@UTRow1 - @LKJSlain - - I'm at work right now and can't look up the scriptures, but in Acts God tells Peter that he could eat any animal and there's another verse that says we can eat anything and that prayer and the word of God sanctifies it. Do you really not know those verses exist? (UTRow1, not LKJ) I thought atheists know the bible better than Christians.
@musterion99 - Interesting: any commandment that appears in the Old Testament that a Christian doesn't like, he can find a passage in the New Testament that nullifies it. Did God really have that much trouble deciding what he wanted or are there 2 different Gods - the One who appears in the Old Testament and the One that appears in the New Testament?
Strange that one so philosophically minded would choose to chastise Christians over an interpretation of Levitical law, (which is voided by New Testament scripture), rather than the sure philosophical win of Peter Singers veganism argument.
@DEISENBERG - It isn't necessarily "nullified" However, there were reasons for why the law was given in the old testament that didn't necessarily apply later on. Most of them were for cleanliness purposes.
@LKJSlain - I guess that water was treated and sewage properly disposed of in the First Century, but not before. It's amazing that refrigeration for food was developed in the First century. I am confused about some things: (1) what advances in cleanliness made swine and shellfish OK to eat? (20 What advances in cleanliness made it OK to wear clothes woven from a wool and flax mix? (3) What were these big advances in cleanliness?.
@LKJSlain - OK, so pork and shellfish are A-OK to eat based on Mark 7:19. Good to know. So homosexual relations are still taboo... what about polyfiber blends, being in contact with women during their menstruation week, touching footballs (pigs are unclean to touch, not just to eat), etc...?
@brown_buffalo - I frankly hate philosophy, and prefer to stick to the sciences. That being said, while a few of the Levitical laws that we can laugh at now can be canceled out by a god that changed his mind centuries later (for whatever reason) for some reason do not hint at other Levitial laws that can and should be canceled out by NT doctrine.
If you dont believe, then why are you using scripture as evidence? One, Christians are not Jewish. Two, the best evidence against homosexuality is that God in Genesis says God made them male and female, then goes on to say one will cleave to the other in marriage. So, before any of the law, God created male and female, both to enjoy the pleasure of one another and, at the time, to be fruitful and multiple. I think any one of the laws about homosexuality adds to this, the law itself is not a starting point in my opinion in this argument. Of course, the irony of any Christian explaining this to you is that you can always come back with, "but I dont believe the bible and you aren't using reason" ha ha, so we are at an impasse
Plus, didn't you post about this already this week? Are you running out of ideas?
As I have said previously... the only, and I mean only way I can ever conceive anything in scripture that might allow for homosexuality is scriptural teaching regarding divorce, since divorce is a sin but is allowed. Perhaps, in some way, homosexuality might be allowed but would still be considered a sin. I still think it is a stretch, but that is as far as I think any Christian taking scripture seriously can go. However, I do not think it is a requirement of everyone else to believe the same as I do, nor do I think I should be required to believe like others. This is why I will still eat Chick-Fill-A and also occasionally buy Oreos and go to Disney again if I ever can afford it.
The bible is a gigantic mess of contradictions. The only ones that deny this obvious fact are delusional fools intent on excusing it regardless of how fucking ridiculous it is. How fucking pathetic and laughable.
@GodlessLiberal - Through Leviticus, God sets up a manner in which the Israelite people specifically would come to know God. The Israelites were at this time God's chosen people, which meant that he made a promise with them that he would give them a land of their own, and that the world's redeemer would come through their line (Isaiah 52..Also, the whole story of Abraham).
Because God's relationship with mankind was still rent from the Fall (in Genesis, when Adam and Eve sinned, it says that they "died". They died spiritually, not physically, which meant that they were separated from God because he can have nothing to do with sin). This "rending", or "death", had not been dealt with entirely--and it would not be dealt with until Christ, the redeemer, came. God in the meantime gave them instructions for how they would have fellowship with him, even though the ultimate spiritually healing had not yet come--they would offer sacrifices for their personal and societal sin periodically, to show that they themselves cannot atone for their sins but an innocent, sinless being must take it for them (alluding to Christ's sacrifice), and with this general commandment went many strictly cultural, strictly Israelite-tailored commandments that would set them apart from the world, just as Christians would one day spiritually be set apart from the world.
You listed some of the laws--you can't eat things that aren't, as we know it now, "kosher"; you can't have sex with a woman on her period, or touch a man who has leprosy. If you committed adultery, you would be stoned.
Basically--all of the laws that were brought to the Israelites in that time that weren't in place before (between the time of Adam and Eve and Leviticus..even Abraham, as circumucision was started with him), all of the laws that were more about outward, everyday practices, were done away with after Christ's death and resurrection, because they were no longer needed. Christ had "fulfilled the law". No longer would men have to be outwardly circumcised, because now, his heart would be "circumcised"--that is, set apart, made new, made clearly a part of God's people. No longer would men have to stay away from un-kosher "animals"--nothing was unclean now, because Christ has made men's spirits clean (those who believe in him). No longer would men have to stay away from lepers, heathens, or women on their period-- as we see, all humans of all health, station, sex, and culture are now called into a universal union with Christ. Actually, it was beautifully illustrated in the gospels--at the moment of Christ's death, the veil that separated the temple from the Holy of Holies, an aspect of the Levitical tabernacle, was split in two top to bottom. This was a 15-foot high, three-foot thick "veil"! What did this represent? That the tabernacle, the separation, the veil, the culture, the distinction from the rest of cultures and the "world" was no longer needed--no longer were people saved through following rites. Christ had brought the ultimate healing, so it was no longer needed.
There were laws in place before Levitical law came about, however. Or, should I say, design. It is inherent in God's creation of man and woman, the first marriage, and their complete representation of Christ and the church, as well as the unity in the Godhead, that that is God's design for sexual unity. He wipes away Sodom and Gommorah for sins of homosexuality and adultery before Levitical law was put into place, showing his permanent stance on the matter of design. And there are sins that were similarly universal, and not tied at all to Levitical law, that similarly endured recognition into the New Testament.
But the wonderful part? Sin is no longer the issue. Even the sins that "endured", if you will. Christ has brought the ultimate healing. The ultimate forgiveness. Yes, there is sin to be forgiven--but it's not a stop to Christ's love, and his overflowing forgiveness. We no longer need the "law" (what it meant to them at the time, the Levitical law)--we need Christ.
Also, Paul says that the law was largely meant to be a mirror--a way of showing that we cannot live up to God's holy standards. But Christ has overcome our inability--we can be given his holiness, because he died to pay the sin for our unholiness. ..I hope that explains some of the seeming discrepancies.
i'm sure you want to know what i really think about this Chick-Fil-A thing. here goes. Chick-Fil-A has got to be one of the worst (i'm reluctant to even call it this) "play on words" for a business name i've ever seen. yeah i get it. it's intended to be a clever way to tell people we sell chicken fillet. Chick-Fil-A. *sigh*. companies should seriously consult me before going down that path. here are just a few names i've come up with:
a bread bakery called "It's a Wonderful Loaf"
a pizza chain called "Slice Matters"
a strip club that sells the best chocolate chip cookies this side of the Mississippi "Chicks Ahoy"
speaking of Mississippi, a fast food Indian joint called "Chicken MacSala"
i'll guarantee this manufacturer would be the leading seller of hot tubs on its name alone...."Tubasco"
and here's one for a specialty shop that sells paraphernalia for professional thieves..."Burglar King"
there are more where those came from but i think i've made my case, thank you