This is not sarcastic nor intended to poke fun at the Bible. I'm very serious about this question.
I am reading a novel. In it there is a sadistic murderer. He uses quotes from Leviticus to plan the grisly way in which he kills women. This isn't the first instance of someone using quotes from Leviticus to justify harming another human being. They seem to be endless.
So after a while I begin asking myself how this guy managed to get his writings included in the Bible. Some of what he wrote would bring mental health professionals to diagnose him a sociopath. Why did the council allow this to be part of the Bible? I don't see the logic.
I realize back then misogyny was the order of the day and including anything written by a woman was verboten, no matter how positive a message it may convey. But I'm sure there were other writers from Old Testament times that could have been included that were far less dark than Leviticus. An awful lot of what I've read makes me believe he should have worked for Hitler.
Any answers? I'm beside myself on this one.
Really, for the observant Jew (and remember this was written by Jews, for Jews, Xian's just ripped it off) Leviticus IS the entire whole of the bible, because it's the law.
I think it makes more sense, taken as a whole, and using historical context. Remove those things, let people pick and choose what they like and dislike, and make it immediate rather than historical and it becomes a weapon.
To differentiate between "us" and "them"?
I have heard that certain translations take liberties (sometimes liberties of historical context) and that Leviticus doesn't always say what we think it says.
You had to hear that? You've never picked up different versions and checked it out? Anyway. It's much easier to lose and confuse meaning translating across time (in this case many millennia) than between languages. We can make allowances in some ways for language differences when translating. We can not go back and have any understanding what people 5,000 years ago mean by choosing one word, or the way they intended for it to be applied. In some respect you have people in one of the most modern, scientific and rational cultures ever reading what amounts to speculations on the part of some rather literate, but still itinerant and highly superstitious sheepherders.
There are alot of things through the book that I find terribly offensive and perverse. Infanticide, genocide, rape, slavery and other things are given a "thumbs up" quite a few times through the book. It's a shame that more people haven't read the whole thing to know what's really in it.
There are alot of things through the book that I find terribly offensive and perverse.
Leviticus, or the entire Bible? That whole crucifixion deal is pretty bad too.
Quote from: tekla on August 16, 2011, 06:08:59 PM
Leviticus IS the entire whole of the bible, because it's the law.
Okay, that makes sense, at least it may have a few thousand years ago. But was that the case, say, in 380AD? And since laws usually change with social views, why hasn't anyone thought that maybe editing a book, that so many live their life by, to keep up with the times is the prudent thing to do? Leviticus seems to attract all the nuts. Maybe that should be telling the powers-that-be Leviticus has lost it's positive social value and it's time to retire it.
Leviticus mean - 'about/for/for the attention of the Levites'.
The Levites were a tribe is Israel who were not given any land, they took tithes from the other land owners in return for priestly and political duties - so it is the book outlining their duties and the laws of their society that they were to uphold.
no fair, Pica's dad is a pro.
So Pica, is that then the understanding that those laws only apply to the priest class/caste, or do they apply to the whole of Israel?
They apply to the nation, but in particular to the priestly caste.
It's important to note (and this next paragraph is going to be gabbled recollection) that the Pentateuch (the first five books) were not written to moderately late in Biblical history and were written after the nation had settled and split into two kingdoms. North and South. It is thought that the these books were written after the larger Northern kingdom (Israel) had been conquered by the Assyrians and written by the Southern and previously less powerful kingdom (Judah). So there is a vested political interest in this book by Judean scribes to claim and codify the laws of God that the larger kingdom had flouted. This is one of the reasons why the tradition of law is so strong in Judaism - because a strong king was one who practiced the law. (Judah was itself conquered later, which caused a lot of soul searching and moody prophets.)
However, if we follow a Christian understanding, Christ said 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.' Mat 5:17.
The idea being that Christ's life and death have obsoleted the technicalities of the law for the greater law of 'do unto others'. That God's law was not 'The Way' to God anymore because 'The Way' was through the example and sacrifice of Jesus. 'I am the way, the truth and the light' etc..
The next thousand or so years of Christianity seeming (to me) to be about working out what that entails.
Yeah, the Israelites don't even have a flood story until they come back from Babylon (hummm, and it sounds suspiciously like the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh, though with distinct Hebrew lessons). However, I always told my students that if your going to steal, steal from the best, & that being said and done I just wanted to say that the Pentateuch pretty much rocks. The writers of Genesis and Exodus in particular are about as good at writing as anyone has ever been. It really sucks you in, right from the start, the guy starts with the beginning of everything and gets it out of the way in a couple of quick, and just about the most poetic you can find, paragraphs
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
You can't touch that.
And really, all of you can rail about what the law (circa here what, a couple millennia before the Common Era?) says, and how goofy parts of it are/were (whatever) but in doing that you fail to see how radical and how great a leap forward any written law was for that time and place. Indeed, the notion of a written law that applies to everything is one of the very foundation blocks of Western Society and Culture (but we don't teach that anymore do we?). The twisting, bending, shifting, the incredible picking and choosing over the Jewish Law as codified in Leviticus (instead of worshiping it for what it is, the beginning of civil society in the West) comes from trying to apply something that was done by and for some rather literate, but still itinerant and highly superstitious Bronze Age sheepherders wandering around in a desert to people in one of the most modern, scientific and rational urban-based cultures ever. The problems are obvious. They are also legion.
