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?

[Wootah]

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR BAD?

I do.

If you are going to claim that there exists a God who is "Good" then he had darn well better live up to my standards of what I consider to be good, otherwise how can he be good if he doesn't even pass my criteria of goodness?

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.

If you say so then this is true for you, not for me.

You're the one who appears to need someone to dictate to you what is good or bad. Why would you need for someone to tell you what's good or bad? You can't decide for yourself?

All you've done is proclaim to the world that you have no clue what constitutes good or bad. Therefore you can't even say whether your God is good or bad. After all, how could you possibly know?

Moreover, you entire argument is based solely on the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God". But how can you even know that? Clearly you can't. Therefore you are even taking someone else's word for that as well.

I have to ask. Are you capable of thinking for yourself? Based on your arguments it certainly appears that you aren't. You're entire argument is that you cannot determine what constitutes good or bad, and that you need someone to tell you. And then you proclaim that the Hebrew Bible is the "word of God", but you clearly cannot know that either.

So yes, you are definitely just voicing random opinions in your posts. Hardly anything worthy of serious debate. Why should anyone care to debate your opinions? It's basically meaningless. It represents nothing other than your own personal thoughts and worldview. Apparently a worldview that you have accepted without a shred of evidence.

Moderator Warning

Hi DI

Try to keep your arguments impersonal. Suggesting people cannot think for themselves is uncivil.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 69 by Difflugia]

Yes. I am familiar with that law. Your point being?

[William]

[Replying to post 70 ]

JehovahsWitness:The existence and respect for law and order does not by definition encourage ("inspire") hatred. Love cannot thrive where justice is perverted and nobody is obliged to love what is bad.

William: So it becomes a question of what one would accept as to what laws one will follow for the sake of a supposed 'order' as to what one sees as 'acts of hate' and 'inspired hatred'. Another might argue that 'justice is perverted' in relation to the biblical laws under question, and even if one were to argue that the ancients were a lot less enlightened back then and laws have changed in order to reflect better standards than the biblical ones, one would only be stating the obvious...that ancient standards which are questionable, need to be seen in a modern light, that justice is served rather than perverted.

Trying to uphold ancient laws such as those under question, as somehow legitimate and 'God inspired' is self defeating. It does more to show another what one hides behind the facade and justifies - not unlike those following orders which compel them to commit atrocity - that "the bible told me so - I didn't make the laws - I just follow them without seriously questioning them".

"Justice prevails"? Apparently not...so far... and sure - "nobody is obliged to love what is bad", but some go to great lengths to do so when it comes to biblical atrocity, because "Gods 'word' says so."

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 69 by Difflugia]

Yes. I am familiar with that law. Your point being?

Throwing rocks at a crying girl's face until she's dead isn't love, doesn't stem from love, and doesn't bring about a net gain of love.

I get a lump in my throat just imagining it in the abstract, so I assumed it would be obvious. My mistake, apparently.

[Zzyzx]

.

Deuteronomy 22:13-15, 20-21:

Suppose a man gets married to a woman and makes love to her. But then he doesn’t like her. So he tells lies about her and says she’s a bad woman. He says, “I got married to this woman. But when I made love to her, I discovered she wasn’t a virgin.� Then the woman’s parents must bring proof that she was a virgin. They must give the proof to the elders at the gate of the town.

...

But suppose the charge is true. And there isn’t any proof that the woman was a virgin. Then she must be brought to the door of her father’s house. There the people of her town will put her to death by throwing stones at her. She has done a very terrible thing in Israel. She has had sex before she got married. Get rid of that evil person.

Bible characters seem obsessed with virginity.

How quaint -- and irrational. Even now in the 21st Century with advanced medical knowledge and technology, virginity CANNOT be determined. From the World Health Organization:

“Virginity testing� has no scientific or clinical basis. There is no examination that can prove a girl or woman has had sex – and the appearance of girl’s or woman’s hymen cannot prove whether they have had sexual intercourse, or are sexually active or not. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/ ... nation/en/

How did the ancients know? They did NOT know; they simply formed opinions -- and were willing to condemn people (women) to death based on opinion alone.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 69 by Difflugia]

Yes. I am familiar with that law. Your point being?

I think it is to emphasize what a great and wonderful God you worship, who endows his followers with mercy and justice.

I can't think of anything that expresses this more than some jerk changing his mind on his marriage day and having his bride stoned for not being a virgin.

Actually there are many.
Committing genocide because someone extended hospitality to you, is one.

[marco]

Does the law against murderer and child abuse inspire hate?

Do laws against drunk driving? Wife beating inspire hate?

