PDA

View Full Version : Bible Ramblings


shap_half
Nov 3rd, 2004, 10:23 PM
I don't know if y'all have already read this but I found this somewhere awhile ago and I would like to share with those who have yet to read it. If anyone find the Bible as the source of answer regarding homosexuals and same-sex marriage, be attentive:

1. 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. Should I smite them?

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?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking,! but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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 Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself?

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. Can you settle this? 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.How should they die?

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 with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

~RedRose~
Nov 3rd, 2004, 10:27 PM
Most of the things is LEV are only followed by the Jewish. Catholic Christianity (and do not quote me for this) disregarded alot of these things about the food eating etc in one of the big catholic councils.

Philbo
Nov 3rd, 2004, 11:37 PM
But why can they discount ANY of the bible? Thanks for posting this Shap-Half - ive been looking for it myself.

The thing with the bible is that the 'christians' pick out of it what they want to follow and ignore the stuff that doesnt belong in this day and age.

Why arent women still stoned to death in western society? parts of the bible condone that..

there are so many examples of this its amazig.

~RedRose~
Nov 3rd, 2004, 11:48 PM
Maybe you should go ask the Pope :rolleyes:

It was at the Vatican council or the council of nicea or some council Im not sure which and they made Catholicism that which both the east and west (sides of europe) agreed on and followed.

Knizzle
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:04 AM
:yawn:

GoDominique
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:06 AM
This has been posted several times already. :)

Knizzle
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:08 AM
BTW shap_half, it's no coincidence that all those scriptures in this piece are from the Old Testament.

griffin
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:08 AM
This a better read:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm#bible

GoDominique
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:11 AM
On the other hand, nash still hasn't given his opinion on it as far as I know, so maybe he will do that this time. :)

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:12 AM
Just so you all know the Bible, the part that has all of these "outragous" claims about gays and chicken legs was made before the coming of Christ and is prodominately the Jewish religion. Christians (catholics) of course follow these guidelines too but it is prodominately originally the Jewish faith.

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:27 AM
Just so you all know the Bible, the part that has all of these "outragous" claims about gays and chicken legs was made before the coming of Christ and is prodominately the Jewish religion. Christians (catholics) of course follow these guidelines too but it is prodominately originally the Jewish faith.

Wow, thanks for clarifying that, I never knew...it's just a shame that in all the millions of times this has been posted, nobody has ever been able, as far as I know, to answer the fundamental question of why Christians consider some bits relevant and other bits not. Apart from the obvious one which is they ignore the bits that tell them what not to do, but keep the bits that tell other people what not to do. :)

faboozadoo15
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:27 AM
BTW shap_half, it's no coincidence that all those scriptures in this piece are from the Old Testament.
thx... was just about to say that

G-Ha
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:36 AM
BTW shap_half, it's no coincidence that all those scriptures in this piece are from the Old Testament.
And? Why does it matter from which particular part of the Bible they come?

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:38 AM
Wow, thanks for clarifying that, I never knew...it's just a shame that in all the millions of times this has been posted, nobody has ever been able, as far as I know, to answer the fundamental question of why Christians consider some bits relevant and other bits not. Apart from the obvious one which is they ignore the bits that tell them what not to do, but keep the bits that tell other people what not to do. :)

I was not using this as an excuse .... I was just pointing out that it isn't only the Catholic who are against gay marriage or gay intercourse. That's all.

And most Christian's do keep to the bible as much as they can, however everyone is only human. The only real thing in the Bible that people disconsider are the eating laws in leviticus because as I said before the council of Nicea, which was a council of all the popes or something back ages ago decided for some reason that these laws were not needed.

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:44 AM
I was not using this as an excuse .... I was just pointing out that it isn't only the Catholic who are against gay marriage or gay intercourse. That's all.

And we are just pointing out that Catholics use this part of the bible to justify their attitude to gay marriage and gay intercourse. That's all.

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:48 AM
There is nothing about gay people in the first post ...... at all? What are you talking about?

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:50 AM
Leviticus.

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:52 AM
And we are just pointing out that Catholics use this part of the bible to justify their attitude to gay marriage and gay intercourse. That's all.

Also .... of course they use this part of the bible .... they also use every other part of the old testimate it is part of the bible. The story of creation etc etc.
They dont disregard any of it except the food laws which were disregarded yonks ago.

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:53 AM
Leviticus.

