "Christian" pro-lifers with militaristic attitudes toward abortion, I would say only this: with Jesus Christ came a new covenant and a new commandment (John 13:34), so remember it well. And to anti-Christian activists, keep in mind that everything you do and say in pursuit of your cause proves Jesus Christ correct and bolsters our faith (John 15:18-25, Matthew 5:10-12).
PRAYER/RELIGION/COMMANDMENTS IN SCHOOL/GOVERNMENT
Speaking of commandments, I think it's important to recognize that God has managed to accomodate us quite well. As the Scriptures tell us, He is eternal; He always has been and always will be. This does not, however, mean that He cannot or does not change. (Some Christians claim God doesn't or can't change, but I think that's a silly idea. It simply doesn't stand to reason that God can do anything and everything except change! He created reality as we know it, as well as countless things in this universe that we may never understand. His perpetuity and reliability are often mistaken for monotony, which only encourages further misunderstanding about Him and true Christ-followers.) On the contrary, God has accompanied humanity on every step of its journey. A long history of bad choices and mistakes -- on humanity's part, that is -- culminated in His ultimate sacrifice: I believe Jesus Christ was sent here, and chose to remain and endure, as a last-ditch effort to save us. His life was a new covenant, and His death sealed it. Having given us free will and a mortal mind, I'm sure God has always known that it would never be easy to impart His wisdom. We come closest to understanding this only when we have children and experience for ourselves their rebellion and the vast ignorance they somehow mistake for knowledge. After a series of disappointments resulting in population purges (like the Flood), God conceived that we could only understand each other if we experienced each other. And so God experienced humanity and humanity experienced God, all through Jesus Christ, our Mediator. I imagine God's frustration was swept away by Christ's hunger, thirst, emotions, and temptations. Meanwhile, Jesus gave us something visible and tangible to which we could aspire. Christ Himself was the new covenant, a new understanding between us and our Creator.
Another of the many misconceptions about the Bible is that the Ten Commandments remain consistent throughout. This is not so. Those ancient laws passed down to Moses are not the commandments Jesus bade us follow in the New Testament. Remember that with Jesus came a new covenant with the people, and His teachings reflect this. (Note Matthew 22:36-40, John 14:15 and 21, and John 15:10-12 and 17.) Jesus says His commandment for us to love one another is new -- it's His commandment, not part of God's Old Testament covenant -- and one of the two most important laws. The Ten Commandments with which we are all familiar have been distilled by Christ into these two. It makes sense that if we love God above all else that we would
1. acknowledge Him as our sole Lord;
2. never have false gods before Him;
3. never use His name in vain; and
4. remember and observe the sabbath.
It also makes sense that if we love each other as we love ourselves (which naturally requires us to love ourselves), we would definitely
5. honor (not necessarily obey) our parents;
6. refrain from killing;
7. refrain from committing adultery;
8. refrain from lying or "bearing false witness"; and
9 & 10. refrain from coveting what others have.
Christ has modified the commandments of the old covenant into two much simpler and more appealing proclamations, changing them from "thou shalt not" into "thou shalt," from negative to positive. He wants us to do something rather than not do something, which I'm sure gets more results. Interestingly, His new commandments encompass and surpass the old ones: if we love God above all, and love each other as we love ourselves, we go well beyond merely not stealing and killing; we go out of our way to be kind and understanding with each other. He discusses this Himself in Matthew 5, beginning with verse 20; He essentially redefines and respecifies the old laws.
