T1B

I do think that based on his posting history in the religious area MtLR owes it to us to stop by and weigh in on this thread. We could easily get to 30 pages, and poptart’s head might explode. Bri, make it happen.

Goober McTuber wrote:I do think that based on his posting history in the religious area MtLR owes it to us to stop by and weigh in on this thread. We could easily get to 30 pages, and poptart’s head might explode. Bri, make it happen.

I won't guarantee anything. Mike is very happy not posting. But this would be a new trick. I'll run it by him later today.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I do think that based on his posting history in the religious area MtLR owes it to us to stop by and weigh in on this thread. We could easily get to 30 pages, and poptart’s head might explode. Bri, make it happen.

I won't guarantee anything. Mike is very happy not posting. But this would be a new trick. I'll run it by him later today.

No matter what, tell him Goober says “Hey”.

I thought Lab Rat was a Shriner.

Sudden Sam wrote:I spent all Sunday afternoon in a church...and the church was still standing when I left.

Only to give our knees a break from all that preying.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I spent all Sunday afternoon in a church...and the church was still standing when I left.

Only to give our knees a break from all that preying.

now i know why popes generally wear big silly hats.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

If I'm gonna be molested by someone with hair like that, I'd rather it be...

The team say they recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4,800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.

i wonder about carbon dating of things that predate the literal creation of the world.

poptart wrote:95% of it is common sense, M Club.

And the other 5% really doesn't matter.

Just read the book normally and you can understand it.

One example (of COUNTLESS), already posted.


"He maketh me to lie down in green pastures ..."


Literal or allegory?

I still have trouble distinguishing the literal from the allegory, especially as it relates to the OT. I realize as a Christian, your primary emphasis is on the NT, with a nod to Genesis. Still, there is much in the OT, especially in Leviticus, that causes the literal vs. allegory dichotomy to rear its ugly head, and I'm hoping you can help shed some light on it. I know you aren't the first person to whom these questions have been asked, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit I didn't come up with these questions on my own. But I'd appreciate if you could take a stab at them, even if you have addressed them previously.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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 pwn Canadians?

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. 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?

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, or should I ask the police to do it?

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? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

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 and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your Curious Friend,

Smackie

Smackie, 88 asked this question on the previous page of this thread (18), and this question somehow is one that does get asked frequently.

About halfway down the page I gave my reply to his question.


I'd be happy to answer any question you have about the reply I gave to 88 there.

My answer was short - but to the primary point.

poptart wrote:Smackie, 88 asked this question on the previous page of this thread (18), and this question somehow is one that does get asked frequently.

About halfway down the page I gave my reply to his question.

I'd be happy to answer any question you have about the reply I gave to 88 there.

My answer was short - but to the primary point.

Beautiful. So the OT is suitable for historical and scientific reference but because some loudmouthed carpenter got stretched out on a cross, all the laws contained within do not have to be followed?

poptart wrote:Smackie, 88 asked this question on the previous page of this thread (18), and this question somehow is one that does get asked frequently.
.....
My answer was short - but to the primary point.

OK, so essentially, the verses you quoted in response to 88 serve the same purpose as superseding or repealing laws - they invalidate the mandates cited in Exodus, Leviticus, and elsewhere in the OT, and internalize them in man, if I interpret them correctly. This would also seem to give a pass to the homos. Or is it Romans 1:26-27 that still gets Christers all spun up over teh buttsecks?

Smackie Chan wrote:I still have trouble distinguishing the literal from the allegory, especially as it relates to the OT. I realize as a Christian, your primary emphasis is on the NT, with a nod to Genesis. Still, there is much in the OT, especially in Leviticus, that causes the literal vs. allegory dichotomy to rear its ugly head, and I'm hoping you can help shed some light on it. I know you aren't the first person to whom these questions have been asked, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit I didn't come up with these questions on my own. But I'd appreciate if you could take a stab at them, even if you have addressed them previously.

I have a few minutes to spare. Let me help you out with some of these.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may 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 pwn Canadians?

We all can. Remember Otis?

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?

Pics, please.

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.

Try using the Goober Rule of Thumb test. Nonchalantly slide your thumb into her hoohah. Then casually pass your thumb under your nose, inhaling gently. If your head snaps back violently, just walk away, José.

4. 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?

They’re obviously fucking vegans. Smite away.

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, or should I ask the police to do it?

Wait till he heads off to work, and nail his wife.

BSmack wrote: Beautiful. So the OT is suitable for historical and scientific reference but because some loudmouthed carpenter got stretched out on a cross, all the laws contained within do not have to be followed?

WTF does jeeeee-zus have to do with overtime? I'll bet he doesn't approve of going to penalty kicks. If I was g0d, i'd find the fukker that thought PKs was a good idea and smite the fukk out of him.

Salvation was promised before the Law of Moses.

The Law defines righteousness. It defines sin. God and sin are not compatible. No one (except Christ) has ever been or will ever be able to keep the law perfectly. The point of the law is to show us we are unable to keep it.

