Dear Conservative Christian,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) 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?
b) 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?
c) 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.
d) 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?
e) 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?
f) 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?
g) 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?
h) 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) 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?
j) 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)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Markadelphia
31 comments:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
You wonder why I think you are not a Christian? This post is a perfect example of why such a conclusion is inescapable. It's because you deliberately and maliciously are LYING about what the Bible says.
How do I know that it's deliberate? Because what the Bible actually says has been explicitly pointed out to you before. October 2001, March 2013, and just last month, November 2013
It's also clearly malicious because in order to produce that "misreading" in a way that makes the Bible look bad (part of the definition of malice), Mark has to willfully ignore what the Bible actually says (the other part of the definition of malice).
And of course, lying is saying something that one knows to be untrue. As I've demonstrated, Mark has been shown what the Bible actually says and who those laws were given to. He knows that what he posted here is wrong, yet he did it anyway.
Therefore, I am fully justified in calling Mark a deliberate, malicious liar.
The following comments are a repost of the original answer to Mark's lies:
And now I'm taking things out of context…?
Yes you are. My question, "Who were these laws given to?" was an attempt to get you to look at that context. Since you have REFUSED to do so, I will have to do it for you.
Every single one of those laws you quoted was given to one particular group of people, with only one minor variation. And in every case (with one minor exception) who that group is was explicitly stated just prior to each set of laws. So let's look at those references you gave. (Note: I am changing the order of the references you gave to match their order in the Bible.) Can you spot the pattern?:
Exodus 21:7 (selling a daughter)
Context: “Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them:”
— Exodus 21:1
Who is "them"? Check the context: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,”
— Exodus 20:22
BTW, there are extra details on this one, specifically, the specific meaning of the Hebrew word translated as "female slave":
In Exod 21:7–11 it is clear that the Hebrew father sells his daughter as an hDmDa specifically in order for her to marry her new master or his son.
— New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis
(Oh look, there's that Exegesis word again!)
So once you look at the details and get the meaning from the text, you see that this is not "slavery" as practiced in pre-Civil War America, it is something very different. Once you realize that, the purpose of rest of the context (verses 8-11) becomes clear: these laws were to keep the daughter from being treated as less than a wife acquired through other means.
Exodus 35:2 (Sabbath)
Context: Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do:”
— Exodus 35:1
Leviticus 1:9 (burnt offerings)
Context: Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 1:1–2
Leviticus 11:6-8 (eating unclean animals)
and
Leviticus 11:10 (eating shellfish)
Context: The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying,”
— Leviticus 11:1–2
BTW, you said:
eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
English translations can hide some of the subtlety of the original language here. But even in English there is a significant clue in understanding the context. Look at the actual verse:
‘But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,’
— Leviticus 11:10
Compare that to the Levitical law against homosexuality:
‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’
— Leviticus 18:22
Do you see something missing in that description as an "abomination"? Those two little words, "to you," define the scope of who is to apply that definition of "abomination". For shellfish, it limits that definition to "the sons of Israel." There is no such limitation to "abomination" when applied to homosexuality, which makes it a universal judgement.
Also, most English translations use "detestable" in the passage about shellfish. (The KJV and WEB are the only exceptions I found.) This is because the Hebrew word usually translated "detestable" in Leviticus 11:10 & 11 is different than the word usually translated as "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22.
Leviticus 15:19-24 (menstruating woman)
Context: The LORD also spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them,”
— Leviticus 15:1–2
Leviticus 19:19 (not mixing two kinds)
and
Leviticus 19:27 (beard trimming)
Context: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
“Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 19:1–2
Leviticus 20:14 (penalties for sexual sins)
Context: Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
— Leviticus 20:1–2
Leviticus 21:20 (no defects)
Context: Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them:”
— Leviticus 21:1
This is the exception in who the law applies to, which I mentioned at the beginning. The restrictions given in Leviticus 21 apply to a much more restricted group than all the other laws you mentioned. In this case, it's not "the sons of Israel", but only the priests giving the offerings in the temple.