What really confuses me about self-described Christians sometimes is that they insist on believing and doing what they're told by their families/pastors/ministers/priests/whatever. (This is also sometimes the way atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers are made: false practitioners in their families and churches mislead them.) Sadly, few seem to bother investigating Scripture for themselves, and certainly don't bother seeking guidance from God. Those who spend so much time, effort, and money fighting to keep the Ten Commandments in schools and government buildings are particularly confounding to me. To adhere so strongly to the Ten Commandments recorded in the Old Testament is essentially counter-Christian; it's more Jewish, really. It annoys me that so many so-called Christians aren't Christ-like at all, and in many cases haven't even read two consecutive Bible verses. The Ten Commandments they want to display are not Jesus Christ's laws! Furthermore, displaying ancient Judeo-Christian laws on our walls and lawns will never be as effective as inculcating them into our own laws and mores. Their symbolism is entirely meaningless in a culture that doesn't actually believe in them; it just turns them into something ritualistic or ceremonial, another brick in the monotonous wall of hypocrisy, inequality, apathy, and hardship that currently comprises our education and justice systems. To do this is, I believe, an affront to God. Even worse, by taking worship outside the home and away from the family realm, it actually encourages a breakdown in family communication. If parents frankly discussed their beliefs (and the beliefs of others) with their children at home, rather than trying to force this responsibility onto schools and government offices, I'm sure we'd have slightly better educated kids, and perhaps our courts and prisons wouldn't be overflowing with criminals. What's more, this entire concept opposes free will. I believe forcing anything like this onto anyone is an insult to other people, and to God, and is in direct violation of His Word. I don't understand how anyone could be comfortable allowing their children to be spiritually guided by schools or the government! This lack of responsibility, even when it comes to God, certainly explains a lot about what's gone wrong in our society.
Now, it's true that Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). Many Christians seem to think this means we should obey both Levitical law and Christ's new covenant. They apparently didn't read the rest of this passage, and do not understand its context. It is right after this that Jesus introduces His version of the commandments -- some of those that fall under His primary 2 -- and says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven...." (Matthew 5:19).
All this being said, however, I do think Creationism deserves a fair shake in most science classrooms. My missive on evolution and science on page 2 goes into more detail on this issue.
POLITICS AND WAR
For reasons I've already discussed, I believe politicizing religion is perhaps mankind's greatest mistake. One's spiritual/religious beliefs have nothing to do with one's leadership capabilities. A greater emphasis should be placed on ethics and practice, which are much easier to discern and much more universally agreed-upon than spirituality or religion. (Those ethics and practices may be guided by certain religious or spiritual beliefs, but it is not necessary for the public to know the details.) George W. Bush's agenda is particularly despicable, I think: for him Christianity is a tool for manipulating the Christian public -- that is, people who think they're Christian but probably aren't at all Christ-like. He is no better than the Islamic fundamentalists who have declared jihad upon the West; he is actually much worse, for he has involved the entire United States and our allies in our own [un]holy war upon the vague and ubiquitous concept of terror. (For us, however, this amounts to yet another war upon dark-skinned people perpetrated by light-skinned people who believe only in their ethnocentric view of the world.) Just as real Muslims have denounced terrorists who use Islam as their justification for war, real Bible-believers denounce George W. Bush and his ilk as warmongers. True Christianity can never be used to justify any sort of violence, just as true Islam cannot. Those who believe otherwise have been duped by their real masters -- someone other than God, for certain -- and are apparently content to remain ignorant. In this way George W. Bush and his supporters have enthusiastically declared war not only on terrorism and Osama bin Laden, but also on true Christianity and Christians.
Many opponents of Christianity -- who, like many so-called Christians, have clearly never read much of the Bible for themselves -- claim both Judaism and Christianity advocate war. This is demonstrably false. It's true that war was often viewed as an unfortunate necessity in the Old Testament, when the Israelites were striving to establish themselves as a nation and their endeavors were supported and encouraged by God. However, war is no longer necessary in most instances, and Jesus' message was one of love and pacifism (Matthew 5:43-45).
