Response to Leviticus

[Contemporary Protestant]

How did I not answer your question?

[aitm]

Well you have the whole babble to use. Show us the very first verse that you think is written so exactly that even goat herders and you agree what it means and that it is true.....go ahead......I can wait.

[ApostateLois]

The chapters that say it is necessary to kill gays, was in a section about separating from pagan cults, not homosexuality in general, I think that is a more than adequate explanation, what are your thoughts?

It seems that if the verses really were about homosexuality in general, there would have been mention of women sleeping with women as well as men sleeping with men, but instead only men are mentioned. So it does seem likely that this is really more of an injunction against male temple prostitution, which was practiced in some cultures apparently.

But this is by no means certain. The passage is rather vague. Maybe women weren't mentioned because, in Hebrew society, women were property and would not have been permitted to sleep with anyone except the husband for whom they were chosen. Men had more freedom and could therefore be expected to occasionally choose a male lover--unless they were told not to on pain of death.

I am sure that the Hebrews would have had no trouble interpreting these commandments because, after all, these were made by and for them. Unfortunately, they are now a permanent part of the Christian Bible, and there are millions of Christians who take them literally, even while rejecting all of the parts they don't like. I don't understand why an all-knowing God would not have foreseen this and prevented it from happening. He could have done this simply by having a commandment that says, "You shall not hate, persecute, torture, or kill people because of their gender or sexual preferences, for bigotry is an abomination in the sight of the Lord." Think of the centuries of heartache, misery, and hatred that could have been spared by that one simple sentence!

[Irrational]

I say, give people embarrassed about something their religion says and they will find a way to make it sound that it does not mean that at all. Bullshit. What? It took some gay christian 2000 years to think up an excuse why he should feel better about being gay and that jebus really loves him after all? What a bunch of self-serving fuckery.

Indeed. If you're gay, you're gay, why care about what the Bible says?

[aitm]

Indeed. If you're gay, you're gay, why care about what the Bible says?

If you're a devoted christian and you're gay, that presents real problem to you morally. So you spend your life looking for loopholes and in the OP the article posted is some most likely gay person who decides that the REAL reason is that the babble doesn't mean what it said at all, why it was REALLY all about other shit that got misinterpreted. So in other words, not only do they cherry pick they rewrite what the babble says by giving back stories that have nothing to do with it. Brilliant!

[wolf39us]

It seems that if the verses really were about homosexuality in general, there would have been mention of women sleeping with women as well as men sleeping with men, but instead only men are mentioned. So it does seem likely that this is really more of an injunction against male temple prostitution, which was practiced in some cultures apparently.

Actually I'm pretty sure you can find something about lesbians in there lol

Searching...


Okay so this is all I came up with

Deuteronomy
Women are not to wear men's clothing and vice versa -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22  (I THINK this one might be about women)

Romans 1:26-27
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.


Well that's the best I can do! lol

[Irrational]

Leviticus 18:22 is referring to men. They shall not lie with men in the same way they do with women.

[Solitary]

If the New and Old Testaments weren't considered the word of God they would have been thrown in the garbage can on first printing because of all the violence and irrationality. It's like watching a violent porn movie where women are used like a scape goat for men to subjugate and abuse for their satisfaction, and men prove themselves with war and God's help, but it's all about love.  Solitary

[the_antithesis]

Leviticus 18:22 is referring to men. They shall not lie with men in the same way they do with women.

Too bad because I lie to chicks all the time.

"Ten. Seriously, ten."

[Shol'va]

The disunity of Christianity is " a real thingâ,,¢ ". It wouldn't be such a  big deal if it didn't deal with some pretty core doctrines. It's too bad the vast majority of Christians pretend it isn't there.
The link in OP is very interesting in my opinion. I am not qualified to comment on its' apologetics soundness, but what I do know for a fact is that the reaction from Christians is sure to be inconsistent.

I've raised the disunity of Christianity with followers of the faith and have gotten nothing but shit apologetics in return.

[Simon Moon]

Well you have the whole babble to use. Show us the very first verse that you think is written so exactly that even goat herders and you agree what it means and that it is true.....go ahead......I can wait.

Interesting...

Contemporary Protestant started this thread and posted on it pretty consistently, then 3 days of crickets since you asked the above question.

What gives?

[Contemporary Protestant]

I did give a verse that I took literally

(edit) oops it was on another thread

I take Matthew 5:28 literally

Btw Leviticus has a conditional statement at the end, so anyone who quotes it with the intent of using it to prove a point, didn't read the whole thing

[Poison Tree]

I did give a verse that I took literally

(edit) oops it was on another thread

I take Matthew 5:28 literally

So if you look lustfully at a woman you literally committed adultery?

Btw Leviticus has a conditional statement at the end, so anyone who quotes it with the intent of using it to prove a point, didn't read the whole thing

"These are the commands the Lord gave Moses at Mount Sinai for the Israelites."?

[Contemporary Protestant]

"for the israelites" meaning if you're not an israelite, those laws were not intended for you

and the verse states "committed adultery in his heart"

So yes, I consider checking out another girl, cheating, and its disrespectful to my gf

[Poison Tree]

So just how much of the bible is entirely irrelevant?