Leviticus (Jesus, moral, exodus, salvation, homosexuality)

[Pah]

Originally Posted by chuck010342

Wow your right I can't believe that jesus told us not to follow the teachings of God oh no my faith is wrong I have been wrong all this time.....

in case you can' t tell I'm being sarcastic

you violated one rule of law when dealing with the bible

you took the passage out of context. but it into context and Mark 7 makes sense

It was Mark 7 to which I refered. It seems to give no justification for "why are maniacal Christians fighting the Constitution to include the Ten Commandments - why are the prophecies spewed throughout the New Testament"

-pah-

[Pah]

Originally Posted by logos

Take over? How are Christians trying to take over, if anything they are being asked to stop being Christians and asserting their beliefs. In other words, be a Christian in name but foregoing one's Christian identity.

You must have been asleep during the election returns. Christianity is, through theocracy, trying to take over the country.

We, as a country, have never persecuted Christians for their beliefs and there are no "hate crimes" that I've heard of. The "persecution" in this country procedes from Christians.

We would very much like to be left alone, but since that is not possible in a Christian worldview, we must assert our rights - our secular rights - the rights that have primacy over sectarian obilgations.

Your rights to freedom of faith stop when it bloodies our noses - throw your punches within your congregations and not in society.

-pah-

[logos]

Originally Posted by linwood

Walk a mile in the persons shoes you are analysing before you attempt to analyze.

Become a Unitarian?

[logos]

Originally Posted by pah

We would very much like to be left alone, but since that is not possible in a Christian worldview, we must assert our rights - our secular rights - the rights that have primacy over sectarian obilgations.

Your rights to freedom of faith stop when it bloodies our noses - throw your punches within your congregations and not in society.

-pah-

How do your rights have primacy over sectarian obligations?

How are we bloodying your noses?

[Pah]

Originally Posted by logos

How do your rights have primacy over sectarian obligations?

How are we bloodying your noses?

Because we did not put the Constitution on the altar of God. It, the Constitution, stands alone as the ultimate authority. The fact that our nation recognizes freedom of religion makes religion subservient to the state. Should the state, such as the Soviet Union or China, limit religion, you would have limited expression of religion. If, as an article of faith, you want to practise what you consider a obligation, i.e., proselytization, molding a society in your worldview, it would only be within the laws of the state.

You have doubts that our state limits freedom of religious expression? I would think you would be aware of the limits of splaying the Ten Commandments wherever you heart desires. Perhaps you are not aware of the road built through sacred ground or the prohibition of hallucinogens in religious ceremony that the state forced on religion? Perhaps you've heard of Bob Jones Univeristy where a school policy based on religious grounds was changed to avoid the threat of removal of tax benefit? Perhaps you've heard of the limits placed upon passing out religious tracts?

Do you really think you have a free ride in religious expression? that you can willy-nilly follow your interpretation of what your God say? What you do have is at the discretion of the state. It has always been this way and your Christian history should have show you that.

Because our state allows you freedom of religious expression and allows me the same freedoms (which include the negation of religion) you bloody our nose every time you force your view upon us.

-pah-

[linwood]

Originally Posted by logos

Become a Unitarian?

Touche"

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Maize

I'm going to use this "letter" I found on the internet to illustrate why I think Leviticus should not be used by Christians to condemn to judge anyone.

The problem with James Kaufman (the author) is very simple. He is ignorant and he tries to make fun of something that he doesn't obviously have any clue about. For him to have any clue about the Torah commandments, he would first have need to study it, as well as the very large body of Jewish law interpreting the Torah commandments. Example: the Talmud and commentaries. However, if I were to make a guess about Mr. Kaufman, I would guess that he doesn't even read hebrew nor Aramaic which he would need to know in order to read the Talmud. Thus, Mr. Kaufman would do better to start learning the Hebew alphabet before asking idiotic questions. Nevertheless, here are the answers (not my own) to them. They contain some hebrew terms, which any serious student of Torah laws would know. I assume neither Mr. Kaufman nor Maize is familiar with those terms, but I really don't feel like translating them or explaining them, since it would be a waste of my time anyway.

a) 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 complain to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

If you are Jewish, you shouldn't be offering any sacrifices outside of the Beth Hamikdash (Temple); so the question doesn't get to the real root of the problem. Otherwise, you're a Ben Noach and fully entitled to offer free will offerings anywhere within reason. In such a case, perhaps a mutually pleasant arrangement could be made between the two of you in a civil, and law-abiding manner.

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law ?

Selling people into slavery was put under gezerah (decree) at least in the times of Rabbi Yosef Caro who's Shulchan Aruch makes the ownership of slaves halachically impossible. The question, though well intendtioned, is today meaningless. Which you would know, if you had any minimal education about the Torah.

c) 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 and threaten to call Human Resources.