Quote from: tekla on August 17, 2011, 09:17:39 AM
The problems are obvious. They are also legion.
They are many?
I love Gilgamesh, or at least what I read through OUP version - they make no bones that it is an incomplete text, give you the story with the missing bits pointed out an appendices with later/similar texts that are usually used to patch the holes up. I love the later part of the story more - that after realising the fact of death because the death of his soul-buddy Enkidu, he seeks out eternal life - and completely cocks it up.
Realising that he has blown his chance of becoming immortal, he returns home to be a good king to his people. A message I like a lot.
Hopefully I can answer this questions as I am a Divinity Student!
The Book of Leviticus, contrary to popular belief, was not written by Moses but under the reign of Josiah who was a King a few generations past Solomon. During this time, Judah was in a political, cultural, and sovereign crises from the Assyrian Empire. Israel had already been decimated.
Josiah was known as a king who tried to bring Judah back to "it's roots" as their culture was being immersed with other cultural identities and religion.
Josiah felt it was proper to write some laws of instruction (Leviticus and Deuteronomy) as a method and "handbook" that the Jewish nation needs to keep it's uniqueness or fear that their culture would merge into other nations (Goi in Hebrew). Israel had already been assimilated and 10 of 12 total original tribes of Israel was gone forever as they merge with Persian nations and incorporated their lifestyle in the other nations.
Leviticus was a written instruction to the priests and those who follow the law was important to them during this time.
Is Leviticus and Deuteronomy mysogenic? Absolutely. Unfortunately, this seemed to be the culture of Israel/Judah back in their times. Other countries were more progressive (women Pharoahs and other women of high society) but the Jews felt that keeping women in this regard was holding onto their "roots."
Most of the law in these two books were designed and written to specifically set them apart from other nations.
Concerning the flood, I would not say anyone stole the story as it did not come from one original source. Rather, it is a shared mythos as it is related to that region where Persia, Canaan, Judaism, Northern Egypt flourished. It's natural that the stories be shared across cultures.
Nice. That's sort of what I was trying to say, but clearer.
Quote from: Julie Marie on August 17, 2011, 07:50:01 AM
Okay, that makes sense, at least it may have a few thousand years ago. But was that the case, say, in 380AD? And since laws usually change with social views, why hasn't anyone thought that maybe editing a book, that so many live their life by, to keep up with the times is the prudent thing to do? Leviticus seems to attract all the nuts. Maybe that should be telling the powers-that-be Leviticus has lost it's positive social value and it's time to retire it.
It wont ever be retired because it's considered a holy book like other ancient texts. The problem is people try to take the book and make it applicable to today's society of laws (which should not be done in any book).
Also, Jews still use Leviticus quite diligently in their readings.
But depending on one's religion, Leviticus would be a staple in one's faith or completely useless.
Flooding on the Nile was different from The Flood, and from what records we have it seems the Babylon write the first real 'epic - in this sense meaning "bad for humans"' flood story, and that makes sense, all you need is the right timing on dual 100 year floods on the Tigris-Euphrates systems and it could get a little wet there by the rivers of Babylon.
most of the flood narratives came from an epic flood and not the flood of the Nile so I agree. The flooding of the Nile was praised upon as a good thing that gives life constantly in a parched land.
The stories of the flood always centered around Gods or God who felt that humankind was to be eliminated entirely due to the misdeeds of humans. There is always a "hero" of the story that convinces their God(s) to alter the course of total annihilation by allowing some survivors with a promise that a flood that destroys humanity will never occur again. The shared stories of the same mythos convey a sense of something much bigger than a flooding of a river. Most scholars and theologians conjectures that the flood was a real event that possibly the waters from the Atlantic broke through what is today called the Suez canal and flooding the valley of what is known as the Mediterranean sea.
The Nile flood is repeated each year with joyous anticipation and is a sign from the Gods that humanity had done well (Osiris granted humanity the gift as a continuing sense of favor that his teachings of civilized upbringing earlier continues), while the lack of a flooding in the Nile was usually a sign of disobedience of humanity to the Gods or a time of trials and testing.
Quote from: Annah on August 17, 2011, 09:55:26 AM
It wont ever be retired because it's considered a holy book like other ancient texts.
So the bottom line is, in religious circles once something is deemed holy, that's it, there's no touching it?
If Leviticus is law, and if people follow this law, and the laws written in Leviticus, if followed to the letter, could get you in trouble with modern law, none of that matters to those who deem this sacred? That seems a bit extreme to me.
You'd think at least someone could write a modern translation that a quorum of religious "upper management" could agree on. Then it could be published in such a way as to discourage the nut cases from citing verses to justify their prejudice or insanity. I'm not saying this would stop the nuts, but maybe some of their less nutty followers wouldn't follow anymore, citing the new and widely accepted translation, and that would diminish the power the nut cases have.
