Menstruation thing: Gotta keep those places clean, dude.

Shellfish: Mass allergy epidemic? God doesn’t give a command without good reason, and while the one I gave is pretty ridiculous, that’s not to say the one that the Author had in mind wasn’t a good one. Why did you put all those puns in Desert Bridge? You had a good reason, whatever it may be.

Health vs. Morality: Why does it have to be one or the other? Morality is at the very core of it. Eating habits have changed in humanity over a long period of time, not to mention our methods of preparing food have sophisticated. Why something was wrong, and whether it was or is now, is irrelevant. In the end, it all comes down to God’s Way or Not God’s Way.

On homosexuality: Spoken against in both Testaments. And why does it have to be a health issue? If it IS a health issue, I present to you the number of upset-stomach problems caused by it, the complete disdain from the original biological purpose of sex, and Patient Zero of Canada. (Okay, the last one was more so I could make a “Blame Canada” joke.) Why can’t it be a morality issue, if not a health issue simultaneously?

My point is that we can’t pronounce parts of Leviticus to clearly be about health and therefore outdated and other parts to be about morality. If it comes down to God’s Way, then all Christians must now stop eating shellfish and start observing all the odd rites of Leviticus.

One way or the other, God’s intention was marriage between a man and a woman for life, all love, no lust. Sexual urges aren’t wrong, in the right context.

Does make you wonder why God made gay animals, though, doesn’t it?

As for Jesus, yes, he DID speak a lot about spiritual sin. Why? Because the people had lost sight of this. God will take into account bodily sins, but His primary focus is on the heart. Job is a prime example.

Well, again, we don’t know that. We know only what he said, and generally speaking he made a point that bodily sins were overrated and/or irrelevant. See, for example, Matthew 15:10-18:

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

…

There was no abolition of the law. Jesus said he came to fulfill it.

Ah, but the Bible isn’t clear on that at all; which is why there is a huge theological debate. He certainly contradicted a lot of Old Testament laws.

I’ll go ahead and admit that I’m not qualified to argue about this subject (not coping out, just saying I know when I don’t have all the answers), but that doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who are qualified.

I would be very careful there. The Bible is a strange and complex book, with – as you pointed out – a long and controversial history of translations and editing, and I’d think twice before accepting anyone’s qualified explanations.

I’ve heard explanations before and if I could remember ‘em, I’d give them to you. My memory is fickle, though.

I tend to think that if the explanations were better, you’d remember them. I’ve read a lot of Bible apologetics over the years, and the stuff that is good (like Chesterton) usually sticks to the mind, whereas the stuff that is mostly empty rhetoric usually doesn’t.

I’m not going to try to talk you out of your Christian faith, but I’m trying to show you that it’s far from a clear set of rules that someone can interpret for you. There is a long history and vast complexity to it, and parts that are clearly human nonsense, and parts that are so beautiful that you may well call them divine: but if you want to truly embark on that path, then you should be aware that it’s not a straight and obvious one like they would have you believe. It’s an adventure in faith, doubt and thought, and you will find many more wonders if you approach it with an open mind.

Shellfish: Mass allergy epidemic? God doesn’t give a command without good reason, and while the one I gave is pretty ridiculous, that’s not to say the one that the Author had in mind wasn’t a good one. Why did you put all those puns in Desert Bridge? You had a good reason, whatever it may be.

Health vs. Morality: Why does it have to be one or the other? Morality is at the very core of it. Eating habits have changed in humanity over a long period of time, not to mention our methods of preparing food have sophisticated. Why something was wrong, and whether it was or is now, is irrelevant. In the end, it all comes down to God’s Way or Not God’s Way.

On homosexuality: Spoken against in both Testaments. And why does it have to be a health issue? If it IS a health issue, I present to you the number of upset-stomach problems caused by it, the complete disdain from the original biological purpose of sex, and Patient Zero of Canada. (Okay, the last one was more so I could make a “Blame Canada” joke.) Why can’t it be a morality issue, if not a health issue simultaneously?

