What do you think about what it says about homosexuality, and marrying family?
2007-01-26 10:12:11 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Lev. 18:22 states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind" ...
However, Leviticus ALSO states:
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard" in Chapter 19, Verse 27; which means men who shave and barbers are equal with gay people in regards to what is an abomination.
"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you" in Chapter 19, Verse 28; which means people with tattoos are equal with gay people in regards to what is an abomination.
"If a woman have an issue, [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even" in Chapter 15, Verse 19 as well as "And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even"; which means women having a menstrual cycle should not be around anyone else for a week and her as well as anyone touching anything she touched are equal with gay people in regards to what is an abomination.
"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you" in Chapter 11, Verse 7; which means that anyone who eats pork, bacon, or sausage or plays football is equal with gay people in regards to what is an abomination.
"All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you" in Chapter 11, Verse 10; which means that anyone who eats shellfish is equal with gay people in regards to what is an abomination.
Those who use Lev. 18 to discriminate against gay people should also use Lev. 19 to discriminate against men who shave, barbers, people with tattoos, women having their period, pork eaters, football players, and people who eat shellfish. To use Lev. 18 while ignoring Lev. 19 would be called hypocrisy for the purpose of bigotry.
2007-01-26 10:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by χριστοφορος ▽ 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nakedness in a biblical context could also mean (and does.. Incomplete or flaw) depends on who was translating that day.. One has to take it in context with the bible as a whole (thats one of the things i detest about Xtians.. they can't manage to read the "WHOLE" book (its not that long people.. bout the same as a crappy Stephen King Novel).. just pick out out of context phrases that suits thier needs..But thats the way they are in real life too.. there are other passages in the bible that require a relative to impregnate a brothers wife as well (as hes dead its a linage thing) not to Mention Solomon and his daughters bit. I think(its my opinion) that its more about being a lying cheating sneaky ****** AND THE BETRYAL MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE to tell the truth.. Umm what version of bible are you going on.. thers more than 62 english versions at present.. it would help to know that much at least..
If yer going by KJV.. its won one of the most mis translated and highly political versions in existance.. Unfortunatly its also the most popular in the USA...
All I have to say to 90% of ya'll is "IVE READ YER BOOK" which is more than most of you and yer preachers can say
2007-01-26 10:26:42 · answer #2 · answered by darchangel_3 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am glad Leviticus is 18. I certainly wouldn't marry or date him if he were only 17.
2007-01-26 10:25:31 · answer #3 · answered by castle h 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm bored with Leviticus excerpts. Christians have over analyzed it to the point of absurdity. The text needs to be understood in its entirety, not word by word, and taken in context with the time and struggle of the people wandering through pagan lands. The subject is as old as history.
2007-01-26 10:25:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Unless you happen to be a believer it's completely meaningless. Even if you do happen to be a believer it depends on the interpretation that you follow.
As for me, I find Dr. Seuss to be a far better guide and far more relevant than that book.
2007-01-26 11:23:17 · answer #5 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bullsh!t? You are saying that what God commands is Bullsh!t? Man, are you not grateful enough for what He has given you to follow His laws? What the Bible says still holds true today. Why would He give us the wonderful book, and change His mind later on?
2007-01-26 10:25:21 · answer #6 · answered by Snow 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Pure fiction. I don't condone marrying family but I don't need some book to give me a reason.
2007-01-26 10:43:22 · answer #7 · answered by Rageling 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't understand why you would equate homosexuality and marring you sister. Sound pretty homophobic to me.
2007-01-26 10:18:41 · answer #8 · answered by michael l 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Gosh! I cannot take Leviticus anymore!
2007-01-26 10:23:17 · answer #9 · answered by Kedar 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
I think that it's a load of (a four letter word that I'm not allowed to say on y/answers).
2007-01-26 10:22:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