Light hearted look at the old testament.

This is to all the religious zealots out there. LOL

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, 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 him 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 laws and how to best 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. 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. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

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.

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?

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?

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. 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?

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?

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.

I know a wonderfully homophobic individual that justifies all his hate this way Ihope you don't mind me forwarding your little gem onto him! Thanks for that*

The usual dribble from another clear headed religious bigot!

Obviously you copied some seemingly clever little tirade to "show up" us religious zealots. Wow, irrefutable. I must hand it to you. lol, NOT!

Well atleast let me hand you an explanation. While it is true that the God of the Bible is never changing in His attributes. His chosen way to express Himself to us has been progressive. In other words, He has reveiled more and more of Himself over time to His people, culminating with the gift of the Holy Spirit to indwell believers after Jesus' physical departure from earth. The Old Testament, sometimes referred to as the old covenant, was God's description of the interaction between God and His people up to near Jesus' incarnation. The fact that He still despises the act of homosexuality (not nescessarily the homosexual) as an immutable fact of His character does not mean that we must keep the ceremonial law that was for those people at that time. We now have the New Testament, or new covenant / agreement for living in relation to our creator. Jesus is the fulfillment of these old practices found in the ceremonial law of Leviticus, as any Orthodox Jew could confirm that the messiah is meant to be (even though they don't agree that Jesus is this messiah.) This endless and clearly not well researched rhetoric is just the usual slop that appeals to those who have made up their mind against Christianity without all the facts.

Yeah, let's get the Christian. I can hardly wait to hear the drool that will undoubtably be personal in nature since the philosophy behind the attacks is empty. I admit that one of my short comings is synicism. But pointing that out or making any other slandererous remark that might be attributed to me will not advance your position any. Only serves to reveal the antagonistic biases behind the bigotry. So, what do you say? Are you interested in discussing the merits of the debate or are you to busy loading the mud slinger?

Hi Razor, me again. Isn't christianity supposed to be personal?

I think your god must be watching, I've just been talking about the Old Testament. (Joke, no offense meant)

I almost completely agree with your extremely generalistic reply. You would think that God (I'm going to be polite and put the capital letters in this time) would evolve, much as we have, and as mankind develops His guidance would become less strict. That Leviticus was a one wasn't he.

However, Lulu raises the point, quite justly, that many of your more orthodox brethren do seem to like to quote archaic passages to justify holding archaic viewpoints. Quite often while holding banners.

You have already stated your belief in an ever changing God and yet you claim to know what He thinks by stating that "He still despises the act of homosexuality"? And that wasn't an attack on you either, all modern Christians seem to know the mind of God. That used to be the Pope's job but apparently even 'God's emmisary on Earth' has to accept a job share these days.

Fifty years ago white Christians didn't want to pray with black Christians. Thankfully sense prevails eventually.

HvyFuel, you seem like a smart individual. That's why it confounds me that you miss the point completely. Read what you wrote. You have placed your hodgepodge template of your understanding of Christianity on me. The Catholic church nor the Pope were ever God's official institution. If you would simply pick up a Bible and read it, you would find it to be quite different from your contorted presumptions about it. You might start with the Gospel of John, or even the book of Hebrews which makes the very point that we no longer have need for a High Priest nor a Pope for that matter, as it states that Jesus is our (the believers that is) High Priest and mediator between God and man.

Spare me your tired rantings on what Christianity has done wrong. It is because men determine to reject God's plan for them and follow their own will that it responsible for all the attrocities of history. Including the men who went to church, professed faith, etc. I am not Catholic, but even I can see that just because some of their preists are pedifiles does not mean that the whole institution it bad. It would be like saying you are wrong for being American when the country makes a mistake in diplomacy or war. Whatever, its not like I am probably getting through to you.Trying the old fallacy of guilt by association. Whether God exists or not is not dependant on whether crusaders commited misdeeds in His name or not. So you should atleast consider the merits of the message.

I do not claim to know the mind of God. It's easy for you to set up strawmen just to knock them down, if you understand what I mean. I could elaborate if you need. I am only representing what He has said about Himself. I am not the author but simply a messenger.

You have said "You have already stated your belief in an ever changing God", but if you would just take a deep breath and look at what I actually wrote you will see that I wrote "never changing" and furthermore used the specific term "immutable fact of His character", do you know what immutable means? You might want to consult a dictionary. I won't bother spelling it out since I see that it's a waste of time to make a point that you will probably just blow on by again.