Imagine for a minute that all the verses in all the holy books were understood from the perspective of doing no harm to others by everyone who deems these books holy and sacred. What would this world be like?
Quote from: Julie Marie on August 17, 2011, 11:40:51 AM
So the bottom line is, in religious circles once something is deemed holy, that's it, there's no touching it?
Correct. Holy books in any religion does not change. It may be translated into different forms of language but the source will never be edited or deleted. It's like that with religions from Buddhism to Islam to Christianity and everything in between.
They wont be deleted because they are still considered holy texts and even if we disagree with them or find them rally compromising, they still were a voice of a culture and the beginnings of a spiritual movement.
QuoteIf Leviticus is law, and if people follow this law, and the laws written in Leviticus, if followed to the letter, could get you in trouble with modern law, none of that matters to those who deem this sacred? That seems a bit extreme to me.
Absolutely. That's why I say no one should follow these laws to the letter in today's society. These were rules built from society in a culture that centered around the Torah. To follow these ancient rules today would be like wanting to use a chariot to go to work. It worked back then but not too good today :)
QuoteYou'd think at least someone could write a modern translation that a quorum of religious "upper management" could agree on. Then it could be published in such a way as to discourage the nut cases from citing verses to justify their prejudice or insanity. I'm not saying this would stop the nuts, but maybe some of their less nutty followers wouldn't follow anymore, citing the new and widely accepted translation, and that would diminish the power the nut cases have.
You can revise the translation to make it more accurate to the original text but for a holy book you cannot altar, edit, or change something because we do not like it. To pay devil's advocate, a fundamentalist would have a hay day if we could do that.
The best alternative is reading commentaries that discusses the scriptures to better get an understanding of what they mean. And there are some versus where we will never emotional relate to because it was a culture we never experienced nor ever will.
QuoteImagine for a minute that all the verses in all the holy books were understood from the perspective of doing no harm to others by everyone who deems these books holy and sacred. What would this world be like?
It would be nice!
Quote from: Julie Marie on August 17, 2011, 07:50:01 AM
Okay, that makes sense, at least it may have a few thousand years ago. But was that the case, say, in 380AD? And since laws usually change with social views, why hasn't anyone thought that maybe editing a book, that so many live their life by, to keep up with the times is the prudent thing to do? Leviticus seems to attract all the nuts. Maybe that should be telling the powers-that-be Leviticus has lost it's positive social value and it's time to retire it.
Oh they have edited it in a sense, though christians haven't kept up with the program. The Law or
Torah is the five books of Moses, especially
Leviticus. When the
Torah stopped making sense, they slowly created the
Talmud, which reexplains the
Torah. The
Talmud consists of two main parts, the
Mishnah or oral law, and the
Gemara which are basically study notes. You can't really get the
Torah without studying the
Talmud.
Quote from: Annah on August 17, 2011, 09:55:26 AM
Also, Jews still use Leviticus quite diligently in their readings.
Do you mean Hasidic or Conservative or Reformed Jews?
Pica took the words right out of my mouthe first post. But I would like to add a little. The death of Christ fulfils the law. People that use it to point our sins out don't realize that it is the same as stonig a person. Beating them and so on. It also is how they crucify Christ afresh. If he fulfilled the law, why then are they preaching the law? It took years to realize that that they were crucifing him again in spirit. But he can not die again because "death has no dominion over him." So what did happn? They stoned and crucified us with the law and through that we learned not to jugde others. It was his enemies that crucified him. They do labor unto his death. "Ye shall know them by their fruit" "fruit unto death." We have to let go of everything that we have been told by them.
They put Leviticus in the Bible for added Levity.
In regards to Christianity, I believe that Jesus had fulfilled the Old Testament laws and prophets' commandments, not by his death on the cross, but by empowering ourselves during anytime of the cosmos. Love God and Love your neighbor is something that does not require a death of a Messiah to fulfill but is an action we can all follow regardless if he died for our sins or died because of the current political and religious upheaval.
I say this because I don't believe Jesus died specifically for our sins nor do I believe in original sin (many Pastors and theological teachers don't believe this as well and a really good book was published on "The Dishonest Church" which talks about the Pastors not preaching on what they really believe but what the church wants to hear) . I just don't believe in all powerful creator of the universe needing a blood sacrifice to forgive someone on their misdeeds or a blemish because if we are commanded by the son of God to forgive someone 77 times 7 (which is an expression of always forgiving) then I would expect the most intelligent and wise Creator of the universe to do the same. It woulod be like us saying "I will forgive you but you must kill something in order for me to forgive."
Also, since I do not take the Bible literally, I do not believe in a Adam and Eve and, therefor, I do not believe a woman ate a forbidden fruit causing the catalyst of inherited transferal sin from parent to child.
you should poke fun at the bible......it was written by a bunch of old men! lol
There were actually some books in the New Testament that were written by women in their late 20s. The book of Hebrews is one of them.
About 9 of the 23 Gospels written around 60 to 90 AD were also written by women too.
