Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
84 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (6 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,276 Year: 4,388/6,534 Month: 602/900 Week: 126/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
John
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 239 (26988)
12-17-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by zipzip
12-17-2002 1:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
...Do you like to watch gladiator movies, Tommy? Have you ever seen a grown man naked? Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

ahhhh..... classic cinema!

I said all the way from Leviticus, not I practice Levitical law.

quote:
Although Jesus said nothing would pass from the law until all was fulfilled, it is pretty clear that as Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law

Would you mind jumping into the following threads?

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=2

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=22&p=2

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=24&p=2

quote:
But I certainly did not live in that time, in which most of the Jews' neighbors practiced appalling forms of incest, bestiality, ritual human sacrifice, forced ritual temple male/female prostitution/rape, and child murder.

Well, there is some oddly frequent incest in the Bible.

It starts right off the bat with Adam n Eve's kids. Lot's daughters take a ride on old dad in Gen. 19:30-38. Rueben sleeps with his dad's concubine in Gen 35:22. This brings the sons of Jacob to twelve. God does, in Gen. 49:4, state that Rueben will not excel because of this; right after, in Gen 49:3, lavishing some hefty praise on him. Guess God is fickle. God God tells Onan the go in to his deceased brother's wife in Gen. 38:8-10. Tamar and her father-in-law get in on in Gen 38:27-28. One of the offspring from this union was an ancestor of Jesus.

Beastiality:

Well there is this odd giant/human mating in Gen. 6:4.

Human sacrifice:

There is one threat and one very odd verse: Ex. 22:29
Unless you count all the humans slaughtered in God's holy wars....

Rape:

Lev. 19:20-22 A very appropriate punishment for rape....
Num. 31
Duet. 20:14 Keep the women for yourselves. I guess it pays to be in God's army.
Duet. 21:11-14.
Duet. 22:28-29. Does this strike you as fair?
Judges 5:30
Judges 14:1-3
Judges 19:22-30 Probably the most vicious passage in the OT.

Child murder:

Of course there is the Flood. Lots of kids died there.
Sodom and Gomorah. Lots of kids die there too. They must have been sinful.
Exodus 12:29-30. God kills the first-born sons of Egypt. Why? Because the Pharoah wouldn't release the Isrealites. Why would he not do so? BECAUSE GOD WOULDN'T LET HIM!!!!
Exodus 21:15-17. A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. Hey! I kinda like that one.
Lev. 26:22 God threatens some more kids.
Num. 5:11-31 Does abortion count as child murder?
Num 21:35 More slaughter of innocents.
Duet. 2:34 The little ones are wiped out.
Duet 3:3-6 Same as above
Duet. 7:2-3 Same as above
Duet 13:15 More child killing
Duet 20:13 Killing of all males. If you are lucky enough to be female you get to be kidnapped, enslaved and raped !!!
Duet 20:16 Leave nothing alive that breatheth!

quote:
In this context, much of Levitical law is amazing -- modern prohibitions against rape and incest

This would be funny if it weren't so sick.

quote:
prohibitions against eating raw meat

I hate to break it to you but the Isrealites aren't the only ones who figured this out.

quote:
the idea that you *should not touch* the discharge from a gaping, festering wound in another man's body, on and on.

LOL... again. This isn't terribly spectacular.

quote:
it is the astonishing (and modern) idea that the punishment should fit the crime.

And it is mind-numbingly common for the legal systems of the time as well.

quote:
If a man steals something, make him pay it back -- don't kill him or cut off his hand.

Is this a good example? Duet. 25:11-12

quote:
God has his reasons, and I'm not going to do any handwaving.