Additionally, I believe aligning certain political parties with certain religions (like the Republicans with Christian fundamentalism and conservatism) is immoral. This is another way for false Christians to impede free will and manipulate voters, just as the Democratic party has deliberately set itself apart from Republicans and refuses to work with them. I also believe that voting, or not voting, for any candidate because of his or her religious beliefs is immoral. The politicizing of religion must stop somewhere before false practitioners entirely rob us of our free will. God gave us hearts with which to feel, but He also gave us minds and wills with which to make wiser decisions. I believe Americans who love God and His Word must learn to let their minds guide them as much as their hearts. Voting for someone or consenting to their behavior only because they claim to be Christian is anything but smart. We live in a world of cheats and liars, where anyone can claim to be anything; real Christians worthy of our trust, camaraderie, and allegiance must prove themselves. So far no one in Washington has done so, and it saddens me to watch so many well-meaning citizens who consider themselves real Christians get caught in the Bush administration's web of malice and deceit. Then again, I suppose if they truly acknowledged Jesus Christ's holy sovereignty and read His Word, they'd know -- just through common sense -- that this administration is evil. The fact that the Christian conscience hasn't been the least bit affected by all this is a bit disturbing. I can only ask Christians to turn for guidance to the one thing they can always count on: God and His Word.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND GAY MARRIAGE
I think I've adequately conveyed my point about free will -- that it is emphasized over and over again throughout the Bible, and should be revered and preserved -- so all you readers can probably guess how I'd apply it to this issue. Whether you approve, disapprove, or are indifferent, it's absolutely none of your business what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It's between them and God, and it is not your place -- no matter how holy or devout you think you are -- to force them to comply with your ideas about sexuality. This irrational repugnance only makes one look like a hypocrite. When was the last time you heard of anyone launching a national campaign against heterosexual anal and oral sex, for example? When was the last time 11 states were asked to vote on that? Legislators and voters can pretend it's about marriage all they like, but it's really about humanity, sexual preference (specifically the dominance of one practice), and the deprivation of basic rights. Both sides seem to have forgotten that it is also about love.
As a child I was surrounded by people who openly discussed and joked about their disgust and hatred toward homosexuals. Having been told that these views were fully supported by Scripture, I went along with it. (Yes, I once went along with this bigotry. It made me uncomfortable -- I really had no reason to dislike homosexuals -- but I believed my family.) As I matured, however, I discovered that I disagreed with them on almost every other issue, so I began thinking and reading for myself. I'm so glad I did, which is why I'm always recommending it to everyone else! :) I've moved on, while most of my family seems to have remained mired and sluggish in their vast ignorance and knee-jerk fear and hatred. It's frightening at times.
The Scriptures most cited to support "Christian" hatred and condemnation of homosexuals are in Leviticus (Old Testament) and Romans (New Testament). Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." You'll notice that the wording here is a little odd, and perhaps a bit vague. It's pretty clear that "lie with" probably means "have sex with," but the word "mankind" is often interpreted as including women. Why use "-kind" as a suffix, after all, unless you mean to include women? But the term "womankind" is treated in the same way, implying that this passage is talking about more than just men and women. I suppose it's possible that the allusion is to angels and other ethereal beings, perhaps even extraterrestrials, in which case this verse is a wise warning! But the fact that it's used to rationalize hatred and discrimination, in defiance of Jesus Christ's teachings, is the real abomination here. To ignore Jesus' sermons (on which all Christianity should be founded, being that it bears Christ's name) just to suit your own agenda is a deliberate manipulation of Scripture and, I believe, a sin against God...not to mention quite un-Christ-like.
