News and Politics Forum

Duke, it's easier to thump with Leviticus than say....The Gospels or...Corinthians.

What do you mean by "tolerate"?

What Thundersnow quoted from the Bible was a good answer to the OP.

Why don't Christians follow all the law?  I like to use this analogy:  if you had to take the trash out every night, and if someone took out all of your trash for all of time, then you don't have to take out the trash every night anymore -- and indeed you cannot -- because there is no trash to take out anymore.  It has already been done.

Case in point:  T said disabled people cannot approach the alter without defiling it.  Yes, that's in the Bible.  But my question to the questioner is:  where is the throne?  There is none (at least on Earth).  So that law physically cannot be obeyed anymore.  There are a lot of other OT laws just like this.  The list shortens quickly.

Zukiphile wrote:

How would a dizzying array of regulations about separate plates and not mixing meat and dairy bring people to a manifestation of God in a man?  That sounds like a bad plan from the outset.

The law was added so that it becomes clear how far short we fall from God (Romans 5).  Also, check out Romans 7.  Also, the middle of Guy's quote from Acts 15:  "Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"

Thanks for posting Acts 15, Guy.  I just read that again yesterday afternoon.

glfredrick wrote:

Jesus became the Law fullfilment on our behalf

To elaborate on this, let me share my experience with the Law.  I became a Christian four years ago.  When that happened, I had only read half of a book of the Bible and I lived exactly as I had when I was a non-Christian.  I was breaking all sorts of God's laws (even the ones Jesus recommended).  But I was saved despite this.  Gradually, over the course of months and years, God fixed me of my chronic sins, one at a time.  Stuff I used to do, reading the Bible, I would become convicted of those things and turn from them.  I now obey more of the Law than I used to.  There are things God is working on me right now but I am not freed from them yet, and I know there are many things I am not aware I am doing that God will fix in the future.  And then threads like this pop up and I seriously consider the stuff about beard trimming.  Is this fulfilled in Christ or is this still a Good Idea?  I'm not sure.  Note:  I am not interested in legalism. I am interested in pleasing God.  So in short, a Christian doesn't have to follow any of the law, but will inevitably begin following more and more of it as time goes on.  That's called Sanctification.

Raoul Duke wrote:

Why do so many Christians use the OT, particularly Leviticus, as reason for their belief that God sees homosexuality as an "abomination" while many parts of that same book are largely disregarded?

Already answered by others, and myself in this post.  Let me know where I can perform the atonement for sin by animal sacrifice (most of Leviticus).  Last I heard, the temple was flattened in 70 AD and the Muslims currently have control of the site.

T wrote:

So based on the teachings of the Bible, homosexuals are going to hell?

So are liars.  "Thou shalt not bear false testimony."  I'm a liar.  I'm going to hell.  No, Christ paid the penalty for my sin, just as he paid the penalty for a homosexual's sin of having lustful thoughts outside of marriage (also in the Ten Commandments).  A homosexual is no worse off than I am.  We're all sinners.  That's where the power of Jesus comes in.

Despite being a noob, Buho has almost all the answers. What a good feeling that must be.

Last edited by Sven (07-23-2008 04:44 PM)

I'm a bit perplexed, Sven.  I've asked the same questions everyone is asking here before.  I've studied this stuff.  I've found answers.  I like to teach others what I've learned.  I'm sharing what I've learned.  No different than if people were asking ASP.NET questions.  I've asked the same questions, found answers, and like to share them to speed others along in their acquisition of knowledge.

Now if I'm wrong, please let me know!  I don't want to be wrong and do want to learn what is right.

T wrote:

I believe you are born that way [homosexual] and I don't think it's a disorder.

Two things.  One, what is a "disorder" but that which is not functioning the way it was designed.  To claim homosexuality is by design is to reject what God (the alleged designer of us) says about sex and marriage.  That may be just fine for you, but I just wanted to make sure that point was clear. 

Two, consider this:  the Bible says I am born sinful.  I am predisposed to hate my neighbor, and I think if you reflect on this yourself, you would agree the same is so with you.  We have a tendency to divide and destroy.  I was born this way.  That does not make what I do "good" or acceptable.  If homosexuals are "born that way," that still does not make it "good" in God's eyes.  If anything, it just shows us how much more we are in dire need of God and His Savior.

I'm sure the people making the film didn't have a bone to pick or anything...