You said:
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 glasses and contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Do I need to plunk down the dough for lassic surgery?
Did you keep reading the context?
‘No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.’
— Leviticus 21:21
Are you a descendent of Aaron who is taking care of butchering and burning the sacrifices prior to Jesus' crucifixion? Then you have a problem.
Leviticus 24:10-16 (the woman who blasphemed)
This is the other exception I mentioned. In this case, the law was given after the incident occurred. In fact, the giving of that law, and it's context was given in the range of verses you referenced:
Context: “You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying,”
— Leviticus 24:15
Leviticus 25:44 (slaves)
Context: The LORD then spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 25:1–2
Did you spot the pattern yet? Do you recognize the context? Every single one of these laws was given to the nation of Israel as part of the Mosaic Covenant; with the exception of the one which was for a subset of Israel—the priests. Not one of them was given to anyone outside of that nation, either during that time period, or today. But you are trying (and failing miserably) to rip them out of their context and apply them to Christians today. That's like trying to prosecute someone in Minnesota for violating one of Florida's laws, or one of France's laws.
So heck yeah, you ARE ripping things out of context.
BTW, here is the entry concerning slavery from "Hard Sayings of the Bible" which gives important background info:
Does God Approve of Slavery?
Does God approve of slavery? If not, why do we find so much legislation in the Old Testament on how to treat slaves?
There were basically two types of slaves in the Old Testament: the fellow Hebrew who sold himself in order to raise capital (Lev 25:39–55; Deut 15:12–18) and the foreign prisoner of war. In the postexilic days, during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, there was a third type known as the ne tinim. Their origins were probably the same as those Gibeonites of Joshua’s day who became cutters of woods and carriers of water rather than risk losing their lives in further miliary opposition to Israel.
Never, however, did Israel ever enter into the capture and sale of human life as did the Phoenician and Philistine traders and later the European nations. The third class of slaves called the ne tinim never were real serfs, but instead formed a clerical order attached to the temple with positions ranking just below that of the Levites, who also assisted in the services at the temple.
A fellow Israelite who needed to raise money to pay for debts or the like could not borrow against his property (for that was owned by the Lord according to Leviticus 25:23) but had to sell the only asset he possessed: his labor power. However, there were strict rules that governed his or her treatment during the maximum of six years that such a relationship could be entered into with another Israelite. Should any master mistreat his slave with a rod, leaving an injury, the owner forfeited his whole investment (Ex 21:20–21, 26) and the slave was immediately released, or if the master caused the slave’s death, the master was subject to capital punishment.
What about the status of non-Hebrew slaves? These captives were permanent slaves to the Israelites, but that did not mean that they could treat them as if they were mere chattel. The same rules of Exodus 21:20–21, 26 applied to them as well. One evidence of a mistreatment and they too went free. The foreign slave, along with the Hebrew household, had a day of rest each week (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14).
A female slave who was married to her captor could not be sold again as a slave. If her master, now her husband, grew to hate her, she had to be liberated and was declared a free person (Deut 21:14).
The laws concerning slavery in the Old Testament appear to function to moderate a practice that worked as a means of loaning money for Jewish people to one another or for handling the problem of the prisoners of war. Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale. This type of slavery was voluntary for the Hebrew and the ne tinim; only the war prisoner was shackled involuntarily. But in all cases the institution was closely watched and divine judgment was declared by the prophets and others for all abuses they spotted.
I'm done reposting.
One final thought on slavery:
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”
— Exodus 21:16
Also note that Mark willfully ignored New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
— 1 Corinthians 6:9
the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
— 1 Timothy 1:10
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
— Romans 1:26–27
When Mark obviously ignores such passages deliberately, it's clear that he is willfully suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That's not a position I would wish on anyone:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
— Romans 1:18
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
— Romans 1:21–22
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
— Romans 1:24
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
— Romans 1:28
Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
— Romans 1:32
Not My Name appears to be claiming that modern Christians don't have to abide by the myriad inconvenient rules in the Old Testament because they're not sons of Israel, even though they were issued by the same god. Context, apparently, matters.