In the New Testament, Romans 1:27 says, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." It's very important to remember here that Romans seems to have been written by Paul, a former non-believer. I think it's quite likely that in his zeal to redeem himself and please God, like many modern Christians, Paul was eager to condemn others so that they would see God's power through him (or at least admire Paul's own power). Unfortunately, his teachings were largely negative. It's true that the Pauline writings of the New Testament were inspired by God, as is the rest of the Bible: these are Paul's interpretations of former Scriptures that came from God, and I have no doubt that his hand was guided by God in some way and for some reason, but Paul's views have almost nothing to do with Christ's teachings; they instead heark back to Levitical law, which Jesus replaced with grace and truth (John 1:17). It's therefore difficult for me to take Paul's disapproval of homosexuality very seriously; I have difficulty trusting him, and have often prayed about it, because I'm concerned that I'm misleading myself. Paul's eagerness to see homosexuals punished -- "...receiving in themselves the recompence of their error..." -- seems to conflict with Jesus' message of patience and unconditional love, and is even more harsh than the Leviticus passage. (It even sounds like a prediction of the emergence of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s, when it was called the "gay cancer.") If Jews and Christians of Paul's day had been more warlike, I suspect Paul would gladly have led them in a bloody jihad against anyone who didn't meet his obsessive standards, which would have been pretty much everyone. Just after he condemns homosexuals he continues: "all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, / Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, / Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: / Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death..." (Romans 1:29-32). Paul's eagerness to kill anyone who commits the slightest offense is overshadowed only by his hypocrisy in breaking Jesus Christ's new covenant. And yet, if this truly is the literal Word of God here, and not just Paul's own missives based on previous God-inspired writings, homosexual acts are unquestionably forbidden. Even if you subscribe to this interpretation, however, it still doesn't mean we should condemn, harrass, discriminate against, or otherwise mistreat homosexuals. Under Christ's new covenant of grace and truth -- which I believe trumps Paul in any case -- we are to love each other and treat each other as we ourselves would want to be treated. And that's the bottom line.
Don't misunderstand me! I'm not dismissing Paul's writings; his observations are often keen, and there is some particle of wisdom to be had from almost any analysis of Scripture. In fact, I despise how self-styled Christians ignore Jesus' peaceful teachings in favor of less forgiving Old Testament Scripture. That's hypocrisy at its finest, not to mention stupid. I don't think Paul's writings would be in the Bible if God didn't want them there. (The thought has crossed my mind that perhaps Paul's teachings are decoys, and we faithful readers are meant to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak -- the sheep knowing the shepherd's voice, and all that. Or maybe they're meant to demonstrate how not to behave or interpret Christ's Word.) I just place a much, much greater emphasis on Christ's teachings, and Jesus Christ never had anything to say about homosexuality. Indeed, His actions speak for themselves: associationg with sinners and society's outcasts, including prostitutes*, I'm sure Jesus would not have condemned anyone so easily or quickly. Nor should we. Jesus' commandment to love each other, and His famed "golden rule" (Matthew 7:12), determine how we should behave. I believe His new covenant overrides almost everything else. He made it easy for us, but I suppose we prefer things to be difficult. I believe the entire KJV Bible is chock-full of history and wisdom, culminating in Jesus Christ's covenant and commandments. I just don't understand how people can call themselves Christians while ignoring so many of Christ's lessons.
* Another widespread misconception is that Mary Magdalene was a whore. I can only assume that this rumor originated with patriarchal, misogynistic hierarchies of early churches, and has been sustained by ignorant and false Christians who believe their pastors/ministers/priests over Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible is a suggestion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. In fact, some controversial documents -- recently discovered, and written around the same time as other New Testament Scriptures -- suggest that Mary was a prominent disciple, Peter's greatest rival, and that she may have written her own gospel about the life and death of Jesus Christ. These documents have not yet been authenticated to my satisfaction, but they are nevertheless fascinating! (We should also keep in mind, by the way, that the Vatican insists on keeping the Dead Sea Scrolls from the public....) Even if she was a prostitute, I fail to see how that would nullify her spiritual authority.
Anyway...I know how I would feel if most of my fellow countrymen and legislators wanted to publicize, debate, and regulate or prohibit whom I could love and marry. I also know how I would feel if I faced abuse and violence because of something over which I have no control. (Being Appalachian, I have a bit of experience with this: people continue to assume I'm some kind of knuckle-dragging idiot just because I'm from Kentucky and refuse to streamline my accent and dialect. Why should I change what makes me happy just to make my oppressors happy? Being a woman, I've also encountered enough sexism to last a lifetime. It seems pretty clear to me that most straight, white men have no reason to consider what this sort of discrimination may feel like, because it's unlikely to ever happen to them.) Even if homosexuality is a choice -- which some believe, but about which I remain unconvinced -- no one in the gay/lesbian/bisxual/transgendered community deserves to be treated with such contempt and injustice. As human beings, they deserve the same rights and privileges to which heterosexual people are accustomed, including marriage and the benefits pertaining thereto. That this issue is even up for debate is absurd and embarrassing to me as an American and a Bible-believer. Love and let love! To so-called Christians who believe "God hates fags" and that we should too, remember Christ's commandment to love. You should be ashamed that you are actually seeking to oppress and abuse anyone at all. These people are fighting tooth and nail for their right to love -- to LOVE, as Christ emphasized -- and you want to take it away from them. I'm so embarrassed for you. Remember that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Luke 6:31). Perhaps you should ask yourself how you'd feel if you couldn't love or make love without persecution, couldn't marry, couldn't visit your ill spouse in the hospital. I think true Christ-followers should be among the most vocal proponents of gay marriage.
It's interesting to note, also, that there seem to have been a few homosexual relationships featured prominently in the Bible. I've discovered that some exchanges between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz seem fairly suggestive. The most famous passage from Ruth, commonly read at same-sex unions (and even making an appearance in "Fried Green Tomatoes"), is 1:16-17, in which Ruth pledges herself to Naomi: "And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: / where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." Going back a little, we see that Ruth 1:14 says that Ruth "clave unto" Naomi, using the same terminology as that which describes heterosexual unions ("cleaving unto"), as seen in Genesis.
While there is nothing to suggest anything sexual between Ruth and Naomi, the relationship between David and Jonathan may have been a little deeper. Many Christians find it inconceivable that God would allow any homosexual to be king of Israel, which may explain why they refuse to acknowledge how loving the two men are toward one another. 1 Samuel 18, for example, begins: "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. / And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. / Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. / And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." These passages together strike me as a romantic description of a private marriage ceremony. It says quite clearly that they made a covenant with each other -- a marriage contract, perhaps -- because of their love, and Saul has David move permanently into their household as any father-in-law would intreat his child's husband. Jonathan strips himself naked before David as if to consummate their newly legitimized union. According to most of the sources I've read on this passage, there is no reason for Jonathan to be naked in front of David unless they were in a physical relationship. 1 Samuel 18:20-21 says, furthermore, "And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. / And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain." The phrase "the one of" is italicized in the KJV to indicate the editors and translators made these words up to fill in some sort of blank in the original Hebrew. Since "twain" means "two," a more faithful translation would have said, "Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain." Or, more plainly in modern English, "Today you'll be my son-in-law twice," with both Jonathan and Michal. So whether Saul approved or disapproved of the relationship between Jonathan and David, I believe he certainly recognized it. A thorough reading of 1 Samuel will reveal plenty more evidence of the romance between these two men.
As for Daniel and Ashpenaz, again it seems most Christians are unwilling to think of a famous prophet as a homosexual. Many Hebrew scholars insist, however, that the Hebrew text plainly says Daniel and Ashpenaz "chesed v'rachamim." "Chesed" is translated as "mercy," while "v'rachamim" can mean either "mercy" or "physical love." It doesn't make sense to say Daniel and Ashpenaz showed mercy and mercy, which means they must have engaged in a form of physical love. "Tender love" is the relatively innocuous substitution given by later translators in the KJV Daniel 1:9, and it gives almost the same impression. Of course, both Daniel and Ashpenaz were eunuchs. After doing a little research on the matter, however, I discovered that if men are castrated after puberty they retain their libido and can still perform certain acts. Interesting, ain't it? Especially considering all these couples were in the Old Testament. :) It's also interesting that Paul later says, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; / Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; / Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats...." Forbidding anyone to marry, then, is the mark of a false teacher who has departed from the faith and instead heeds "seducing spirits" and the "doctrines of devils." Now that's interesting!