You can rail against me all you want for believing what is written, but mischaracterizing my points and plain ignoring them just begs the issue. You apparently don't like what God says about Himself, the world we live in, or you. It's ok, nobody will make you believe. That's the very point of Scripture, that it is your choice and freewill to reject or accept Him. But if you have through your scholarly endeavors come to the firm and supreme belief that He does not exist, then good luck explaining it to Him later. I am only attempting to share with people what I know that the Bible says and why it can be relied upon. So, I continue to answer the ludicrous objections, that any objective bystander could see are just smoke and mears. I make specific points, but through the doubters rush to declare them false the point is missed all thogether as evidenced here in this episode.

I don't mean to be harsh to others and certainly don't want to be condescending to any. We could all mutually waste each others time or instead attempt a civil exchange of ideas. Yet personal attacks and demonizing seem to be the order of the day from the naysayers. I guess that what happens when people realize they are not standing on firm ground, it gets personal. :cool:

OK, so I can't spell when agitated and, by the way, Immutable means not capable of or susceptible to change.

So, to make myself clear, I am stating that Scripture says that God condemns the act of homosexuality in the Old Testament and New Testament, and therefore today as well. As He has described Himself to be NEVER changing! If you don't like what He said, you will have to take it up with Him. Although he condemns the act, He is willing to receive the person behind the act. "Will you receive Him?" is the real question.

well spoke Razer.

You're extremely good at misdirection Razer, not a preacher by any chance I suppose. Really, you should go into politics, Bush needs all the excuse makers he can get. Saying that all non-Christians do is make personal attacks was an excellent piece of misguidance, makes the reader interpret it as a personal attack, do you teach this stuff? And then using a camouflaged personal attack in the first paragraph of your reply, simply inspirational. Offering to spell words for me was good too, if a little risky on your part, makes you appear more intelligent, but I'd check a dictionary for "pedifiles" before you start giving English lessons. I wanted to be an English teacher when I was younger, I could help you look it up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Firstly, I'll give you the one point I was wrong on. 'never' not 'ever' but you also said He was progressive which is hard when you never change.

Let's start at the beginning. Now that I know you're not Catholic I won't base any of my arguments around the Pope, neither of us agree with him so there's little point. But it is difficult for us Heathens to debate with you when you can't even agree with each other.
My "hodgepodge template of understanding of Christianity" is based on reading the Bible with an open mind instead of blind faith. Which is why I don't have the "contorted presumptions" blind faith leads to.

I also do not believe in guilt by association, just because one Christian fundamentalist is a racist, homophobic, bigot I wouldn't think all Christians are. Though when these attitudes are sanctioned, or even ignored, by the church it does make it harder for outsiders to make the distinction.

"I do not claim to know the mind of God." Well, you do, you don't, "progressive", "never changing". I could just leave it there, you've already defeated yourself, but what would be the fun in that. If He is a progressive God you don't know how he thinks about anything, if he is a never changing God you should abide by every law in the Bible. Somehow I doubt you'd agree to either.

"mischaracterizing my points and plain ignoring them", I misread one point, you totally ignored every point in the original post. You may have a clever ecclesiastical answer as to why archaic passages should not be used but has the church told anyone? Have the people who say "because I'm A Christian" when they're being a bigot ever been told by the church that they are wrong? Peace4me (hi, hope you're enjoying this) wanted to know why, if "Jesus is the fulfillment of these old practices found in the ceremonial law of Leviticus", followers of Christ still quote from the Old Testament?

So instead of your usual tirade and misdirection how about answering?

Oh yes and btw, immutable and blind faith sound quite alike.

And just to keep up with you, can you tell me the chapter and verse where Jesus condemns homosexuality? I can't seem to find it.

Peace4me you have brought joy to my day. TYVM.

Bravo, HvyFuel, excellent debate skills. Although I'm kinda glad I'm not in the middle of this one...even though I may not agree, I'd prefer not to argue.

What I will say is this: we (mankind in general) can never even hope to know the heart and mind of God; what He wants us to do, what He wants us to say, how He wants us to act...we can't assume that an author, hundreds of years ago, on the other side of the world, in a different language no less, was really able to convey what God may or may not have told him.

Even if the actual message was properly given to the likes of Man, we most likely do not know all of it; most of the Bible as we know it today is taken from disintegrating fragments of parchment found in caves, and translated by the Church into a proper text, fit for release to the public.

Even the most devout of Catholics would have to be figuratively blind to think that the Roman Catholic Church has remained untouched by the corruption of the Devil in this day and age.

I believe God and the Devil are in everyone, and nowhere else. Why do we need fictional deities when we have Cannabis. But you're quite right about the bible, or at least the bits the pope agrees with this week. Most of it was translated from ancient hebrew and arabic into greek then into latin then into english so what the original parchments actually said is anyone's guess.

peace :)