Clarification on Biblical Law

  • 101 Replies
  • 11247 Views
?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Clarification on Biblical Law
« on: October 28, 2009, 10:40:31 PM »
My friends,

I was recently doing some Bible study, as a part of my never-ending quest to understand the fundamentalist mind. I came across several passage that raised questions, however, and I was wondering how these passages are reconciled with modern Biblical Literalism.



1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Americans. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Americans?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. What should I do?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. What are your thoughts?? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. What should their punishment be? Would a public stoning be appropriate?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you people have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 10:43:10 PM by Mykael »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2009, 11:42:39 PM »
I like your enthusiasm, but the forthcoming answer will undoubtedly be something along the lines of, "Those are all Old Testament laws.  When Jesus came he created a new covenant [citation needed] with man therefore abolishing the Old Testament laws."

This response always raises a few additional questions for me.  Why do we still print these obsolete laws?  Surely the inherent word of God can use without the clutter.  Why did Jesus specifically say (twice I believe) that he did not come to rewrite or void the old laws?  Why do people still follow the 10 commandments?  They were OT laws.  And finally, if these laws can be ignored, what else may I ignore from the bible?

Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2009, 05:08:58 AM »
I like your enthusiasm, but the forthcoming answer will undoubtedly be something along the lines of, "Those are all Old Testament laws.  When Jesus came he created a new covenant [citation needed] with man therefore abolishing the Old Testament laws."

This response always raises a few additional questions for me.  Why do we still print these obsolete laws?  Surely the inherent word of God can use without the clutter.  Why did Jesus specifically say (twice I believe) that he did not come to rewrite or void the old laws?  Why do people still follow the 10 commandments?  They were OT laws.  And finally, if these laws can be ignored, what else may I ignore from the bible?

He said this because I myself will not need to rewrite or void my school books neither, even they are no more useful to me since long... And keeping them on the shelf doesn't mean they are still valid or important to me everytime I need to design complex electronic systems. But despite all, I can NEVER deny that they are the base of all what I am now.

So, Jesus came to update the knowledge of life by putting aside the old one and giving the complete insight (to those who need it) about the real world we live in.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 05:12:11 AM by Thank_you »

Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 05:43:20 AM »
Quote
They were OT laws.  And finally, if these laws can be ignored, what else may I ignore from the bible?

We are given a bright mind to each of us so that, while learning, we can filter (ignore if you like) anything we feel not important to our needs we look for. I myself have ignored anything not said by Jesus in the new and old Bible. And I also ignored the very few of his sayings which don't fit the essence of his teachings.
But perhaps in your case you may need to ignore the 'whole' Bible including Jesus himself in order for you to feel balanced in your daily life hence good. And what is good for someone is indeed a part of his truth. Yes, it is as simple as this  :)

Thank_you   

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2009, 05:44:19 AM »
I like your enthusiasm, but the forthcoming answer will undoubtedly be something along the lines of, "Those are all Old Testament laws.  When Jesus came he created a new covenant [citation needed] with man therefore abolishing the Old Testament laws."

This response always raises a few additional questions for me.  Why do we still print these obsolete laws?  Surely the inherent word of God can use without the clutter.  Why did Jesus specifically say (twice I believe) that he did not come to rewrite or void the old laws?  Why do people still follow the 10 commandments?  They were OT laws.  And finally, if these laws can be ignored, what else may I ignore from the bible?

He said this because I myself will not need to rewrite or void my school books neither, even they are no more useful to me since long... And keeping them on the shelf doesn't mean they are still valid or important to me everytime I need to design complex electronic systems. But despite all, I can NEVER deny that they are the base of all what I am now.

So, Jesus came to update the knowledge of life by putting aside the old one and giving the complete insight (to those who need it) about the real world we live in.

You're suggesting you ignore your school books because they are too simple for the work you do.
What has been suggested is that the Old Testament should be ignored because it is wrong.

Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 06:11:05 AM »
I like your enthusiasm, but the forthcoming answer will undoubtedly be something along the lines of, "Those are all Old Testament laws.  When Jesus came he created a new covenant [citation needed] with man therefore abolishing the Old Testament laws."

This response always raises a few additional questions for me.  Why do we still print these obsolete laws?  Surely the inherent word of God can use without the clutter.  Why did Jesus specifically say (twice I believe) that he did not come to rewrite or void the old laws?  Why do people still follow the 10 commandments?  They were OT laws.  And finally, if these laws can be ignored, what else may I ignore from the bible?

