Leviticus 20:13

[gb2000ie]

It disappoints me apologists even try defending some of this garbage.

I assume you're not talking about anyone in this thread. All I've seen here is people proving that it's stupid to take the bible literally. That's not be an apologist for anyone - that's pointing out that those who take it literally are out of tune with reality.

I think it's pathetic to throw out the entire bible as worthless because some people take it as a book of literal fact rather than the book of stories and parables it was written as. I think it's as intellectually dishonest to assume the whole thing is useless because it is imperfect, as it is to assume the whole thing is perfect when it clearly isn't. Dismissing the whole thing out of hand a totally useless is as extreme as believing God wrote it in English. At the very very very least it's a very important historical doent that captures an important ancient culture and tells us about their lives and their values. Realistically, you have to admit that there is wisdom in at least some of the parables and stories it contains.

Finally, if you want to actually engage people, so you can make progress and reconcile some difference, you need to meet them half way and actually understand what you're talking about. Just shouting at Christians is no better than Christians just shouting at gays. By all means be all condescending, smug and superior, but it won't actually help anyone.

B.

 

[cdninweho]

Actually - that's not what the bible says - that's what a translation of a translation of a translation of a long long long lost original says. How's your ancient Greek? Or your Hebrew?

As has been fantastically pointed out, the old testament says many things that we do not follow any more. In fact, the whole point of Christianity is that Christ gave us a new covenant, replacing the old one from the old testament. This is why Christians can eat pork even though Leviticus prohibits it, this is why Christians are not circised, even though the old testament demands it.

Basically - Leviticus is a Jewish book, not a Christian one. Jesus freed Christians from it's restrictive prescriptions. We can wear cloths made of many materials, we can eat shell fish, and much more. All of which Leviticus prohibits. Depending on your version of the bible, the same word, abomination, is used to describe men lying with men, and eating shell fish. Funny how you don't see Christians crusading against shrimpers, or picketing seafood restaurants!

If Jesus really thought Homosexuality is a big deal, then why exactly did he not make a single recorded comment on the matter? He spoke about many things, yet somehow homosexuality wasn't worth mentioning. Makes you think! He was also big on the whole love thing. I'm not so sure he'd be all that happy with all the hate and persecution that's being done in his name.

Anyhow - biblical quotes are best understood in context, they don't work so good as disarticulated snippets.

B.

Not quite. The Old Testament is not a Jewish book, it is both a Christian and Jewish book. Christianity was born out of Judaism and we have incorporated their scriptures into our scriptures.

The reason many Christian's don't follow the Levitical code is that we are not Levite's. The code was written for them; it applied to their tribe at a time when they were threatened. Sleeping with a woman meant propagation of the tribe, sleeping with a man could not have that same effect.

Also if you look at the scriptures in Hebrew and Greek, you will see that the text did not refer to homosexuality as we view it today (the word homosexual never came about until the 1800's), but rather it spoke against having relations with temple prostitutes; men who would rather get paid to get laid than work for the better of the tribe.

You are correct that Jesus never made a comment against homosexuality; in fact it could be argued he made comments in favor of it. The story in Luke 22:47-53 where Jesus heals the slave who had his ear cut off, when read in Hebrew can lead to a view that the slave was actually a lover of the Roman Soldier. The word used is not slave/master like we would think today, but is one used to describe a close, loving relationship between two people.

Most of the New Testament prohibitions come from Paul, a man (not God) who had an incredible impact on the early church. This is the same man that says woman are second class citizens and should be quiet and not teach, and says that it is okay to keep slaves, as long as we treat them well.

Much of Christianity is guilty of picking and choosing what they want to believe. I prefer to look at the bigger picture and focus on the love your neighbor part of Christ's teachings.

Oh yeah, I write this as a minister with appropriate graduate level theological training.

Rev. Randy

 

[diklik]

It disappoints me apologists even try defending some of this garbage.