Context is about a particular group of people, at a particular time, in a particular place. Not My Name is telling us that the context of the Old Testament in Israel doesn't apply to non-Israelites. Not My Name is saying that times change, people change, cultures change, technologies change, religions change, and the rules change.
Sounds like cultural relativism to me. And that's what Mark is saying: times change. Homosexuality might have once been a big deal, but it's not anymore.
By Not My Name's logic, the children of god should not be telling others what is and isn't sinful, since the proscriptions of one religion don't apply to the adherents of other religions. When we create clubs (or religions) we have the right to demand that people who join our club have to follow our rules. That's completely reasonable.
But if we reject someone from our club, they have the right to make their own club, or their own sect of Christianity. If their club allows homosexuality, that should be no concern of ours. We can voice our displeasure by not joining. We should not be trying to change state and federal laws to force our religious beliefs about homosexuality on others, no more than Jews should be trying to change state and federal laws to enforce their dietary codes and Sabbath work rules on gentiles.
That doesn't mean you have no right to voice objections to laws on moral grounds. It just means you can't use your religion as an excuse to outlaw certain practices. For example, a practical case can be made for why polygamy should be illegal (rich men would hog all the women, the worst kind of economic inequality); the same cannot be said for gay marriage in this age of condoms, lubricant, antibiotics, international adoption, artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization.
That's all Mark is saying in his snide and demeaning way: if you want to have your own insular religion with rules and beliefs calcified millennia in the past, slightly modified to fit your own prejudices and preferences, you are free to do so. But you have no right to force your vision of Christianity on the rest of Christendom, and no right to force your morality on adherents of other religions, and no right to force your prayers, customs and practices upon those who have no religion at all.
Bickering about the details of interpretation of some book written in a foreign language thousands of years ago completely misses the point: the Bronze-age rules for cultural intercourse among Israelites that appear in Leviticus simply don't apply to Americans in the Information Age who come from hundreds of different cultures from around the world.
Some of those rules still apply: people are still people, after all. Murder is murder, stealing is stealing, lying is lying. But many of those rules -- like the death penalty for adultery and homosexuality -- make no sense in this day and age, for a people who have left behind such petty and selfish demands for vengeance.
Right-wing Christians don't get to make the call for all of us, just as Bronze-Age Israelites can't stop us from eating ham and cheese sandwiches.
Uh N? Yeah about that 'sub set' of Christians? They're called Jews. And they aren't a sub set of Christians.
That's all Mark is saying in his snide and demeaning way
And here I thought M was trying to explain the error of their ways to them. To persuade them to reconsider. I guess not.
no right to force your vision of Christianity
Progressives just don't have a fucking clue about what the word force means.
Not My Name is telling us that the context of the Old Testament in Israel doesn't apply to non-Israelites.
If the context does not matter, will you and Markadelphia turn yourself in to the authorities for the crime of (I assume) NOT purchasing and maintaining a rifle and ammunition (and related requirements)? It is a much more recent law actually applied to Americans.
you have no right to force your vision of Christianity on the rest of Christendom, and no right to force your morality on adherents of other religions, and no right to force your prayers, customs and practices upon those who have no religion at all.
Not only do I lack the right to force my conclusions on anyone else, I lack the ability to do so.
On the other hand, I have an obligation to accurately understand all that is written in Scripture and continuously study to maintain and improve that understanding. Furthermore, I have an obligation to love my neighbor, which includes warning them of danger. (See Penn Jillette)
The only one who is able to define what is and is not sin and to apply any kind of force relating to that moral law is God. I have no doubt about His ability and willingness to do so.
Nikto, please consider this: What if I'm wrong about this? What have I lost. A lot of hours arguing with you guys and activities I haven't engaged in which often have negative consequences aside from direct punishment. But what if I'm right? What will you have lost? To me that's a really, really good reason to make absolutely sure of what the truth is.