I seem to remember typing "I'm sure they had an agenda" but I gues I edited it out.

T wrote:
I guess I have a hard time understanding how loving someone unconditionally in regards to sex can be seen as a bad thing.

I think the italicised portion mixes two very different concepts.

I have a hard time relaying my thoughts via keyboard, it never comes out right. I think you get what I am saying.

T, do you feel the same angst over Christians being against sleeping around?

Buho wrote:

Raoul Duke wrote:

Why do so many Christians use the OT, particularly Leviticus, as reason for their belief that God sees homosexuality as an "abomination" while many parts of that same book are largely disregarded?

Already answered by others, and myself in this post.  Let me know where I can perform the atonement for sin by animal sacrifice (most of Leviticus).  Last I heard, the temple was flattened in 70 AD and the Muslims currently have control of the site.

Can you humor me?  I am a simple guy; I don't see where you address the fact that I see/hear Leviticus specifically used to condemn homosexuality time and time again by people who use it to prove to me that gays are an abomination but who ignore virtually the rest of the directives therein.  They don't become upset at people who have contact with menstruating women, who plant multiple crops in fields, eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed fibers. 

They may seem less "in your face" but are all included. 

I do not claim to be a biblical scholar - but even one of my limited understanding can see where the fire and brimstone types who march under placards containing Leviticus 18:22 with such fervor are being inconsistent when they ignore the rest that are quite frankly less fun to get upset about. 

I do know the passages from NT as well - and did not address that; I am interested in the inconsistency re: the one book of the OT.  I could be mistaken but the post initially asked:

T wrote:

The question I have is this. Shouldn't you be following ALL of God's word, not just the parts you agree with that talk about homosexuality and the others (Ten Commandments)?

That is why I asked why are those with such fervor for the anti-homosexuality passages of Leviticus not equally passionate in their crusade to shut down Red Lobster and prevent Da Bears from playing ball on Sunday? 

Again - I haven't studied the Bible regularly since HS and could have forgotten the "...unless you really want to" after the other prohibitions.

T wrote:

Raul- You asked my question better than I ever could. Thanks.

ETA- I read "De Beers", not "Da Bears". I was thinking "Why would the diamond company be playing baseball for anyway?"

DeBeers wouldn't have much to do with NT Christians. 

And zuk and Foh - You're probably pretty much on track.  Bonus points for the Clockwork Orange reference.  Praise whore.

Qwinn wrote:

... then I think the objection of seeing one cited more than the other is a bit, well, lawyerly.

*the crowd gasps*

Qwinn wrote:

And you don't want to be like Matt, do you?

Hey!  Women want me.  Men want to be me.

Raoul Duke wrote:

They don't become upset at people who... wear clothing of mixed fibers.

You always have to pick on the pollocks.

Qwinn wrote:

Duke, I think if the NT also had the prohibition against shellfish, then people would reference both the OT and NT versions of the prohibition.  The fact that it's repeated in the NT makes the passages in the OT remain "active", so to speak, and equally citable.

At least, that's how it seems to me.  Recall I'm agnostic.  But if the OT and the NT basically agree on the subject, and they do, then I think the objection of seeing one cited more than the other is a bit, well, lawyerly.

And you don't want to be like Matt, do you?

/evil

Qwinn

When I grow up, yes. 

I don't object because I see one cited more than the other.  I object to citing it at all - especially with such insistence and zeal - while ignoring the other activities it also prohibits. 

While I realize there are NT passages as well, and if people wish to debate those - very well, but I'm speaking of the inherent flaw in using a book to condemn an activity while ignoring the other activities it condemns.

I lived on East Ave - the main drag downtown (no pun intended).  The gay pride parade went down East every year and every year scores of protesters would line the sidewalks outside my building shouting some pretty nasty stuff and holding sign after sign depicting figures writhing in lakes of fire and quoting Leviticus - verbally and on their placards.  It was by far the most commonly used ammo.  I rarely, if ever heard/saw Romans, Mark, Corinthians, etc. used.

When a no-shellfish-eating-put-your-wife-in-a-separate-bed-when-aunt-flo-visits-decline-the-swine-one-fabric-wearing protester shows up - he/she can use Leviticus as proof.  Until then I'd just as soon see them leave it on the shelf.

Last edited by Raoul Duke (07-23-2008 07:41 PM)