Biblical Killing

[MikeMcK]

Isn’t it amazing how the people who want to misuse a few verses from the OT to justify prejudice and discrimination also want to ignore most of the rest of the OT

First of all, for someone who's religion claims that it is the sole source of all doctrinal truth, it is shameful that you don't know the difference between the Old and New Covenants.

Second, God's condemnation of homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament, under the New Covenant. So the whole "you eat shellfish and wear polyesther" argument doesn't work here.

 

[BigBadWlf]

First of all, for someone who's religion claims that it is the sole source of all doctrinal truth, it is shameful that you don't know the difference between the Old and New Covenants.

Second, God's condemnation of homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament, under the New Covenant. So the whole "you eat shellfish and wear polyesther" argument doesn't work here.

God didn’t condemn homosexuality in the old testament.

And he didn’t do so in the new either.


Neither of which is the point. the point….it is amazing that those who wish to misuse a few verses from the OT to justify prejudice and discrimination also want to ignore most of the rest of the OT.

Sort of like how you are selectively ignoring chunks of the OT here.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

First of all, for someone who's religion claims that it is the sole source of all doctrinal truth, it is shameful that you don't know the difference between the Old and New Covenants.

Second, God's condemnation of homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament, under the New Covenant. So the whole "you eat shellfish and wear polyesther" argument doesn't work here.

Paul's words do not count as "God's word"... so your claim that somehow homosexuality is condemned under the NC is flawed. Paul himself says that his writing is only his opinion, nothing more.

 

[MikeMcK]

God didn’t condemn homosexuality in the old testament.

So let me guess: He called it "an abomination" because it's a good thing?

And he didn’t do so in the new either.

I see. So then why does He say that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

Neither of which is the point. the point….it is amazing that those who wish to misuse a few verses from the OT to justify prejudice and discrimination also want to ignore most of the rest of the OT.

Again, first of all, you're showing your ignorance of the differences between the Old and New Covenants and the different codes of law found in the OT.

Second, again, you're ignoring the fact that the condemnation of homosexuality is repeated in the NT.

Sort of like how you are selectively ignoring chunks of the OT here.

What am I ignoring?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So let me guess: He called it "an abomination" because it's a good thing?

"He" never called it anything, since the OT laws are based on contextual secular laws... but even if the Levitical Laws really ARE the direct word of God... how do you deal with the controversy over whether or not homosexual is a valid interpretation of arsenokroites?

I see. So then why does He say that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

Chapter and verse?

What am I ignoring?

Well, you seem pretty happy to take note of the part of the OT that calls homosexuals abomination (depending on your translation) but I bet there are parts of the OT you don't act so happy about... and beyond minutiae about shellfish too!

Lets see... heres a big one...

If a women is raped in a city and didn't cry out, should she be stoned to death?

 

[MikeMcK]

but even if the Levitical Laws really ARE the direct word of God... how do you deal with the controversy over whether or not homosexual is a valid interpretation of arsenokroites?

I don't see any evidence that arsenokoites is not sufficient.

Chapter and verse?

1 Cor 6:9.

Lets see... heres a big one...

If a women is raped in a city and didn't cry out, should she be stoned to death?

First of all, I didn't ignore it. It was never brought up. How am I supposed to respond to something that is never brought up?

I'm assuming that you're talking about Deut 22:24. It isn't talking about rape. It's talking about adultery.

I notice that you conveniently forgot to quote VV 25-27, which tell us that if the girl is raped "you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl".

But we certainly wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of your strawman now, would we?

Because its used a bunch of times in the OT... but only once to refer to homosexuals?

But the fact that it is used to refer to homosexuals at all shows that it is used to refer to homosexuals.

Its not a strawman

But it is a strawman. A strawman is an argument based on a false premise so that it can easily be refuted.

In this case, your argument was based on a false premise so that you could falsely claim that I was ignoring a premise in the Old Testament that does not exist.

It says the way to determine if a woman has been raped or not is whether she screams or not. If she doesn't scream out, then she consents. No third alternative.

Try reading the whole passage. The woman in your example isn't being raped, but is committing adultery.

The second woman in vv25-27 is the one being raped and notice that she is not punished, as you claim, but is declared innocent.

But you've already begun disembling about why the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean what it says

Not at all. I'm going by the literal reading of the text.

In the example of the first woman, the literal reading of the text says nothing about rape, but tells us that she is guilty of committing adultery.

In the example of the second woman, the literal reading of the text tells us that the woman is raped, but is not stoned to death, as you falsely claimed, but declared innocent of any wrongdoing.

so I look forward to your continuing justification on why THIS bit of the OT should not be applied as written, but the homosexual bit should be.

