First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#1 Dec 23, 2013
These are old testament problems, so since I still constantly see "homosexuals are an abomination" I guess they all still apply.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 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?

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)

Not my list above but I'd also like to add a couple.

I have a friend who just got married and his wife wasn't a virgin, how long does he have to get the men of the town to stone her to death? Deuteronomy 22:20-21

I see rape reports on the news all the time, if these women were virgins why aren't we making them marry their rapists as god commands?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Jethro

Huntington, WV

#2 Dec 23, 2013
Read Romans 1:27-31.
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#3 Dec 23, 2013
I guess no one wants to talk about their ridiculously immoral bible, huh?
1 post removed
THE LAST WARRIOR POET

Hurricane, WV

#5 Dec 23, 2013
YFNA wrote:
I guess no one wants to talk about their ridiculously immoral bible, huh?
Why dont you just proclaim your abominable queerness and quit beating around the bush(no pun intended).Ashamed much?

These verses were written for harsh people and God knew their nature.Sorry, but your lack of understanding of this is no excuse in being a reprobate nor to justify your lusts.
1 post removed
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#7 Dec 24, 2013
THE LAST WARRIOR POET wrote:
<quoted text>
Why dont you just proclaim your abominable queerness and quit beating around the bush(no pun intended).Ashamed much?
These verses were written for harsh people and God knew their nature.Sorry, but your lack of understanding of this is no excuse in being a reprobate nor to justify your lusts.
You seem to have an unhealthy fixation on homosexuality. Sorry to disappoint you though, I'm not interested.

Face it, the bible is just a representation of the immoral men who made up your deity.
Good News

Chester, VA

#8 Dec 24, 2013
So you truly have Biblical inquiries?
Leviticus is from the Greek translation of the Old Testament meaning “Pertaining to the Levites”. This book is a manual for the priests who were from the tribe of Levi. Its laws pertain to the concern of the Israelites.
The English Deuteronomy from the Greek Septuagint means “Second Laws” or “Copy of the laws” depending on context. This book elaborates the responsibilities of the Israelites. It includes many of the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
The books are viewed as a constitution and/or theocracy of Israel long before a recognized nation was formed.
The New Testament (translated as The New Covenant) deals with the new covenant between God and people. It deals with several issues specifically. The first being the person, who gave himself for the remission of sins, second being the gift of salvation and the last being the people who accept the salvation. The New Covenant is a new agreement with God and all people thru Jesus. The Old Covenant is the old agreement God had with the Israelites thru Mosaic Law.
Basically you are asking how a modern Christian would handle centuries old social issues using Mosaic Law. Your logic is totally flawed. Christians do not practice, study, or even acknowledge Mosaic Law in their everyday dealings. That’s why no one is taking you seriously. In fact if you took yourself seriously you would even notice that Orthodox Jews don’t practice your assumption of what Mosaic Law is. So you would have to recognize that perhaps, just perhaps you don’t know what you’re talking about.
1 post removed
Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10 Dec 24, 2013
Good News wrote:
So you truly have Biblical inquiries?
Leviticus is from the Greek translation of the Old Testament meadon't “Pertaining to the Levites”. This book is a manual for the priests who were from the tribe of Levi. Its laws pertain to the concern of the Israelites.
The English Deuteronomy from the Greek Septuagint means “Second Laws” or “Copy of the laws” depending on context. This book elaborates the responsibilities of the Israelites. It includes many of the laws contained in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
The books are viewed as a constitution and/or theocracy of Israel long before a recognized nation was formed.
The New Testament (translated as The New Covenant) deals with the new covenant between God and people. It deals with several issues specifically. The first being the person, who gave himself for the remission of sins, second being the gift of salvation and the last being the people who accept the salvation. The New Covenant is a new agreement with God and all people thru Jesus. The Old Covenant is the old agreement God had with the Israelites thru Mosaic Law.
Basically you are asking how a modern Christian would handle centuries old social issues using Mosaic Law. Your logic is totally flawed. Christians do not practice, study, or even acknowledge Mosaic Law in their everyday dealings. That’s why no one is taking you seriously. In fact if you took yourself seriously you would even notice that Orthodox Jews don’t practice your assumption of what Mosaic Law is. So you would have to recognize that perhaps, just perhaps you don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, you're missing the point. Christians constantly point to Leviticus and quote it against homosexuals. are you saying they don't or that they should just ignore it as they ignore the other parts of the bible that were outlined above?
Good News

