quoting the bible

[The Real Rick Springfield]

i've seen the following passage used in an op-ed piece that questions the way some people will quote the bible in order to serve their arguement of the moment. the op-ed piece cautions that if you're going to quote the bible verbatim for one case, then you should do so in all cases. which brings us to this list.

john

-----------------------------------------------------

I need some advice regarding some elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

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 own 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 uncleanness - 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 Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids this. 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, as per 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)

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by john_vella

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?



8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids this. How should they die?

These three jumped out at me.

Smite.

What a great word.

Originally Posted by john_vella

i've seen the following passage used in an op-ed piece that questions the way some people will quote the bible in order to serve their arguement of the moment. the op-ed piece cautions that if you're going to quote the bible verbatim for one case, then you should do so in all cases. which brings us to this list.

This stuff drives me bonkers... its often used to defend behavior that the bible condemns as wrong by invoking the harsh penalties for the wrong act.

Here's the form..... the Bible says...

1) X is wrong and requires us to kill the wrong doer.

2) We no longer kill the wrong doer for the act

3) therefoer the act is not wrong


Just because we no longer stone adulterers it is no less wrong.

[dfwtrader]

some how i knew you would be the first.....and if im not mistaken arent all these from the old testament.....not sure......but if so, that means the covenant between moses and god was superceded by jesus(our representative) and god....

xiannaix, correct me if im wrong
justin

Originally Posted by xiannaix

This stuff drives me bonkers... its often used to defend behavior that the bible condemns as wrong by invoking the harsh penalties for the wrong act.

Here's the form..... the Bible says...

1) X is wrong and requires us to kill the wrong doer.

2) We no longer kill the wrong doer for the act

3) therefoer the act is not wrong


Just because we no longer stone adulterers it is no less wrong.

Originally Posted by dfwtrader

some how i knew you would be the first.....and if im not mistaken arent all these from the old testament.....not sure......but if so, that means the covenant between moses and god was superceded by jesus(our representative) and god....

xiannaix, correct me if im wrong
justin

I am not an expert on doctrine or the Bible and your relationship with God is your own. (how's that for a disclaimer...)

However, it is my understanding (and others here with a greater confidence in their ability to explain the New Covenant would be greatly appreciated to speak up) that Christ's death esuperceded the Old Law or Covnenant and created a new one. I do not think this is to be interpretted as permission to violate the prohibitions of the old covenant however. If it were, murder would merely rise to the level of supremely rude... and while it is supremely rude - it is also much more/worse.

[dfwtrader]

again im not sure....but i was under the impression that with the new covenant that certain restrictions on food consumption etc....were relaxed. i also think the bible, new testament goes into detail which ones are under jewish law and which ones applied to followers of christ......

disclaimer, although im a christian i do not know nearly enough about the bible so all of my statements are qualified with a consensus of ??????

would also like to hear from other parties.

justin

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I am not an expert on doctrine or the Bible and your relationship with God is your own. (how's that for a disclaimer...)

However, it is my understanding (and others here with a greater confidence in their ability to explain the New Covenant would be greatly appreciated to speak up) that Christ's death esuperceded the Old Law or Covnenant and created a new one. I do not think this is to be interpretted as permission to violate the prohibitions of the old covenant however. If it were, murder would merely rise to the level of supremely rude... and while it is supremely rude - it is also much more/worse.

[Satchel]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

This stuff drives me bonkers... its often used to defend behavior that the bible condemns as wrong by invoking the harsh penalties for the wrong act.

Here's the form..... the Bible says...

1) X is wrong and requires us to kill the wrong doer.

2) We no longer kill the wrong doer for the act

3) therefoer the act is not wrong


Just because we no longer stone adulterers it is no less wrong.

Does that mean it is still OK to have slaves?

Originally Posted by Satchel

Does that mean it is still OK to have slaves?

You've missed the point now haven't you?

But, according to the old testament (and again, I'm no scholar) owning slaves would appear permissible. That doesn't mean we can't find the practice of owning a human objectionable and prohibit it. There is a difference between banning a previously tolerated act and tolerating a previously banned act.

[lunamoth]

that shit is funnay!!! keep it comin yall!!!

[Satchel]

I get your point, but I am making my own. How do you account for this practice being accepted in what was supposed to be the word of god?

[amigo7dfw]

Originally Posted by dfwtrader

some how i knew you would be the first.....and if im not mistaken arent all these from the old testament.....not sure......but if so, that means the covenant between moses and god was superceded by jesus(our representative) and god....

xiannaix, correct me if im wrong

justin

muhammad is jesus

god adam abraham moses noe jesus muhammad priest scholars teachers now djs when will it end quote the bible is like taken someones words and using them kind of like the bible its self another history book not everything you read is true so you as yourself choose to make that choice.

[dfwtrader]

hahahah

.....whew ok amigo.....its ok....just lay down and we will gently put these restraints aorund your wrist and ankles so you dont hurt yourself......shhhhh now its ok.......g'nite...buh bye

Originally Posted by amigo7dfw

muhammad is jesus

god adam abraham moses noe jesus muhammad priest scholars teachers now djs when will it end quote the bible is like taken someones words and using them kind of like the bible its self another history book not everything you read is true so you as yourself choose to make that choice.

[Lookatme]

<---------- More scared by the post.

Originally Posted by Satchel

I get your point, but I am making my own. How do you account for this practice being accepted in what was supposed to be the word of god?

As I have said repeatedly, I do not claim to be a scholar on the topic. Also, I do not accept the Bible as infallible. Lastly, even if the bible said slave ownership was a good thing and I was to accept that this was the word of God - I wouldn't claim to understand the mind of God.

But, I think you're just using slavery to make a larger point. What is that larger point?

the way i see it is that everyone enturpets the bible differently ,wheather its wrong or right thats just the way its done