Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13 - Page 2

Urban Ranger · February 11, 2004, 00:30

@ loin

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 00:35

Quote:

Old are necessarily discarded.

Verto:

I can pull the verses... you can find them online.

Matthew 5;17-18

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Quote:

What's the decision procedure for determining which is which - or is it all just ad hoc?

Again, Verto is very kind... The sections of the sacrificial system are not needed because Christ is the sacrifice for one and for all, the Passover Lamb without blemish.

Most of the Levitical prescriptions do not apply because the system is no longer in place, the apportionments to the Levites, divisions among the tribes of Israel etc.

However, the laws concerning right moral conduct, still apply, Christ himself makes use of Deuteronomy to enforce his points. He is not replacing the code, so much as improving the code.

Secondly, you have a division of church and state implied in Christ, as the Christians are told to respect civil authorities, that they are to obey them, so long as the autorities do not violate their religious precepts.

Thus, civil authories now have the right to ajudicate disputes between believers and non-believers, as well as to enforce punishments. Thus, you do not have the punishments in Leviticus applicable today.

Sava · February 11, 2004, 00:42

As I understand it, women were treated as property back then. A woman's status was not as worthy as a man's. For a man to have sex with another man (if that is what this is even talking about), that might mean that the man on the receiving end would be demeaned and thought of as a woman... less worthy... so perhaps this isn't about a sexual romp, as it is about the status of a man. Perhaps only woman get the cawk, because they are less worthy.

btw, if anyone who lets a two thousand year old book think for them is a moron... okay, I got that trolling out of my system

this passage also says nothing about hot lezbo action... maybe god likes that kind of pr0n

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 00:48

Templar:

Why don't you actually cite the passages....

I'd give your post much more respect. Does the book burn or something?

Romans 1:24-8

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Quote:

While not an endorsement of homosexuality, the section is about Roman idolotry - the people were given over to their lust - i.e. made animal-like because they worshipped animal-like idols.

No. Paul is laying out the justification for God's wrath upon Mankind. He starts with the Gentiles, describing the depths of their sins, in order to shame the Gentiles, and instill a desire for repentence.

Among those sins is homosexual acts as well as lust, the one leading to the other.

1 Corinthians 6:9

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

Quote:

Great, so a blow job from a woman will exclude a Christian male from heaven. Again, not specific to homosexuality.

Sorry. Pretty clear here that homosexual offenders are included in with all the other forms of wickedness.

Timothy 1:9-10

Quote:

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

This also contradicts your earlier claim that Paul affirms slavery. I assume Verto places 'perverts' as homosexuals.

Jude 1:7

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Quote:

Condemns "promiscuity and unnatural vice" - vague and likely applies to straights as well."

No. Not vague.

Quote:

And my best argument - these are all Paulist texts. Paul also condones slavery and creates a divine right of kings. Real moral guy that Paul.

Dude. Jude is not written by Paul.

loinburger · February 11, 2004, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Again, Verto is very kind... The sections of the sacrificial system are not needed because Christ is the sacrifice for one and for all, the Passover Lamb without blemish.

Then what's the deal with the "not the smallest letter ... will by any means disappear from the Law" passage? Did Christ mean to say "not the smallest letter will change, except for a whole bunch of passages about slavery and misogyny and animal sacrifice and diet etc." or something? I mean, the cited passage seemed pretty straightforward to me, so I just don't understand why you quoted it and then went on to essentially say "Well, these parts of the law don't apply anymore, nevermind what Christ had to say on the matter."

Sava · February 11, 2004, 00:52

btw, I don't even see why this crap needs to be in the argument over gays... it's rhetorical nonsense that is completely irrelevant to today's world.

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 00:54

Quote:

A woman's status was not as worthy as a man's.

Not a Christian view. Equality in value, diversity in function.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Sava · February 11, 2004, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Not a Christian view. Equality in value, diversity in function.

