Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Well, several things. For one, the first 10 chapters all deal with what you have to do to please the lord, specifically how and what to sacrifice to him. Yet modern Christians don't do that. Why not?
You say it's because sheep are cheap these days. But cows aren't. In any event, what changed that lets us ignore that part of Leviticus?
Similarly, the "trespass" offerings in Chapter 6.
In Chapter 11, the Lord commands you not to eat camel, rabbit, pig, shellfish, oysters, snails, turtles, and a whole range of birds. Most Christians now ignore this entire chapter.
|
I was expecting this one, and I was raised vegetarian into a sect which believes in bing vegetarian. So there.
Quote:
Chapter 12: Women are unclean for up to 66 days after childbirth. Christians ignore this chapter.
Chapter 19: This chapter, like 18, is devoted to moral laws. Among them: No plowing a field with both oxen and horses, no wearing clothes made of both linen and wool, no planting two different crops in the same field. It also lays out specific rules for haircuts and outlaws tattoos and other body marks. Most Christians ignore this entire chapter.
|
I cannot speak for most Christians, most Christians ignore the part about gays too. As for myself, I have yet to break most of those laws, I do wory about hybrids and the like, as my father is a theologian of sorts and his influence is present in that.
Quote:
Chapter 20: Adultery is punishable by death, as is homosexuality, bestiality, and marrying both a woman and her mother. Most Christians ignore this chapter.
Chapter 21: People with physical defects aren't allowed to make offerings to God. Entirely ignored these days.
Chapter 24: Swearing is punishable by death, plus the famous "eye for any eye" rule. Ignored these days.
Chapter 25: Every seventh year, let your fields lie fallow. Different rules for selling a house in a walled city vs. an unwalled village.... Both ignored these days.
In fact, almost all of Leviticus is readily ignored by Christians. Why, then, should we not similarly ignore your cite from Chapter 18?
|
Many Christians believe that Women Ministers, Homosexuals and Miscegenation are fine and dandy. Do you know what that makes them? Heretics. I will not defend Heretics. As for myself, I do hold as true to the Bible as I can, which is all God asks.
Quote:
|
I understand why you would believe your cite is relevant if you also follow all the other rules in Leviticus. Which is why I asked if you do.
|
Like I said, most Christians probably arent like me, but my father was concerned with the rules in Leviticus, and so I am as well as a result of his teachings. I do my best to follow them. I havent any tattoos, I don't sleep with my close relatives, or animals, or mankind, I don't eat unclean (or any) animals, I don't plow when I am not supposed to (or at all), and I choose willingly not to offer animals to God (as Leviticus does say that you must willingly do so) on account of my father's belief.
So, yes, I agree with the other parts, almost all of them. I don't think we are supposed to put people to death anymore, in fact, whether for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ry, adultery or bestiality, because I believe Jesus relieved us of the responsibility to stone to death those who brole the laws of the OT. But Leviticus is the best example there is of God's opinion of (*)(*)(*)(*). THEY ARE ABOMINATION.
And as for Force of the Truths original point, when re-reading Leviticus to see what exactly raytri was trying to trick me up with, I noticed a bit where it outlines the sacrifice you should give
for accidentally sleeping with a man, which basically destroys your theory.
Quote:
Lev:5:3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
5:5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned
|
This sort of debunks the theory that Lev: 18:22 and 20:13 are referring to adultery committed by a man with a man, as well as adultery by a man with a woman. Which begs the question, why is adultery by a woman with a woman not mentioned, if FOTT's theory is correct?