He said this because I myself will not need to rewrite or void my school books neither, even they are no more useful to me since long... And keeping them on the shelf doesn't mean they are still valid or important to me everytime I need to design complex electronic systems. But despite all, I can NEVER deny that they are the base of all what I am now.

So, Jesus came to update the knowledge of life by putting aside the old one and giving the complete insight (to those who need it) about the real world we live in.

You're suggesting you ignore your school books because they are too simple for the work you do.
What has been suggested is that the Old Testament should be ignored because it is wrong.

You are right.
I forgot to add that most of their contents (school books) are also incomplete hence wrong, scientifically and strictly speaking. But they are made so because learning should progress within the limits of the evolving mind.
 
To make my point a bit clearer, the old laws were addressed to the kids of the humanity (a modern expression denoting our primitive ancestors who, almost all of them, were not evolved yet to perceive in themselves anything other than their flesh). That is why the old laws were (still are) much like the ones we call now as political or national laws ;D in which the unconditional love is surely out of question ;)

For instance and since millions on earth don't have other than their flesh to take care of, those old laws are still valid (like the new ones) to justify or condemn any event to happen in their jungle... by those on the top, and always in the name of a god or a system.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 06:37:11 AM »
Mykael- Funny Funny Funny Funny FUnny FUnny ! Still laughing- Can't stop ! Hilarious. Oh Stop - please stop- no don't too funny- Eyes dripping on keyboard.  Can't see - all a blur.  I am as you know a Christian and a Creationist and even I thought this was funny ! ! !   However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???


My friends,

I was recently doing some Bible study, as a part of my never-ending quest to understand the fundamentalist mind. I came across several passage that raised questions, however, and I was wondering how these passages are reconciled with modern Biblical Literalism.



1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Americans. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Americans?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. What should I do?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. What are your thoughts?? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. What should their punishment be? Would a public stoning be appropriate?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you people have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 06:43:19 AM »
However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???

Because it's what you believe. If there is something about your beliefs which we do not understand and which drives us away from believing the same thing you do, don't you even feel the slightest bit morally obligated to explain so that we too may see the light?
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 06:57:01 AM »
However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???

Because it's what you believe. If there is something about your beliefs which we do not understand and which drives us away from believing the same thing you do, don't you even feel the slightest bit morally obligated to explain so that we too may see the light?

To answer you Wendy- you missed what I said- I have tried to explain- and tried and tried and tried with some people.  Some people have their mind made up and won't let new info in- I can't help those that do not want to be helped.  I will be glad to help anyone who truly wants to understand, even those sittin on the fence, or those who have BIG doubts, or BIG questions- but NOT big mouths.  I will go along with it for some time, because I really think I might break through, and because deep in their heart I think they want to know.  But when it becomes obvious I am throwing pearls to swine then there is no point. 
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2009, 07:07:55 AM »
I think there is. If you post arguments that make a thread like this seem like what it is - A childish attempt to corrupt the word of God into something less than desirable - and it helps one person see the error of their ways and become a true Christian, isn't that worth all the time and effort in the world?
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2009, 08:21:15 AM »
Hmmm... Following what is written in the old Bible is denying Jesus teachings.
Love, as the way was preached and lived by Jesus, makes the majority of these old laws and stories obsolete (they were good at their time and today they might help those having only a flesh to take care of).

In other words, to an ordinary person (having only a flesh) I will advise him, for example, the famous rule "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" because this helps him not to become a beast in the least.
But to those humans having also a soul (born of the Spirit of Love), not being a beast/criminal is surely not enough for them. I mean even my dog lives the above famous rule (if not better), that is why perhaps many are sure that humans are not too different from the other creatures and I believe them since they know themselves much more than I do (I just know my being :( )  

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2009, 08:26:07 AM »
Mykael- Funny Funny Funny Funny FUnny FUnny ! Still laughing- Can't stop ! Hilarious. Oh Stop - please stop- no don't too funny- Eyes dripping on keyboard.  Can't see - all a blur.  I am as you know a Christian and a Creationist and even I thought this was funny ! ! !   However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???
Humour me.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 09:05:08 AM by Mykael »

?

Sono_hito

  • 111
  • Hark Hark yon logic!
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2009, 09:35:47 AM »
Quote
"When considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn't. Religion is one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies."
- Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation)

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. - Douglas Adams

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2009, 09:57:29 AM »
However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???

