• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Leviticus

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
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.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

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?

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 ?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan




What are your thoughts after reading this?
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
thats hillarious! lol. many christians use the exucuse, all those *other* laws were abolished. sigh. thats really pathetic.

can i use this to post a topic in the jesus forum: www.freejesus.net ? please let me know, thx.
 

anders

Well-Known Member
I have seen it a couple of times, with different introductions and ends. It is cleverely and entertainingly written, a very good collection of absurdities in the OT, and I have used it a few times as a quick reference to such passages.

It makes a good argument for Christians to remove 2500 year old rules for Israelites from their Bible.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I assume(correct me if I am wrong) that you are inferring that because we do not own slaves, or kill people for those things any longer, that arguements against Homosexuality from Leviticus are no longer applicable.

Well sorry but your wrong,

All the old laws were abolished. That is that, thus I should not kill someone for working on the sabbath.

It would be best if I did not have to work on saturday, but if I do I am no longer condemned to death :)

When it was said that "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" that is not a law but this is "they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

We no longer should kill people for what they do :)
 
I won't quote any verses because they are too numerous... ask if you really feel compelled. When Jesus died he established a 'new covenant' with man, which entailed a drastic change in the requirements for salvation. I'm sure this is covered in a bunch of other threads. Amongst these changes was the abolishment of all Jewish ceremonial laws, like eating kosher, and other things. Now, which laws EXACTLY were abolished, thats being debated, but its a good general rule. Also, since your concious should guide you above all, wouldn't this hypothetical person, if they were a true christian, feel bad about murdering several upstanding members of their community, as well as selling their daughter into slavery? And if you say no, I think you have met some 'iffy' Christians. :))
 

standing_on_one_foot

Well-Known Member
Heheh, I like the one about shellfish :p Oh, and has anyone else noticed that the particular homosexuality-is-an-abomination thing is actually only male-homosexuality-is-an-abomination? Doesn't mention anything about women...
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.
Despite the humor of this sarcastic letter, this has no merit.

Many non-Christians are confused (understandably) about the Bible and Christ.... to clear up (hopefully) this topic at least:
Although some people out of ignorance or spite try to mock OT law, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

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.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

www.catholic.com

Peace,
Scott
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
How is the difference between "Ceremonial" & "Moral" laws determined?

What of Davids little affair with Jonathan?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
How is the difference between "Ceremonial" & "Moral" laws determined?

The morals were not laws I explained this in my earlier posts.

What of Davids little affair with Jonathan?

Hmm, never happened? Yup, that's it, never happened. :)
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
The morals were not laws I explained this in my earlier posts.

I`m sorry Emu I`ve apparently missed those posts.
Can you direct me to them?
I just really want to know but what standards they are separated.


Hmm, never happened? Yup, that's it, never happened. :)


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."
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I`m sorry Emu I`ve apparently missed those posts.
Can you direct me to them?
I just really want to know but what standards they are separated.

SOGFPP, put it far better than I could have, his post is on page one, as well is mine.

lol...ok..ok.

If you wish to believe those passages are sexually oriented then be my guest, they are not and interpreting them in that fashion is the product of minds who wish to turn brotherly and spiritual bonding into something completley different to justify themselve's or others' unjustifiable actions.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
SOGFPP, put it far better than I could have, his post is on page one, as well is mine.

I read them both and understand what you and Scott are saying but neither post states what standard or rule was used to determine what was a moral law and what was ceremonial.
The differences can`t be simply arbitrary can they?
If so they were "picked"
Kinda ala carte..

If you wish to believe those passages are sexually oriented then be my guest, they are not and interpreting them in that fashion is the product of minds who wish to turn brotherly and spiritual bonding into something completley different to justify themselve's or others' unjustifiable actions.

It just doesn`t sound like Jonathan and David making out until David gets large is really a brotherly thing.
I dunno for sure though..I`m an only child :)

I also would never use the Bible to "justify" anything.
I don`t think anyones sexuality needs justification.

Men and women didn`t much associate in platonic relationships in ancient Israel so I`m led to believe most relationships involving "love" between men and women were of a physical nature.
Why would David compare his love for Jonathan as more wonderful than that of women?
Why not more wonderful than that of a brother, father, son, or other friends?

It seems you and I have been debating quite a few topics back and forth and we will most probably continue that so I will tell you for future reference that I always attempt to interpret any religious text in it`s most literal form possible.
This is where alot of our disagreements come from I suspect.

I would also like to say I have enjoyed the debates we`ve had as they haven`t even come close to degrading into idiocy as many do between people with such different beliefs as you and I.
Thank you for that.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I read them both and understand what you and Scott are saying but neither post states what standard or rule was used to determine what was a moral law and what was ceremonial.
The differences can`t be simply arbitrary can they?
If so they were "picked"
Kinda ala carte..

Can you understand the difference between the two following statements, if so then you can understand the difference.

Stealing is wrong.
If you steal, you will goto jail.

One is a moral, one is a law. There is the difference bewteen, Man lieing with man is an abomination, and they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It just doesn`t sound like Jonathan and David making out until David gets large is really a brotherly thing.
I dunno for sure though..I`m an only child

It never says they made out.

and the translation for the word is:
OT:1431

gadal (gaw-dal'); a primitive root; properly, to twist [compare OT:1434], i.e. to be (causatively make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honor, also in pride):


KJV - advance, boast, bring up, exceed, excellent, be (-come, do, give, make, wax), great (-er, come to ... estate, + things), grow (up), increase, lift up, magnify (-ifical), be much set by, nourish (up), pass, promote, proudly [spoken], tower.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

OT:1431
gadal --



to grow, to become great or important, to promote, to make powerful, to praise, to magnify, to do great things

a) (Qal)
1) to grow up
2) to become great
3) to be magnified
b) (Piel)
1) to cause to grow
2) to make great, to make powerful
3) to magnify
c) (Pual) to be brought up
d) (Hiphil)
1) to make great
2) to magnify
3) to do great things
e) (Hithpael) to magnify oneself
(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)

to take it as(and I am assuming correct me if I'm wrong) that they kissed until he got "hard" is rediculous.

Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss, that as in this instance was not homosexual or homoerotic in any way, it was brotherly affection(or would have been had Judas not betrayed).

I also would never use the Bible to "justify" anything.
I don`t think anyones sexuality needs justification.

I never said you did, I said this interpretation is the product of minds trying to justify.

Why would David compare his love for Jonathan as more wonderful than that of women?
Why not more wonderful than that of a brother, father, son, or other friends?

This was to show how powerful the bond was, it was above a mere fleshly relation and transcended to the spiritual.

It seems you and I have been debating quite a few topics back and forth and we will most probably continue that so I will tell you for future reference that I always attempt to interpret any religious text in it`s most literal form possible.
This is where alot of our disagreements come from I suspect.

I am a strict literalist when it comes to the Bible, I guess our difference come in what we believe as literal translations :)

I would also like to say I have enjoyed the debates we`ve had as they haven`t even come close to degrading into idiocy as many do between people with such different beliefs as you and I.
Thank you for that.

I am always up for a good debate, I would like to thank you too for the well thought out debates.
 

DianJo

New Member
Scott,
Thanks for putting that in perspective! I have seen that letter before and all it does is make fun of God's intention for His people. That's what comes from just quoting scripture passages out of context and not taking into account the reason these things were set down in fisrt place. It's such a shame that people take such delight in distorting God's word and intention.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
What do some use Leviticus against others, yet they do not follow all the rules and laws in Leviticus themselves? I've yet to understand this...
 
Top