spamandham

It's only fair to point out that Christianity didn't exist at the time Leviticus was written. Marriage in those days had nothing to do with ceremonies. It was all about whether or not the bride had been purchased. This one was about property rights, not asceticism. No man is ever condemned for visiting a prostitute in the Old Testament, nor for having sex with his slave girls, etc., even though it does record them doing it.

TracerBullet

Yes God never has a problem with adultery or rape for that matter. Its forbidden…but he’s never upset about the adultery and rape rewarded if not commanded

long winded fool

Wrong. According to Christian doctrine, all of these things are sins. For reference, try "The New Testament." There is a reason for this title. According to Christian doctrine, The Old Testament cannot be understood without the tenets of The New Testament, one of which is "Thou shalt not kill."

Are these Old Testament rules any more contradictory to New Testament rules than laws which are no longer needed? If it was against the law to drive faster than 55 mph thirty years ago, do we now have a contradiction in a 65mph speed limit that can be used to throw out all laws as irrational? Does it make any sense at all to point out an old law that no longer applies and yet still assume that it does since we have record of it?

spamandham

Funny, I thought that was one of the 10 commandments found in the Old Testament.

If you're going to try to lecture others about the Bible, you'd better get your facts straight first.

spamandham

Adultery in the Old Testament was when a man had sex with another man's female property (wives, slave girls, concubines, daughters).

Sex with a prostitute, or with your own slave girls or concubines was not considered adultery until much later when Greek asceticism was introduced into Jewish culture.

TracerBullet

"Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13 which to the determent of your argument, comes from the old testament.

Are these Old Testament rules any more contradictory to New Testament rules than laws which are no longer needed? If it was against the law to drive faster than 55 mph thirty years ago, do we now have a contradiction in a 65mph speed limit that can be used to throw out all laws as irrational? Does it make any sense at all to point out an old law that no longer applies and yet still assume that it does since we have record of it?[/QUOTE]The big question is just how did all these old testament laws and morals become not just irrelevant but how did they become “sins” as you are claiming they are. Did God who is all-good suddenly realize that he was giving out sinful commandments? Did the eternal and unchanging God suddenly change his mind? Is the old testament inaccurate? Is the old testament somehow NOT the word of God? Did God’s laws suddenly become “irrational” as you are suggesting? Was there a specific date that God’s laws because something we could ignore because they were “irrational’?

ELECTROGOD

Ah, the muddle that is the Bible which has resulted in the muddle which is the Christian belief system(s).

yinyang

A long winded response for the long winded fool:

The most revealing point is the inconsistancy itself, not just what the topic (murder) is.
The fact that there is an inconsistancy shows that the bible, old and new (as they are both inconsistant), as well as the quran, or any other religious text are imperfect manmade documents. That is a fact that should be very obvious given the very explicit nature of these inconsistancies.

Therefore, it is up to interpretation as to whether the bible is telling you to kill or not to kill. In the case, esp. of the old testament, both interpretations are completely right and completely wrong, because the text itself allows for both interpretations. This can be said for the new testament as well:

In the parable of the 10 pounds (or minas) jesus tells of a noble man who gives money to his subjects expecting them to invest it. When one of them doesnt he admonishis him and says that anyone who doesnt want to be rulled by him should be brought before him and killed.

This may be interpreted as god giving out his lessons to be spread by those who receive them, and if you dont comply you should be killed.

If you interpret this story literally, its just about some mean dude looking for money. This story would be pointless as a parable and is not very likely.

Alternately you can interpret it selectively like that given here:

http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm

In which, when it comes to the "nobleman" being a nasty guy they alude to King Archelaus one of Herods sons. But at all other times they interperet the parable as being jesus/god spreading his word and expecting his subjects to carry that word on. Although in the end they warn about not doing gods will:

"You are not God's enemy when you fail. He loves you. He is there to encourage you to try again as he did Peter (John 21:15-17). But you are God's enemy when you set your will against his and refuse to use productively what he has given you. That is a dangerous place in which to stand, as an enemy of God."

Any of these interpretations are completely right. It is a cryptic parable. It is not a consice statement like thou shalt not kill. It is interpereted in different ways by theists as well as non-theists. Claiming that one interpretation is absolutely wright or wrong can only be answered by the person who wrote the thing and what their intentions were. If someone beleives the one where god says to bring the rebellious before him and kill them is correct interpretation they could, and have, use it to justify murder. There is no reason to think that this interpretation is wrong. The text does not specify, at best it is inconsistant with other parts of the bible.

spamandham

Let's not forget the rediculous lie told in Acts 5:1-11, where Peter uses his magic powers to kill Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for lying, and this is depicted as not only acceptable, but a good thing.

The Bible is just a hodgepodge of ancient bullshit. The New Testament is just as stupid and inconsistent as the old.

llamaluvr

Where does it mention magic powers? It reads like he was just foretelling their deaths.