Well considering the first post also talks about Exodus .... :rolleyes:

G-Ha
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:57 AM
The only real thing in the Bible that people disconsider are the eating laws in leviticus because as I said before the council of Nicea, which was a council of all the popes or something back ages ago decided for some reason that these laws were not needed.
Oh that's convenient. So, can I just put together some council to approve disregarding the passages of the Bible that I don't like?

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Well considering the first post also talks about Exodus .... :rolleyes:

OK then, the old testament. How old are you? :rolleyes:

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Look you can go look up the history but that happened ages ago like in 1200's or something, Im not sure ...... and they didn't disregard it because they didn't like it I think it had something to do with the devision of the east and west and that they didn't agree on this and had to compromise in order to join them back together or something. I dunno.

shap_half
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:02 AM
BTW shap_half, it's no coincidence that all those scriptures in this piece are from the Old Testament.

I'm Catholic and I'm pretty sure that during Mass literature from the Old Testament is still read. And isn't the story of Sodom and Gemorrah also from the Old Testament?

~RedRose~
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:03 AM
I think Leviticus is seen mostly as Jewish law, however the mentioning of haveing gay relations as a sin is mentioned elsewhere in the bible other than Leviticus.

shap_half
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:04 AM
I haven't been reading in the NT portion of the board lately so I didn't know if this has been posted several times or not. I apologize if this has been read numerous times on this board.

G-Ha
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:12 AM
I haven't been reading in the NT portion of the board lately so I didn't know if this has been posted several times or not. I apologize if this has been read numerous times on this board.
No need to apologize as the questions it raises bear repeating. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why certain portions of the Old Testament (stoning people to death, restrictions on food-consumption, condoning of mistresses/concubines, etc.) are completely ignored in the New Testament, while others (homosexuality being sinful) are addressed.

G-Ha
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:25 AM
Christianity is a system, and like every system it has rules.
Rules that are apparently changed, overlooked or interpreted in different ways when it suits people.

nash
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:45 AM
Christianity isn't based on Jewish Law. It's based on Jesus - having a personal relationship with him. Jesus was offered on the cross for the sins of the world - a living sacrifice, replacing the need for any animal sacrifices and bringing Jewish law to it's completion and fulfillment.

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

When we know the truth (Jesus), we are free from the bondage of sin and from the Jewish Law.

But, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:9 "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak".

Christians are free from sin, but are not to use that freedom as an excuse to do evil or turn away from God. Just because we are free from the rule of the Law, doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at the law as a basis for how to live a moral life.

The law was given to the Jews for a reason. They needed rules to live by until the Messiah came to provide the final sacrifice for sin.

faboozadoo15
Nov 4th, 2004, 01:54 AM
And? Why does it matter from which particular part of the Bible they come?
if you knew anything about christianity, you would know that the new testament fullfills the old testament and includes what jesus thought about existing jewish law (the old testament), and he often disagreed with it himself. since jesus's life and ministry are way more important to christians than any written word, we look to the old testament as an unrealized form of religion-- before christ. it matters a lot where these quotes come from. also, we recognize a lot of things in the bible as symbolic anecdotes to make a point about humanity.

victory1
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:35 AM
We are Gentiles. We became children of God through his son Jesus Christ. So,the bible is broken into 2 part,the Old Testament before Gentiles become Christians and New Testatment, after Jesus. The New testament starts with the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John),the story of Jesus. We use the Old Testament as a history book,we live the New Testament, since the only way to have a relationship with God is through his son Jesus Christ.

Just a little history lesson about the bible from an everyday Christian.:wavey:

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:39 AM
So why are the bits about homosexuality in the OT still considered relevant? Is anyone going to answer that? :rolleyes:

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:42 AM
Did he say it was bad?

faboozadoo15
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:45 AM
Did he say it was bad?
not that i know of. but i know he said we shouldn't pass judgment, and that's what i hope to live for.

anyway, im all for gay marriage. i don't disapprove of homosexuality either. i realize it isn't a choice, and people are made that way. i even get angry when people say things like "oh, i tolerate gay people." people don't want to be tolerated, they want to be appreciated.

nash
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:48 AM
Romans Chapter 1

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature; 27 and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.

These words were written by Paul (not Jesus), but clearly homosexuality is taught as sinful in the New Testament.

faboozadoo15
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:51 AM
So why are the bits about homosexuality in the OT still considered relevant? Is anyone going to answer that? :rolleyes:
basically jesus preached against violence (eye for an eye) and hate. a lot of things are taken from the old testament as relevant (10 commandments) today, but if you look at the beautitudes (new testament) you can clearly see a difference in attitude. things that were sins are still sins pretty much accross the board.

i don't understand why you seem to think that when one part of the church changes, everything must change. church is allowed to be progressive (ie vatican II). obviously the church is not ready for more change or doesn't want to change now. murder is still murder, why hasn't that changed? im not comparing homosexuality to murder by any means, but just because it is considered a sinful act doesn't mean damnation. only jerry falwell will say that.