To give everyone their due, biblical Christian apologists are convinced of the righteousness of their cause and beliefs. You are equally convinced of the opposite. Rather than hurling condemnation at those with whom you disagree, why not attempt to convince them of their fallacies. Actual discussions, as opposed to repeated rhetoric and dogmatic statements can change peoples' beliefs. Remember that cults never want their followers to think for themselves. Although the term cult is a strong one, it does apply to some Christian and other religious sects.

 

[diklik]

Not quite. The Old Testament is not a Jewish book, it is both a Christian and Jewish book.

Well Rev. Randy, I hate to burst your theological bubble, but your statement is incorrect. Regardless of who (what grouping or faith structure) adopts a book or a codified set of religious writings, the book is still - in and of itself - a book for those to whom it was originally written and intended. Christian believers make this mistake many times over, by presuming that their acceptance of the OT as a foundation for their faith makes the OT "written for them". The prohibitions, and the 600-odd oral commandments given by Moses to the people of Israel were not strictly for one tribe only. There were specifics for the Levites, as the servants and operators of the Temple. Certain scriptural admonitions clearly target the priestly class (Kohanim). Much of the general wording of the OT admonishes all of the Jews toward obedience and faith.

However, modern day adoption of the OT as the forerunner of the NT is neither accurate nor truthful. Some portions of the old do find a corollary in the new - but not every precept or line of the old is valid, post crucifixion of Jesus. Your statement would indicate that a letter of guidance written to me and read by my friend, is a letter to both. That cannot be, unless it is clearly addressed to the both of us and speaks specifically to issues in both our lives. The OT does not address many of the issues faced by Christian believers after the death of Jesus, no matter how inspiring the writings might be to them. And, the Levitical prohibitions which have always been Judaically interpreted for all Jews cannot hope to apply to Christians who are no longer subject to the Mosaic law.

One cannot have one's cake and eat it too. Either a Christian admits that the OT has some relevance but is not a direct guidebook to his faith and life, or he lapses into being a Judaizer -- one who tries to repudiate the Christian faith by re-introducing legalistic regulations which bind believers to spiritual death instead of victorious life in Christ.

So now, all the non-Christians are rolling their eyes:rolling eyes: and moaning in agony!X_X

 

[ozium]

To give everyone their due, biblical Christian apologists are convinced of the righteousness of their cause and beliefs. You are equally convinced of the opposite. Rather than hurling condemnation at those with whom you disagree, why not attempt to convince them of their fallacies. Actual discussions, as opposed to repeated rhetoric and dogmatic statements can change peoples' beliefs. Remember that cults never want their followers to think for themselves. Although the term cult is a strong one, it does apply to some Christian and other religious sects.

Sure, there's redeemable material in the bible. Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, some nice parts in the New Testament. But why not go the Jeffersonian route of simply throwing out the material that is considered immoral by modern civilized standards? Burning your daughter, stoning your neighbor, slavery, killing homosexuals, etc. Why do people continue to indirectly defend it in any way? I'm sure Scientology has some redeeming features but its bad outweighs its good, and its bad is horrendous.

If we want to talk fallacies, lets start with the false equivalency between atheists and theists. I'm convinced I'm right, so is anyone with an opinion, but my mind is willing to change in light of evidence. I am not attacking anyone or "shouting". I am being polite as possible in light of this book's atrocious claims. There's a difference between hurling condemnation for truly appalling moral suggestions and hurling condemnation because of your faith in an ancient book. If it was from the mouth of a dictator and not a book you'd been brought up to respect, you'd be on my side. Even if that dictator had a few nice parables couched in his authoritarian delivery. Another fallacy is the strawman you're trying to make out of me by quoting the most biting statement I made, cutting out the logical bits, and painting me aggressive. And before you say I'm doing the same thing with the bible, please read it. It is mostly unreadable.

 

[gb2000ie]

Another fallacy is the strawman you're trying to make out of me by quoting the most biting statement I made, cutting out the logical bits, and painting me aggressive. And before you say I'm doing the same thing with the bible, please read it. It is mostly unreadable.

Then don't make such flippant and ignorant statements. They make you look like a loony - and clearly that's not a fair reflection on you. It's you who are doing yourself a dis-service, not anyone else.