Chester, VA

#11 Dec 24, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Leviticus 20:13 is the passage most Christians quote to prove their "god" is against homosexuality. Again you talk in circles.
You are right. Most Christians do quote Leviticus 20:13 to prove God is against homosexuality.
Some quote Leviticus 18:22 or 1Cor 6:9 as well.
What is your point? That Christians believe homosexuality is an abomination?
How am I talking in circles when I'm clearly stating fundamental facts about the books of the Bible?
Leviticus is pertaining to the priests of Levi, Deuteronomy is the repetitious summary of Mosaic Law from multiple books Leviticus, Numbers etc. concerning Israelites in the Old covenant. How is this circular reasoning?
Good News

Chester, VA

#12 Dec 24, 2013
YFNA wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're missing the point. Christians constantly point to Leviticus and quote it against homosexuals. are you saying they don't or that they should just ignore it as they ignore the other parts of the bible that were outlined above?
Christians do refer to Leviticus to quote it against homosexuals, I understand you're targeting those would be Bible thumpers who pick and choose verses to suit their cause. I would agree with you in the hypocrisy of that situation.
However you asked blanketed questions and statements, and even invited a honest conversation on the subject. Religious atheists or agonistic I'm simply answering as it is.
Concerning Homosexuality specifically...
Moses says God is against homosexuality in Leviticus (Old Testament).
Paul preaches against moral laxity such as fornicators, adulterers, thieves, drunkards and other lifestyles mentioned in Corinthians.(New Testament).
If God is against Heterosexual fornicators then clearly he is against Homosexual fornicators as well. I'm not sure how this information is confusing for the sake of open conversation. Unless there's confusion about the difference between a sin and an abomination.
Is your inquirers pertaining to actual Christian ideology, or the stereotypical cliché hillbilly throwing verses like grenades? I assure you I am not the later. So if you wish to speak with such a low brow example I'll refrain from fellowship.
.
1 post removed
Murphy

Huntington, WV

#14 Dec 24, 2013
If your gonna be a Christian then you should follow the Old Testament since that was gods law. New Testament is just mans edited version to fit the newer lifestyle of the time. Always find it funny when arguing with a Christian and they say the Old Testament doesn't apply to them anymore. Guess god changed his mind huh
Good News

Chester, VA

#15 Dec 24, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
That seems to be the question. Why is it ok to ignore done of the Old Testament passages but not others? If you're saying that Christianity is just against fornicators, then as long as gay people get married they should be ok in your opinion? If so why so few churches hold this view?
I agree, I assume it's certainly not ok to follow one of the Old Testament passages and ignore the others. But I'm not practicing Mosaic law... I'm a Christian. I eat shellfish, I get my haircut in the fashion of the Romans (crew cuts) and etc.
As far as my personal opinion goes (since you specifically asked) I believe that Paul was absolutely correct in preaching about the dangers of certain life styles he mentioned in Corinthians. I do believe Homosexuality is a sin as much as I do all "fornicators" in the same context. Paul also taught that the bedroom is infallible in holy matrimony. So in theory a homosexual couple that got married would be ok, and some churches do hold that same view.
However it's never really that black and white. Homosexuality is labeled an abomination because of the simple fact that homosexuals argue the nature of sin in the first place. It would be the same if a Heterosexual engaged in a lifestyle as such a "fornicator" but all the while argued that it was not sinful.
To summarize, In my personal opinion, any homosexual who repents his sins is more righteous than a heterosexual who argues his sinful ways. Any homosexual and heterosexual who repents their sins are equals. Any heterosexual who repents his sins is more righteous than a homosexual who argues his sinful ways. It has nothing to do with any other individual other than the person in question, and if they repent their sins.
And please keep in mind when I speak of heterosexuals or homosexuals I strictly mean "the life style" not simply how you label yourself. The Bible, OT or NT was not speaking of labels. It was speaking of lifestyles with repeating habitual activity. Dwelling on lustful desires is still sinful if it's same sex or opposite.
Good News