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

riiiggghhhtttttt.... are you totally daft, or are you joking?

how have women been treated in the christian world the past 2 thousand years? equality you say? HAH!

remember, women only got the right to vote within my grandfathers' lifetime in this country... and US was basically the forefront of freedom.

joncha · February 11, 2004, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
btw, I don't even see why this crap needs to be in the argument over gays... it's rhetorical nonsense that is completely irrelevant to today's world.

As long as people believe it, rightly or wrongly, it is very relevant to today's world.

If the shepherd-religions had never caught on and large groups of people in the West still believed in the Roman pantheon, then that set of rhetorical nonsense would be relevant too.

Just because you don't believe in Ben's (and others!) imaginary friend(s), it doesn't mean that you should dismiss the beliefs (and historical baggage) that come along with them.

jon.

The Templar · February 11, 2004, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Templar:

Why don't you actually cite the passages....

Laziness. I also note you have a different translation than me. (I've got the New American Bible.)

Quote:

1 Corinthians 6:9

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

Mine has 'sodomites' in place of 'homosexual offenders'. Hmm, the vulgate only has 'male prostitutes'.

Quote:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Sodom's thing was raping strangers, wasn't it?

Quote:

No. Not vague.

"Unnatural" is pretty damn vague.
(Besides, homosexuality occurs in all primates. Makes it natural right?)

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 01:04

Quote:

Well, these parts of the law don't apply anymore, nevermind what Christ had to say on the matter

Loin,

How does it make sense to apportion land to Levites? There are no Levites anymore.

As for the rest of the Jewish sacrificial system,

In this sense, Christ is the fulfillment of the Jewish sacrificial system. This gets quite deep into the atonement, that I rather blithely referred to as the 'Passover lamb without blemish.'

God desired sacrifice, as a means of temporary cleansing of sin. This, in the OT, took the place of animals, as you see in Leviticus, depended upon the type of sin, and the amount generally proportionate to the blessings bestowed by God. This was so that the poor did not face an unbearable burden. If you actually read the book, you begin to see the intricacies of the system.

The problem with the system, comes from the quality of the sacrifice. Animals could only serve as temporary atonement, because of their flaws. In order to permanently deal with sin, requires an entirely different approach.

In Christ coming to the world, to die, he became, as sinless, the sacrifice the animals were unable to give. As fully man, he experienced all the temptations of man, and thus could understand our plights. He could reach to us in his humanity, and lift us up through his divinity.

Christ, when he died, bore the entirety of human sinfulness, bore the punishment for sin, that would otherwise be visited by man. Thus, it became possible, for those who professed faith in Christ, to be forgiven for their sins, once and for all.

Sava · February 11, 2004, 01:05

Quote:

Genesis 2:18

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

and most of Genesis 2:4-18 describes how god created man... and a garden for man... and now a helper for man... making the woman subordinate.

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 01:10

Quote:

I've got the New American Bible.

As usual, I'm getting everything from, http://bible.gospelcom.net/

With the NIV.

Quote:

Sodom's thing was raping strangers, wasn't it?

Well, best to quote the passage.

Genesis 19:4-8

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Do you think if the whole group wanted to have sex with the men, that the only homosexual activity they engaged in was rape?

OzzyKP · February 11, 2004, 01:14

Quote:

(Besides, homosexuality occurs in all primates. Makes it natural right?)

Well natural isn't necessarily right. Primates commit murder too.

Not that I'm saying homosexuality isn't right, or that its akin to murder at all. But the whole point of civlization, and thus religion is to get past our base, primative selves.

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 01:16

Quote:

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

If two become one, how can one remain subordinate to the other?

Heck, look at Ephesians 5:28-9

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, "

Sava · February 11, 2004, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If two become one, how can one remain subordinate to the other?

Heck, look at Ephesians 5:28-9

"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, "

You're totally missing the point... look how everything is phrased...

MAN SHOULD

MAN OUGHT TO

GOD DID THIS FOR MAN

and woman are always referred to as "wives"... possessions...