What if I'm wrong about this? What have I lost. A lot of hours arguing with you guys and activities I haven't engaged in which often have negative consequences aside from direct punishment. But what if I'm right? What will you have lost? To me that's a really, really good reason to make absolutely sure of what the truth is.
What activities do you engage in when you which often have negative consequences? I think I'm beginning to see why you believe the things you do and it confirms earlier statements that I made.
You are missing a very large point here which makes much of these conversations pointless. I'm not sure where Nikto stands but I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he rose from the dead. So do you. The End.
That's all we need to do to be saved. We don't have to mentally and emotionally abuse ourselves into a massive guilt trip over our sins. I've always thought that sort of thinking leads to the excitement of being "naughty" (see: 8 year old child) and thus, more sinning. That's the trap you conservative Christians fall into all the time.
And that's why there are many different sects of Christianity that don't agree with you. Are you worried about them as well? Why? They all believe in Jesus, dude. What more do you want from them?
but I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he rose from the dead. So do you. The End.
The end? Really?
So you could sin in the past, present and future - and all you need for eternal salvation is to believe that? God won't have anything to say about your actions later? Mass murder? Believe in Jesus. Rape? Believe in Jesus. Theft? Believe in Jesus.
A whole big book teaching morality that you can ignore completely - as long as you believe in Jesus? Gotta wonder though, why have all those words and passages if they have no meaning? I mean if all you need to do is believe in Jesus then the whole Bible could be distilled down to one page of verse.
Mass murder?
Obviously you aren't familiar with the story of Paul.
Romans 4
13 Clearly, God’s promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God’s law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith. 14 If God’s promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless. 15 For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)
16 So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s.
Are you fundamentally unable to comprehend language as written?
I can always tell when you realize you are wrong, GD. Your comments get shorter and are composed entirely of ad hom.
No, you start with non-sequitor's. Your comment makes no sense in relation to what is posted.
What does Paul's story have to do with what I posted?
You posit that all you need to be saved is to believe in Jesus. You say this in the context of not needing to worry about sin.
I ask if you can commit mass murder and still be saved. I specifically put this in the context of and quote - 'past, present and future.'
Paul persecuted Christians in his past. Then he found Jesus and was saved. Do you think he would still be saved if he continued to commit mass murder just because he believed in Jesus?
Can you commit murder and be saved? Can you continue to unrepentantly commit murder and expect to be saved just because you believe in Jesus? You don't think God will have anything to say about that later?
I can always tell when you realize you are wrong, GD. Your comments get shorter and are composed entirely of ad hom.
When your crazy talk starts getting harder for a sane person to comprehend, that sane person gets a little fucking frustrated trying to translate your twisted lack of logic.
That any thinking person who is capable of comprehending written language could mis-characterize what I wrote as badly as you did is inconceivable. That you do it on a regular basis is sadly to characteristic of your mental imbalance.
GD, do you think you can continue to commit murder, confess, do it again, confess, do it again and still be saved? I don't.
Yes, you can commit murder and still be saved if you believe in Jesus. That's why I brought up Paul. He committed mass murder and was still saved because he confessed his faith (not sins) in Christ. If you continue to commit murder then you are obviously not a believer in Jesus although this is a gray area because of war, right?
God isn't a sin collector who trades favors for big sins. He's not a puppet you can manipulate based on childish behavior. He's dealt with the issue of sin once and for all with the cross. I've mentioned Hebrews 8 previously but, as you say, it's important to put that in context and look at Hebrews 9 and 10 as well.
That you do it on a regular basis is sadly to characteristic of your mental imbalance.
Doubling down!
GD, do you think you can continue to commit murder, confess, do it again, confess, do it again and still be saved? I don't.
Well why didn't you say so, because that is exactly what your posts have been leading up to. If you say that all you need to do is believe in Jesus. If you say that the sin doesn't matter. If you say that all that stuff in the Bible about sin is culturally irrelevant... Then what you ARE saying is that all you need to do is believe in Jesus and you can sin thereafter all you want.