Quote from: jainie marlena on August 18, 2011, 12:48:51 AM
Pica took the words right out of my mouthe first post. But I would like to add a little. The death of Christ fulfils the law. People that use it to point our sins out don't realize that it is the same as stonig a person. Beating them and so on. It also is how they crucify Christ afresh. If he fulfilled the law, why then are they preaching the law? It took years to realize that that they were crucifing him again in spirit. But he can not die again because "death has no dominion over him." So what did happn? They stoned and crucified us with the law and through that we learned not to jugde others. It was his enemies that crucified him. They do labor unto his death. "Ye shall know them by their fruit" "fruit unto death." We have to let go of everything that we have been told by them.
what law are you referring to?
She means the holiness codes, levitical laws, and commandments of the Prophets from Adonai.
Jesus two commandments sums up all those laws
in other words, moral and mythical laws?
Quote from: Jamie Nicole on August 18, 2011, 10:04:03 AM
in other words, moral and mythical laws?
actually more like ethical, ethnical, practical and moral laws.
The laws were not mythical as they were quite real and tangibly adhered to.
Annah your right, it not about forgiving us of our sins. That is something that they say. No one could see past the relgion. Sometimes we need things to past the time until we can better understand. That has always been my question. Does god love us as himself? Does he see me as his neigber? It not to forgive of our sins but take away the thing that they acuse everone of.
What did he really save me from? Them. Their version of god makes no sense to me because he does not keep his own word. The one I see took ownership of what was going on and set out to make it right. They beat us with their words and even made me fill hated by god. He took away the things they said to me then I could see he never jugde me for who I am because he does not jugde. The book of John writes about him not judging.
Jesus said that the father judges no man then says he judges no man and tells us not tojudge anyone. But he said to the teacher of his time, "ye judge after the flesh."
The very law that they judge with will judge them becausethey are living by it after he said not to anymore.
absolutely
Also if God commands us to "forgive everyone" then we would presuppose that this same Creator would do the same thing. Conservative Christianity states "But God does forgive everyone as long as you 'accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.'" Well, that's not forgiveness. That's conditional forgiveness. It would be the same for saying "I will forgive you that you killed my son in a car accident as long as I can see you locked up for the rest of your life."
Jesus talks of unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness but people love to misinterpreted the Bible. It is one of the most misinterpreted Holy Books ever created. The Quran is the second most misinterpreted book followed by the Hebrew Bible.
For me, I am just plain in the middle with everything. I follow a pagan lifestyle. Im the second witch to ever go to a Christian Seminary; however, I see truths in every religion and I do believe Jesus was real and an avatar of God. Also, I have a deep fascination for Christianity and being a Priest in the past def fueled that!
Annah, thank you for your very well explained response to my earlier post. While I don't agree with a policy that never allows change, I do know that there is a strong fear component that many have towards change, though that fear is mostly unfounded.
It has been said one of the best things the U.S. founding fathers did was create a constitution that allows for change. People change, societies change so the rules we live by should too. I do believe if ancient people had adopted that kind of thing long ago when writing what would become religious texts, the concept of change would be universally accepted today. There's something about "ancient" we tend to attach great value to but how to live and getting advice for how to handle a given situation in the present day shouldn't be included.
Most people today have enough sense to know assembling a crucifixion mob is frowned upon, as is public stoning and things like that. The torture and killings that were carried out centuries ago began with passing judgment on others, often based on religious beliefs. And while we, as a society, are not as barbaric as we were back then, we still feel we have a right and at times almost a duty, to pass judgment on others and punish them in whatever way is legally permissible, or illegally if you think you can get away with it.
That's what should be changed and I fail to see any logical reason why each and every religious faction wouldn't want to implement those kinds of changes. Every belief system I am aware of has, at its core, a basic rule we should treat each other well. It's all the other stuff that is heaped upon that that causes people to believe there are exceptions to that rule. Simplifying and clarifying ancient writings in a way the everyday person today can easily understand, and done in such a way as to convey that basic rule, would go far in making this a better world.
So rather than deleting or editing the ancient texts, they could be archived. Anyone referring to them when justifying their actions, particularly when it hurts someone else, would be responded to in such as way as to explain some of the "rules" that applied back then no longer apply in today's society.
Julie
I completely agree with you.
The problem is you got "Teachers of the Word" who, quite frankly, don't know what the hell they are talking about. Holiness Books should be reflected upon as a divine sense of guidance and never as a modern rule book for today's society.
This is why conservative Christianity (and other religions that takes their books literally) is so dangerous.
Hey Annah,
Your post number 30
The truegod is the god of ALL grace.
god was in Christ reconsiling the world unto himself not imputing their traspasses unto them."
I don't have the verse on hand but beliving in Jesus is OT law.
Quote from: tekla on August 16, 2011, 06:53:49 PM
You had to hear that? You've never picked up different versions and checked it out?
This would be a pretty useless endeavor for a lay reader who wants to determine the
accuracy of the translation, don't you think? And, heck, even the "experts" don't agree; I've read and heard some interesting contradictions and disagreements among biblical scholars regarding a number of books in the Bible, including Leviticus.
