Subject:
|
Re: This God thing...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Sep 2001 02:13:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Hi all,
>
> There is a set of biblical questions that were written by someone and have >been around the net a bit. They were written as a smart-assed foil for >Christian belief. But surprisingly I haven't seen serious answers. So I'm >reposting them below and hoping not so much to just poke fun at you as to >draw out some kind of reasonable explanation for why the smart-assed points >aren't valid. Or does this actually point to serious holes in Christianity?
>
> ------------
I'd like to take a crack at this representing the Biblical Inerrancy crowd
and have a little fun, too. I know what you're thinking: "You can't mix the
two." Ha, and again I say, ha.
>
> a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
> pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
> claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
That'd be pretty hard, considering that the altar was in the Temple, which
had no direct residential neighbors, septin' fer maybe Zion. Also, the
closet neighbors would also have been Jews and probably wouldn't have
minded. Never the less, if they still protest, then dash them on the cranium
with a jagged object!
>
> b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
> 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
!!Depends on her measurements!! :`)
It's interesting to note that the verse in question deals with selling her
to be a concubine! All other slaves, except these, were free after six years.
The question though, says nothing of why such sales were made. There were
several reasons: a man might sell himself into slavery because he could not
pay his own debts; prisoners of war could be sold; a creditor might repo a
widow's son(s) to pay her husbands debts (had to do with the male children
carrying their father's name and reputation); a parent might sell sons OR
daughters if they (the children) had committed crimes for which they could
not make restitution. The law of Moses set parameters to protect the person
being sold - which is a demonstration of God's mercy. Lev. 25:43 says, "You
shall not rule over him with rigor." It also shows that He came down to meet
them where they lived.
>
> c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
> period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I
> tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
Isn't that pretty obvious?! I would've thought all the blood would be a good
tip-off.
Another way to tell is that a woman's skin is salty(ier) to the taste during
her period. If you can get away with that then you shouldn't have a problem.
I'm pretty sure though that the Bible was referring to a man and his wife,
in which case is shouldn't be an issue (no pun intended). This was part of
the Law that dealt with hygiene - and was obviously to prevent urological
infections. It's interesting to note that, in Medieval Europe, observant
Jews would not contract many of the plagues and diseases that killed so
many. This is said to be one of the reasons they were so persecuted - people
thought they were using magic to either cause or protect themselves from the
plagues. Also demonstrates God's protection/mercy. Was also ahead of its
time (the hygiene code, that is).
>
> d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
> provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
> claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
> Why can't I own Canadians?
Unless your friend is the Prime Minister of Canada, why would you listen to him?
Such slaves could be owned forever and even passed on to ones children.
These were more than likely POW's.
>
> e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
> clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
> myself?
Depends. Is he a member of the NRA?
The punishment was to get stoned. Apparently, a lot of people in the 60's
were working on the sabbath!
People were to be put to death because it was symbolic of foresaking the
sacred covenant between them and God - Exodus 31:12.
As was already pointed out by James, regarding all of these, the OT is
superseded by the NT. Interestingly enough, the OT foresaw this and made
provision - Jeremiah 31:31-34. The OT is useful so far as it illustrates NT
truth. The book of Hebrews shows how the Old was a "shadow" of the New - the
sabbath had special significance in this regard.
>
> f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
> Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser Abomination than homosexuality. I
> don't agree. Can you settle this?
While shellfishness is the root of all evil, homosexuality is the evil of
all roots. ;`)
In God's eyes, all sins are equal, none are better or worse than any other.
The dietary rules were not considered moral lapses, though.
>
> g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
> defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
> vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
The verse also mentions hunchbacks, dwarfs, eunuchs and those with scabs! So
you're really out of luck.
If you're not a Levite, the question is moot. Was symbolic of wholeness or
completeness - like offering a sacrifice "without blemish." These types of
defects were caused by "sin" infectiong God's creation and would defile
God's sanctuary.
>
> h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
> their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
> should they die?
Either by accident or natural causes, I imagine.
Unfortunately, no death sentence was prescribed for this heinous act.
>
> i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
> unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Unless footballs are made of an entire pig carcass you should be OK.
Well...that's what it says. If they were made of entire carcasses - sure
would make the game a lot more interesting. QB's would definitely have to be
bigger.
>
> j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
> crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
> different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse
> and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
> getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we
> just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
> who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Actually, in Hebrew, the part about garments reads that you shouldn't mix
plaids with stripes.
These, too, were not judicial statements - there were no prescribed
punishments. The bit about garments actually referred to the Egyptian
priests garments, which were mixed. The typology of this verse is explained
in the NT: wheat and tares; unequally yoked, etc.
>
> I guess the question, when boiled down, is which parts of the Bible is it OK >to disregard?
>
> Chris
Not really a valid statement. The fact that these OT verses are no longer
considered authoritative has nothing to do with disregard, but dispensation.
All of the Bible is "profitable", but certain parts of the OT have been
nullified by the New. The important thing is to glean what we can about the
nature of God from the verses above - yet all of the Bible must be taken
into consideration when doing so. Isolated verses, or those out of context,
will obviously blur meanings. The proper hermeneutic is essential.
Bill
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | This God thing...
|
| Hi all, There is a set of biblical questions that were written by someone and have been around the net a bit. They were written as a smart-assed foil for Christian belief. But surprisingly I haven't seen serious answers. So I'm reposting them below (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