Under the Old Covenant, both adulterery and homosexuality are sins and both are punishable by stoning.

Under the New Covenant, both adultery and homosexuality are still sins, but we're told that God no longer demands that sinners be punished this way.

If you were sincerely looking for an answer to learn more about what Christianity teaches, I'd explain to you that the book of Hebrews goes into these differences in great detail.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't see any evidence that arsenokoites is not sufficient.

Because its used a bunch of times in the OT... but only once to refer to homosexuals?

First of all, I didn't ignore it. It was never brought up. How am I supposed to respond to something that is never brought up?

I'm assuming that you're talking about Deut 22:24. It isn't talking about rape. It's talking about adultery.

I notice that you conveniently forgot to quote VV 25-27, which tell us that if the girl is raped "you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl".

But we certainly wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of your strawman now, would we?

Its not a strawman... its the Biblical definition of rape that I'm discussing. It says the way to determine if a woman has been raped or not is whether she screams or not. If she doesn't scream out, then she consents. No third alternative.

But you've already begun disembling about why the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean what it says, so I look forward to your continuing justification on why THIS bit of the OT should not be applied as written, but the homosexual bit should be.

 

[OllieFranz]

Because its used a bunch of times in the OT... but only once to refer to homosexuals? Its not a strawman... its the Biblical definition of rape that I'm discussing. It says the way to determine if a woman has been raped or not is whether she screams or not. If she doesn't scream out, then she consents. No third alternative.

But you've already begun disembling about why the literal reading of the Bible doesn't mean what it says, so I look forward to your continuing justification on why THIS bit of the OT should not be applied as written, but the homosexual bit should be.

Let's look at the whole passage:
[bible]Deuteronomy 22:13-29[/bible]
It gives guidelines for the "elders" to decide legal cases involving fornication, adultery and rape. In other words, it is standards of evidence.

First, it says that if a man claims that his wife was not the virgin he bargained for when he married her, and her parents can produce the sheet from the wedding bed with her virginal blood, he has to pay the girl's family a fine for his slandering their name.

But if they can't produce the sheet, then not only is the husband aquitted of the slander charge, but the girl is to be stoned because she is a harlot.

Then it says that if a man sleeps with a married woman, they shall both be stoned. Nothing is said about whether the woman consented or not.

If a man sleeps with a betrothed virgin in town, and there are no witnesses that she cried for help, she is to be stoned for adultery along with the man. But if he sleeps with her out in the fields, the elders may take her word that she screamed but no one heard her.

Finally, if she is neither married nor betrothed, this act of statutory rape is punished by a fine paid to the girl's father and a shotgun wedding. Again there is no consideration of whether or not the girl consented.

So, although the rules of evidence in most law cases that would come before the elders are such that it it hard to get a mistaken conviction. (For most capital crimes you need two independent direct witnesses who testify that they tried to talk the suspect out of commiting the crime) in most of these cases, the only way the girl can avoid the stoning is if she (or her parents) can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that she was innocent.

 

[mhager]

Just for those who are crying "it's not meant to be taken literrally!" or "it's out of context!".

I'd question the value of a holy book if it is not suppossed to be taken litterally I mean the fact that the sabbath day is holy. Does that mean if I take that in a non literal sense, I can sin all I want monday to saturday?

Question being where does literal end and poetic begin? The bible as far as I am told is " a collection of 100% true historical accounts".

It's fairly shallow as holy books go, if it can be mistranslated and misinterpretted that much.

I agree. The fact that a certain type of theist can happily claim the following:

1. Some parts of the bible are literally true and some aren't.

2. In spite of being human and fallible, I am quite happy making that distinction so I can judge myself holy and other unholy, with no consideration that I could be wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thankful we live in the age of grace and not as the Hebrews. The reality is that the Greeks, the Romans, the Syrians, etc., lived pretty much as they wished; however, if someone wished to live in ancient Israel, they needed to follow the Law of that land.

 

[Merlin]

Um, do bibles no longer come with an Old Testament?

Many don't

A few of those verses may found in the few pages immediately before and after "Thou shalt not kill" is mentioned as a Commandment. So God issues conflicting orders? Or are these to be taken as exceptions to the Commandments?

Those commandments actually say don't murder.

 

[BigBadWlf]

[/font][/color]

So let me guess: He called it "an abomination" because it's a good thing?

The problem with using Leviticus to prop up personal prejudice is three fold.

First we live under a new covenant with the command of Jesus as law. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

to use Leviticus to condemn gay men is to ignore Jesus.

