The Nihilist said:
Not at all. I was pointing out the severity and the hate implicit in Leviticus 18.
There isn't any. They were laws created to unify the people of Israel and prevent uprisings, rebellions, and falling away from the faith. We see that each time Israel becomes dis-unified that many, many people die- both from Israel and other nations. To ignore the cultural context of the verse and transplant your own opinion onto a text that's 3500 years old written in an entirely different country than the one you live in is horrendously illogical.
Laws like what? Shellfish? Mixed fibers? Most OT Law had a point behind it- health, unity, obeying God, being a good example, etc- and it is that principle that is important to follow. You wouldn't eat McDonalds 5 times in one week, for example, just as a Jew wouldn't eat pork.
A great deal. I submit the Holocaust for your preusal - a rule was made wherein the Jews (and gays, cripples, etc) were deemed unworthy of life. Do you not consider that rule to be hateful?
Who says I ignored it? Who says I didn't look at the cultural context, yet came to that conclusion regardless? Am I not entitled to my own opinion?
Says the person who won't capitalize words like Bible and God. I'll take my chances with the Grammar Police.
The analogy doesn't fail at all. Are Muslim terrorists representative of Islam, then? In any other context you call them loons, but now all the sudden they're Christians. Why the double standard?
Then neither are acts that directly violate the Bible representative of Christianity.
The fact that you call it hateful without any support.
I say you didn't. First of all, you didn't demonstrate such an argument that supports the conclusion, and secondly, you being entitled to your own opinion doesn't make it right.