That is the ultimate cop-out, no offense. You completely wash your hands of the issue.

quote:
But I do gain the sense that while other gods were asking for the sacrifice of firstborn children and forced rape

What do you know about the surrounding religions? Just curious. The faithful seem to be nearly universally ignorant of these things.

quote:
the God of the Bible was asking for offerings that people could make reasonably while still instilling in them a vision of the sacrifice that God promised he would make for them one day (even with compassion -- if you can't afford the sacrifice, use doves instead, if you can't afford that, use some grain -- the same as the widow's tiny sacrifice in the NT where the heart behind the sacrifice means more than the sacrifice itself). This is obvious and a keystone of both Judaism and Christianity, since the whole thing starts with Abraham and Isaac --> 'Isaac, you don't have to sacrifice your only son, I will sacrifice mine. But I want you to sacrifice some of what I give you so that you understand just a little bit of what it is I will go through when I send my son.'

I see the sacrifices as a means of income for the parasitic priestly tribe.

quote:
Looked at in that light (which really is the most reasonable way to look at it), the portion of Leviticus that deals with temple worship is an amazing picture of God's holiness and deep capacity for forgiveness.

So far you are not convincing.

quote:
I think this was a reflection of the fact that each sacrificial animal was also meant to be perfect -- this was in keeping with perfect reverence for the Lord and the perfect sacrifice he would make in Christ.

Sidestepping, of course, the obvious focus on esternal and superficial characteristics. I guess God doesn't look under the skin?

quote:
Handicapped people were cared for, loved, and treated as equals except in this regard -- elsewhere in the region they were lucky if they were not killed at birth.

Have you evidence for either assertion?

quote:
Perhaps you should marvel that the law should mention handicapped people at all, which suggests that they were commonplace. *Think on this*

Meaning? The Jews didn't kill the handicapped? That's generous.

quote:
As for the hair question -- yes it says that Jews were not to cut their sideburns or beards, so any Jew doing this would be directly disobeying that part of the Law and probably also sleeping with his aunt(!).

Right. Probably. I can see the correlation.

quote:
At the same time, aliens (who might not have beards at all) were to be loved and treated as equals, because "you were aliens in the land of Egypt".

You mean the aliens who weren't slaughtered right? The only time I see the Isrealites being magnanimous is when they are under someone's thumb.

quote:
If that is all you got out of Leviticus you need to *slow down* and ... get Hooked on Phonics! Also try to think about context.

Right. And everytime I do this, I get more pissed off.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 AM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:01 PM John has replied
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:36 PM John has replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 239 (26991)
12-17-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nator
12-17-2002 9:12 AM


I don't pick and choose -- that is perilous. The NT is pretty clear that strict adherence to Levitical law (temple sacrificial practice and associated cleanliness law etc.) was not necessary after the fulfillment of the Law through Christ (Christ was the final and ultimate sacrifice that all other sacrifices had merely been symbolic reflections of). Particularly not for a Gentile like me. Still, I take them seriously because they speak about God's character.

The Law talks about what it would take to be perfect, because his chosen people wanted such a Law. But because God understood that no human could possibly stand blameless before the Law, he had compassion on us and gave us a way out through Christ --> again, sacrifice was only a symbolic act, looking forward to Messiah.

If you free me from need to take part in sacrifice and to approach the altar, the only thing left I need to take a look at are the moral Levitical guidelines for acceptable living and against prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and certain other behaviors that God makes clear are not acceptable in his sight (then, now, or ever).

But at the same time, God tells me that Judgement is his and not mine, and while the Law is unyielding as any Law must be, I know that the Judge has compassion. I know this because the incredible patience and compassion of God through the OT and Christ in the NT is consistent throughout. (People talk about how the God of the OT acts like a three-year old but it is clear to me that he shows supernatural restraint as his chosen people continually reject him and worship idols, sacrifice their children to Molech, and bow down to Baal; only coming back to him after he allows them to suffer the consequences of their betrayal (tough love). And yet he always welcomes them back like stray children and somehow offers them yet another unilateral pact in which they have nothing to offer.)

