Leviticus

Scott1 · Sep 23, 2004

DianJo said:
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.

You are quite welcome. Just one thing: just remember that all who "distort" God's word do not do so with malice. There are several wonderful posters (linwood for example) here who ask honest questions and look for answers like we all do.
Welcome to the forums..... have fun, and remember: charity above all else!

Scott

linwood · Sep 23, 2004

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...

I`m still unsure...I dunno.

Ok I`ve been re-reading Leviticus the past couple of days and overall it sounds like a pretty educational rule book for Biblical times.

Like how to deal with leprosy and how to make sure fruit trees are properly fertilized and things like that.

I cannot agree with chapter 18 however, I just like nakedness too much.

Now please speak to me like I`m a 5 year old (I`m sure nobody will have trouble with that)

The way Mr.Emu defines it is that those rules which have punishment involved or "Moral" codes and those that have no punishment involved are "Ceremonial" codes.

Is this right?
Yes..No?

Am I waaaaay off base again?

Mister Emu · Sep 23, 2004

No, there are morals and laws

A moral is stealing is wrong, or man lieing with man is wrong.

Laws are you goto jail for stealing, or you die for lieing with another man.

If there were no law against stealing, it would still be wrong. The biblical law for killing homosexuals is gone, the moral remains.

linwood · Sep 23, 2004

If there were no law against stealing, it would still be wrong. The biblical law for killing homosexuals is gone, the moral remains.

Ok..I`m not even talking about the homosexual debate here..yet.
However since you mention it if the Biblical law against homosexuals is gone what is the justification for making a national law against homosexuals?

Anyway, to the point...
I`m still not understanding how a Christian determines which laws in Leviticus he/she must abide by and which he/she no longer needs to abide by.

Here`s an example....

11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I`m really not trying to be dense here but what is the difference between these two verses as far as Christians are concerned?

Why is it acceptable for a believer to eat shellfish but not copulate with the same sex?

By what standard do you deem one still applicable and the other not applicable?

Ardhanariswar · Sep 23, 2004

moral: positive and promtes good welfare of all.
immoral: negative, harms.
amoral: no sense of right or wrong
Nonmoral: neither moral or immoral.

i would classify all sexuality under nonmoral. adultry should never be confused with homosexuality.

not all laws or moral. no matter how much the nazis made laws and justified that jews were inhuman and should be killed, does not make it moral.

"Why is it acceptable for a believer to eat shellfish but not copulate with the same sex?"
because the church (through what some believe divine inspiration) got rid of all diatary and other simple laws. but homosexuality remains...why? catholics are dogmatic, instead of listening to jesus, they listen to the church. only until vatican two were they actual able to read the bible. does jesus say anything against homosexuality? no.

linwood · Sep 24, 2004

because the church (through what some believe divine inspiration) got rid of all diatary and other simple laws. but homosexuality remains...why? catholics are dogmatic, instead of listening to jesus, they listen to the church. only until vatican two were they actual able to read the bible. does jesus say anything against homosexuality? no.

That`s what I believe as well Gerani but there are Christians who claim their is a standard as to which laws they follow and which they don`t.

With the explaination that some are "Moral" and some are "Ceremonial"

I`m assuming that there is some standard by which to measure which is which otherwise it is just picking and choosing and dogma.

It doesn`t seem like many Christians can answer my question though.

11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Why is it acceptable for a believer to eat shellfish but not copulate with the same sex?

By what standard do you deem one still applicable and the other not applicable?

Again I do see that you`re trying to show me why there is a distinction made but I`m still not seeing any standard for seperating the two types of laws.

Help please?

Scott1 · Sep 24, 2004

Gerani said:
i would classify all sexuality under nonmoral

Pederasty? Insest?

linwood · Sep 24, 2004

I just re-read this whole thread paying close to Emus and scotts explainations.

If I am understanding correctly then all they laws still apply as a moral standard yet Christians no longer punish people for committing them.

yes..no?

Scott1 · Sep 24, 2004

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

While the Old Testaments 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.