Because it's what you believe. If there is something about your beliefs which we do not understand and which drives us away from believing the same thing you do, don't you even feel the slightest bit morally obligated to explain so that we too may see the light?

To answer you Wendy- you missed what I said- I have tried to explain- and tried and tried and tried with some people.  Some people have their mind made up and won't let new info in- I can't help those that do not want to be helped.  I will be glad to help anyone who truly wants to understand, even those sittin on the fence, or those who have BIG doubts, or BIG questions- but NOT big mouths.  I will go along with it for some time, because I really think I might break through, and because deep in their heart I think they want to know.  But when it becomes obvious I am throwing pearls to swine then there is no point. 

I think there is. If you post arguments that make a thread like this seem like what it is - A childish attempt to corrupt the word of God into something less than desirable - and it helps one person see the error of their ways and become a true Christian, isn't that worth all the time and effort in the world?

Wendy it is sometimes hard for the few people who want to listen or are trying to make sense of it, because of all the noise that certain people make in the thread - that hinder some people from learning who really want to.  You remember what it was like in middle school or as they called it junior high- you always had somebody who was a real distraction and it made it hard to concentrate on the subject matter, because they were so disruptive- well that's alot like this forum is.

I do not stop posting entirely- I choose the people or the topics.  If I know that someone truly is willing to listen I will take the time.  But let me explain the difference.  Pongo and I have had some very good discussions in 6 months.  Sometimes he has a point I don't see or agree with, and other times I have a point he does not see or agree with, but there are times we see eye to eye.  He and I at least are willing to see the other person's point - willing to hear them out - not just dismiss it, or make rash decisions, or pass judgements or be flippant - but really listen.  Oh he and I have a few times butted heads - but we always come back because he is a good conversationalist, and a good debater without the mouth.  Sometimes Pongo and I just have to agree to disagree. 

Take Chris Spaghetti as another example - I can explain to him in 1 -3 paragraphs and he gets it- maybe doesn't always agree - but understands at least that there is a possible logical explanation besides just his own.  He again may not agree but it gets him to see there may be another way to look at it- if ones eyes are open. 

But other people I have to spend days and weeks explaining it and they still don't see it or get it- but that's OK - if it takes weeks - months even, I will spend the time, but for those willing to listen who want real answers.  And as long as they earnestly keep asking questions, I will continue to help.

If someone is pessimistic, negative, insulting, name calling, closed minded, rude, or anything else - I'm done with them.  I do try to stick it out, and turn the other cheek; I try to not let it bother me- but we all having a breaking point & when I notice I start being smart-elic like them- it's time to take a break and get a reality check or either move to another person or thread.   Jesus turned the other cheek and did not fight back - not once- I on the otherhand am not perfect and occassionally find myself doing just that, and have to stop myself.  But although Jesus did not fight back - He also said in reference to learning, being saved, following God etc etc that for anyone interested "pick up your torture stake and follow me" - asking them to follow (if interested)  - not making them follow.  If they did not want to follow- he did not stay and bend their arm and make them listen or make them follow- it was a choice.  He just kept moving- next town, some listened, some didn't, next town, some listened and some didn't, next town and so on.  He knew some never would listen- because their heart was hardened, and I know the same - so if someone does not want to listen I will not make them.  I move on like he did.  God said "My sheep will hear my voice" (paraphrasing). 

Mykael- Funny Funny Funny Funny FUnny FUnny ! Still laughing- Can't stop ! Hilarious. Oh Stop - please stop- no don't too funny- Eyes dripping on keyboard.  Can't see - all a blur.  I am as you know a Christian and a Creationist and even I thought this was funny ! ! !   However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???
Humour me.

Actually you humored me and made me laugh- I do not think I could do the same.  Besides if you only want me to humor you with scriptures you can poke fun at - I am not interested.   
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2009, 10:04:13 AM »
Mykael- Funny Funny Funny Funny FUnny FUnny ! Still laughing- Can't stop ! Hilarious. Oh Stop - please stop- no don't too funny- Eyes dripping on keyboard.  Can't see - all a blur.  I am as you know a Christian and a Creationist and even I thought this was funny ! ! !   However there are answers but you don't really want to hear them- for every time I tried to explain you shut me down immediately so why even try to explain to you???
Humour me.

Actually you humored me and made me laugh- I do not think I could do the same.  Besides if you only want me to humor you with scriptures you can poke fun at - I am not interested.   