 

[gb2000ie]

Sure, there's redeemable material in the bible. Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, some nice parts in the New Testament. But why not go the Jeffersonian route of simply throwing out the material that is considered immoral by modern civilized standards?

This is a historical doent we're talking about - it's importance is in the combination of it's whole and and it's context. For all the same reasons you should not revise the word 'nigger' out of Huck Finn, you should not remove the utterly unacceptable bits from the bible, but instead teach it properly.

Having said that, there is value to Jefferson's enterprise, comparing the size of the leftovers to the size of the original gives a very graphic illustration of just how out-of-touch the book is with modern life, and just how ridiculously stupid it is to treat it as literal, un-erring, and infallible.

In short - the biggest problem with the bible is that almost no one who claims to follow it has actually read it all, or has had any actual education about it's origins or context. Basically, the problem is ignorance, much more than the book itself.

B.

 

[diklik]

In short - the biggest problem with the bible is that almost no one who claims to follow it has actually read it all, or has had any actual education about it's origins or context. Basically, the problem is ignorance, much more than the book itself.

B.

And again AMEN! I haven't yet heard any so-called Christian denomination unilaterally declare that gay men and women are loved of God as much as str8 folk - which omission is clearly and unequivocally a breach of God's law of love as taught by Jesus. Either you accept everything in the NT as written for all those who profess belief, or you run the risk of creating yet another false cult by picking and choosing which of your preferred teachings form your invented religion.

Phelps and all the assholes like him simply are false cultists - expounding one particular misquoted and mistranslated set of teachings, upon which they attract followers and earn millions of $$$. All those who profess belief in any sect or group that promotes hatred or violence to any human for any reason, are decidedly NOT Christian in their behaviour or faith. Whatever god and jesus they worship, it's not the ones written about in the New Testament.

 

[diklik]

Another fallacy is the strawman you're trying to make out of me by quoting the most biting statement I made, cutting out the logical bits, and painting me aggressive. And before you say I'm doing the same thing with the bible, please read it. It is mostly unreadable.

Then don't make such flippant and ignorant statements. They make you look like a loony - and clearly that's not a fair reflection on you. It's you who are doing yourself a dis-service, not anyone else.

Looks like someone got called out there. By posting biting statements, one invites critique based on them. By claiming that one finds a book unreadable, one simply demonstrates their own inability to read and comprehend, since countless others find the same book enlightening, or at least fascinating and full of information about past generations of humans. One need not have any faith or belief in a book in order to read it and examine the thoughts contained therein. I do not believe in Islam or worship Allah according to the teachings of that faith. But I own a very good translation of the Qur'an, simply for my own edification and learning.

 

[richym]

In short - the biggest problem with the bible is that almost no one who claims to follow it has actually read it all, or has had any actual education about it's origins or context. Basically, the problem is ignorance, much more than the book itself.

B.

While this statement is true about many people in churches, there are great scholars out there who do a lot of thinking about the context of when the Bible was written, and what it is trying to say. As Topdog pointed out, this is such an important process.

For myself, I have a BA in ancient history, from Macquarie University, one of Australia's leading universities for ancient history. In doing that degree I studied a number of subjects on Biblical and early church history. Studying my Bachelor of Theology we spent a great deal of time learning about the background to the Bible. So hopefuly, the leadership of the church should be well trained to look at the context, and should have read the whole Bible (I have read it all the way through at least twice, I think it's three times now). Unfortunately we probably don't do a good job of teaching the people in our churches to do the same thing.

It is great to see this discussion taking place. Yes there are some difficult parts in the Bible, some that sound awful. But sometimes we need to read it carefully. A guy killing his daughter when he comes back from battle is recorded. It is not saying that is a good thing, in fact it is there to encourage you to think about promises you make. It is a terrible thing. But that is the thing with the Bible, you get the characters warts and all. They haven't been airbrushed to look all sweet and nice. David the great example commits adultery and then kills the husband to cover it up. A terrible thing which he gets into trouble for. Sometimes we have to learn from other's mistakes, even when they seem harsh.