Chester, VA

#16 Dec 24, 2013
Murphy wrote:
If your gonna be a Christian then you should follow the Old Testament since that was gods law. New Testament is just mans edited version to fit the newer lifestyle of the time. Always find it funny when arguing with a Christian and they say the Old Testament doesn't apply to them anymore. Guess god changed his mind huh
The Old Testament was Mosaic Law.
Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, were written by Moses on Mt Sinai to the Israelites on a covenant made with God. Period. End of story. Read the Bible and you might understand it.
If you constantly find yourself "arguing with Christians" about Mosaic Law and Christianity, then maybe you don't know what you're talking about.
Murphy

Huntington, WV

#17 Dec 24, 2013
It's all fairy tales anyways. I need more proof than paper to believe. Hell I'd like to see god let Obama part the Persian gulf. When that happens I'll believe, until then I'll keep the church out if my pocket.
SannDigger

Huntington, WV

#18 Dec 24, 2013
Good News wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, I assume it's certainly not ok to follow one of the Old Testament passages and ignore the others. But I'm not practicing Mosaic law... I'm a Christian. I eat shellfish, I get my haircut in the fashion of the Romans (crew cuts) and etc.
As far as my personal opinion goes (since you specifically asked) I believe that Paul was absolutely correct in preaching about the dangers of certain life styles he mentioned in Corinthians. I do believe Homosexuality is a sin as much as I do all "fornicators" in the same context. Paul also taught that the bedroom is infallible in holy matrimony. So in theory a homosexual couple that got married would be ok, and some churches do hold that same view.
However it's never really that black and white. Homosexuality is labeled an abomination because of the simple fact that homosexuals argue the nature of sin in the first place. It would be the same if a Heterosexual engaged in a lifestyle as such a "fornicator" but all the while argued that it was not sinful.
To summarize, In my personal opinion, any homosexual who repents his sins is more righteous than a heterosexual who argues his sinful ways. Any homosexual and heterosexual who repents their sins are equals. Any heterosexual who repents his sins is more righteous than a homosexual who argues his sinful ways. It has nothing to do with any other individual other than the person in question, and if they repent their sins.
And please keep in mind when I speak of heterosexuals or homosexuals I strictly mean "the life style" not simply how you label yourself. The Bible, OT or NT was not speaking of labels. It was speaking of lifestyles with repeating habitual activity. Dwelling on lustful desires is still sinful if it's same sex or opposite.
So your personal belief is that homosexuality it's self is not a sin, only if the person is a fornicator are they sinning. Is that correct? If so than you are the first Christian I have heard say that. I think that is a very sensible view, I wish other "Christians" felt the same way. Thank you for sharing. And your information on the OT vs NT is interesting by the way.
1 post removed
Good News

Chester, VA

#20 Dec 25, 2013
Murphy wrote:
It's all fairy tales anyways. I need more proof than paper to believe. Hell I'd like to see god let Obama part the Persian gulf. When that happens I'll believe, until then I'll keep the church out if my pocket.
I totally understand your point of view. It requires faith. Merry Christmas non the less Murphy.
Good News

Chester, VA

#21 Dec 25, 2013
SannDigger wrote:
<quoted text>
So your personal belief is that homosexuality it's self is not a sin, only if the person is a fornicator are they sinning. Is that correct? If so than you are the first Christian I have heard say that. I think that is a very sensible view, I wish other "Christians" felt the same way. Thank you for sharing. And your information on the OT vs NT is interesting by the way.
Two Sentences....
I am a heterosexual. I am a sinner.
One of these two sentences doesn't amount to squat in terms of salvation.
Two more sentences...
I am a homosexual. I am a sinner.
It holds the same spiritual judgment.
If it helps you understand my point of view, forget what sexual preference or gender the individual is. It doesn't matter. If someone is dwelling on lust, it's a sin. Homosexual or Heterosexual.
In context to sin, if someone dwells upon murdering someone, it's a sin. It doesn't matter if that individual is gay or straight. If a person follows through with their desire and acts upon it, it's a sin, it doesn't matter if the person is gay or straight.
God hates sin so to speak. Heterosexuals sin, Homosexuals sin. The confusion is how we label and identity sexuality. The Bible never deals with labels. The Bible deals with actions and intentions. Labeling someone a homosexual or heterosexual is meaningless in the context of what the Bible says about the acts and intentions. That is where I believe the bridge of fellowship needs to be built.
The gift of salvation comes with no strings attached. It's a very radical concept that is mind blowing if you stop and think about it. A thief, a murder, a pedophile, the worsts of the worst and thee most undeserving can repent and ask for forgiveness and change. Of course that doesn't nullify man made consequences but it's a personal relationship between an individual and their savior.
Thank you for inquiry, Merry Christmas.
Good News