Quote
humour US, humor [ˈhjuːmə]
n
1. the quality of being funny
2. Also called sense of humour the ability to appreciate or express that which is humorous
3. situations, speech, or writings that are thought to be humorous
4.
a.  a state of mind; temper; mood
b.  (in combination) ill humour good humour
5. temperament or disposition
6. a caprice or whim
7. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Physiology) any of various fluids in the body, esp the aqueous humour and vitreous humour
8. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Physiology) Also called cardinal humour Archaic any of the four bodily fluids (blood, phlegm, choler or yellow bile, melancholy or black bile) formerly thought to determine emotional and physical disposition
out of humour in a bad mood
vb (tr)
1. to attempt to gratify; indulge

2. to adapt oneself to

In other words, try me. I'm not poking fun at Leviticus or the Bible, I'm asking how the Levitical Laws can be reconciled with a Biblical Literalist viewpoint.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 45565
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2009, 10:44:45 AM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2009, 10:47:33 AM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.

Because they hate faggots.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

Sono_hito

  • 111
  • Hark Hark yon logic!
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2009, 10:59:40 AM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.

Because over a long period of time, some of the rational reasonings of other cultures not steeped in irrational religion have rubbed off on x-tians. You cant keep rationalism away forever unless you completely kill it. But areas of thought such as ideals of hate of one group or another can still exist even when other equaly irrational beliefs or concepts. Men growing long hair as an example, too many cultures see this as not only acceptable, but in many cases desirable. As such it more plainly shows the irrationality of the ancient culture ties. But when it comes to something like homosexuality, some rudimentary (yet still barbaric), ideas frenzy the leaders to continue the jihad (for lack of a better word) against it. Another such example would be the use of prophylaxis and the Catholic faith. It can be plainly shown to be irrational, but with the ancient concepts and rudimentary baseline of an argument (theologicaly only), its still maintaining mainstream acceptance.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 11:36:52 AM by Sono_hito »

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. - Douglas Adams

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2009, 11:00:36 AM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.

That bothers me as well.

"Faggots are against biblical law!"
"What about all these other parts?"
"THEY DON'T COUNT!"
"...wait, what?"

?

Sono_hito

  • 111
  • Hark Hark yon logic!
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2009, 11:28:08 AM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.

That bothers me as well.

"Faggots are against biblical law!"
"What about all these other parts?"
"THEY DON'T COUNT!"
"...wait, what?"

Im in the middle of reading Sam Harris's book "The end of faith", and i love how plainly he puts things like this. To quote him on this:

Quote
I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, "You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books."
Lecture at the New York Society for Ethical Culture (2005)

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. - Douglas Adams

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2009, 12:00:10 PM »
New Testament

Quote from: 1 Peter 3:1?7
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2009, 12:11:54 PM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.

There is gay-bashing in the new testament as well.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2009, 12:12:33 PM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus.

There is gay-bashing in the new testament as well.

Prove it.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2009, 12:28:27 PM »
Romans 1: 26-28

?

Sono_hito

  • 111
  • Hark Hark yon logic!
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2009, 12:31:12 PM »
Romans 1: 26-28

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. - Douglas Adams

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2009, 01:05:00 PM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus. 

Because they hate faggots.

Those are assumptions based on MOST people that YOU KNOW that are Christians.  I have never hated a faggot as you call it.  I've known many a gay in my life that I treated with kindness, for they are still people.  I've even watched their gay shows "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Will and Grace" (comedy series) - actually pretty funny I might add, and Brokeback Mountain - which I saw twice.  I've had dance partners that were gay, hairdressers that were gay, bosses that were gay, and yes friends that were gay.  I do not condone their lifestyle, and now choose not to hang around them, but I do not hate now or ever hated gays- whether men or women.   Besides "hate" is a pretty strong word, and most churches would not deny a gay person to come to service to hear God's word.  Everyone is allowed to hear his word and turn around - whether that be gays, drunkyards, adulterers etc.     

That bothers me as well.  "Faggots are against biblical law!""What about all these other parts?" "THEY DON'T COUNT!" "...wait, what?"

Yes Trekky it goes both ways- and I know some gays that hate Christians too.

Let's face it - there is hate and prejudice everywhere and not just gays and the whole Leviticus thing either.  People hate blacks, whites, foreigners, Jews, old people, babies, the handicapped- so please don't come at me like you are the lone wolf here.  I have non-religious people hating me because I am Christian.  I'm doing the right thing with God and so I don't care what men think- my conscience is clear.