The Law is unbending as it must be, but we know that the Judge is not, that is the key. Christ forgives us and so we are to forgive. He will judge as he sees fit. At the same time, as his people we need to practice discernment and avoid and not tolerate active disobedience against God amongst ourselves. To do so would be a reflection of a heart that does not care what God has to say.

The bottom line is that sometimes being a Christian makes a difference in a person's life, changes their behavior. That can be (really) difficult sometimes, but based on God's character as revealed in the Bible you've just got to have faith that God has our best interests in mind and not that he asking us to obey him for spite or because he wants to stop us from having a good time. "If you, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so does your Father in Heaven?"(paraphrase)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 9:12 AM nator has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-18-2002 6:22 PM zipzip has taken no action

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 239 (27006)
12-17-2002 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by John
12-17-2002 11:32 AM


John, that stuff was in Leviticus because people were doing it. And after the Law, it for the most part wasn't the Jews. That is just straightforward contextual reading and reasonably safe for any intelligent person. I know enough about other peoples in the region to know that I am not far off when I say this.

The problem I have with your interpretation (and I say this seriously because I see a part of myself in you) is that is 1) shallow, lacking context (spiritual and textual) and 2) assumes that God is nasty, vicious, and spiteful, which is completely out of character from the God I read about and even goes against what the Jews say about the character of their own God.

In other words, you are way off in left field and I honestly don't know how you got there except by deep internal mistrust and blindness, which is sad and needs to be fixed. I don't have time right now to go verse by verse through your list, but I suspect it is the usual compendium of misread context. But the verses I do recognize by sight I think have reasonable contextual answers -- perhaps a good thing for you to do is to get a Schofield reference text or a Life Application Bible and read the notes to start yourself out. Then I will go one by one if you type in the text and do a careful introductory exegesis so that I can rebut carefully and thoughtfully.

In the meantime, you need to go and do what I have done and continually do 0) ask God for help with understanding 1) read the Bible through with the help of someone who is wiser than yourself 2) get an overall view of the sweep of Biblical history 3) get an overall view of the character and nature of God and his plan for humankind 4) re-read the Bible with newfound wisdom, visiting those passages that you took offense at in the first go-around and examine the context carefully 5) go talk to someone wiser than yourself about the passages that still don't jive 6) pray about it 7) don't give up until it makes sense and it all fits together, which it will.

Based on your previous passages, I suspect you haven't done your homework (I suspect this because these are the kinds of things I said when I was deeply ignorant and mistrustful of the Bible). I've been doing my homework steadily for 20 years and even I have still got plenty of lessons left.

John, you sound as though you have been isolated from the Christian church for many years, not in fellowship with other Christians (one of the things that is essential in building discernment, wisdom, and understanding), and you note that you actively disobey/disbelieve God. If the Bible is true, there is *no way* you could have any sense of it or the character of God at all -- the Bible is clear on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:19 PM zipzip has replied
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:21 PM zipzip has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 156 of 239 (27014)
12-17-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
12-17-2002 9:04 AM


quote:
However, there are lots of things that can be "made to" make sense, or not make sense, in a theological context, depending upon one's interpretation of the Theology.

I'll agree with that.

quote:
I also suppose that it depends upon how comfortable you are with suspending your reason and intelligence in favor of said theology.

Clarify your point. Are you saying that Christian theology should allow homosexuality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 9:04 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 10:20 AM gene90 has taken no action

John
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 239 (27016)
12-17-2002 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by zipzip
12-17-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by zipzip:
John, that stuff was in Leviticus because people were doing it.

Are we sidestepping that what I cited was commanded by or condoned by God?

quote:
And after the Law, it for the most part wasn't the Jews. That is just straightforward contextual reading and reasonably safe for any intelligent person.

I did not cite one example of the actions of people other than the Isrealites.

quote:
The problem I have with your interpretation (and I say this seriously because I see a part of myself in you) is that is 1) shallow, lacking context (spiritual and textual) and 2) assumes that God is nasty, vicious, and spiteful, which is completely out of character from the God I read about and even goes against what the Jews say about the character of their own God.

