Can we excuse Leviticus?

[marco]

Having watched a film, based on fact, where a young gay man was brutally beaten to death I turned to the enlightenment of Leviticus 20:13.


"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

This is apparently God speaking, the architect of universal harmony. Can this verse ever be justified? Apparently so. I learned that if the entire world resorted to homosexuality then Jesus would not have been able to come and redeem mankind. When Jesus did come, the law passed into disuse.

If the entire world had decided to be celibate, that too would have impeded Christ's arrival, so celibacy should also be an abomination. Maybe it is in some quarters though Paul didn't seem to think so.

Do we: Ignore Leviticus and any other bits of the Bible that seem brutal?
Do we say the old law is no longer needed?
Do we say that if a book inspires such hate, it is a bad book?

[Diagoras]

I don’t know about you, but I think people should not ignore anything that is said in the Bible. And I would say the old Law that is from God, is still valid, things that were wrong then, are still wrong. I think the judgments in the Bible are not based on hate and telling for example that adultery is wrong, is not from hate.

Interesting that this contradicts JW’s opinion about the validity of the ‘old law’. Perhaps something for the ‘doctrine & dogma’ forum to debate amongst the Christian community? It seems only the non-theists who have a consistent, morally justifiable position on this issue.

Also interesting to consider how laws supposedly ‘not based on hate’ can be reconciled with the act of putting people to death. Are you suggesting that God in fact loves gay people, and his clear directive regarding their execution is driven by love?

[Divine Insight]

I was not refering to the act, homosexuals acts were, are and always will be bad.

Is this your opinion?

All my posts express my opinion. I believe, as I said on the outset, that God has the right to dictate what is good and bad, ie what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The bible is clear on the topic and as one of Jehovahs Witnesses I whole heartedly agree with it.


JW

All you are telling me here is that you have no clue what constitutes good or bad and you need someone else to dictate these things to you.

When you take a position like this you have relinquished all credibility in terms of being able to tell what's good or bad on your own. And because of this you can't even make an argument that your God is good. After all, how could you possibly know? Your God decides what's good or bad. Not you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 29 by JehovahsWitness]

I believe, as I said on the outset, that God has the right to dictate what is good and bad, ie what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The bible is clear on the topic and as one of Jehovahs Witnesses I whole heartedly agree with it.

Therein lies the danger of religious texts. Every different religion, or sect within any given religion, will have words and expectations attributed to their particular version of God. Every one of them is convinced that they have the truth and that the commands of their God cannot be questioned. Ultimately the result of the differences between them is to foster division, animosity and even hatred. If God wants people stoned or killed then that must be morally correct, even though our own sense of right and wrong may tell us otherwise. Morality has always been determined by human societies. Unfortunately, some people are too willing to whitewash their own lack of morals by claiming that they have God on their side. [/i]

[marco]

Anyone who unrepentently practised such things is, following the bible directive, to be put outside the Christian congregation. Which is what we do by disfellowshipping them.

Why am I certain that Jesus would do no such thing? I hoped it was a work of past fiction that parents could reject their children for being born homosexual. Parents are not supreme possessors of psychological knowledge nor do they know the turns that Nature takes. The mother who drove her son Bobby to suicide, through her insane insistence that her reading of Leviticus was unflawed, killed her son as surely and as certainly as if she had wielded an axe.

I suppose when people bury their heads in Scripture they forget common decencies; they forget that love not coldness marks humanity. What is particularly abhorrent in the judgment of gay people is that those who judge have not the slightest idea what being gay means. One might as well say that those born with red hair merit death.

Leviticus is vile in the eyes of anyone who has read and understood "The Good Samaritan." I can only imagine, with horror, the anguish of those rejected. What father, asked for understanding, offers rejection?

[marco]

I don’t know about you, but I think people should not ignore anything that is said in the Bible. And I would say the old Law that is from God, is still valid, things that were wrong then, are still wrong. I think the judgments in the Bible are not based on hate and telling for example that adultery is wrong, is not from hate.

It doesn't matter what the intention is behind a command to kill errant girls: it is a wicked command. If we willingly chain ourselves to instructions in a book that recommends death for two men lying with each other or tells fathers to turn their sinful daughters over to be stoned, we are erasing reason. The command is as evil as telling German soldiers to throw children into gas chambers. This should tell us that the savages who wrote these things invented Yahweh.

It is astonishing that in this advanced age, where we have at our fingertips devices that would terrify bible writers, we still pay attention to their scribbling. It seems impossible to be civilised and also accept Leviticus.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD?

• What is good and bad from a human point of view is relative and subject to our experience, culture, education and personal preferences, only God can say if the those things are indeed good or bad or not. Homosexuality is a good example of something that has gone from being seen as a sad perversion by the majority to acceptable but that does not mean that the sexual behaviours and conduct of associated with same sex attraction is acceptable to God.

Ultimately then we must depend on God to tell us what is good or bad either our god given consciences (which sadly can be perverted or deadened) and more importantly, by His word the bible.



JW


RELATED POSTS

Can we judge God as having bad morals?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p791542

Are homosexual acts moral or immoral?
viewtopic.php?p=993397#p993397

Do Jehovah's Witnesses judge homosexual?
viewtopic.php?p=993341#p993341

What did Jesus mean when he said "No one is good except ...God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 02#p942302

[JehovahsWitness]

Anyone who unrepentently practised such things is, following the bible directive, to be put outside the Christian congregation. Which is what we do by disfellowshipping them.

Why am I certain that Jesus would do no such thing?

Possibly because you are not familiar with everything he is reported to have said or you interpret what he said differently to how we do.

"If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." - JESUS CHRIST

JW

To learn more go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , SHUNNING and ...HOMOSEXUALITY,

[marco]

[quote="JehovahsWitness"]

"If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." -

It was Matthew who said this. Matthew who reported the walking corpses. Matthew who supplied a genealogy of Jesus. It is dreadful that today, in the comfort of enlightenment, people cling to these silly words. Quite apart from anything else, they contradict Christ's instruction to love others, be they Samaritans, tax collectors or pagans. When an institution wants to protect itself, it must ostracise those it deems as a risk to its continuation, even if that means hurting fellow humans. There is nothing in the spirit of Christ that warrants this. It is abhorrent to justify our cruelty by quoting such Scripture as Leviticus, or pretending Matthew is the soul of truth. If our actions produce bad fruit, the tree we got them from is bad - as Jesus warned us.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD?

What gives God the right?
God is a non-voter in the moral election - for thousands of years now, if we assume he exists.

I don't see your God as anything other than another point of morality in a sea of opinions.
He has a large voice, like a Buddha, or Chancellor or President, but he is still an opinion.

I reject a homophobic, genocidal, TERRACIDAL, callous opinion, no matter how powerful the originator is claimed to be.

[marco]

I reject a homophobic, genocidal, TERRACIDAL, callous opinion, no matter how powerful the originator is claimed to be.

When we recall his origins - the minds of savage misogynists - we can understand why he's been built as a brute. One wonders why, if there is a nice being living modestly in some bloodless heaven, he has not put Yahweh down from his seat or toppled Allah. Perhaps the qualifications for deity involve psychopathic tendencies. Leviticus would suggest so.