OzzyKP · February 11, 2004, 01:22

If there are any Jews checking this thread, what is the justification for discontinuing animal sacrifice in Judiasm? Christianity has all the stuff Ben said.

I asked my (now ex) girlfriend about this once, and she had some comment like that the sacrifices were thrown in because people weren't ready, or prepared, to really accept the religion and they are more primative trappings that have been phased out over time. I don't remember if i pressed the issue or not, but considering all the other primative trappings she does follow, like keeping kosher, how she can reconcile the two.

Plus she says her vegitarianism is hinted at, and endorsed by the Bible. In light of all the animal sacrifices I'm not so sure.

loinburger · February 11, 2004, 01:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How does it make sense to apportion land to Levites? There are no Levites anymore.

Then don't apportion land to them. The lack of Levites doesn't change the Law at all, any more than the Law would change for a mute who was incapable of taking the Lord's name in vain, or for a cripple who was physically incapable of committing murder, or a castrato who was physically incapable of committing adultery, etc.

Quote:

In this sense, Christ is the fulfillment of the Jewish sacrificial system. This gets quite deep into the atonement, that I rather blithely referred to as the 'Passover lamb without blemish.'

Yes, I understood the gist of your argument, I was asking why you made this argument that the sacrificial laws were no longer applicable in conjunction with citing a passage wherein Christ explicitly said that he was not changing the Law in any way shape or form. Certainly you've provided a justification for ignoring part of the Law, but this nevertheless flies in the face of Christ stating that the Law was not to be altered. I was hoping you could, e.g., cite a passage that explained this apparent contradiction, and/or that explained the apparent contradictions of Christians no longer following Jewish dietary laws or the laws dealing with menstrual impurity, etc. Surely not all of these are rendered null by Christ's sacrifice, if indeed any of them are...

As for women's subordination, there are more than enough Biblical passages with which a fundamentalist can justify his misogyny if he so wished:

Quote:

1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression

OzzyKP · February 11, 2004, 01:31

Quote:

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[1]
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

So thats where that came from. Found it just by flipping.

But I still want an explination for that Matthew quote that I listed, no one noticed, and then Ben listed, and everyone discussed.

loinburger · February 11, 2004, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So thats where that came from.

I've seen that passage cited previously in defense of ignoring the old dietary laws, but that still doesn't explain the contradiction in Christ saying that the Law was not to be changed while at another time dismissing large portions of it. How does one go about determining which passage is the correct one; they can't both be correct if they directly contradict one another...

OzzyKP · February 11, 2004, 01:42

Quote:

I've seen that passage cited previously in defense of ignoring the old dietary laws, but that still doesn't explain the apparent contradiction in Christ saying that the Law was not to be changed while at another time dismissing large portions of it. How does one go about determining which contradictory passage is the correct one?

Thats what I asked.

Berzerker · February 11, 2004, 02:35

Quote:

With regards to the others, reading Genesis it appears that the folks of Sodom attempted to take the messengers of God out into the street and have their way with them, the angels. It would appear then that strictly speaking "sodomy" refers to a forcible act, even though it is commonly used to refer to anal intercourse in general.

Yes, even if we accept the nature of the offense as sexual, a strict reading describes attempted rape. But this still requires us to believe that all the people of Sodom were not only male, but homosexuals who tried to rape God's messengers. That requires us to park our brains elsewhere when reading the Bible... Both the Jews and Bedouin have legends about Sodom and the wickedness of the people living there and homosexuality doesn't appear anywhere in those legends as I recall... The Bedouin (and more widespread) practice of hospitality to strangers derives from Sodom, people just don't know when God's messengers will show up to investigate us so the next stranger you meet in the desert might just be an "angel" checking up on us...

