Are they really Christians or is Leviticans a better description?

I’ve never heard the term “Leviticans” used before, but I used to wonder, way back when I was a Christian, why so many Christians paid more attention to the O.T. rather than the N.T…

Nice article. “Do you love Christ or do you love rules?” Thanks for sharing this.

The article is busy conflating “hating the sin” with “loving the sinner.”
For instance, I do not like gay marriage. I don’t think that people should be gay. I will vote for every single legal barrier to either that comes down the pipe unless it’s clearly bad for everyone. And I’ll do my level best not to be mean or abusive to the person. But the article suggests that by not being gung-ho for gayness, I’m not a good Christian (even though the Bible makes it quite clear that God – Whom we are to be emulating – does not approve of homosexuality).

I don’t think that the author there had anything approaching the whole story, either, providing an example of why the secular world is not the best source of advice on the subject of Christian behavior.

While answering a related question just a minute ago, I actually contemplated the use of “Leviticans” because it is so apt.

It is unfair to real Christians that practice love, forgiveness, charitable works, and emulate Christ’s care for the outcasts of society that those who are of the “evangelical” wing dominate the conversation and call themselves Christian.

@zenvelo Would you believe that they’re the same people, and you’re misunderstanding them?

@Nullo No, I would not believe that.

The “evangelicals” are against helping those in need, are against food banks, are against gay people, not just their acts, are against helping addicts recover, are against society providing health care for the poor. We see it everyday in the news from the “religious right” who proclaim that faith alone is qualification for salvation, and no works are necessary in any way. We see it in preachers who are intolerant, who blame whole regions for natural disasters because of lack of faith.

@Nullo By denying them legal rights, and basing that denial so obviously on your religious beliefs, which are not the law of the land here, you are not only attacking their rights, and thus causing them harm (despite ‘loving’ them), you are also attacking the establishment clause. Does Sally Ride’s partner of 27 years really deserve none of the federal benefits that would go to any other opposite-sex couple? The federal benefits, which are not supposed to play favorites to any religion?

Tell me, does your congregation go around stoning people who blaspheme the lord? Because that’s pretty obviously stated, too (Levitcus 24:16, specifically).

As to the question, ‘Leviticans’ both does and doesn’t work, as the problem comes that they still pick and choose which parts of leviticus to follow. For instance, many still probably eat shrimp, or wear mixed fibers, or as the above, not go around violently killing non-Christians, etc. So ‘levitican’ is still a little off.

@Nullo I agree that the author is not presenting or representing all sides of the story but that is understandable in a short web article and I suppose it is possible to find one with the exact opposite view.
@BhacSsylan has a good point in his last paragraph about it not being a perfect fit.
Still, there are those closer to one side than the other and that is the point I wanted folks to consider. The catchall label “Christian” covers a lot of territory and that perhaps it would be better, and more accurate, to break it down a little. Maybe NT Christians and OTChristians would be a little less offensive start.

@rojo This is fair, and maybe I’m being a little overly pedantic. It does suggest the difference in focus, which is more the point.

There are no Leviticans, for a true Levitican would be seen as a madman in today’s world. A true Levitican would be locked up for murder within a day.

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15–16).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest’s daughter ihas sex outside of marriage, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17–18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14–16)

They’re just bad Christians. Almost everyone who talks about “real Christians”—whether it be in an attempt to criticize bad Christians or an attempt to defend Christianity from being associated with its lunatic fringe—is engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only exception I can think of is Nietzsche, who famously declared that “there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” Then again, he was driving at a much different point in making that statement and wasn’t actually trying to divide “real Christians” from “fake Christians.”

It would be different if we wanted to use “Levitican” as a name for a kind of Christian. The author of the linked article briefly flirts with such a usage, but ultimately gives in to the fallacious division of Christians and Leviticans. If we wanted to be more careful than said author, however, then the term “Levitican” could be quite useful. It would be something to add to the list of terms identifying trends within Christianity and those who follow them. Leaving aside the various flaws of the linked article, then, I would say that “Levitican” is a good way of describing a certain kind of Christian.

@Nullo Voting against every legal barrier to gay marriage is being mean and abusive to gay people. It says that you think their legal rights should be circumscribed due to a (mis)perceived spiritual failing. It says that gay people deserve to endure more suffering and oppression than other equally sinful people who simply happen to be heterosexual.

As for the Biblical message on homosexuality, it is far less clear than you pretend. I have pointed this out to you before, though you chose to ignore it rather than make even the slightest attempt to defend your opinion. I suggest you spend some time meditating on Matthew 7:3–5. Maybe it can help you overcome your crippling bigotry.