Perhaps the laws of tacharat hamishpacha, laws of family purity; which observant Jews have observed for at least 3,314 years, would help here. That is, of course, if you're Jewish. But if you're not Jewish then the law in question does not apply to you and so the question becomes meaningless.

d) 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? Is there something wrong with tham due to the weather?

For the same reason that you can't sell your daughter as a slave. Because a gezerah exists on slavehood.

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project ? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it?

First off, we have to know if you're neighbour's Jewish. If he is, there could be a problem. If he isn't, then his not keeping Shabbat is actually in compliance with Torah which forbids Gentiles from keeping the Sabbath. However, assuming that your neighbour was indeed born to a Jewish mother, Tractate Shabbat clearly states what process must happen before a person who is desecrating the Sabbath is to be punished for the desecration. First, the witness must be informed that what they are doing is an act of melocha [scecific act prohibited to be performed on the Sabbath], they must then continue to perform the act. Then, they must be brought to the attention of the Sanhedrin, etc. Since there is no Sanhedrin at this time, you cannot and should not do anything beyond reminding them that their actions are an act of creative work prohibited on the Sabbath.

f) 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. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this?

An abomination is an abomination is an abomination. Refer to the Jewish dietary laws which do not allow the consumption of shellfish. Then look up the laws of family purity (if you haven't already [refer #3]) and see that homosexual behaviour is equally prohibited and is equally 'not done.'

Of course, as far as Gentiles are concerned, they are not prohibited from eating shellfish. They are, however, prohibited from engaging in homosexual activity, as laid down in the Sheva Mitsvoth B'nei Noach [Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noach], affirmed in TB Sanhedrin 59b and ratified as halacha in the Mishne Torah: Hilchot Melachim u'Milchamoteichem 9:7.

g) 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? Would contact lenses fall within some exception?

Why don't you try reading Leviticus 21:20, and the verses surrounding it, and answer this one for yourself. Keep in mind, that those verses only apply to Kohanim (Priestly tribes - descendants of Aaron). So unless you are a descendant of Aaron, there is really no wiggle room for you.

h) 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? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it's ok?

They should not die, but should regret their earlier mistake and let their hair grow. That is, of course, if they're Jewish. But if they're not Jewish then they have no reason to 'not shave the hair around their temples.'

I) 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?

You don't have to wear gloves: here's why: if you're a Gentile, then the laws of impurity do not apply to you at all. If you're Jewish, then if you touch pig's carcass, then all that will happen is that you'll have to wait until sunset, bathe, and then you're clean again to enter the Temple. But since the Temple isn't standing, it's a bit academic.

j) 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)

Before answering the first point, we must know: (1) Is your uncle Jewish? and (2) Is your uncle's farm in the Land of Israel? If the answer to (1) and (2) are both 'yes' then there is indeed a problem. In such a case, your uncle should (1) regret his previous mistakes and (2) till up the zerayah [seeds] (TB Zerayim]. Otherwise, the prohibition of kilayim does not apply to your uncle, his farm, or his produce. As for the wife's garment, there's no halachic problem with it on the sounds of it. The Torah prohibition of shatnez applies only to garments made from material of different biological kingdoms. For example, wool [animal] and linen [plant.] Cotton and polyester is not a problem. Cursing and blaspheming a lot can be equally remedied by the farmer regretting his past deed, and stopping. Plain and simple.

I know you’re trying to be funny. Next time, though, try to find some questions that haven’t been answered in three thousand years.

Again, I didn't come up with these answers, as I wouldn't waste my time answering such stupid and idiotic questions.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by linwood

lol...ok..ok.

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

1Samuel 20:41
"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David became great."

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

1. I have never seen a person read so much trash into so few verses. You get 10 for a wild imagination.

2. The word ahava, love, has pretty much the same meaning as in English and is in no way reserved for sexual attraction. The famous verse "you shall love the Lord your G-d, with all your heart...." has the same word for love. Let me assure you, there is nothing sexual there.

3. Assuming, for a second, that all you say is true. What's the point? What's the conclusion? That homosexual acts are fine and dandy according to the bible? Is that what you are suggesting? Because the bible also describes many acts of murder, adultery, and G-d knows what. But a description is not an endorsement.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Scott1

I can't explain it any better than I have already:

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

How is shellfish a ceremonial requirement?

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by linwood

But it is moral for a Jew to...

Buy slaves as long as they are gentile....Lev 25:44

The Torah gives you an outline of the rules on the treatment of slaves and the rules that they must follow.

I posted this above:

Selling people into slavery was put under gezerah (decree) at least in the times of Rabbi Yosef Caro who's Shulchan Aruch makes the ownership of slaves halachically impossible. The question, though well intendtioned, is today meaningless. Which you would know, if you had any minimal education about the Torah.