With that said, no, I'm not particularly well read in Leviticus because I don't see the point. I've only read two or three complete versions of this book, plus various translations of specific passages from it (verses that relate to gay issues, mostly). That was enough for me. I'm neither a believer nor a biblical scholar, and I don't find much value in trying to use biblical scholarship to argue against Leviticus-quoting homophobes. They believe what they believe, and logic doesn't really enter into it.
Quote from: jainie marlena on August 18, 2011, 06:27:06 PM
Hey Annah,
Your post number 30
The truegod is the god of ALL grace.
god was in Christ reconsiling the world unto himself not imputing their traspasses unto them."
I don't have the verse on hand but beliving in Jesus is OT law.
Yes, Matthew 22:40: "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (referring to love your God and love your neighbor as yourself).
I noticed you mentioned the True God. Here is an interesting note: In Ancient Hebrew text with the book of Genesis and in Exodus as well as Judges, Samuel and the first half of Kings, Adonai (Yawh-h) referred to Himself as the God of Gods and in the original language it was very much related that there were many Gods and Goddesses but in the Pantheon of the Samarian, Egyptian, and Assyrian dieties, Yawh-h was considered to be the head and most powerful. It was not until later in the book of Prophets that the theology changed to there is only one God and all others were worshiping a false God.
Thinking of a name change to Venus or Aphrodite! ;)
Quote from: Arch on August 18, 2011, 09:13:58 PM
This would be a pretty useless endeavor for a lay reader who wants to determine the accuracy of the translation, don't you think? And, heck, even the "experts" don't agree; I've read and heard some interesting contradictions and disagreements among biblical scholars regarding a number of books in the Bible, including Leviticus.
With that said, no, I'm not particularly well read in Leviticus because I don't see the point. I've only read two or three complete versions of this book, plus various translations of specific passages from it (verses that relate to gay issues, mostly). That was enough for me. I'm neither a believer nor a biblical scholar, and I don't find much value in trying to use biblical scholarship to argue against Leviticus-quoting homophobes. They believe what they believe, and logic doesn't really enter into it.
You would be surprised how quickly a Christian homophobe will settle himself or herself down when you start to historically, culturally, and theologically pick apart their Levitical clobbering versus like a vulture to deer meat.
For many Activists, knowing the Levitical laws intimately has opened doorways to churches and denominations to allow same sex marriage, ordinations of LGBT, etc. 50 years ago there was no church that ordained LGBT. With the correct teachings of Leviticus, you now have five major denominations and seven more on the way allowing the ordination of LGBT people.
True, some people will never change, but the changes so far have been nothing short of miraculous
Quote from: Annah on August 18, 2011, 09:48:25 PM
You would be surprised how quickly a Christian homophobe will settle himself or herself down when you start to historically, culturally, and theologically pick apart their Levitical clobbering versus like a vulture to deer meat.
Yes, I would be surprised. So far I haven't had much luck myself, but I'm no activist and have only challenged people on a few occasions. But I have to admit that I don't have any real historical or cultural knowledge about the period, just general knowledge about passages regarding burnt offerings and food and weeping sores and womanly "uncleanness." Nothing that impressed anyone. I will leave that work to people who have real command of the subject matter.
Annah, you're really going to have to start your own church. You're so "now" 8)
Quote from: Julie Marie on August 19, 2011, 12:21:30 AM
Annah, you're really going to have to start your own church. You're so "now" 8)
LOL thanks. Im interning in a United Church of Christ. Currently. We have one trans who is ordained (openly Ordained with the church's full knowledge of his Gender Identity..Malcolm Himschoot). I will be one of the first MTF, and we have another MTF at another UCC Seminary right now in Oklahoma. UCC was the first in many arenas. We founded Harvard, We were the first church to oppose slavery in 1700, the first black woman to publish a book was a congregationalist, in 1989 we were the first church that declared racism as a sin (funny how no one else did), We ordained the first American Woman in 1853, it was a UCC Pastor (Reinhold Niebuhr) who wrote the Serenity Prayer, We were the first to Ordain an openly gay person in 1972, we were the first church who officially conducted a legal and church binding same sex marriage ceremony in Massachusetts, and today we are the first to openly Ordain any person of any gender of sexual spectrum. We are also the first and only Denomination that teaches a post graduate "Queer Sexuality" course in which 70% of our content focuses mainly on Transgender people as the Church has officially recognized that the transgender population is growing threefold every ten years and the Pastors need to be properly trained as counselors when dealing with Transgender identities and sexualities attributed to them. I took the class last May and I was incredibly impressed.
With that said, I fit right in!
Also, I give credit to my professors at my Seminary. Three of them are highly sought after by Duke, Princeton, and Harvard Divinity Schools. They are truly the masters of the theological fine arts and I am honored to be taught by them.
Hi Julie
Not experienced at forums and chats, but want to learn how.