Chester, VA

#22 Dec 25, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
If the church and state deny gays right to marry then how can they not be fornicators? Just a straight answer please. No pun intended.
This is strictly a political question. I know many atheists who oppose same sex marriages. I know married couples who are atheists that didn't rely on churches for their marriage and have absolutely no interest in the Bible or any religious ideology. This is far from being a "Religious vs Atheist" issue.
However I believe that gay marriage bans are based off of popular traditional values on the definition of marriage. Seems like even the most outspoken advocate for gay marriage bans have no qualms with civil unions allowing said couples the same entitlements. But that's just my thoughts.
Good News

Chester, VA

#23 Dec 25, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So much talking in circles I'm dizzy.
What is the sin of homosexuality if it isn't forbidden itself? Just a straight answer please. No pun intended.
The confusion is the label vs the action and intention. Let me discern the difference.
1) "Homosexual" is a label, homosexuality is the act itself.
2) The Bible says a man "sleeping with a man" is an abomination.
3) It doesn't say anything about a man who "would prefer to" sleep with a man instead of a woman is an abomination.
4) A man "who would prefer" to sleep with another man instead of a women doesn't mean he "is" sleeping or "will" or "has to" sleep with another man.
The Old Testament and the New Testament says "this is" a sin, "that is" a sin. Centuries later we label ourselves as "we would prefer this" or "we would prefer that".
My answer is simple. If you "would prefer this" but you refrain from "this" it's exactly the same as "you do not prefer that" and you refrain from doing "that".
What is the difference between a homosexual who refrains from homosexuality and a heterosexual who refrains from homosexuality? Not a darn thing.
What is the difference between a pedophile who refrains from pedophilia and a homosexual or heterosexual who refrains from pedophilia? Not a darn thing.
The Bible does not deal with labels. It deals with actions and intentions.
Random example... If it says "eating" Vanilla flavored ice cream is a sin, then we agree it's a sin. Centuries later we label ourselves "Vanillites' because we would prefer vanilla if given the choice between vanilla, strawberry, chocolate. Would Vanillites be sinning if they refrained from eating vanilla? No they would not. Even though they clearly identify themselves as having a preference they do not sin anymore than a "chocolate" who refrains from "eating" vanilla ice cream.
Agian... The confusion is the label vs the action and intention. Let me discern the difference.
If you identify a homosexual as someone that "will always continue to" or always "has to" sleep with the same sex, then yes it is a sin.
If you identify a homosexual as someone who "prefers to" sleep with the same sex, then no, being a homosexual is not a sin.
wow

Huntington, IN

#24 Dec 25, 2013
Damn thats deep. I always heard the expression love the sinner hate the sin but I never understood why a christian would be agianst gays if there supposed to love the sinner. And I never really thought about the labels as you see them. Even though i think your more enlightened then most it really doesn`t matter what your opinion is if most christians hate gays. Just saying.
I think the op is wanting an explination for all his questions though. More so an explanation why all the antimosity towards a persons life style choices. And i think you do a good job of seperating labels from actions. But isn`t "wanting to" and "preference" the same thing. Isnt that justsaying gays are sinning just because they are gay? Also you ignore that the bible calls for the death of gays. Either they should or shouldnt be put to death. Which is right? And is straiht couples who have oral and anal sex the exact same thing as gay couples? Sodomy is sodomy. Isnt that hypocrisy?
Murphy

Huntington, WV

#25 Dec 25, 2013
Good News wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally understand your point of view. It requires faith. Merry Christmas non the less Murphy.
Happy holidays to you and yours also.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
for black people 3 5 min in the key of life 164
Huntington is the pit of hell 23 min In denial 69
News In Huntington, W.Va., two dozen people OD on ba... 1 hr Suck It Up 2
Create your own Forum (Jun '15) 1 hr Sundog512 1,536
Overdoses 1 hr Dr Feelgood 101
When a kneeger says "Keep it real"? 1 hr Justin_ Martin 16
Kroger In Barboursville (Aug '13) 1 hr nightshifter 23
Secret Confessions Of Married Couples Anything ... (Jun '12) 7 hr Cheating Wife 140

Huntington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages