***Quote A. "When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?" No. 1. Scrafice isn't required anymore because Jesus was the ultimate sacrafice.***
The problem is that, according to Lev. 3:17, the burnt offerings were to be a perpetual statute (non-ending) throughout the generations. I think there is no Hebrew bible justification for making a transcendental claim for a human sacrifice. In fact, Ezekiel 43:18-27 is after the resurrection of the dead and it shows the daily sacrifices being restored at the Temple in Jerusalem. That's hardly a Christian belief that occurs after the Resurrection.
***3. "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12 KJV Basically a court will determine it not one person, no vigilanties allowed.***
So much for he who is without sin, huh?
***"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?" The actual text states this "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." First it is a servant not a slave, very different (a slave was called a bondservant).***
If you ever had a daughter, would you sell your daughter to another man?
***Second it says if a man does this he must not go out a a man servant would. The ideas of selling were different back then for servants, when one buys another mans daughter it is like getting a new permentant family member, but not a slave.***
Hmmm... sounds like there is nothing wrong with that. It's just another family member folks.
***Just look at Joshua and how great a man he was even though he was only a servent.***
All of this must be understood in the context of the time. Today Joshua would undergo a court marshall and probably receive the death penalty. Afterall, no one in the military is allowed to kill everyone in a village including woman, children, elderly, and even farm animals (Joshua 11:11, Joshua 6:21).
***Being a servant is much different back then and is deffinatly not a slave. It was a cultural thing, in which the man paid for the women service and kept the woman, but didn't own the woman or at lest treat them like slaves.***
Sort of like free prostitutes, huh?
***Obviously this is just the Hebrew and surronding cultures. You couldn't sell her in this matter even if you wanted to because one doesn't sell daughters, also it doesn't say a man can (or can't) just if he does.***
Yeah, it's good to be realistic. You wouldn't want to condemn actions that people are going to do anyway, huh?
***"I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. " This is simply a precautionary mesure set about by God to protect people from germs. Now that we have things that can kill the germs this law is no longer nesesary and there fore it doesn't need to be followed.***
No, these are laws (Lev.12:7). To violate these laws is to be unclean. If you are unclean then you are defiled (Lev.11:44). You are commanded to be holy and undefiled (Lev 11:45). But, I like the idea of having the power to interpret scripture for what we think the meaning is. This shows some underlying hope! :-)
***If we didn't have these germ killers this law would still be in effect. As well as any other law which was put into place by God for the protection of humans from Germs, after a plague is usually a bad thing.***
You need to convince Moses about this (Deut.30:11-20).
*** "Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?" Let me put it this way. Neither. The owning of slaves is no longer legal both biblicaly and politicly. Yet again these rules passed away when Christ died and rose again ending the ability to own another person since all are equal under Christ.***
That's not altogether true - as far as the slavery part goes. For example, Paul says to servants:
"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in sincerity of heart, as to Christ... and you, masters, do the things to them, giving up threatening..." Eph. 6:5
***"I have a neighbor 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?" Yet again Exodus 21:12. Also Chirst declared, Matthew 12:11-12, that the Sabbath was no longer important due to the fact that he said work can be done on the Sabbath. This effectivly kills any laws relating to working on the Sabbath, though it is still a good idea to have a day to spend time with the church and God.***
You see, and you fundamentalists wonder why us liberals reinterpret the scripture to keep up with modern views of the world. You see, Aaron, the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments (the ones that people want hung up on public school walls). To violate the Sabbath in the eyes of Moses was no different than stealing, adultery, or worse. In fact, it was called an everlasting covenant by Moses (Lev.24:8). Last time I checked, everlasting means eternity. Again, Ezekiel 46:3-4 after the resurrection of the dead shows that the Sabbath was to be kept. Other prophets also reiterated this belief in similar prophetic contexts.
***"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?" All sin is equal. You will go to hell for the telling a white lie as well as the killing of millions of people. This is also a reason not to judge people since no matter what they have done we are all sinners in God's eyes.***
Is that true? What about Mark 3:28-29 "all sins will be forgiven... except he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit". Or, the rich seem to have a problem (Luke 18:25). Or, scribes who receive a greater condemnation in an impending judgement (Luke 20:47). Or, the generation that didn't recognize Christ committing a more worse sin than the people who rejected Jonah (Luke 11:32).
***I hope this helps still working on the rest.***
The problem here is that there is no consistency. When it comes to the consistency of the Hebrew Bible with regards to interpreting Genesis, fundamentalists are quick to stay to the literal text and what the Hebrews probably believed. On the other hand, when it comes to the Ten Commandments and the entire law of Moses, fundamentalists are almost blind to the literal reading of the Hebrew Bible and with almost no concern at all for the text blatently contradict those verses as if there is nothing wrong at all in doing so. This is contrary to the Christian tradition.
Jesus is quoted as saying: "You have heard that it was said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I say to you not to resist an evil person. Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" (Matt 5:38-39). This reference mentioned is to Exodus 21:24, and it is spoken by God to Moses (Exodus 20:22). Notice that Jesus did not die when he directly contradicted Hebrew Scriptures. Of course, there's many, many instances of this same course taken by Jesus and early Christians in contradicting and reinterpreting the Hebrew Bible.
What all of this suggests is that fundamentalism is not only wrong about science, but it is wrong about religion. It is not in accordance with Christianity. In fact, I think if the people of today's fundamentalist tradition were living in the early Christian community that they would oppose many of the changes advocated by Christians (and there were many that were obeyed by Christians but later the Christians gave up - e.g., clean and unclean meats, meats sacrificed to idols, etc).
Warm regards, Harv