Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lockmat

To be named religious thread

Recommended Posts

Wait, are you saying my quote is an example of misinterpretation, or do you mean your effort to explain that YHVH said those things but didn't really mean it?

Is there a simple key to determining which of YHVH's commandments we're support to obey and which we can safely ignore? Or do we need to get clarification from you on each of them independently?

As said previously, it was a specific instance. Only the Israelites he was talking to at that time were to carry out those commands. Leviticus is more like a story about what happened. Books like Titus, Peter, Corinthians etc are letters to churches that include principles on how to live. They're not one time deals like the Leviticus reference.

The commands in Leviticus were for those specific Israelites and not to be carried out by other believers.

The simple key is to study the passage, and to do so within its context. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As said previously, it was a specific instance. Only the Israelites he was talking to at that time were to carry out those commands. Leviticus is more like a story about what happened. Books like Titus, Peter, Corinthians etc are letters to churches that include principles on how to live. They're not one time deals like the Leviticus reference.

The commands in Leviticus were for those specific Israelites and not to be carried out by other believers.

The simple key is to study the passage, and to do so within its context. That's all.

So Leviticus is a specific instance, but I'm guessing Exodus and Deuteronomy, not so much? It sure sounds like we need to run everything by you to figure out what parts of the Bible we should obey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Leviticus is a specific instance, but I'm guessing Exodus and Deuteronomy, not so much? It sure sounds like we need to run everything by you to figure out what parts of the Bible we should obey.

Or you could study it expositionally on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you could study it expositionally on your own.

I've studied it "expositionally" on my own and obviously come to a different understanding of it than you have. When I read Leviticus, I don't see anything that makes it less global than Exodus or Deuteronomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to share any?

For instance... what the Bible says about homosexuality being a sin (Here we go!). Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if homosexual men would seek the truth and not lie, and hide their sexuality, live repressive biblical lives, and carry-on into meaningless opposite-sex church-going relationships - then the truth shall set them free. That is what coming out is all about.

Hmmm... so which is it? Living an honest life? Or living a lie? The Bible seems to advocate both... And on a personal level, I say live an honest life.

Gay and lesbian people are walking, living, breathing contradictions to principals of many religions. And the men, who wrote many of the books of faith, were just men - who DIDN'T GET IT. No divine guidance; just ignorance.

So if the Bible is so wrong on homosexuality... then what else is it wrong about? Probably a lot of stuff.

...and the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a load of crap.

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't believe that. Scientists don't need to presuppose that evolution is true because they can use observation and experiment to challenge any assumptions. No one believed in natural selection until Darwin figured it out. It wasn't like Darwin set up camps to brainwash scientists into thinking the way he wanted them to. Scientists started to accept his theories because they explained existing observations, predicted future observations that were later confirmed and fit perfectly with biology and chemistry that wouldn't be discovered for decades. Scientists accept evolution for the same reasons they accept any other scientific theory. They can test it.

Interesting article from the current Economist about observable evolution.

Dung beetles provide an object lesson in the speed of natural selection

ONE of the lies regularly promulgated by creationist ideologues is that you cannot see evolution in action right now. For microorganisms this is obviously untrue. The evolution of new viral diseases, such as AIDS, is one example. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is another. But bacteria and viruses breed fast, so natural selection has time, within the span of a human life, to make a difference. For species with longer generations, examples are less numerous. But they do exist.

A new one has just been published, appropriately, in Evolution. It concerns dung beetles. Harald Parzer and Armin Moczek, of Indiana University, have been studying a species called Onthophagus taurus. Or, rather, it was a species 50 years ago, but it is now heading rapidly towards becoming at least four of them.

Link to full article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting article from the current Economist about observable evolution.

Yeah, there's tons of this stuff out there. Doesn't matter. Nothing can compete with "God did it" if God doing it is at the core of your identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...