I though we were not going to hand-wave. I gave you specific examples and this is all you can come up with? The restating of your initial post? Please....

quote:
In other words, you are way off in left field and I honestly don't know how you got there except by deep internal mistrust and blindness, which is sad and needs to be fixed.

More hand-waving.

quote:
I don't have time right now to go verse by verse through your list, but I suspect it is the usual compendium of misread context.

But you feel confident in insulting me with this handwaving?

quote:
But the verses I do recognize by sight I think have reasonable contextual answers

Then lets have 'em, darling. That is why I posted.

quote:
perhaps a good thing for you to do is to get a Schofield reference text or a Life Application Bible and read the notes to start yourself out.

Perhap you should not assume what I have read and what I have considered. And perhaps you should just make your case.

quote:
Then I will go one by one if you type in the text and do a careful introductory exegesis so that I can rebut carefully and thoughtfully.

How generous of you. Alternately, you could just make your case.

quote:
In the meantime, you need to go and do what I have done and continually do 0) ask God for help with understanding 1) read the Bible through with the help of someone who is wiser than yourself 2) get an overall view of the sweep of Biblical history 3) get an overall view of the character and nature of God and his plan for humankind 4) re-read the Bible with newfound wisdom, visiting those passages that you took offense at in the first go-around and examine the context carefully 5) go talk to someone wiser than yourself about the passages that still don't jive 6) pray about it 7) don't give up until it makes sense and it all fits together, which it will.

So, read it and rationalize it until I believe it. LOL........

quote:
Based on your previous passages, I suspect you haven't done your homework

Hand waving, conveniently designed to allow you to not address the issues.

quote:
(I suspect this because these are the kinds of things I said when I was deeply ignorant and mistrustful of the Bible).

yawn..... are you going to make a case or not?

quote:
I've been doing my homework steadily for 20 years and even I have still got plenty of lessons left.

Hey, whadaya know!!!! Me too.

quote:
John, you sound as though you have been isolated from the Christian church for many years

Yes, there is a reason for that. I started to think about the garbage in the Bible.

quote:
and you note that you actively disobey/disbelieve God.

Disbelieve, not disobey. The latter requires belief.

quote:
If the Bible is true, there is *no way* you could have any sense of it or the character of God at all -- the Bible is clear on this.

What? I believe it or I don't understand it? I'd hoped you would come up with something better than this infinitely recycled and pitiful line.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:01 PM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 2:28 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 158 of 239 (27017)
12-17-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by zipzip
12-17-2002 1:01 PM


I find it odd that the opposition is bring up Leviticus and the Law of Moses when they are almost irrelevant to Christianity. In Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15 (especially verse 10) we Gentiles are told that we don't have to keep most of Leviticus. Verse 20 says that we should abstain from fornication, things strangled, and blood. However other books in the NT continue to give us guidance.

A lot of things fall under the category of fornication (above). Romans 1:27 condemns homosexuality and various other un-Godly practices. However I have not yet found anything in the NT talking about mixed-fiber clothing....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 1:01 PM zipzip has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:29 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 164 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:13 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 239 (27020)
12-17-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by gene90
12-17-2002 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I find it odd that the opposition is bring up Leviticus and the Law of Moses when they are almost irrelevant to Christianity.

I find it odd that, this being the case, Christians don't ditch the OT. They keep it around and pick and chose what they want out of it and throw away the rest claiming that Christ fullfilled this and that. Nowhere in the NT does Jesus state exactly what is to go and what is to stay, so people pick and choose per personnal preference. It doesn't make sense.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:21 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:40 PM John has taken no action
 Message 192 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 10:24 AM John has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 160 of 239 (27021)
12-17-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by John
12-17-2002 11:32 AM


quote:
LOL... again. This isn't terribly spectacular.