Are cows sheep? Why don't you answer the points I made rather than inventing questions for which the world and its great grandmother know the answers.
I said: Suffer not a witch to live encourages hatred. You are puzzled, for you see in this example encouragement of child abuse and drunk driving. The evidence for what I am saying is that innocent old women were murdered because of this silly advice. There was no "law" involved. The instruction to be brutal to enemies, even encouraging slaughter of infants is not a "law" but encouragement to be violent and nasty. Abraham "loved" his son, Isaac (allegedly). He was asked to turn that love into murderous violence. It is hard to understand your misunderstanding.



You say that to encourage hate is to:

"encourage unjust, callous and inhumane treatment of a fellow human being".

Good! That definition takes care of all the examples I gave. Your detour into breaking just laws is for you to explain. We might as well talk about why wood pigeons lay only two eggs, both white, both on platform nests.

Love cannot thrive where justice is perverted and nobody is obliged to love what is bad.

And it is patient and kind. Yep, no problem here but we're not remotely discussing anything I said.

(your examples lead me to conclude we are speaking about different things)

Sadly I am not a passenger in the conveyance that is you mind and it would be presumptuous of me to guess why you have misunderstood. You must work on that yourself.

but I have been here long enough to know such requests would go unanswered (and would possibly invite yet more attacks on my intellect, integrity and morals) so we will simply have to go by my definition (see above) and based in that, I repeat, the bible does not inspire hatred.

In my posts your intellect and what might be associated with it remain free from assault. Your definition is good; your conclusions are not. If a being tells a father, who loves his son, to kill that son this is encouraging unjust, callous treatment, by your definition. There's no law involved.

So there we have it: any damage done to your intellect is not Marco's doing. You must seek redress elsewhere but I think I have repaired the violence done to the three simple examples I gave of the Bible's encouragement of hate and violence.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your definition is good; your conclusions are not

My definitions are good and my conclusions are good. Your conclusions however are wrong.

• You have based your argument on the faulty premise that there is no power that can justify a sacrifice (or line with the topic) an accounting*. Whether or not you agree with the particular sacrifce or punitive measures, because you do not recoginse the authority being exercised, is irrelevant. The point is (in reference to your examples, which you erroneously seem to think the very mention of which settles the issue) does law, sacrifice, war or punishment engender hatred. In short is the very notion of punitive measures incompatible with love. The answer is obviously, no.

* The very existence of human courts is evidence that powers exist that justify both punitive measures and, in the case of war, killing.

Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong with something other than opinion.

JW



RELATED POSTS

What is being referred to by the expression "homosexual acts" ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 197#756197

Is the bible's condenmation of homosexual acts unjust?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 621#926621

Are prohibitions on certain sexual behaviour "hateful"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 650#993650

Do the existence of punitive measure in scripture mean the bible "inspires hate"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 684#993684

JEHOVAHS WITNESSES

Do Jehovahs Witnesses view sex between member of the same biological sex as "bad" and "sinful"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 341#993341

Do Jehovahs Witnesses support the death penalty for homosexual acts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 261#993261

[Willum]

Isn't it funny how those who will claim they support absolute good, can have such absolute support of such hideous things?

They believe they are good yet support the actions of Moses when he states to kill homosexuals.
They believe they are good yet support the actions of Moses when he states to kill morally reprehensible people.
They believe they are good yet support the actions of Moses when he states to kill those who worship foreign gods.

But when Hitler comes along, and says the same things, they are suddenly morally outraged.
It is even in the name of the same God.
One that neither can show even exists.

The fact is God is not a personality, or a power.
But a tool, like a gun. He gets pointed at whomever are the undesirables du jour, and the masses of guns do the rest.

[marco]

My definitions are good and my conclusions are good. Your conclusions however are wrong.

Thanks for that that verdict. Illuminating.

You have based your argument on the faulty premise that there is no power that can justify a sacrifice (or line with the topic) an accounting.

Can we be clear that when we use "definitions" we are dealing with human things such as dictionaries and human brains. If you wish to introduce magic then the definitions may not hold water, or anything else.

You agree that encouraging hate is inviting people to do horrible deeds on another.
When a father is told to kill the son he loves, this accords with your definition.

But hey! It's a god that's doing the hate thing so it's no longer hate. This is an entirely new discussion..... and an opinion. If Apollo ordered a youth to be flayed to death that's not nice, even though it came from a god. Your allegiances to Yahweh and Jehovah and any other celestial names has nothing to do with me, nor indeed have these odd "related" references you place at the end of your posts. I ignore them. I think it is best to stick to the discussion we have without meandering into others.

Feel free to attempt to prove me wrong with something other than opinion.

When one is forced to defend the murder of a girl by stoning or defend a being who wants a father to kill his son there's no need for me to voice an opinion. Common sense speaks more eloquently than can I. As for opinions - it is yours that Yahweh's actions need no human defending. I note that opinion and understand proof is impossible. The Romans had similar opinions too about their supernal overlords.