That is what YOU have been saying. That is what YOUR words have led up to.
So don't ask me if that is what I think, since I've been arguing that what you have said is ridiculous. And here you come saying you don't think the exact things you've been saying you think.
Can you really blame me for thinking YOU are crazy?
Ah, you're just twisting everything around that I said because you want to avoid facing the contradictions in the Bible. Same old deal.
You don't need to "confess" in order to be saved. The only thing you need to do is have faith in Jesus. People actually do continue to sin, although your example of murder is an extreme one. Don't you continue to sin? According to your barometer here that must mean that you aren't going to make it to heaven. Conservative Christians all loathe themselves and think that they are wretched sinners, begging for forgiveness in front of an angry god. That god is gone because of Jesus. Get it now?
Nope, you're the one doing the twisting. Do I have to reiterate the I DID NOT say anything about confessing. Yet you've twice put that word in my mouth.
Do I have to quote your own words?
"The only thing you need to do is have faith in Jesus."
That's it? You can have faith and wilfully sin over and over and over again. Without contrition? Commit every sin, violate every commandment and you are good to go just because you have faith in Jesus? Murder, have faith, murder, have faith, murder, have faith. Have no desire to follow the word of God, but you believe he exists and that's all you need?
Doesn't sound like a very good god, nor a very sound moral compass now does it?
Again, I have to ask. If that is all that is needed why isn't the gospel of Jesus just one page long. One page? Hell, if that all it took it'd be one sentence.
I gotta go over this one again....
I said "Then what you ARE saying is that all you need to do is believe in Jesus and you can sin thereafter all you want.
Then you said "you're just twisting everything around that I said because you want to avoid facing the contradictions in the Bible."
Then you follow that up by saying "The only thing you need to do is have faith in Jesus"
Look at that, and then look at what I said first. Wow, looks like I said just the same thing you repeated to me. Doesn't look 'all twisted around' does it?
I can't help it if your inability to comprehend the written word, both here and in the Bible, causes you to see your own statements in a manner you don't like.
If you truly have faith in Jesus, then you filled with the Holy Spirit (as Paul was) and live a life of peace. Paul stopped committing mass murder and persecuting Christians because of his faith. Someone that continues to murder and says they have faith in Jesus doesn't really have it.
The problem you are having here is that you can't get off the confessing thing. Having faith and confessing aren't the same thing. I think you believe (correct me if I am wrong) that you can continue to sin as much as you want but if you confess, all is forgiven. So let's take your formula here...
Murder, have faith, murder, have faith, murder, have faith.
and substitute in the word confess...
Murder, confess, murder, confess, murder confess
Is such a person truly a Christian? In my view, no and that's why confession is ludicrous and faith is all you need. If you have truly do have faith, you aren't going to continually sin.
Now, this leads us to how evangelicals (you?) view themselves as perpetual, wretched sinners. They continually sin so I have to wonder if they do have faith. Or does Christ forgive them?
That's the third time you've mentioned confession, despite my not saying it and specifically saying that I didn't say it. That means I'm not talking anything about confessing.....
Someone that continues to murder and says they have faith in Jesus doesn't really have it.
Ok, we're getting somewhere. So a person actually does need more than just faith. They have to at least make an effort to stop sinning as well as having faith. They have to attempt to live a life according to the Bible, yes?
Where could a person attempting to live a life without sinning find a guidebook to follow that lists the sins they shouldn't commit?
Then what happens when that book lists as something they shouldn't do that they personally don't believe they shouldn't have to not do?
In other words, if the Bible lists a particular act as a sin, does the individual get to say 'nah, times have changed and we can do that sin now'?
Ah, now I see what you trying to do here but at least you've come back to the point of this post. The Bible says many things that we don't do anymore and that's why I put up this list. We also don't think that women should submit to their husbands nor do we think its OK to sell our kin into slavery. Did you look through that site I linked yesterday? Here it is again.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Check out their section on forgiving sins.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Living-Translation-NLT-Bible/#books
How do you make sense of these contradictions?