Ardhanariswar · Sep 24, 2004

"Pederasty? Insest?"

live giving? love bonding?

sex can be both bad and good, its all up to the practicioners. homosexuality in itself aint bad. its a thing. it cant be bad nor good. its an expression of love, sex that is. sex can also be used for money.

"God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures"

you are aware that homosexulity exists in all cultures rite? and you are aware that because of fear and homophobia, many people despised it and began saying that God is against it. this is completly untrue, God is beyond sexuality, God is a form of love, and homosexuality is an expression of it, just as heterosexuality is.

about leviticus, i think the dude who wrote it must have been in error. i dunno.

Mister Emu · Sep 24, 2004

Why is it acceptable for a believer to eat shellfish but not copulate with the same sex?

Jesus specifically says

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matthew 15:11

Hope that helps.

Green Gaia · Sep 24, 2004

Gerani1248 said:
about leviticus, i think the dude who wrote it must have been in error. i dunno.

No, I don't think the author of Leviticus was in error. He was simply recording the laws of the ancient Jewish people. The problem comes in when people try to apply those ancient laws to our society today. It doesn't fit. It's two different worlds.

linwood · Sep 24, 2004

Hope that helps.

Not really.
It tells me why it`s ok to eat shellfish but it still gives me no standard by which you judge the laws in Leviticus to find which are still applicable and which aren`t.

Jesus doesn`t say anything whatsoever about homosexuality so I guess that one no longer applies?
If he says nothing about adultery, a womans menstrual cycle, burnt offerings, or fruit trees or leprosy I guess those don`t apply either?

If Jesus doesn`t mention it is it now ok to peek up my moms skirt?

Why aren`t you sectioning cattle every Saturday and having the priests properly arrange it on the pyre so God can savour the sweet aroma?

I consider myself a somewhat intelligent man.
When a simple concept is explained to me in language I can understand I`m 100% of the time able to grasp its meaning.

The only conclusion I`m coming to here is that Christians themselves have no standard to determine what laws to follow and which are no longer applicable.

If this is the case then there is no foundation for many of the rules Christians follow.
It is indeed ala carte.

Again,I am more than happy to change my conclusion.
Just give me some evidence to promote a different view.
Any evidence.

linwood · Sep 24, 2004

No, I don't the author of Leviticus was in error. He was simply recording the laws of the ancient Jewish people. The problem comes in when people try to apply those ancient laws to our society today. It doesn't fit. It's two different worlds.

But Maize there are Christians who claim that some of these laws still apply in todays world yet I can`t get an answer as to why some do and some don`t.

Do you know why ?

Green Gaia · Sep 24, 2004

No, linwood, I don't. Except that some believe the Bible is God's own words, including Leviticus. So they've thrown off the laws that they believe were social laws, applying only to the Jewish people, but kept the others. Which as far as I can tell the only one kept is the law concerning homosexuality. This is my best understanding. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

(I still hold that Levitivus is nothing more than a record of ancient Jewish laws that are unfeasible in today's world.)

linwood · Sep 24, 2004

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

While the Old Testaments 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.

I can accept that but how do you decide which are moral laws and which are just ceremonial?

Mister Emu · Sep 24, 2004

Jesus doesn`t say anything whatsoever about homosexuality so I guess that one no longer applies?

No, Jesus specifically stated that food no longer mattered therefore it doesn't.

It tells me why it`s ok to eat shellfish but it still gives me no standard by which you judge the laws in Leviticus to find which are still applicable and which aren`t.

You have been told multiple times, MORALS stay LAWS do not , MORALS stay LAWs go.

When a simple concept is explained to me in language I can understand I`m 100% of the time able to grasp its meaning.

Then grasp it, there is a difference between morals and laws, I explained it in the simpleist terms

steals is wrong : MORAL
you goto jail fro stealing: LAW

Man+man=abomination: MORAL
Killing homosexuals: LAW

That is the difference.

Which as far as I can tell the only one kept is the law concerning homosexuality. This is my best understanding. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong

If we kept to the law about homosexuals, well we'd all be killers. We do not keep the law, we keep the moral.

Why aren`t you sectioning cattle every Saturday and having the priests properly arrange it on the pyre so God can savour the sweet aroma?