The thoughts concerning Leviticus I think needs to start with if you are a born again Christian then all of the Old Testament can still be considered God's word, but according to Paul in the New covenant or New Testament we now have a better covenant. He also said the new replaces the old. Back in the days of Moses God lay down initial laws for a civilized society. Paul also says the laws were our school teacher to lead us to Christ. We needed to realize we in our sin laden nature needed a savior. Our religion from that point forward is based on our beliefs, not our works, or what we do, or how we live. It is a covenant based on the commandment Jesus spoke three times in the upper room, to love one another as he did.
Veronica
Quote from: veronica nickie on October 03, 2011, 02:20:45 PM
Our religion from that point forward is based on our beliefs, not our works, or what we do, or how we live. It is a covenant based on the commandment Jesus spoke three times in the upper room, to love one another as he did.
Veronica
Actually, not to nit pick, but the Letter of James contradicts that Christianity is based on our beliefs and not our works. James states "faith without works is dead." The Roman Catholic loves the Letter of James while Martin Luther had nothing good to say about it.
What good is it, my brothers and sisters,* if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
It seems that Deuteronomy is even whackier than Leviticus
Deuteronomy
23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
22:1 Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother. (22:1-4) "Thou shalt surely help him."
Look out for your neighbor's animals and protect them from harm.
(22:5)
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
Women cannot wear men's clothing and vice versa -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord."
What the Bible says about clothing and fashion
(22:8) When building a roof, make sure it is safe.
(22:10)
"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together."
(22:11)
"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."
What the Bible says about clothing and fashion
(22:12)
Thou shalt make fringes on your garments.
(22:13-21) If a man marries and then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep.
Does God approve of capital punishment?
What the Bible says about stoning, capital punishment, marriage, and divorce
(22:13) "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her."
(22:14) "And say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:"
(22:15) "Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:"
(22:20) "But if ... the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,"
(22:21) "Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die."
(22:22)
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die."
(22:23-24)
City Rape
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."
If a woman is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, the men of the city must stone her to death.
Does God approve of capital punishment?
What the Bible says about rape, stoning, and capital punishment
(25:27) Country Rape
"If a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."
If a woman is raped in the country, then only the man shall die (since there was no one to hear her if she cried out.)
(22:28-29)
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife."
If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her.
(22:30)
"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt."
22:2 And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.
22:3 In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself.
22:4 Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again.
22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
22:6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
22:7 But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
22:10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.
Quote from: JessicaH on October 05, 2011, 10:33:33 AM
It seems that Deuteronomy is even whackier than Leviticus
Deuteronomy
23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Geez, that means all those politicians can't go to church.
One of my favorites, when it comes to the Bible's wacky bits, is a letter written to radio talk host, Dr. Laura. It was at the time when she was speaking against homosexuality.
May 2007
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, 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.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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?
8. 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?
9. 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?
10. 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,
J. Kent Ashcraft
And any of this - all of this - is relevant to life in the 21st century how (in any sane, reasonable, rational landscape)?
Quote from: tekla on October 07, 2011, 04:34:09 AM
And any of this - all of this - is relevant to life in the 21st century how (in any sane, reasonable, rational landscape)?
There are some scriptures that are not relevant to 21st century and there are scriptures that are. That's just the effects that scriptures written so long ago will have. It is the church's decision to decide whether to enforce old laws that has no bearing on today's society and then slowly die out or to embrace the scriptures that is relevant to today's society and then see their church flourish.
For example, the Sermon on the Mount is very applicable to society throughout the ages, including today. Jesus stressed upon the merits of love, respect, and the courage and willingness to minister to those who are struggling. He talked about sacrifices, giving, and the ability to press on even during insurmountable odds.
I have a friend who is a pastor. Back in the early 90s she was a hospital chaplain and she received a call from the hospital saying there is a young man in pain but it isn't the kind of pain that can be helped through medicine or psychiatric means. The young man was in his early 20s and he was dying of AIDs.
This was back in the time where anyone who would be near an AIDs patient in the hospital had to wear gloves, a full length set of scrubs, gloves that went to the elbow, and a splatter guard mask.....something from the movie "Outbreak."
She went in the room wearing only what she had on. She didn't wear the full suit or the gloves. There was no danger...he wasn't bleeding. He was in bed crying because he was dying and his parents or family would not visit him because he was an embarrassment to his family.
She sat down next to him and hugged him. He broke down and started to weep saying no one has hugged me or touched me without gloves on in months. Just that physical touch and affirmation that someone loved and cared for him gave him the peace he needed to die. Before that, he was telling people he was not ready to die....there was no one to be with him or to hold him. My friend held him.
These are actions that someone may say "well, that's just common sense" anyone should be able to figure that out" but she learned from reading Jesus' messages in his Sermon on the Mount. No condemnation. No judging. Just loving your neighbor as yourself. It is relevant to the 21st century as it was certainly relevant to the dying man.
Churches all across the globe has chaplains just for occasions such as these. Chaplains has the ability to heal someone's soul where a Medical Doctor has the ability to heal someone's body and a Psychiatrist has the ability to heal someone's mind. Some may say a soul does not exist, but when someone is alone in a bed and dying it is a completely different argument than trying to convince someone on the merits of theology on a forum through the internet.