By citing the above-mentioned prominent homosexuals in the Bible I'm not suggesting that Christians should follow example rather than clearly stated law. I believe the people in the Bible, even the greatest heroes, were described as flawed in order to emphasize the perfection of God and Jesus Christ. Remember, even Moses wasn't allowed into the Promised Land at the end of his great journey through the desert; he'd disobeyed God. The way these people's -- Ruth, Naomi, David, Jonathan, Daniel, and Ashpenaz -- apparent homosexuality was dealt with, however (so subtly, as if it was hardly worth mentioning at all), suggests this particular trait was not necessarily one of their flaws. Even if it is a flaw or a sin in God's eyes, it is not for us to judge, and certainly not for us to punish.
Note that similar arguments apply to other kinds of sexism, racism, ageism, classism, sizeism, able-ism, and other lethal -isms. Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, once said, "The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings." Jesus Christ understood this, and I think it's time Christians remembered it.
BODY MODIFICATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
"Body modification" is as broad and umbrella-like as it gets. I consider body modification (a.k.a. "bod mod") everything from dye jobs and shaving to tattoos and piercing. Circumcision also falls under this heading. So yes, when women shave their legs or underarms they are participating in a body modification ritual that is essentially no different than African scarring or South Pacific tattooing. That also goes for men shaving their faces, and even haircuts; anything to deliberately change or modify the body's natural state is a form of body modification. (I view sex and pregnancy differently: although they certainly change the body -- with the breaking of the hymen, for example -- and they are always deliberate, even if the pregnancy is accidental, they are actually different forms of the body's natural state, unmodified.) Leviticus 19:27-28 states, "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. / Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." This Old Testament passage, within the context of God's proclamation of law to the Israelites via Moses, clearly prohibits tattooing, scarring, branding, implanting, unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and even piercing as it relates to mourning the dead. It also forbids certain types of haircuts and facial hair trims. However, note that Exodus 32:2, Isaiah 3:21, and Ezekiel 16:12 all describe the Israelites' body piercings. In some cases, piercing seems to have been part of marriage and slave-emancipation ceremonies (Genesis 24-47, Exodus 21:6-7). So while Levitical law of the old covenant prohibits marring the skin in pretty much any way, piercing seems to be allowed. That doesn't make much sense to me, but hey -- whatever blows your skirt up. I'm just glad Jesus came along to clarify and simplify all this, and to establish a new covenant.
When it's all said and done, I believe the New Testament is the greater authority. (To oversimplify, the Old Testament is basically a history and foundation. There are lessons to be learned from it, and ample wisdom, but no laws for Christians to follow. Old Testament law is for Jews, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Messiah.) My faith is in Jesus Christ and His new covenant, and I therefore consult the New Testament on matters such as these. It just so happens that the New Testament has nothing to say on this issue -- not even Paul, who is usually so quick to condemn every tiny thing. Some who support "bod mod" have cited Galations 6:17, where Paul writes, "From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." But this refers to marks Paul has inside his body, and probably describes the changes he underwent when God approached him; perhaps there was even some physical residue of his temporary blindness, or maybe he imagined some literal physical transformation occurred when the spirt of God touched him. Others cite Ephesians 5:29-30 to condemn bod mod, but here Paul is talking about marriage and how spousal relationships should function. Yet we are told repeatedly in 1 Corinthians that the body of a believer becomes a temple to God. However, unlike Paul, I don't think a believer's body becomes a temple to God; I believe all our bodies -- and the very earth we live on -- are temples to God at all times, because He created all of it. I believe that if God had wanted us to have frivolous decoration permanently etched onto or underneath our skin, we'd have been born with it. I would never choose tattooing or any other permanent skin "decoration" for myself, although I may want it. I also believe faith in God and His works would naturally inspire us to care for our bodies as best we can. Deliberately, permanently, and unnecessarily changing the constitution of our bodies for any reason is, in my opinion, a sin against Him. Reparative and corrective surgeries do not fall under this category, but cosmetic surgery certainly does. It's all about vanity, which is not at all the same as making oneself beautiful (which is traditionally encouraged). Indeed, the usual reasons for tattooing, scarring, branding, et cetera, are poor ones. If it has anything to do with fashion or being "cool," it's an issue of vanity and holding others' opinions higher than God's. If it's done out of boredom, drunkenness, or in the name of some other religion, God is clearly not part of this person's life. If you do these things to yourself in order to express negative feelings -- pain, mourning, the confrontation of an abusive past, for example -- there really are better ways to cope and be expressive, not the least of which is God Himself. Again, I would never choose this for myself. Though I do find bod mod subculture fascinating and alluring, and have friends with tattoos, it isn't for me.
