Question on Bible Verses.

markphillips

As a gay person who had pretty rubbish experiences going to a "Bible believing" evangelical church that took the Bible to literally be the word of god, and heard the pastor go on about how he knew "of people struggling with the illness of homosexuality" as well as experiencing a general contempt for gay people from the community there due to our "sin", I've often wondered why Christians choose to place so much emphasis on some things and not others when it comes to their beliefs and actions.

I mean, sure, the Bible says that sin. Leviticus says that "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." This is perhaps the most quoted verse by Christians when it comes to arguing against gay people.

However, aren't you overlooking alot of stuff in between these verses? What does an abomination even mean?


Leviticus 11:20-21 commands that "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the ear". Now is it just me, or does Leviticus seemingly say here that there are four-legged birds out there? There's aren't.

Genesis says that god created light and the dark on different says, which is kinda impossible as light comes from the sun (a star), and aparently god made stars after he made light and darkness. Could somebody please explain this one?

Matthew 4:8 struck me as particularly odd when I was reading the Bible. It claims: "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them". Now, it's gonna be mighty cold up there and I didn't know the the devil could fly (and carry people with him as her flew), but also, how the heck could they see the whole world from a mountain? Aside from the obvious lack of possibility, this story also assumes that we have a flat earth.

Genesis also claimed that Cain (who was made black for his sins, apparently) built and populated a city in just two generations.

Some rules that just don't make sense to me include:

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man sleeps with his father's wife, both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). (Why kill the animal!?!)
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

The Bible, certainly the OT, definitely supports the killing of people despite one of the ten commandments dictating "thou shalt not kill". Contradiction?

As someone who is exploring their faith I have given the Bible a pretty good read at this stage, and I must say it has not lived up to it's "Good Book" reputation for me.

I don't mean this thread to be an attack on your faith, but rather I would like to know how the practicing Christian reconciles the inaccuracies in the Bible and the odd rules it gives to you with your belief that the Bible is the word of God. Also, if you ignore so many of the rules in the Bible, such as the ones illustrated above, how can you feel justified in using the rule on homosexuality as a reason to counter gay rights movements etc. Should you not also be pushing for the death penalty and for Tiger Wood's death?

Once again, this is not an attack on your faith, but an honest inquiry. After reading the Bible this is something I have really being wondering about.

Thanks in advance for your response!

PDN

Christians believe that the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

As a pastor of a Bible-believing Church I've never actually met any Christians who based their attitudes to homosexuallity on the Book of Leviticus. My views on that subject are informed by the New Testament.

chozometroid

Well, sin is still not acceptable today. I don't demand Tiger Wood's death, but I also don't demand the death of a homosexual. However, I don't condone either one's behavior.

Also the commandment is "do not murder" which is much different than "do not kill."

Lazy post, sorry.

smcgiff

Mark,

Organised religion loves having as many followers as possible. Condoning homosexual activity is not the best way to expand your base and therefore influence, financial support etc. Therefore it is banned, look at what happened to Om per the Bible and the Catholic's Church on contraception in the same light.

Simples

markphillips

PDN wrote: »

Christians believe that the Old Testament should be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.

As a pastor of a Bible-believing Church I've never actually met any Christians who based their attitudes to homosexuallity on the Book of Leviticus. My views on that subject are informed by the New Testament.

Thanks for the reply PDN. Luke 16:17 quotes Jesus as saying "it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." Does this not clearly State Jesus was fully supportive of the laws and culture present in the Old Testament?

If you believe and teach that the New Testament sets the moral standard, do you agree with Jesus that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Fanny Cradock

I don't oppose gay rights.

You might want to do a search on this forum under key words like "homosexuality". Some opinions might reinforce the stereotype you outlined above while others might challenge it.

Here are a couple of recent examples. Be warned, there is a lot of reading in them.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055767482
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055666008

PDN

markphillips wrote: »

Thanks for the reply PDN. Luke 16:17 quotes Jesus as saying "it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." Does this not clearly State Jesus was fully supportive of the laws and culture present in the Old Testament?

Context is a wonderful thing. If you look at the parallel passage in Matthew 5:18 it says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Christians believe that the law was fulfilled, and everything accomplished, when Jesus died on the Cross.

This clearly indicates that the Old Testament laws do not apply to the Church today.

If you believe and teach that the New Testament sets the moral standard, do you agree with Jesus that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Yes, I do. Why?

markphillips

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I do. Why?

Well, like, why should she be considered an adulteress if her fella left her for some other reason? Isn't that a bit harsh on the woman who hasn't actually done anything?

Are you claiming the the OT is irrelevant? Do you preach from it?

I'm just wondering because some pastors seem to love using parts of it, whilst others seem to say it has little meaning.

PDN

markphillips wrote: »

Well, like, why should she be considered an adulteress if her fella left her for some other reason? Isn't that a bit harsh on the woman who hasn't actually done anything?

She would only be considered an adulteress if she started shacking up with someone else.

Marrage, in my view, is a lifelong commitment. That applies whether my wife suffers a stroke and is comatose, or if she deserts me.

Are you claiming the the OT is irrelevant? Do you preach from it?

Of course it isn't irrelevant. It is full of wonderful examples of faith, love, and also of treachery and disobedience.

I often preach from the Old Testament - but I certainly don't use it as a basis for laying down laws or commandments for Christians today.

lugha

markphillips wrote: »

I've often wondered why Christians choose to place so much emphasis on some things and not others when it comes to their beliefs and actions.

To be fair I don't think they do. Christians in the main believe that engaging in homosexual acts is sinful. But they also believe that engaging in heterosexual acts outside of marriage is sinful. Of course many people, including some who would consider themselves Christian, cheerfully ignore the latter. And the former, for that matter. The reason that the first sin gets more press IMO is because homosexuals still struggle to be accepted, legally and socially, and this inevitably focuses attention on any organization which might be perceived as anti-gay. And any organization whose members express moral reservations about homosexual activity will be seen as such, even if they are at pains to distinguish between their personal moral framework and the laws of the land that prohibit discrimination, which they might unreservedly support. The problem of course for Christians is that they cannot change the teachings of the bible, not even if they fail to see any purpose or reason in them. For them, it is the word of God and apart from some possible wriggle room afforded by differing interpretations, it is immutable. That's if their God is the one true God. If this is not the case then the bible was sourced in the mind of mortal men, and the disapproval of gay activity probably stems from the prejudice against gays which seems to manifest itself in most cultures. Which is why some, in an increasingly secular world, will continue to frown at the church on this matter.