If these scriptures (of any religion) was not relevant to today, then there would be no need for chaplains in these hospitals. Or shelters or food kitchens. Everyone who do these things as their ministry find the ways they do it rooted in the scriptures they read; be it Buddhism, Wicca, Christianity, Judaism, etc.
I've seen scriptures be very relevant to society. One just cannot dismiss all the workings of chaplains and one cannot dismiss the fact that there are churches that has over 10,000 attendees every weekend. One may argue the merits of mega churches but the fact is there....to all those people who do attend it is certainly relevant to them.
And many denominations force Seminarians (mine included) to take an extensive three day psychiatric examination by a third party non religious office so the issue of this being relative to the 21st century only through the eyes of the insane is not tangible or relevant.
Actually, if eternal truths are not in fact eternal - if it's up to us to pick and choose, then we're headed (and I think we're pretty much most of the way there as it is) to be a nation of 300 million people, with 300 million religions.
In this case are you not just shaping religion to fit your values, instead of it being the other way around? It's cobbling something together, and not accepting it as a whole cloth. Is that why polls that ask about religion have Americans in an 80% religious belief group, but fewer than 40% actually go to, or belong to a church? (40% is the oft cited Gallup Poll number, but we know that people lie to polls all the time. If that number were right that would be 70 million people going to church every week, and no one thinks that's anywhere close to an accurate count, real numbers seem to be far less than that - around 20%.) In that we become more like Europe all the time, where if it wasn't for tourists doing church tours lots of the great cathedrals would be pretty vacant. I was in a church in Europe once where the tourists were 10:1 over the people there for mass. And not some obscure place, Notre Dame in Paris.
That's set off by other statistics, among which is that currently the fastest growing religious belief is 'None.' Particularly in the under 35, where current polling numbers have 25-30% of that age group claiming no religious affiliation, a figure 4X higher than it's ever been polled before. And I'm sure you're talking about that in divinity school, and church classes, it has to be pretty obvious that the congregation is getting older, and the numbers of young people are not coming in and taking their places.
I mean even in the marriage business (long a staple for churches, and a lucrative source of income) the fastest growing trend is to be married by friends, about 1 in 3 weddings now are held outside of a religious setting.
I mean your chaplain, he could be any chaplain right? Have not chaplains of various faiths done the same thing? If so, it's not the faith that is relevant, it's just the desire to help others. So the belief is interchangeable, it's the action that counts?
Quote from: tekla on October 07, 2011, 01:02:11 PM
Actually, if eternal truths are not in fact eternal - if it's up to us to pick and choose, then we're headed (and I think we're pretty much most of the way there as it is) to be a nation of 300 million people, with 300 million religions.
In this case are you not just shaping religion to fit your values, instead of it being the other way around? It's cobbling something together, and not accepting it as a whole cloth. Is that why polls that ask about religion have Americans in an 80% religious belief group, but fewer than 40% actually go to, or belong to a church? (40% is the oft cited Gallup Poll number, but we know that people lie to polls all the time. If that number were right that would be 70 million people going to church every week, and no one thinks that's anywhere close to an accurate count, real numbers seem to be far less than that - around 20%.) In that we become more like Europe all the time, where if it wasn't for tourists doing church tours lots of the great cathedrals would be pretty vacant. I was in a church in Europe once where the tourists were 10:1 over the people there for mass. And not some obscure place, Notre Dame in Paris.
That's set off by other statistics, among which is that currently the fastest growing religious belief is 'None.' Particularly in the under 35, where current polling numbers have 25-30% of that age group claiming no religious affiliation, a figure 4X higher than it's ever been polled before. And I'm sure you're talking about that in divinity school, and church classes, it has to be pretty obvious that the congregation is getting older, and the numbers of young people are not coming in and taking their places.
I mean even in the marriage business (long a staple for churches, and a lucrative source of income) the fastest growing trend is to be married by friends, about 1 in 3 weddings now are held outside of a religious setting.
I mean your chaplain, he could be any chaplain right? Have not chaplains of various faiths done the same thing? If so, it's not the faith that is relevant, it's just the desire to help others. So the belief is interchangeable, it's the action that counts?
I do not believe in an Absolute truth but I do believe eternal truths. One eternal truth, for example, I believe in is that I believe in a Creator. Who that is, why he/she/it created us, for what divine reason then becomes and branches out to various truths. This is only my own personal faith belief.
If we become a nation of 300 million people with 300 million different beliefs then that, in my opinion, is fine. Although, it is highly unlikely that will ever happen. Many people with many diverse religions still do converge under one roof. The Unitarian Universalist Church is one example of this. Chances are very likely that the person you are sitting next to in this church does not believe in the same thing you do. I go to a UU church for Coven Worship on Mondays. On Sundays, I intern at another church (United Church of Christ). They have Buddhist, Wiccans, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, and Atheists who all worship under one roof. The Order of Worship isn't to worship one way of religion but to recognize we each have our own journey and the commonalities of each other, even tho diverse, is the fact that we can come together and worship together and at the same time, worship differently. They even come to together to talk about Social Justices, Human Equality, Helping the poor.....universal commonalities that they all embrace together...from the Atheist to the Christian.