As for Jesus fulfilling the law and the common interpretation that the law he was fulfilling is the OT; no, Jesus defined "the law" very simply - love of God and love thy neighbor. Upon these 2 Commandments rest the entire law of the prophets. Those who say Jesus never meant to alter the OT have to explain why he changed a variety of OT laws and punishments. He changed divorce law, Sabbath law (work and all that), even adultery was not a punishable (by earthly standards) offense according to his message...

As for the question: why bother getting into such a hypocritical debate? Just point out how the Bible condemns all sorts of behaviors even devout Americans engage in. And, ask why Jesus would defend an adulteress from punishment if Jesus wanted homosexuals punished. The former is singled out in the 10 Commandments, not the latter... You won't get Bible thumpers to believe homosexuality is condoned or endorsed by the Bible...

Zevico · February 11, 2004, 02:41

Er...guys, he's Jewish. I assume his classmates are too, as he lives in Israel. So the New Testament is not of any assistance.

The Mad Monk · February 11, 2004, 02:43

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger

Then what's the deal with the "not the smallest letter ... will by any means disappear from the Law" passage? Did Christ mean to say "not the smallest letter will change, except for a whole bunch of passages about slavery and misogyny and animal sacrifice and diet etc." or something? I mean, the cited passage seemed pretty straightforward to me, so I just don't understand why you quoted it and then went on to essentially say "Well, these parts of the law don't apply anymore, nevermind what Christ had to say on the matter."

The law has not been removed, but we have been removed from the authority of the law.

The purpose of the law was not to point out a way to earn a place in heaven, but rather to demonstrate the impossibility of such a feat. No one can perfectly obey every law, every commandment; no one can avoid offending God. We need help, for we cannot do it alone, and that is the purpose of the law.

As Paul wrote,

Quote:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

(Romans 3:19,20).

When Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, he fulfilled the entire law, including both the "ceremonial" and "moral" laws, such that they have no power of condemnation over those who put their faith in Him:

Quote:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

(Romans 3:21-31)

So, the law is still in place, all of it. But those who put their faith in Christ are subject to none of it. Does that mean that can "break" the law whenever we chose? Well, technically, yes, but those who have been saved will not want to do so, because doing so shows a lack of respect for God. Further, can lead those who do not understand these things to go deeper in sin, so it is something we should not do:

Quote:

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

(Romans 14:13-18)

Berzerker · February 11, 2004, 02:50

Quote:

Er...guys, he's Jewish. I assume his classmates are too, as he lives in Israel. So the New Testament is not of any assistance.

Oops, then he's sh*t outta luck.

However, he might want to investigate the context of the passage in question. Many "instructions" pertained to the Jewish priestly class and not the general population. You know, why bother giving the little people instructions about how to properly butcher animals for sacrifice when only priests are supposed to do that stuff...

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 03:55

Sorry Ozzy.

Sometimes I fly through threads.

Missed your earlier comment, and I wanted to explain about the atonement.

I've been rather busy today.

Quote:

Plus she says her vegitarianism is hinted at, and endorsed by the Bible. In light of all the animal sacrifices I'm not so sure.

She's probably looking at this passage.

Genesis 1:29-30

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food."

Later on, we see.

Genesis 9:2-3

The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 03:57

And then you have Paul in 1 Cor 8:12-3

When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Ben Kenobi · February 11, 2004, 03:59

And a big

To the Mad Monk.

Wonderful post.

I don't think I could have said that nearly as well.

Barinthus · February 11, 2004, 04:05

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP
And may I say that my Bible really stinks now. I got a Koran, and it was heavily incensed, now my whole shelf of religious books smells like the Koran. From the Book of Mormon to this Krishna thing to the Bible. Muslims just took over my whole shelf.

My dictionary smells too.

Ah the jihad has been successful, eh?

Nubclear · February 11, 2004, 05:02

OK. I dare ANYONE to take a, say, 25 paged book (pretty small), translate it to Japanese, Chinese, Russian, back to English, and repeat this over thousands of years with hundreds of people doing their own translations and tell me the book would remain exactly the same.

Then let's make this book just a few more pages and call it the Bible.