Salvation, as promised in Genesis, came in the form of Jesus Christ. He is the ultimate sacrifice, once and for all.

This does not mean that Christians don't believe in, read, or study the Old Testament. If one truly believes that Christ is the ultimate sacrifice, then no other sacrifice or atonement is necessary. If you believe it is necessary to make additional sacrifices, then you aren't fully comprehending Christ's sacrifice. It's a sign of incomplete faith in His grace.

If you don't believe in the Bible, that's your call. But all this blathering about Christians disregarding the OT is nonsense and shows nothing more than a lack of understanding what is written. Or it could be a lack of willingness to understand, which is entirely likely.

Now we know where these guys got their inspiration.

88 wrote:Cool take, PP. So apparently you disagree with me that sacrificing a human being to a God is a primitive notion?

I was responding to the under-informed questions about Christians and whether or not they are bound by the Law. So now you're asking my opinion about the subject of a sacrifice to God? Not exactly the same thing. Is there any point in answering? Probably not, considering the condescending manner in which you asked.

You don't have to believe. I was just pointing out the lack of understanding required to ask those questions about Christians and the Law.

Sudden Sam wrote:No offense to poptart, ppanther, and a few others who seem like good people, but...

...the last place I wanna go when I die is anywhere where 99% of the people who claim to be Christians think they're gonna be.

I'm not sure why you'd think this post would be offensive to me or anyone else. My feelings aren't hurt by people who don't believe. And you don't believe in God, so where you "go when [you] die" really is of no consequence. Right?

For the most part, the reply poptart gave to 88 on pg 18 was good enough for my purposes, if for no other reason than there really isn't much else that can be said. No one is seriously clamoring for there to be laws allowing slaves from neighboring countries to be owned, or for people to be put to death for working on the Sabbath or cursing, etc., and poptart's answer kinda explains that - none of those (to my knowledge) are raised again in NT. But the one OT prohibition that still is cited by Christians as something that should not become part of modern society because the Bible says it shouldn't is acceptance and/or tolerance of homosexuality, and if I'm not mistaken, the reason for this is because it IS mentioned in the NT in Romans 1:26-27. My question to 'tart, ppanther, and anyone else who chooses to chime in is do those NT verses serve as the basis for today's moral opposition on the part of many Christians to laws being passed granting rights to gays and generally accepting their lifestyle? If it wasn't mentioned in Romans or anywhere else in the NT, it would seem that there would be no opposition based on scripture in much the same way as there is no current opposition to touching a football.

The OT is at odds with the NT in many ways.


My guess is that in areas where a literal interpretation of the Bible holds sway, so does an above-average illiteracy rate. Sure, the OT and NT jibe perfectly - if you can't or won't actually read and understand them.

In my own view, the OT is a cultural guidebook and ethnographic record for the Israelites. It is not a document that can possibly guide or inform modern Christians for the lives they lead, except possibly as a thing to be marveled at.

it could be a lack of willingness to understand, which is entirely likely.

I think I take your meaning here. Once we stop asking all the hard questions and cease being critical or thinking analytically, then it all will start to make sense, right?

Why ask why? Salvation is at hand, after we've covered our eyes, ears, mouths and noses.

Just pick and choose the stuff that works for you. Ignore the things that interfere with your lifestyle.

Exactly. Worried about reconciling a Deity that instructs the Chosen in genocide with a Deity's son who instructs that we turn the other cheek? No worries - no need to reconcile what can simply be ignored.

PSUFAN wrote:I think I take your meaning here. Once we stop asking all the hard questions and cease being critical or thinking analytically, then it all will start to make sense, right?

No, and no one ever said that.

I really am amazed that seemingly intelligent people can't get past this. I mean it's fine if you don't believe it, but to not understand it on purpose is something else entirely. Patting yourselves on the back about willingly misunderstanding is just bizarre. But by all means, carry on.

PSUFAN wrote:Why ask why?

Try Bud Dry.

-Wags

Don't dance around the question being asked. If you don't want to address it, that's fine.

I know you understand what is being asked:

How can one be reconciled to the OT and the NT? They head in two completely different directions.

It's fine if that's not a question you care to address.

PSUFAN wrote:How can one be reconciled to the OT and the NT?

That's a question requiring a relatively long answer. Mine's a simple yes or no.

PSUFAN wrote:Don't dance around the question being asked. If you don't want to address it, that's fine.

?? I'm sorry, but you're accusing me of "dancing around" a question that wasn't really asked of me. Nice. To answer, I don't believe the OT and NT are at odds. There, question answered, and with as much depth as is warranted by the insincerity with which you'll read any answer that doesn't match your own.

Sam, seriously, you need to understand that people who choose Christianity tend to be free thinkers. I don't really care what some photo you snapped that obviously really puffs out your chest says. If you're looking for real answers to questions you ask about real Christians, stop being so (forgive me here) holier-than-thou.

Belittlement and condescension rarely have any basis beyond insecurity. Just saying. You are free to not believe, and I am free to believe, and I am willing to leave it at that. No insults are needed on my end.

Smackie Chan wrote:My question to 'tart, ppanther, and anyone else who chooses to chime in is do those NT verses serve as the basis for today's moral opposition on the part of many Christians to laws being passed granting rights to gays and generally accepting their lifestyle? If it wasn't mentioned in Romans or anywhere else in the NT, it would seem that there would be no opposition based on scripture in much the same way as there is no current opposition to touching a football.

Sorry, I missed this.
Yes, there are verses in (at least two of) the Gospels as well as in Romans that say marriage should be between a man and a woman. The Bible is my moral compass, popular culture is not. Don't confuse what I believe with judgement of others. I'm not even going to begin to go down that path. I have no time for it.

Does any of the following jibe with the NT? Yes or no:

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Deuteronomy 20:10-17
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves...This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

PSU, you just provided a perfect example of someone who has failed to understand what I said about Christ's sacrifice. Way to "dance around" it.

I asked the Imam and he says you're all infidels.

For some it will be swift. For others, the dull rusty blade will be used.


Make your time.

ppanther wrote:

88 wrote:Cool take, PP. So apparently you disagree with me that sacrificing a human being to a God is a primitive notion?

I was responding to the under-informed questions about Christians and whether or not they are bound by the Law. So now you're asking my opinion about the subject of a sacrifice to God? Not exactly the same thing. Is there any point in answering? Probably not, considering the condescending manner in which you asked.

You don't have to believe. I was just pointing out the lack of understanding required to ask those questions about Christians and the Law.

In the above quote, I see a question in green. In red, I see what we must assume is your answer - in which you do not deign to answer the question, which seems clearly worded to me. You follow with some noise about condescension, an approach that you repeat in responses to Sam and I.

I'll speak for myself, to you and any others who are up to answering...since the OT is full of things that are at odds with the teachings in the NT, is there any reason to bind the two together in The Book? No personal insult or slight is contained in the question. Choose to answer it - or not.

ppanther wrote:PSU, you just provided a perfect example of someone who has failed to understand what I said about Christ's sacrifice. Way to "dance around" it.

I'll be quite plain - yes, I do not understand what you've said about Christ's sacrifice. In no way does your response answer the questions that have been raised in the thread, as I've read it.

PSUFAN wrote:

ppanther wrote:PSU, you just provided a perfect example of someone who has failed to understand what I said about Christ's sacrifice. Way to "dance around" it.

I'll be quite plain - yes, I do not understand what you've said about Christ's sacrifice. In no way does your response answer the questions that have been raised in the thread, as I've read it.

It does answer the question you just posed, with all the OT scripture you provided. If you don't buy it, that's fine. But it answers the question.

Sam... honestly, you've got to get a handle on your ego. YOU are no more a free thinker than I am. When you figure that out, get back to me.

I'm out... have a good one, everyone!

lol

But it answers the question.

I can't see how it does - apart from you simply saying that it does. Perhaps this exchange effectively underscores the difference in our interpretations of the word "faith"...which of course is a difference I'm quite comfortable with.

ppanther wrote:Yes, there are verses in (at least two of) the Gospels as well as in Romans that say marriage should be between a man and a woman. The Bible is my moral compass, popular culture is not. Don't confuse what I believe with judgement of others. I'm not even going to begin to go down that path. I have no time for it.

Thanks...you've already begun, at least on your own personal level, to address where I'm going with this. I won't concern myself with what the OT says about it for the reasons I stated before. But the King James version of Romans 1 states, "26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Since this is in the NT, and reinforces what's in the OT, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that these two verses serve as the basis for the moral opposition by many Christians (as opposed to all, and you may not be among the many) to gay rights and tolerance of their lifestyle from a Scripture standpoint. But the conventional (or, if you will, conservative) interpretation of this passage is not the only one, and it is argued that the passage actually has little to do with condemnation of homosexuality at all, but rather serves as an example for why we should not judge others based on differences such as sexual orientation.

Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion talked to theology students at the University of Toronto in Canada in 2007-APR. He discussed the use that conservative Christians have made of biblical passages to condemn homosexuality. He concentrated on Romans 1. He said that this passage was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. He said:

"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

If this interpretation is accepted, there is really no biblical basis to morally oppose the gay lifestyle.

Salvation is at hand, after we've covered our eyes, ears, mouths and noses.

Salvation can still enter into the holes you've omitted there. Prey be to God.

Sin,

88 wrote:Why would a perfect God make his Word so imperfect and difficult to understand that it requires professionals to render interpretations of it?

Same reason the Federal, state and local governments make laws.

88 wrote:God wants to keep lawyers in business?

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Seriously, in your experience, aren't the vast majority of lawyers idealists who seek to represent the common people and assist all with understanding the law of the land ?