So if this country did have 300 million people with 300 million different religions, there will still be a tangible common factor that can pull us in together as human beings.
And many of us do not fit our religion around our values. Many fits their values around their religion. It all depends on where one stand in their own theological walk. When a chaplain visits a dying man it is because they are moved to do this out of the kindness of their own hearts and the convictions of their souls (which prompted them in a calling to ministry in the first place). If a Chaplain does it just for the paycheck then that is another story (and it does happen.....just like any other calling).
Because European Churches that you know of or because statistics shows a decline does not mean religion and spirituality is no longer relevant. A dying church is dying because they chose not to be relevant. Scriptures were never meant to be set in stone to follow one theological way or liturgical order and then that's it. The church evolves just as everything else does. If a Church does not evolve then it dies. It's like everything else. technology evolves, media evolves, medicine evolves; the church should evolve as well...and many churches do. Germany is experiencing a growth in churches right now.
I have been to many churches that are thriving and growing by leaps and bounds because they are relevant to today. And I see churches die because they aren't relevant. Because some churches die does not mean it is absolute truth that religion is no longer relevant. It's simply a sign that they did not work with the people in their community by providing what they need. Churches that do flourish right now is because they are relevant to the 21st century. And there are scriptures that are relevant no matter the century. One gets in trouble when they use old law and try to make it relevant. Even Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. Paul stated that Grace succeeds the Law. If one is a Christian church and trying to employ actual practical methods of Deuteronomy and Leviticus then they will suffer because those were laws for a long ago era. The Sermon on the Mount preached on love that will never be outdated. Buddha and his teachings are universal as well.
And Churches do not make a lot of money marrying people. I charged 100 dollars for the wedding ceremony and the use of the building, candles, etc to non members and free of charge for members of the church. Same for funerals. The churches that charges 500 dollars also has a pastor who is licensed to counsel to provide pre marital counseling as part of the package.
Most judges charge 60 dollars. So it's not that much of a difference.
More than I've ever charged back in Iowa where I was registered to so such things., but I figure them getting married in the first place is punishment enough, why hit them with a bill too.
Quote from: tekla on October 07, 2011, 01:30:11 PM
More than I've ever charged back in Iowa where I was registered to so such things., but I figure them getting married in the first place is punishment enough, why hit them with a bill too.
LOL! Too true!
But isn't the general attitude of most organized religions "ours is the only one"? So the 300 million religions, while perfectly okay with some, would not work for most of the followers of organized religions. And then we're back to square one where someone is poking their nose in your business and telling you how to live your life.
To me, that's the biggest problem with christianity; the most vocal believe they have a right and a duty to hound anyone who doesn't live their life the way they believe is right.
Quote from: Julie Marie on October 07, 2011, 01:59:06 PM
But isn't the general attitude of most organized religions "ours is the only one"? So the 300 million religions, while perfectly okay with some, would not work for most of the followers of organized religions. And then we're back to square one where someone is poking their nose in your business and telling you how to live your life.
To me, that's the biggest problem with christianity; the most vocal believe they have a right and a duty to hound anyone who doesn't live their life the way they believe is right.
Actually it is a smaller number than you think (when compared to the whole world).
The Sects of religion who says "ours is the only one" in regards to Islam is Shia and Sunni. Sufi Muslims and some Ahmadiya and Kharjiite believe in many truths. Even some schools under Shia and Sunni (depending on the region are more inclusive too).
In Christianity, Conservative Evangelical denominations believes "ours is the only one" such as Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, some Methodists, Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches, some Presbyterians and some Lutherans. The denominations in Christianity that are inclusive (many ways to God(dess) are United Church of Christ, Episcopal, many United Methodist, many Presbyterian USA, Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America, Metropolitan Community Church, Various Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Quakers, American Baptist, Catholic Church of Antioch, Community of Christ, Disciples of Christ, The Emerging (postmodern) Church, The Liberal Catholic Church, Liberal Catholic International, Reformed Catholic Church, Progressive Seventh-Day Adventists , Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Unity Church.
In Judaism, Reformed Judaism, Humanist, Kaballah, and Progressive Judaism are both inclusive where they believe there are other ways to God. Orthodox Jews believe "only one way."
So you can see that there are more sects of each organized religion that believes there are many different paths. The reason why some do not think this is the case is because you got people such as Oral Roberts and Pat Roberston who stands on a HUGE soapbox and pretends to speak on behalf of Christianity.
You even have some pagans who believe their way is the only way. I get more witches asking how in the world I can practice witchcraft and then preach in a church far more than I have Christians saying it. I ran into quite a few "fundamentalist witches" in my day. But then again, I ran into a bunch more who were more open.
Even Billy Graham believes there are more ways to God than just Christianity. You should google that one. Conservative Christians like to hide that little fact about Billy Graham ;)
Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0#)
skip to 1:18 to avoid the fundamentalist crying out in blood red letters ;)