But to answer you questions, regardless of whether or not someone is gay, a drunkyard, an adulterer, racist- whatever - the bible says pray for those people, and it also tells you to "pray for your enemies."  (There are scriptures on that)  Is also counsels you that when someone is doing wrong that even though it is wrong - you don't take matters into your own hands - God says "vengeance is mine."  (There is a scripture on that) So to taunt, tease, aggravate, agitate, pick on, or make them suffer just because they are sinning is not right.   The bible also says (paraphrasing) "let you who is without sin cast the first stone."  There are other scriptures on how we are not to judge - God judges, but that is not up to me and it is not up to you.  I can't play judge, jury and executioner by making my gay neighbor or adulterer neighbor suffer more at my hands because they are gay or because they adulterers. These churches who claim they burnt crosses in someones yard or burnt their grass or whatever scare tactics they used because as they said .......they were defending God's law and it was not biblical what those sinners were doing - -sorry that is just plain wrong.  Two wrongs don't make 1 right.  There was a group - a small group with about 12 church members - all family and extended family whose target I believe was gays, and in fact made the news about a year ago.  The bible does not give them permission to punish people at their will because they think they are taking a stand for God.  Do you think God was happy about what either group did?  And particularly that church - well don't call yourself a church going person and do what they did, and expect that God would be OK with that, as if there was justification for doing so.  A true church goer that really knew God would NOT have done that.  They would know his commandments, and not just know them, but follow them, and they would understand what he expects of them.   So I am on God's side and I agree it was wrong for that church to do what they did, BUT at the same time I am a Christian, and will follow his ways, but that does not make me or even ALL Christians gay bashers.     
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 45565
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2009, 03:56:41 PM »
I said "some Christians" ;)
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2009, 04:19:30 PM »
I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus. 

Because they hate faggots.

Those are assumptions based on MOST people that YOU KNOW that are Christians.  I have never hated a faggot as you call it.  I've known many a gay in my life that I treated with kindness, for they are still people.  I've even watched their gay shows "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Will and Grace" (comedy series) - actually pretty funny I might add, and Brokeback Mountain - which I saw twice.  I've had dance partners that were gay, hairdressers that were gay, bosses that were gay, and yes friends that were gay.  I do not condone their lifestyle, and now choose not to hang around them, but I do not hate now or ever hated gays- whether men or women.   Besides "hate" is a pretty strong word, and most churches would not deny a gay person to come to service to hear God's word.  Everyone is allowed to hear his word and turn around - whether that be gays, drunkyards, adulterers etc.     

That bothers me as well.  "Faggots are against biblical law!""What about all these other parts?" "THEY DON'T COUNT!" "...wait, what?"

Yes Trekky it goes both ways- and I know some gays that hate Christians too.

Let's face it - there is hate and prejudice everywhere and not just gays and the whole Leviticus thing either.  People hate blacks, whites, foreigners, Jews, old people, babies, the handicapped- so please don't come at me like you are the lone wolf here.  I have non-religious people hating me because I am Christian.  I'm doing the right thing with God and so I don't care what men think- my conscience is clear.

But to answer you questions, regardless of whether or not someone is gay, a drunkyard, an adulterer, racist- whatever - the bible says pray for those people, and it also tells you to "pray for your enemies."  (There are scriptures on that)  Is also counsels you that when someone is doing wrong that even though it is wrong - you don't take matters into your own hands - God says "vengeance is mine."  (There is a scripture on that) So to taunt, tease, aggravate, agitate, pick on, or make them suffer just because they are sinning is not right.   The bible also says (paraphrasing) "let you who is without sin cast the first stone."  There are other scriptures on how we are not to judge - God judges, but that is not up to me and it is not up to you.  I can't play judge, jury and executioner by making my gay neighbor or adulterer neighbor suffer more at my hands because they are gay or because they adulterers. These churches who claim they burnt crosses in someones yard or burnt their grass or whatever scare tactics they used because as they said .......they were defending God's law and it was not biblical what those sinners were doing - -sorry that is just plain wrong.  Two wrongs don't make 1 right.  There was a group - a small group with about 12 church members - all family and extended family whose target I believe was gays, and in fact made the news about a year ago.  The bible does not give them permission to punish people at their will because they think they are taking a stand for God.  Do you think God was happy about what either group did?  And particularly that church - well don't call yourself a church going person and do what they did, and expect that God would be OK with that, as if there was justification for doing so.  A true church goer that really knew God would NOT have done that.  They would know his commandments, and not just know them, but follow them, and they would understand what he expects of them.   So I am on God's side and I agree it was wrong for that church to do what they did, BUT at the same time I am a Christian, and will follow his ways, but that does not make me or even ALL Christians gay bashers.     


Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (?Filegate?) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open ?slots? in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: ---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. ---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. ---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. ---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury ---- And Bill was impeached by the House. ---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume?. Sounds more like an organized crime family?s rap sheet. please read the following information gathered from the Library of Congress. Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments: Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience: Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. This is a wall of text. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system. There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record. Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . . My last point: Obama needs name recognition, he needs to be among the people, so people feel like they have access to him. HRC's debate challenge is more about the fact that her campaign is running low on money and she gets free air-time without spending anything. Would you give up the chance to see 20,000 voters up close and personal to be on a televised debate? No way! Obama, stick to your guns. Debate on your terms, not Hillary's!

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2009, 04:46:11 PM »

I'd like to know why some Christians rely on Leviticus for their views on gays, but ignore the other parts of Leviticus. 
Because they hate faggots.

Those are assumptions based on MOST people that YOU KNOW that are Christians.  I have never hated a faggot as you call it.  I've known many a gay in my life that I treated with kindness, for they are still people.  I've even watched their gay shows "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Will and Grace" (comedy series) - actually pretty funny I might add, and Brokeback Mountain - which I saw twice.  I've had dance partners that were gay, hairdressers that were gay, bosses that were gay, and yes friends that were gay.  I do not condone their lifestyle, and now choose not to hang around them, but I do not hate now or ever hated gays- whether men or women.   Besides "hate" is a pretty strong word, and most churches would not deny a gay person to come to service to hear God's word.  Everyone is allowed to hear his word and turn around - whether that be gays, drunkyards, adulterers etc.     

That bothers me as well.  "Faggots are against biblical law!""What about all these other parts?" "THEY DON'T COUNT!" "...wait, what?"
Yes Trekky it goes both ways- and I know some gays that hate Christians too.

Let's face it - there is hate and prejudice everywhere and not just gays and the whole Leviticus thing either.  People hate blacks, whites, foreigners, Jews, old people, babies, the handicapped- so please don't come at me like you are the lone wolf here.  I have non-religious people hating me because I am Christian.  I'm doing the right thing with God and so I don't care what men think- my conscience is clear.

But to answer you questions, regardless of whether or not someone is gay, a drunkyard, an adulterer, racist- whatever - the bible says pray for those people, and it also tells you to "pray for your enemies."  (There are scriptures on that)  Is also counsels you that when someone is doing wrong that even though it is wrong - you don't take matters into your own hands - God says "vengeance is mine."  (There is a scripture on that) So to taunt, tease, aggravate, agitate, pick on, or make them suffer just because they are sinning is not right.   The bible also says (paraphrasing) "let you who is without sin cast the first stone."  There are other scriptures on how we are not to judge - God judges, but that is not up to me and it is not up to you.  I can't play judge, jury and executioner by making my gay neighbor or adulterer neighbor suffer more at my hands because they are gay or because they adulterers. These churches who claim they burnt crosses in someones yard or burnt their grass or whatever scare tactics they used because as they said .......they were defending God's law and it was not biblical what those sinners were doing - -sorry that is just plain wrong.  Two wrongs don't make 1 right.  There was a group - a small group with about 12 church members - all family and extended family whose target I believe was gays, and in fact made the news about a year ago.  The bible does not give them permission to punish people at their will because they think they are taking a stand for God.  Do you think God was happy about what either group did?  And particularly that church - well don't call yourself a church going person and do what they did, and expect that God would be OK with that, as if there was justification for doing so.  A true church goer that really knew God would NOT have done that.  They would know his commandments, and not just know them, but follow them, and they would understand what he expects of them.   So I am on God's side and I agree it was wrong for that church to do what they did, BUT at the same time I am a Christian, and will follow his ways, but that does not make me or even ALL Christians gay bashers. 

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady,......

What does Hilary Clinton, Bill, Obama, Janet Reno or anyone else in your political statement from you post- have anything to do with this thread - 'Biblical Law"?  Not a damn thing.  I think u posted in the wrong thread my man or either did it on purpose to show us your political views.  Either way it's not relevant.  Get back on topic.....
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: Clarification on Biblical Law
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2009, 04:54:56 PM »
Actually I posted it in the right topic.






It's so you would (hopefully) realize how writing a huge wall of text is not very helpful on this forum.