Concerning hair -- cutting, shaving, dyeing, styling, and so on -- if you're the sort of person who requires overt references rather than applying basic principles, I'm afraid you won't be satisfied. There are only a few basic references to men's hair and beards, and even fewer that mention women. Levitical law, mentioned above, instructs men not to round off their hair or beards. The intent here is to avoid looking like practitioners of earth-based "pagan" religions who apparently once styled their hair to mimic the rounded shapes they associated with their deities. Among the Israelites, however, shaving one's head was often part of the mourning ritual, while shaving one's beard was an absolute no-no; Paul himself cut his hair. As far as I recall, only Paul had anything to say about women's hair: in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 he tells us long hair is a woman's glory, and intended as a natural covering (as opposed to veils or the hijabs Muslim women wear), while long hair on a man is shameful. It was traditional for women to keep their heads covered, and Paul's rather liberal view of this is that one's hair is enough. (We should remember, however, that the "shame" of men having long hair is just one of Paul's observations of Corinthian culture: men grew their hair long to appear feminine. It's not so much their hair that Paul objects to, then, as their reasons for growing it long. Androgyny has never gone over very well with Christians. God created obvious physical differences between men and women, and surely meant for those differences to remain intact.) Paul also suggests that we not be too vain in our appearance, citing the use of gold and jewels to decorate women's long hair. He's probably right: this sort of materialism and vanity can only lead to trouble.
The argument against substance abuse is much the same. Whether we drink too much, overeat, or are addicted to nicotine and other harmful drugs, or are simply addicted to junk food, I'm sure we're all guilty of abusing our bodies in some way. We do so knowingly, fully aware of the physical consequences (if not the spiritual ones). This means we are deliberately and knowingly harming God's creation, the same as if we deliberately and knowingly contributed to pollution (as most of us do; more on that later). Abusing oneself in this way is, I believe, sinful. We should do everything in our power to correct it. Alcoholism and drunkenness are overtly mentioned as sins in both Testaments, implying that other forms of substance addiction and intoxication would also be sins. As with a few other practices, drug use was in those days often associated with paganism. Pagans took drugs as part of their religious observances -- I imagine it lowered their inhibitions and heightened the spiritual experience -- and those who worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wanted no part of such behavior. The fact that abusing both natural and synthetic drugs (including nicotine and alcohol) can do serious damage to the mind and body, however, is of even greater importance. Deliberately harming God's creation, the vessel/conductor of your soul, and for no reason other than your own pleasure and unwillingness to approach God, is to commit a horrible trespass.
What I think it all boils down to, however, is marriage. Scripture tells us that when we marry our bodies are no longer wholly our own, but also belong to our spouse. Everything we do in terms of grooming and maintenance is ideally done with our spouse in mind, determined by what they like. My husband happens to prefer shaved legs, so I shave my legs. Fortunately for me, he also loves my long hair. He's indifferent about most other things, so I'm free to do as I please. Likewise, he accomodates me by bathing regularly and maintaining his facial hair. :)
Still, none of this concerns me nearly as much as Christ's two laws: love God and love each other, and everything else will follow naturally. I suppose my attention to the details of God's wants and needs, and my desire to comply with them, is a result of my love for Him. It certainly isn't because I fear Him.
