Facebook vs. Breastfeeding Mothers -- What's The Biblical Response?

I don't know how many people are aware of it but right now there is a heated battle going on between breastfeeding mothers and Facebook. Now, I have written on the topic of what nakedness is at length and this is one of those practical issues involving the subject. Back then I came to understanding of Biblical reality that basically said that nakedness is spiritual and that if Christians were going to try to make a Biblical case against a woman exposing her breasts in public from Scripture they would find it nearly impossible to do. There is no verse of Scripture that says that women's breasts are in and of themselves either sexual or a temptation to sin. Quite the opposite exists where women's breasts are either praised for their motherly role in nurturing children or for their beauty (Song of Solomon). Biblically there is no case to be made. In fact, you might say that the Bible is very positive about the use of the female breast to feed children and blesses it.

So what to do about mothers who want to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children? Biblically, there is no case against this and oddly enough maybe a case for saying this is good and wholesome. Church culture will of course disagree thinking that the morality they have created outside the Bible is still right.

Facebook has however done some stupid things on this. Above is a photo of a breastfeeding mother that was banned. At the same time here is a photo they cleared:

Now could someone tell me which of these two photos is more sensual? Shows more breast?
Another thing is that whoever is deleting these photos must be just pushing buttons at random sometimes. Another banned photo:

Even More Funny is this one:

So now great art work is to be banned because it has a breast in it and even female pigs are subject to being banned for showing their breasts?

Why do I mention this? Because this may be the issue that brings this whole thing national. If these women succeed in their petition and possible court cases as getting this defined as sexist and discriminatory that will of course pave the way for women should have the right to go topless, or topfree if you prefer, for the purpose of nurturing children or otherwise, simply because you cannot make a legal discrimination between the nipple of a man and a woman.

Organizations like TERA the Topfree Equal Rights Association make it crystal clear that to them this is not about religion but about equality under the law. There is also a statement that they do not believe the Bible says a woman should not expose their breasts -- they are right.

This fight is going to get ugly but in the end I believe that the law and the Bible may be on their side. IMHO

The Book of Revelation -- Part 15 -- The Angel and the Little Book

Revelation chapter ten is all about one thing the mighty angel and his little book.
Two significant things happen in this chapter:
1) Seven thunders utter something that john is told not to write because they are for the end. What then becomes interesting is John knows this stuff but no one else will but God and the angels.
2) John is asked to eat the little book in the hand of them mighty angel which he does -- it tastes as sweet to his mouth but bitter in his belly. He is then told to prophesy.

Now the angel is never named but I am sure some have tried --Michael would make sense but ultimately who knows and his name is not as significant as what he holds. The significance of the little book being eaten I partially understand because I am a preacher. Preaching or teaching is always sweet in them mouth but bitter to the belly. God's Word is always good to speak but harder to make a part of your life.

I think this vision has significance to John most of all but to the seven churches it was one of acknowledging John spiritual right to speak and know God's Word.

Next: The Two Witnesses

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 4 -- Brain Transplant -- Effective Immortality

Probably the most sticky questions of Science Fiction are raised when medical ethics and technology are discussed. One thing has always been organ transplant. Now many of the medical procedures that do this where originally some form of Science fiction; now many are science fact. One that remains fiction in brain transplant. Perhaps it would be better to say central nervous system transplant. Robert Heinlein postulated this in his book "I Will Fear No Evil". In it a rich beyond billionaire transplants his brain into another body. The big issue though is the body is female and is young, sensual and pretty. By so doing the man extends his life into another.

This of course leads to a whole host of ethical questions:
1. Who is the person then? The brain or the body or both.
2. Does this really constitute a sex change? Not really in a sense but this could be used to do it.
3. Who would be a donor body for this?

Now what get really frightening is when you couple this idea with cloning.
1. Could we then keep spare bodies around when we get tired of the one were in? Effective youth and immortality.
2. Are such clones persons when their only function is to be the next shell?
3. What happens to -- a man is appointed once to die and then the judgment?

Gets interesting and sticky doesn't it?

Next: The Information Hyper Highway

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 15 -- Divorce

Probable the most significant development in the Law of Moses is the idea of divorce. Up to this moment, there has been no mention of the idea of divorce in the Scripture; then Moses adds a marriage law that dissolves marriage -- divorce. The Law of Divorce basically gave the man the power to send his wife away if he was no longer pleased with her. All he had to do was give her a writ of divorce. Once divorced he could take her back unless she married someone else in the interim. There is no record that women have this right to divorce.

One of the interests for me is how this reflects back on what marriage is -- it becomes a legal matter or contract that can be broken. This is a far cry from conceiving of marriage as being one flesh. It is simply a matter of law.

Next: The Law and Marriage

The Book of Revelation -- Part 14 -- The Sixth Trumpet

If the fifth trumpet was devastating, the sixth is catastrophic in comparison. It is an army like no other released on the rest of mankind -- it destroys one third of mankind by plain old violence. Probably one thing that is mentioned here is the fact that even though this plague was so devastating, people still do not repent of their idolatry but instead continue in it.
I find this not completely amazing becasue the nature of mankind is rebellion, but even after such devistation -- nothing. No change of heart.

Next: The Angel and the Little Scroll

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 3 -- Alien Religion (Faith and Practice)

OK, along comes and alien race with a Scripture that reads like ours but different and has a different concept of how God is. The issues are limitless. But the two that interest me the most are -- our concept of who man is, or better what our concept of being a being created in God's image is. If the alien race is also created in God's image and they are different from us in outside appearance what does that do to our concept of the image of God? What does do to our concept of being a person.
The other issue is faith along with practice of that faith. What is faith if an alien race has a different concept of what faith is? Practice: how is faith lived? Were talking prayer, meditation and service. So you have a race that serves God but their definition of prayer is to stand on their head -- what then?

Next: Brain Transplant -- Effective Immortality.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 14 -- Other Laws Regarding Wives and Marriage

Now in the law there are many sundry laws regarding women and marriage that do apply to the discussion.
1. Exodus 20:17 includes not coveting a neighbors wife -- right up there with the rest of his possessions.
2. In the bond slave law Exodus 21:10 basically says that if a man takes a second wife he cannot reduce the rights of the first wife -- including sexual rights. A woman had sexual rights to her husband -- wonder if God was thinking of Leah?
3. Exodus 22:16 requires a man who seduces a virgin to take her as his wife and to give up his right to get rid of her. Deut. 22:19 and 29 restate this. I wonder what this would do to the unwed mother problem?
4. Leviticus 18 provides a life of relatives and relationships in which marriage is not allowed. A couple of interesting ones that a person is not allowed to marry a mother and daughter together or sisters together (Leah and Rachel?). Polygamy is assumed but now has some restrictions. Note: Both Abraham and Jacob would have been in trouble by these laws.
5. Leviticus 20:21 eliminates taking a brother's wife while he is still alive. If divorce takes place then a brother cannot have her. The law of a brother being required to take his older brother's wife to raise up inheritance still stays however.

What gets interesting is what is not condemned: polygamy. In fact there are some laws that assume its existence.

Next: Divorce