I agree with others, we do not just take the Bible literally, we need to understand the context, to understand why that particular author has written that thing. But as we understand that, then we are able to work out how we can apply that to our lives today.

 

[diklik]

While this statement is true about many people in churches, there are great scholars out there who do a lot of thinking about the context of when the Bible was written, and what it is trying to say. As Topdog pointed out, this is such an important process.

With respect to your academic qualifications and devotion, the statement still stands as correct and valid, that almost no one who professes Christianity has read the Bible through or has any clear comprehension of its origins or the context in which its statements are made. Scholars far and wide may engage in meaningful study, but they are the few exceptions to "almost no one".

Sadly, those academics and scholars are not able to silence the ones screaming false and incorrect interpretations of Scripture from television pulpits and printed broadsides; nor are those serious students able to steer the ignorant public away from false teaching. It is a human dynamic to band together in hatred and exclusion - something that Jesus taught against, but which most of His supposed followers have not yet accepted or acted upon.

 

[gb2000ie]

So hopefuly, the leadership of the church should be well trained to look at the context, and should have read the whole Bible (I have read it all the way through at least twice, I think it's three times now). Unfortunately we probably don't do a good job of teaching the people in our churches to do the same thing.

This is one of Catholicism's weakest points. The ordinary members of the congregation are considered too stupid to interpret the bible for themselves, and must defer to the church to interpret it for them. This smug superior attitude actively dis-courages exploration of the bible by Catholics, and results in a flock of sheep (and I use the phrase advisedly). I have great respect for churches that encourage people to think for themselves, rather than taking the RCC's anti-independent-thought approach.

Another terrible side-effect of this idea of an official interpretation is that you build up an in-surmountable pile of dogma that chokes new thought and inhibits change and evolution. When you add the non-sense of papal infallibility into the mix you get an inflexible authoritarian hierarchy that has little to do with the search for truth and knowledge or the spread of love for your fellow man, and instead get the child-abusing disgrace we see in Ireland and elsewhere around the globe.

You need the flexibility of an engaged and educated flock to get a modern church. It sounds like I'd be a lot more religious if I had met more preachers like richym in my youth, and heard less of the hateful and rediculous dogma spouted by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

B.

 

[diklik]

You need the flexibility of an engaged and educated flock to get a modern church.

Well, if Christians (regardless of chosen denomination affiliation) actually operated churches according to the New Testament model, there would be no such thing as a hired preacher or minister. Hirelings were looked down upon as preying upon the flock of believers. Instead, believers would congregate around a person (usually a man) who taught the truth as Jesus spoke it, and could validate his ministry of teaching and leadership with his own lifestyle. His financial support would be obtained through gifts of both money and necessities from those whom he directly taught and led, since he was not supposed to become wealthy or famous, or to concern himself with owning property. Scripture does mention that the early believers themselves diligently read and researched the teachings (based on letters from the Apostles) to ensure that they were being informed and instructed correctly. There was equal responsibility upon minister and flock to do the right thing according to Jesus.

The body of believers (the fellowship) would elect from among themselves helpers called Deacons, who would tend to the actual 'business' of maintaining the church, deciding where to assemble, helping poor or destitute members of the fellowship. None of this was supposed to concern the minister (Pastor) whose sole function was to meditate, pray (NOT prey) and develop teaching and leadership for current needs based upon the precepts taught by Jesus.

From among all those who taught and gave spiritual guidance to small, local flocks of believers, one might be chosen in a given region to act as an overseer (Bishop), merely to promote the faith and to ensure that all those who taught were on the same page

Haven't found a church yet that has even tried to make that work.

 

[richym]

Hey Diklik,
I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of Christians leaders. I know that there are some bad ones out there. And unfortuantely the ones you see on TV are rarely the deep thinkers. People want to hear things which make them feel good, and that they will blessed. They don't want to have to think. But there are many many great Christian thinkers out there, across many denominations, who are carefully studying the Bible, looking at the context, and trying to train their congregations the same.