Because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, we no longer have to give burnt offerings.

Pah · Sep 24, 2004

Mister Emu said:
Then grasp it, there is a difference between morals and laws, I explained it in the simpleist terms

steals is wrong : MORAL
you goto jail fro stealing: LAW

Man+man=abomination: MORAL
Killing homosexuals: LAW

That is the difference.

Unfortunetly for your argument morality changes with the times as well. In the Church we can see celebracy flip-flop for clergy. We can see the influence of ensoulment and the idea or quickening altering the view of the earliest Church fathers regarding abortion. We have seen the silence of the Roman Catholic Church when Jews were being killed by Hitler. The Church has seen fit to elect as pope some very licentious men. Specifically in the point of this thread, we see the Church blessing the union of same sex couples.

Morality, though more stable than laws, does change.

-pah-

linwood · Sep 24, 2004

Mister Emu said:
You have been told multiple times, MORALS stay LAWS do not , MORALS stay LAWs go.

I have been told two different things multiple times and the only question I asked still remains unanswered.

You tell me that all the moral parts of all the laws still hold true but that the punishment for them no longer applies.

Scott tells me there is a difference between the laws, that some are moral and some are ceremonial yet NO ONE has as of yet told me by which standards these are separated.

Under your (Mr. Emus) definition it is immoral for me to....

Become a Wiccan .........................Lev 20:27

Kiss my wife if she`s on her period....Lev 15:9

Cut my hair or trim my beard............Lev 19:27

But it is moral for a Jew to...

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

Unless Jesus made a statement contradicting these laws they still hold true in a moral sense.

Is that what you`re telling me?

I would ask you why the "Morals stay but the law goes"?
Does the Bible (NT) specifically say this somewhere?
Where did you learn that the "Morals stay but the law goes"?

Then grasp it, there is a difference between morals and laws, I explained it in the simpleist terms

I think I do grasp your idea but I still think it`s immoral for a Jew to buy slaves

If we kept to the law about homosexuals, well we'd all be killers. We do not keep the law, we keep the moral.

Then you disagree with the movement among the religious right to amend the constitution to make it LAWFULto discriminate against homosexuals?

Granted the proposed law isn`t as harsh as death but it`s still pretty harsh to deny someone the opportunity to raise a family within the deep commitment that marriage provides.
It`s still pretty harsh to deny a person access to a loved partner who has been hospitalized.
It`s still pretty harsh to deny a person the right to carry out the wishes of a loved partner after the partners death.
It`s still pretty harsh to deny equitable medical coverage to a loved partner because of their sex.

I don`t think I have it yet.
Because if all this is right then you believe it is immoral to deny Jews the right to own slaves.
I don`t think you feel that way.

As for Scotts definition someone still needs to supply a standard by which each of Gods law are deemed "Moral" or "Ceremonial" for them to have any concrete meaning.

This is my unanswered question.

Mister Emu · Sep 24, 2004

Become a Wiccan .........................Lev 20:27

Yes

Kiss my wife if she`s on her period....Lev 15:9

Lev 15:9 has to do with men with running sores, and it is telling you how to deal with that, no morals involved.

Cut my hair or trim my beard............Lev 19:27

This is ceremony, it does not say, trimming your hair is bad, it says you shall not round the corners of your head, nor shall you mar the corners of your beard.

But it is moral for a Jew to...

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

I do not believe so, and I cannot speak for the Jewish community.

I would ask you why the "Morals stay but the law goes"?
Does the Bible (NT) specifically say this somewhere?
Where did you learn that the "Morals stay but the law goes"?

When Jesus died he sealed a new covenant, this new covenant no longer required all the ceremonial aspects that the old covenant did.

I have been told two different things multiple times and the only question I asked still remains unanswered.

Actually you have not, when SOGFPP says cermonial requirements, those are the laws I am talking about, moral requirements are the morals.

On the other point, I'm sorry I cannot explain it any better, there are morals, and ceremonial laws. I determine this depending on whether God is saying, this is wrong, or this is what I want you to do.

Leviticus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Emu Extraordinaire

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Emu Extraordinaire