In another thread you claimed that if Israelite pracitices gave medical benefits, such killing a dove to cure diseases, this would be proof of the Judeo-Christian God. I pointed out that you would merely wave this evidence away by suggesting that the practice had natural benefits and the Israelites merely noticed these natural benefits and incorporated them into their religion; so that your beliefs about the non-existance of God are therefore non-falsifiable.

I don't understand how you, who claims to be agnostic, and therefore, by definition, you lack the evidence to know anything about God, can possibly know enough to claim that Christianity is false?

quote:
They keep it around and pick and chose what they want out of it and throw away the rest claiming that Christ fullfilled this and that. Nowhere in the NT does Jesus state exactly what is to go and what is to stay, so people pick and choose per personnal preference. It doesn't make sense.

Actually, so far as I can tell, what Christians keep today generally is specified in the NT, and what they don't have to keep, is told in the NT. See my above reference to Acts and Romans.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-17-2002 11:32 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:02 PM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 161 of 239 (27022)
12-17-2002 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by John
12-17-2002 1:29 PM


I will admit that we try to infer a lot from the OT. Prophecies, types of Christ, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:29 PM John has taken no action

John
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 239 (27028)
12-17-2002 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by gene90
12-17-2002 1:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
In another thread you claimed that if Israelite pracitices gave medical benefits, such killing a dove to cure diseases, this would be proof of the Judeo-Christian God.

Yeah, gene, it would be proof, IF IT WORKED. I am perfectly willing to test it.

quote:
I pointed out that you would merely wave this evidence away by suggesting that the practice had natural benefits and the Israelites merely noticed these natural benefits and incorporated them into their religion; so that your beliefs about the non-existance of God are therefore non-falsifiable.

You are really reaching for this one. Yes, I do maintain that the Isrealites would have incorporated practical knowledge into their culture. Do you maintain that they are so stupid as to not have been sensible enought to that? However, I cannot think of any observation that supports the idea that killing a dove cures leprosy. Surely you have to realize the difference between recognizing that keeping a wound covered helps prevent infection and "observing" that sticking pins in a voodoo doll cures disease. Basically, the dove slaughter is a magical cure. I dare you to provide a physical means by which dove killing can cure leprosy. I dare you to run an experiment to find out IF dove slaughter cures leprosy.

quote:
I don't understand how you, who claims to be agnostic, and therefore, by definition, you lack the evidence to know anything about God, can possibly know enough to claim that Christianity is false?

Just felt the need to bring that up again? Do you want me to define theism in such a way as to exclude you and all of christianity? I think I can peg you on the "worthy of adoration" aspect of the definition in my Encyclopedia or Philosophy. But that is just quibbling isn't it?

quote:
Actually, so far as I can tell, what Christians keep today generally is specified in the NT, and what they don't have to keep, is told in the NT. See my above reference to Acts and Romans.

I assume you mean in an earlier post. I'll look at that.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:36 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:12 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 163 of 239 (27034)
12-17-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by John
12-17-2002 2:02 PM


quote:
Yeah, gene, it would be proof, IF IT WORKED. I am perfectly willing to test it.

But that at least some of the Israelite practices that do work are somehow not 'proof'? So basically, if it works it is not proof, but if it doesn't work it would be proof if it did?

quote:
Surely you have to realize the difference between recognizing that keeping a wound covered helps prevent infection and "observing" that sticking pins in a voodoo doll cures disease.

No, I do not. Especially considering a culture that was ingnorant of the Germ Theory of disease. The only difference is that one is demonstrable today, the other is not. You said that if some of the Israelite practices work it would be proof. Well here, some of them work. Rejecting one because it works along a mechanism that is known today is irrelevant -- because just as you assume that the Israelites learned about covering wounds through observation, if sticking pins in a voodoo doll did cure disease and they had voodoo dolls then they (by your reasoning) could (and therefore, according to your reasoing, would) have learned this not through revelation but through observation.