For me, it comes down to what Jesus talked about the most and what he emphasized (ex: Matthew 5). It's also about what was not talked about. Jesus never talked about gay sex or abortion. Nor were they mentioned in the 10 commandments. That says to me the taboo of homosexuality was something for the time and not meant to be timeless.
Enough dodging, though, GD. You are doing the dickish questioning again. State your principles and beliefs and defend them in light of the contradictions I have listed above.
The Bible says many things that we don't do anymore and that's why I put up this list
Perhaps that has more to do with your misinterpretation of what the Bible actually says, as NMN has pointed out. And perhaps that's our society's hubris. Just because our society has sanctioned a particular activity does not mean the Bible is wrong regarding it. As I said before, if you claim to follow a guidebook of morality, then rejecting certain moral clauses of it in favour of your own morality really means you are not following that guidebook of morality.
For me, it comes down to....
That says to me....
I thought you said you were a Christian? Do you follow what the Bible says or do you, as you posit here, decide what is right or wrong on your own accord? Are you a Christian or do you follow a faith you made up on your own, call it Markadelphianty?
Enough dodging, though, GD. You are doing the dickish questioning again. State your principles and beliefs and defend them in light of the contradictions I have listed above.
Oh bullshit Mark. I'm not dodging as not only have you not been asking what I follow, it's not even part of the conversation, it's not relevant to anything that's been said. You even saying that now is a dodge of your own.
Need I remind you that you are the one making posts with the claims that we are discussing? I am not making any claims, only questioning your claims. That those questions have indeed served to illuminate your own claims? That you earlier said pretty unequivocally that 'all you need is faith', and I used those supposedly 'dickish questioning' tactics to determine that statement wasn't actually as unequivocal as you originally made it out to be?
You want me to stop questioning you? Fine. Does that mean I should take you at your original word? So I can take it to mean when you say 'all you need is faith', that is what you really mean? That a person who 'has faith' but doesn't follow the word of God and murders, rapes and steals is still good to go? Is that what you really meant, or did you actually mean the revised version that my questions illuminated? Can you see the value in such questions to illuminate your own position? That you really didn't mean that statement as you originally said it?
I'd think you'd be pretty happy that your actual position was clarified. Rather than a thank you I get a 'dickish'. Sheesh.
The problem we are having here, GD, is that one of your key assertions (and NMN's) in all theses threads is that in order to be a Christian you have to follow every single word in the Bible. You've also asserted that I ignore parts of the Bible and choose to only follow certain passages.
Yet I have linked a site which illustrates key contradictions that does just what you request by looking at the entirety of the Bible. Here they are again...all 478 of them.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
At many different points, the Bible says two different things. How do YOU reconcile that? I've already explained how I do and you have rejected that explanation. Fine. How do YOU do it?
Examples that relate to our discussion.
Is there an unforgivable sin?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/unforgivable.html
Do Christians sin?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sin.html
Is salvation by faith alone?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html
Given all of this, it's up to each person to sort out, through thought and reflection, what their place is with God. I'm very comfortable with my faith and don't really need to justify it to you or anyone else. Despite all of these contradictions, I am a Christian and the verses above illustrate why I believe the things I do.
So, given all of these verses, explain how your assertions about me make any sense because it seems to me that you think a "real" Christian does the very thing you accuse me of...ignoring half the Bible.
Of course, if you actually stated your principles and beliefs, rather than just offering a critique of mine, perhaps I could see how you and NMN are "better" Christians than I am:)
In order to make your own determination of what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible, you would be required to use logic and reading comprehension.
For example,
"perhaps I could see how you and NMN are "better" Christians than I am:) "
If you could comprehend language and utilize logic you would not have written such a thing.
Great. Exercise your higher ability in reading comprehension in the links I provided above and tell me where I (and the skeptic) fail.
Apparently you are under the mistaken impression that I am arguing that you are either right or wrong about the Bible being right or wrong. I'm not.
Post a Comment