I am proud to be a part of a denomination who is willing to do the hard thinking, and to progress. We have had women in mininstry for many many years. We ordain homosexual ministers. We are willing to study the Bible and context, and to make changes. Not everyone likes that, but hopefully we are getting closer to God's plan.

As for paid ministry people. The Bible talks about a worker is worth their wages. Apparently I'm not worth very much. We need to be careful of taking things that Paul writes to various churches and making them prescriptive of what must happen, when quite possibly they were just descriptive of what was happening.

 

[bluemount]

Nilstreet has it - the bible is the Jews justification to commit the genocide of the local population when the marched into their promised land from Egypt. The new testament is just a cobble together set of mismatch reminisces to try an match proficiencies.
http://anonym.to/?http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Both show how arrogant man is as an animal that thinks its so special that some supernatural being is interested - bit like those that tell the world their every move on Twitter

 

[richym]

Bluemount, if you look at the time that the Old Testament was written, all nations acted like that. You don't just walk into someone's land and set up camp, you take them over. The interesting thing about the Jewish law is that it calls for them once they are settled in the land to look after the foreigners. This was not all just for their beneift, not genecide just for the sake of it. Yes it is harsh, but that was the nature of the world back then. We need to read it in context, not just in the perspective of these days when we can avoid war if we really want to.
the New Testament is the careful account of the life of Jesus (well four accounts to be precise). It also contains letter to vairous groups of Christians, which help us to think through what following Jesus is all about.
The interesting thing about the Bible is that it suggest that human are important enough that God cares about them. Most other mythologies just leave humans as the play things and slaves of the gods. Maybe it is amazing that God cares about us, rather than just arrogant?

 

[diklik]

Hey Diklik,
I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of Christians leaders. I know that there are some bad ones out there. .....But there are many many great Christian thinkers out there, across many denominations, who are carefully studying the Bible, looking at the context, and trying to train their congregations the same.........
As for paid ministry people. The Bible talks about a worker is worth their wages. .

Richym, I have worked with many churches on technical projects. I have observed large and small congregations and their Pastors/leaders, and their Boards of Elders, or Directors, or whatever the current flavour of the month is, regarding fancy titles. I will repeat my statement, that I haven't yet found an assembly that follows the precept established to build the early church. Christians claim to be in the same battle as they always have been - faith in God seeking to overcome the evil forces of Satan. If it worked so well the first time and the Church expanded daily by leaps and bounds, why has Christianity become so vain as to think that the wheel can be reinvented in a better way?

As for "workers being worth of their hire" - try a good translation from the Greek to find out what was meant by the term 'worker" or 'workman' as both are used interchangeably. Matthew 10:10 describes the situation (the term hire, or wages, or meat) as sustenance for living - the essentials of life, not wages or guaranteed salary. Those who ministered for the Lord were not to be in a position of being bought and paid for by those to whom they gave the teaching and ministry - an independence of action was implied and practiced. History tells us that Paul was a tent maker who continued to ply his trade for the survival and continuity of his household; until such time as his constant journeying and teaching brought him sufficient gifts to feed and clothe him along the way. Perhaps modern Pastors and teachers need to commit to regular working jobs along with their congregations, if only to stay in touch with reality. That's why the ministry of helps exists - visiting and praying for the sick, comforting the afflicted and those in prison is not the function of only the Pastoral team but of every believer. At least that's what I read in Scripture.

You have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those. If you or I or anyone changes one jot or tittle of the written and taught Word, we cannot come to a good end.

 

[gb2000ie]

Nilstreet has it - the bible is the Jews justification to commit the genocide of the local population when the marched into their promised land from Egypt.

Are you mixing up the old testament with the Bible per-chance? Clearly, the NT is about no such thing. I'd argue the OT has no business being considered a Christian book, but that's a matter for another day. You can't pretend the whole bible is the OT, and you can't pretend the gospels teach any such thing as genocide.

B.