I remember reading about a Christian man who was at a red light when a car full of gay men drove up beside him and they started making cat calls to him. As they drove off, he started fuming inside about their sinful nature. But then something clicked on the inside: God was just as disgusted by his own heterosexual lust as he was with their homosexual lust. One way or the other, God’s intention was marriage between a man and a woman for life, all love, no lust. Sexual urges aren’t wrong, in the right context.

As for Jesus, yes, he DID speak a lot about spiritual sin. Why? Because the people had lost sight of this. God will take into account bodily sins, but His primary focus is on the heart. Job is a prime example.

There was no abolition of the law. Jesus said he came to fulfill it. I’ll go ahead and admit that I’m not qualified to argue about this subject (not coping out, just saying I know when I don’t have all the answers), but that doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who are qualified.

I’ve heard explanations before and if I could remember ‘em, I’d give them to you. My memory is fickle, though.

Examples other than pork and stoning? I’m getting tired of hearing those, because they’re boring now, and I’ve also heard valid explanations. I can’t remember ‘em for the life of me, but I heard ‘em and could probably find ‘em if I weren’t so tired.

Many, from menstruating women near holy places to shellfish. And in all the discussions I’ve ever read, I have not heard a single plausible explanation for why a modern Christian should follow any of that, or why it could morally be considered a sin.

(Besides, there are health reasons for the animals that were crossed off the “edible” list. Some of them we can eat now. Others we should still avoid.)

That’s the most common argument – but how do you know that? If the rules in Leviticus are set down by God, how do you know that you can ignore them? It doesn’t make sense to say that one of the rules no longer applies (because our eating habits have changed) while another doesn’t. And if they’re health reasons – so there is nothing moral about them – why can’t the whole homosexuality thing be a health issue? Something that was forbidden at the time to increase population numbers, or stop some disease, that is now no longer relevant? You can’t have it both ways – either Leviticus is about moral truth, or it’s a bunch of outdated laws written down by a primitive civilization.

Unless, that is, you argue that Leviticus got abolished in the New Testament. That’s the whole “law VS grace” debate, and in my opinion the better arguments tend to be on the “grace” side. But in that case, on what basis can you condemn homosexuality? Because Jesus himself – the Messiah, according to Christianity – did not say a single thing about homosexuality. Nothing. Nada. He said a lot about spiritual sins, but precious little about bodily sins.

(Besides, there are health reasons for the animals that were crossed off the “edible” list. Some of them we can eat now. Others we should still avoid.)

Personally, I think a lot of the stuff in the Bible sounds strange or downright absurd to people today because of their lack of knowledge in the history department. For example, John 1:47-48, when Nathanael is coming over, Jesus says, “Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false.” Nathanael asks him, “How do you know me?” And Jesus replied, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

Most people assume that he had been sitting under a tree for whatever reason and Jesus saw him. But that’s not it at all. See, a Fig Tree is more like a domed bush. Israelite women would put their babies under them to protect them from the sun while they went and worked in the fields. Jesus was saying he knew Nathanael ever since he was a baby.

That’s the major problem. People will read the Bible, particularly in English, assume their translation to be the end-all be-all and that it must be flawed for whatever reasons, when the flaws lie in English itself. English doesn’t borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them out from behind, and then rummages through their pockets for loose grammar.

Things can get lost in translation, and even learning the original languages doesn’t help 100%. You have to go history digging. That is the major flaw of translation: The other guy still won’t know half of what you’re talking about.

What’s silly is that people use this as an argument AGAINST the Bible, when they still don’t know what they’re talking about, nor will they ever know what they’re talking about because they’re too stubborn/proud/busy/combination of the above to go and find out.

Tricky? How are they tricky?

Because no Christian also follows the rest of the mostly absurd commandments in Leviticus, and picking and choosing from that list is hard to support.

Jonas, I find most of the gay rights movement offensive. Mostly because they tell me I have ignore the parts of my faith that say it’s wrong. Telling them, “I don’t like it and I don’t believe it’s right, but it’s your choice” isn’t enough for them.

But you do at least have to admit that the parts of the Bible on that subject are very tricky. Shellfish and all that.

You might find that interesting.