I contend that your position on this matter is unfalsifiable.

Added by edit: By the way, it is not my position that Israelite knowledge of sores or anything else is positive proof of God because I contend that they could have learned that by observation.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:02 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by John, posted 12-17-2002 6:53 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 239 (27035)
12-17-2002 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by gene90
12-17-2002 1:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
In Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15 (especially verse 10)

This isn't specific at all.

quote:
Verse 20 says that we should abstain from fornication, things strangled, and blood.

'k. Do Christians avoid things strangled? I bet nobody even cares, much less makes an effort to follow the prohibition. Do Christians avoid blood? How many of you like you steaks rare? Where I grew up it was common for kids to go deer hunting with there dads and drink the blood of thier first kill. These were ALL christians. Go figure.

quote:
Romans 1:27 condemns homosexuality and various other un-Godly practices.

'k.

quote:
However I have not yet found anything in the NT talking about mixed-fiber clothing....

What you haven't done is shown where this rule was lifted, or where numerous other rules were lifted. Without these things being specified, how do you know that you are not picking and choosing for the OT as suits your will?

Do you only accept as forbidden what was specifically forbidden in the NT? Anything else goes?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:21 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:24 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 165 of 239 (27037)
12-17-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by John
12-17-2002 2:13 PM


quote:
This isn't specific at all.

??? I beg to differ. It says that the Gentiles should not be troubled with the Law of Moses.

quote:
Do Christians avoid things strangled?

I don't kill my own food but it's my understanding that strangling is not used amongst the meat packing industry (too inefficient). If I were to know that that steak was strangled I wouldn't eat it.

quote:
How many of you like you steaks rare?

I don't. I want that thing cooked.

quote:
Where I grew up it was common for kids to go deer hunting with there dads and drink the blood of thier first kill.

Sick.

quote:
What you haven't done is shown where this rule was lifted

(In addition to the verses in Acts?)

The Law of Moses has been fulfilled. We believe Leviticus was written by Moses. Therefore most of what is in Leviticus has been fulfilled.

quote:
Anything else goes?

No. I don't believe the NT is the final revelation of God. I also have an incomplete understanding of the Bible, I need to study it more to be sure. But I tend to think that the NT takes precedence over the OT, and that most of what is in Leviticus has been fulfilled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:13 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 193 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 10:30 AM gene90 has taken no action

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 239 (27039)
12-17-2002 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by John
12-17-2002 1:19 PM


John, folks who have thought about these things a lot more than either of us have written books on just bits of your previous post. That is why I cannot go line by line like you and write a little bit to give you a pat answer and still be intellectually honest.

Which verse from Leviticus or other portion of the OT would you like to start with first so that we can give this a careful, thoughtful inspection? I stand by my assertion that your interpretation is shallow. You list the verse, but do not indicate the actual text, contextual or historical information that is pertinent, or the translation (if any) that you are using; then you assume that my interpretation of this particular text (lacking context) is the same as yours. That is not an exegesis, and it isn't intellectually honest.

Let's be honest and if you have serious questions about some verses in the Bible then lets tackle them one at a time and enlist the help of others as we think about what each might mean in context.

To Gene90, with all due respect, the Bible stands on its own. And to anyone careful and thoughtful enough to regard the context of a particular verse, every bit of scripture has value (as the NT also tells us).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:19 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM zipzip has replied
 Message 184 by John, posted 12-18-2002 12:39 AM zipzip has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 167 of 239 (27040)
12-17-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by zipzip
12-17-2002 2:28 PM


quote:
To Gene90, with all due respect, the Bible stands on its own.

Such is like walking up to a Catholic and explaining that they need no pope, or telling the Amish that they can join the rest of us in 21st century any time they like.

You're entitled to your religious opinion and I'm entitled to mine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 2:28 PM zipzip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 5:02 PM gene90 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022