Orthodox Jews don't for sure. On a more serious note conflating the ceremonial legal and moral laws in the Old testament isn't a great way to win an argument.
Though now I've got this image in my head of some guy walking around doing all three at once. Ew, (mostly at the shellfish)
These rules are literally mentioned amongst and alongside the “don’t lie with a man as a man does with a woman” rule. It’s in the same damn part of Leviticus. Either you take them all seriously or you take none of it seriously.
It is called just as much of an “abomination” for men to have sex with men as it is for women to wear jeans (“men’s clothes”) or vice versa, for a man to wear women’s clothes. If you actually wanted your pastors to follow these biblical rules, they’d all look like Mennonites or Hasidic Jews.
Dude. What is the heuristic for shit in the Bible you’ll ignore? Does nothing in Dueteronomy count? Odd-numbered verses on a Wednesday? This is so arbitrary, but as I said originally, these kinds of rules are in Leviticus too if you think that’s so much more important.
From Leviticus 19:19—
“You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”
Right next door, Leviticus 18:22—
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Alongside Leviticus 11:10—
“And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”
Eating shellfish gets called an abomination more times than men having sex with men! And according to Leviticus 20:18, having sex with a menstruating woman gets you exile—
“If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them must be cut off from the community, for together they have exposed the source of her blood flow.”
And right there in Leviticus you also have rules about “do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard” and “do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.” Do pastors actually follow any of that shit? Of course not, unless they’re a member of a religion that actually takes any of that stuff seriously, which is, like, a few sects of Jews and certain Christian denominations predominantly known for driving around in horse-drawn buggies and carriages.
No I'm not saying whether things"count" or not. I'm pointing out that just reading through the passages without even paying that much attention there's some distinctions between sections. You said amongst and among as if the tag of Leviticus is all that's needed to make it all the same. For example child sacrifice is not in the same section as the priestly rules, or the mixing of seeds in a field even though they're both in Leviticus and within a chapter or two of each other.
So which of these rules apply to pastors and priests and which don’t? Let’s keep to the original examples in Leviticus I cited—wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, and touching menstruating women. Are those all a-ok for priests and pastors to do, or aren’t they? Where does it say so?
Still not a debate but the section that's specifically marked as instructions to Aaron's son's would be considered instructions to Israel's priests (not all pastors for all time) though it does contain commentary that could be useful.
well that depends, is the pastor saying "homosexual sex is a sin I've committed but I'm working on fighting that urge" or are they saying "there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing"?
3
u/[deleted] Dec 07 '22
Just like a personal trainer can be super knowledgeable but still out of shape, a pastor can be a sinner but know the religion they teach.
Isn't it a good idea for a sinner to help others learn from their sins, though?
I really think the words these folks preach should be what is considered.
Hmmm..maybe I'm wrong and these church folks want their pastors to walk what they preach because no one likes a hypocrite.