The second problem is one of application. I sincerely doubt that you personally follow all the varied laws listed in Leviticus.
Do you for example cut your hair? (I bet you do) if so you are sinning by breaking Lev. 19:27
Leviticus also says:
That eating pork is a sin (Lev. 11:7)
That eating lobster or shrimp or scallops or oysters is a sin (Lev. 11:10-12)
That wearing clothing made of different fabrics is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That partaking in modern agriculture is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That shaving is a sin (Lev. 19:27)
That contact with a woman during her period is a sin (Lev. 20:18)
That dining on escargot is a sin (Lev. 11:42)
That attending Church while wearing glasses is a sin or allowing anyone wearing glasses into your church is a sin(Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone born with scoliosis into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone who is handicapped into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)

If you do not follow these laws then you have no business picking and choosing other laws of Leviticus to inflict upon others.


And third…and the real problem with using Leviticus to justify personal prejudice is that it does not condemn homosexuality at all.


Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

I see. So then why does He say that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?

Can provide actual evidence that the Greek word arsenokoites means homosexual?

No one else can either.

At issue here is the translation of the Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is only in recent history that this word has been translated to mean homosexual. Prior to the writing of the King James Bible it was translated as masturbation and that translation continued in some bibles until the late 1960’s. There is no reason or evidence to believe that arsenokoites translates as homosexual at all.

Again, first of all, you're showing your ignorance of the differences between the Old and New Covenants and the different codes of law found in the OT.

You are the one who wishes to selectively ignore the new covenant to justify your own petty personal prejudices.

On the one hand you talk about the new covenant while in the very same thread misuse verses form the old to justify hatred of a minority

Second, again, you're ignoring the fact that the condemnation of homosexuality is repeated in the NT.

Only if you can provide actual proof that arsenokoites means homosexual and then explain why it spent 2000 years being wrongly translated to mean something completely different

What am I ignoring?

All those wonderful old testament laws you don’t want to follow…you know…the ones that are not applicable to you …they are right next to the verses you use to justify your prejudice

 

[BigBadWlf]

Because its used a bunch of times in the OT... but only once to refer to homosexuals?

Its not used at all in the old testament

It appears twice in the new testament…but strangely it is only translated by modern translators in one place to mean homosexual

 

[BigBadWlf]

I don't see any evidence that arsenokoites is not sufficient.

Convenient. However, ignoring the truth however does nothing to change it

1 Cor 6:9.

Prove that the Greek word arsenokoites means homosexual and explain why Christians spent 200 years mistranslating it as mastrubation

First of all, I didn't ignore it. It was never brought up. How am I supposed to respond to something that is never brought up?

You falsely pretended it didn’t exist…thus…ignoring

I'm assuming that you're talking about Deut 22:24. It isn't talking about rape. It's talking about adultery.

Ollie addressed this and blew it out of the water.

I notice that you conveniently forgot to quote VV 25-27, which tell us that if the girl is raped "you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl".

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29


“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” Deuteronomy 22:23-24


Ultimately rape is a crime against property…not against a person. The rapist damages a piece of property belonging to a man and therefore must be punished.

Of course rape is also used to force the fathers of young girls into permitting marriage. Judges 21:10-24

But the fact that it is used to refer to homosexuals at all shows that it is used to refer to homosexuals.

but it wasn't used at all



Arsenokoites may have been a word Paul just made up. There are only a few other examples of the word appearing in writings contemporary to Paul. None of them indicate it means homosexual either. a literal interpretation of the word doesn’t support its translation as homosexual.. in fact such an examination shows it does not mean homosexual.

But it is a strawman. A strawman is an argument based on a false premise so that it can easily be refuted.

In this case, your argument was based on a false premise so that you could falsely claim that I was ignoring a premise in the Old Testament that does not exist.

You man like the verse that says its ok to kill your own child?
Or the verses regarding human sacrifice
Or the verses regarding slavery?
Polygamy
Incest?
Rasicm?

Try reading the whole passage. The woman in your example isn't being raped, but is committing adultery.

Since when is adultery involuntary?

Not at all. I'm going by the literal reading of the text.

A literal reading of the bible shows there is no condemnation of homoseuxuality.

 

[Merlin]

A literal reading of the bible shows there is no condemnation of homoseuxuality.

How do you interpret this *literally*?

Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done
what is detestable

 

[talkingmonkey]

What if Leviticus 20:13 meant not to lie to fellow males. You could only lie to women...cos those days they were only pathetic pieces of breeding meat anyway.

It could be sayin "don't bulls**t the men....or they'll castrate you"

 

[BigBadWlf]

How do you interpret this *literally*?

Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done
what is detestable

if you actually read posts you would already know the answer