Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[GMichael]

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

Not me. I've given up trying to make myself a better person. I just strive not to get any worse.

Everyone else is who they are. I don't try to change them. That only gets them upset.

[dean_martin]

Wow, how 'bout the sh*t goin' on in this thread, huh?

Woe be unto y'all!

[Feanor]

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.
...

So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.

...
I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.
...

To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?

...
The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

[Ajani]

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...


So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.



To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?



Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

Some things don't translate, but you are right that there are things that really can't be rationalised away... Unless by stoning they really meant a "stern talking to" and we just mistranslated it