 

[richym]

Hey Diklik,
Interesting comments. On the "worker being worth their hire" occurs three times. In Matthew 10:10 it is refering to food. Luke 10:7 is more pay. Both of these are Jesus giving instructions to those he is sending out. In other words those who are taking his message are to be looked after. Paul, who yes worked as a tentmaker and generally looked after himself, reminds Timothy of this idea in regards to elders. The idea that the religious leaders are supplied for goes back to the Levites. The large portion of the sacrifices were given to them to eat, so they could survive. So I would suggest that there is a precedent for paying clergy. I would agree with you that some get paid far too much. If I see ministers driving around in BMWs or SAABs, then I suspect that they are making too much from the church. I made a deal with myself early on that I would only ever take the wage that I needed from the church. And as I am not that far above minimum wage, then I think I am doing a fairly good job at the moment.

Again I want to question the "Structure of the Early church". Jesus never sets up a structure, never talks about the positions that they are to have. The question is did he even intend for the followers to pull away from the Jewish faith as much as they did? But we look at a couple of references in Paul's letters, and we attempt to set up the structure that must have been in every church. More than likely the church in Corinth had a different set up to that in Ephesus, which was different again to that in Antioch, etc. I suspect that we read too much in when we want to make the structures that Paul is describing to the various churches, into a prescription of how the church must be. Even if we were to attempt to follow the "structure of Paul", there really isn't enough evidence for what each position did. I think the key is that we are encouraging all to be a part of the ministry of the church. We all have our parts to play, as you wisely point out.

 

[diklik]

Hey Diklik,
Interesting comments. On the "worker being worth their hire" occurs three times. In Matthew 10:10 it is refering to food. Luke 10:7 is more pay.

Yes Richym, but it's the same word in Koine Greek, and in Luke 10:7 the workers are admonished to eat whatever is provided as opposed to "requiring a certain standard of food and care". My point is that no true Pastor can blithely enter into a contract and say that he is fulfilling his calling. I know, I know, that's how it's done today for the most part. But that doesn't necessarily make it right, and it's not justified in Scripture. The pattern that was set in motion, that created the early church and which enabled it to grow rapidly (the way modern Pastors drool about), was accomplished with simple men and women teaching the Gospel, not engaging as part of a heirarchy.............they had just come out of that system when they no longer followed Roman gods and temple worship, or Judaism and the Mosaic code based around that temple.

The idea that the religious leaders are supplied for goes back to the Levites. The large portion of the sacrifices were given to them to eat, so they could survive. So I would suggest that there is a precedent for paying clergy

And it was some of those selfsame Levites whom Jesus drove from the steps of the temple, for indulging in fraudulent reselling of sacrificial animals many times over, and making a mockery of what was supposed to be each family patriarch bringing a holy sacrifice before God. I believe that the precedent is for a grateful congregation providing for reasonable housing, food, clothing and other necessities as required by a clergyman, but not a contractual arrangement that does not reflect the ability of the average assembly member. Too often, several wealthy board members foot the bill. One might say how gracious of them, but the end result is that they pressure the Pastor to accede to their will, not necessarily the same as God's leading for the minister of a flock. That all reminds me of the Scriptural admonition against taking teachers to oneself who preach to itching ears - saying what is preferred as opposed to what is needed to be said.

Again I want to question the "Structure of the Early church". Jesus never sets up a structure, never talks about the positions that they are to have. The question is did he even intend for the followers to pull away from the Jewish faith as much as they did?

That's a wonderful question to debate in another time and place. But the structure was there from the beginning. Is it possible that Divine inspiration led to such structure? That might be a possibility, since Judaism and Roman idol worship were far too organized and the laity were locked out of any part of leadership or involvement in worship and faith propagation.

I believe that there were very few actual positions in the early N T church. The minister gave leading and teaching, while praying for specific direction for his particular flock. Deacons were elected by the congregation from within the congregation, to perform the routine chores of collecting alms and distributing them to the needy, and organizing prayer and visitation. Other than a Bishop or overseer, no other specific offices were spoken of. The vast covering of "the Ministry of Helps" is where most believers fitted into the scheme.