Question about Leviticus, or Is Pastor Dave a troll?


 Religions > Bible > Question about Leviticus, or Is Pastor Dave a troll?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1
Topic: Religions > Bible
User: ""
Date: 23 May 2005 09:16:41 AM
Object: Question about Leviticus, or Is Pastor Dave a troll?
Pastor Dave and I are having a discussion that started when another
alleged man of the cloth insinuated that all gays are child molesters.
I didn't want to lose the thread so I'll break it out here.
I've always wondered why so many "Christians" can ignore half of
Leviticus while virulently attacking gay people with the other. Here's
the gist of that argument:

I've got no respect whatsoever for "religious" people who selectively
go after gays. (You know, like picking that little quote out of
Leviticus while ignoring the one about shellfish, or women going
into 5-day seclusion when they menstruate.)

Here's Pastor Dave's response:

Your ignorance is obvious. You are equating ritual
laws with moral laws.

This confuses me. Leviticus isn't divided into a Ritual section and a
Moral section: it is, essentially, a long list of forbidden tasks,
with no differentiation between them. So I posted this:
---------
In [one Biblical quote], the LORD tells Moses, in no uncertain terms,
that it's a sin to eat pork, or in fact TOUCH LEATHER.
In the second [Biblical quote], the Lord tells Moses that homosexuality
is an abomination.
Now, clear this up for me. The first can be ignored -- though it's
the word of GOD -- because you've deigned it a "ritual law"? But the
second is a "moral law," so gays have to be attacked at every
opportunity?
This seems pretty far-fetched to me, considering the two proclamations
are made in the SAME CONVERSATION, in the SAME MANNER, just PAGES
APART.
---------------
Dave's response was something of a repetition:

You seem to be missing the point, which was made.
You ignorantly equates ritual law with moral law. Of
course you ignored that. That is who you are.

Now, is this a real point, or just BS? As I say, there's absolutely no
difference in the wording of these declarations, and no reference to
"ritual" whatsoever. How can one be deemed "ritual law" and written
off?
To me it just sounds like rather than logic, somebody started at the
end -- that everything in the Bible must be true, since it's the word
of God -- and invented a simplistic, illogical explanation to ignore
the half that's preposterous.
.

 

NEWER
pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER