How can the following two biblical interpretations be reconciled?

Question

As we all know, a controversial moral topic is whether or not gay marriages are permitted. The main anti-gay marriage argument I hear is that the Bible says "A man is not to lie with a man the way he would with a woman." (I don't know the exact chapter of the Bible this quote is from.)

However, if you look at Leviticus 25:44-46, the Bible says: " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property..."

This passage essentially says that slavery is acceptable, so here's my question: Is it logical for some people to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to justify being against gay marriage, yet avoid using a literal interpretation for the passage on slavery?

I am not saying that slavery is in any way moral.
If you want to see my quote in context, here's a link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2025&version=31

A bunch of you are arguing that slavery was different when the Bible was written, claiming that slaves worked voluntarily. However, the passage clearly talks about buying someone and owning him/her as property. In Leviticus 25:46, it says that slaves can be willed to children. How can a "slave" choose to work for someone if the owner gets to choose who he sells the slave to?

According to the next sentence of the Bible, Hebrews could not be kept as slaves. A lot of you seem to be suggesting that Hebrews were the slaves.

Some of you mention that the slavery passage is from the Old Testament, but the Homosexuality one is also from the OT.

Answer 1

It is easy to reconcile them - just think of one as a circle and the other a square.

Answer 2

No, of course it's not "logical." The anti-gay passages from the Bible have been cherry-picked to justify the irrational bigotry of certain "Christian" hypocrites. Period.

Primoa's argument against this is that slaves back then wanted to be slaves. Wow. Touche.

As for the "Rev. Albert Einstein" (insert eyeroll) - for starters, the passage you're referring to is one of the notorious "forged" passages, NOT written by the actual man Paul, although Paul himself was a morbid sexual degenerate as evidenced by his authentic writings. Secondly, there's much dispute over the word translated as "homosexual" - it may not refer to "congenital" homosexuals at all, but to incidents in which a man rapes another man. Thirdly, the first two points hardly matter, because there's no reason for ANY grown adult here in the 21st century to put stock in what the Bible has to say about anything.

Answer 3

Well it's easy to reconcile. Though the Bible never explicitly says it*, one can imagine that when Jesus died that his sacrifice repealed all of the Law that God laid out.

EXCEPT for those few that believers would like to keep in order to justify discrimination or post in courthouses.

Oh, and I'm sure that we'll hear the Christians become moral relativists again when they attempt to justify this. "Things were different then", and I guess that different situations can turn slavery into an acceptable thing.

Primoa and Lady G - you are both out of your respective minds. Sure, they wanted to be slaves. That's why the Bible says you can beat them hard enough to kill them, but not so hard that it takes less than three days to die. Probably they had to beat their slaves to stop them from doing so damn much work for free.

---
*And in fact Jesus says clearly that every letter of The Law is for all time.

Answer 4

Christians live under the New Testament not the Old. When you speak of "The Bible" you are referring to the Christian Bible in which the Old Covenant was fulfilled and a new one established. So all talk of what is and is not permitted (for a Christian) must be based on New Testament writings.

EDIT:

"Some of you mention that the slavery passage is from the Old Testament, but the Homosexuality one is also from the OT."

Yes, but there are NT verses condemning homosexuality as well.

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "
Rom 1:27

I am beginning to see a common misconception on this board that the only scrptures that condemn homosexuality are to be found in the OT. That is simply not true.

Answer 5

great question!!!

Clearly one cannot reconcile these passages and arrive with a clear moral barometer.

However in different dispensations God allows different things.

Divorce is one of those things, Jesus said God allowed this because of the hardness of the their hearts (Hebrews) but in the new testament forbid it with the exception of adultery and even then if you could forgive , you are encouraged to.
With regards to slavery the Hebrews had to abide by strict laws
and treat the slaves with fairness.

Our view of slaves is skewed by Americans treatment of slaves , who in fact where considered not to be human. There by allowing gross dehumanizing .

the Hebrew slaves where not treated with such indignities and enjoyed a life of luxury compared to Americas slaves.

Answer 6

Slavery back in biblical days was not all bad. Slave was a term used for anyone who worked for a boss, whether it be in the fields or helping around the house. For the most part, they were well cared for. Very often when their purchase price was worked off, they wanted to stay with the people they worked for. Technically they were given freedom, but chose to stay.

Answer 7

Keep reading the old testement. Slavery, the way it was then is in no way in humane. If done the way it was in those times, I would say it would be acceptable today (don't judge me until you study it). The only reason not to have slavery today, or indentured servitude is probably a better term, is that it is socially un acceptable.

Answer 8

Slavery was a different type of slavery back then.

If you were a slave.....you WANTED to be a slave to your master. You must understand the context and the times for which it was written before you go off on a tangent.

Homosexuality will ALWAYS be wrong.....no matter how you or anyone else tries to dress it up (no pun intended)

Answer 9

I think you have proved everyone's point by showing once again how the Bible can be contradicting, inaccurate, and not to be taken literal.

Answer 10

that is the OLD testament. Times were different back then. Those are OLD laws. The Bible says that too.