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:55 AM
basically jesus preached against violence (eye for an eye) and hate. a lot of things are taken from the old testament as relevant (10 commandments) today, but if you look at the beautitudes (new testament) you can clearly see a difference in attitude. things that were sins are still sins pretty much accross the board.

i don't understand why you seem to think that when one part of the church changes, everything must change. church is allowed to be progressive (ie vatican II). obviously the church is not ready for more change or doesn't want to change now. murder is still murder, why hasn't that changed? im not comparing homosexuality to murder by any means, but just because it is considered a sinful act doesn't mean damnation. only jerry falwell will say that.

It's got nothing to do with the church changing. It's about people using what's written in a book to condemn people when they ignore other things written in the same book. That's all.

Martian Willow
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:58 AM
Willow I don't think you understand Christianity that well.

It sounds like you don't.

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:04 AM
I think Leviticus is seen mostly as Jewish law, however the mentioning of haveing gay relations as a sin is mentioned elsewhere in the bible other than Leviticus.
If Leviticus wasn't considered part of Christian orthodoxy, it wouldn't have been put in the Bible. Period.

There are many books that were removed from the Canon because they were not considered appropriate for Christianity.


On another note, to the posters who questioned why some parts are kept, and some not:

1. Homosexuality is considered a relevant concern, as for say, eating pork and shellfish are not. Although you can still be poisoned eating oysters and get trich from pig meat, it is not the rampage it once was.

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:07 AM
Christianity isn't based on Jewish Law. It's based on Jesus - having a personal relationship with him. Jesus was offered on the cross for the sins of the world - a living sacrifice, replacing the need for any animal sacrifices and bringing Jewish law to it's completion and fulfillment.

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

When we know the truth (Jesus), we are free from the bondage of sin and from the Jewish Law.

But, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:9 "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak".

Christians are free from sin, but are not to use that freedom as an excuse to do evil or turn away from God. Just because we are free from the rule of the Law, doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at the law as a basis for how to live a moral life.

The law was given to the Jews for a reason. They needed rules to live by until the Messiah came to provide the final sacrifice for sin.
Just want to clarify that this is a *Protestant* view of Christianity.

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:09 AM
We are Gentiles. We became children of God through his son Jesus Christ. So,the bible is broken into 2 part,the Old Testament before Gentiles become Christians and New Testatment, after Jesus. The New testament starts with the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John),the story of Jesus. We use the Old Testament as a history book,we live the New Testament, since the only way to have a relationship with God is through his son Jesus Christ.

Just a little history lesson about the bible from an everyday Christian.:wavey:
Victory, you're posts are interesting. Just want to add, however, that this is a Protestant view on Christianity. Catholics think of it differently.

BTW, congrats on voting for Kerry. I bet that was a hard thing to do--go against the flow.

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:13 AM
So why are the bits about homosexuality in the OT still considered relevant? Is anyone going to answer that? :rolleyes:
Western society is still very patriarchial, and homosexuality just doesn't jibe with the image of the stronger male protector of women.

People are very queasy on this subject, as goes without saying.

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:16 AM
Did he say it was bad?
You also must understand that many of the thoughts in Christianity came out of a rebellion of the Roman Empire.

The Romans and the Greeks had no problems with sexual relationships with men, young boys, prostitutes. In fact, it was expected that you would have these relationships and that marriage was a way of merging land and producing offspring to take care of it.

Also, the Romans loved bathing. Guess what happened in the Middle Ages :p

jelena4me
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:24 AM
St Paul was as bigoted as many modern christians. Hes the one to blame for the status of women (or lack of it) in christianity. So Paul was probably bigoted against gays as well as women.

The catholic church is Pauls church , and many would argue that Pauls beliefs were somewhat contrary to Jesus'.

Plenty of good reasons to have nothing to with modern christianity if you ask me.

As for the old testament, of course this is Jewish, and was "adopted" by Paul when founding his christian church. Scholars argue that some of the New Testament, particularly Luke I think, was deliberately written so that it would appear that Old Testament prophecies had come true.

Tenous evidence to account for the lowly status of gays and women in the modern world.