Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slightly You're right. I don't have a solid grasp of the covenants. Is Leviticus under the Abrahamic Covenant? I am currently under the impression that the Abrahamic Covenant was one only between God and Israel. Does this mean Israelites aren't allowed to mix fabrics and crops? Is it strongly discouraged?

I thought I'd better respond to this separately, because I'm just explaining here.

The Abrahamic covenant was simply a covenant between YHWH and Abraham. Abraham was promised a son/descendants, land and protection/blessing. Some scholars view this covenant as a promissory covenant rather than a conditional one i.e. that Abraham doesn't have to do anything to receive YHWH's promises: the sacrifices Abraham makes and the circumcision YHWH commands are seals of the covenant, rather than conditions of it. Others argue that the covenant is conditional, and that Abraham therefore has to meet the conditions (burnt offering/sacrifice and circumcision) in order for YHWH to meet his conditions (descendants, land, blessing). Of course, though, Abraham does meet his conditions and so we don't find out for sure whether God would have fulfilled his side if Abraham hadn't his.
Directly relevant chapters: Genesis 15; Genesis 17

The Mosaic covenant (named so because Moses was the Israelites "leader" at the time and he acted as mediator - the Israelies were too scared to meet YHWH themselves) made at Mt Sinai was slightly different: firstly in that it was between YHWH and the Israelites (and by cultural extension, the Israelites' descendants {who were of course Abraham's descendants}), and secondly in that most scholars agree that it was conditional - YHWH will meet his side only if The Israelites meet theirs. Some do argue, though, that YHWH's conditions are actually just an extension of the Israelites': YHWH promises that the Israelites will be "a special/treasured possession ... and a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" if they obey the Law. The dispute is whether or not being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation is something YHWH rewards, or something that the Israelites must achieve.

Anyhow, this is only slightly relevant to the topic at hand. The key point that I'm making here is that the Mosaic Law is a set of conditions that the Israelites had agreed to meet. Why should a practising Christian have to meet these conditions?

The Law outlined in Leviticus is considered by some to simply be an extension of the Mosaic covenant, and by others to be a separate "Levitical" covenant made with the Israelites after a specific Levite dynasty had been designated the priesthood. Indeed, before YHWH speaks all the commands in Leviticus, we see him specify that Moses is to tell The Israelites the relevant laws! In short, we do not obey the Law because it was never intended for any but the Israelites. We are not Israelites.
Directly relevant chapters: Exodus 19, Leviticus 1, and the whole Pentateuch/Torah really

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slightly Many Christians quote from Leviticus to label homosexuality an abomination, so clearly the existence of Leviticus (even though it's only a covenant between God and Israel) serves as a means for many Christians to use it as an objective morality that homosexuality is wrong.

With respect to homosexuality specifically, YHWH directly says that lying with a man as one does with a woman is abomination. Although the command not to do so is directed at the Israelites, YHWH still states clearly that it is an abomination. Not only this, but I believe Paul references homosexuality being sinful multiple times in the Epistles.

It's also worth remembering that a lot of Christians do still use the Law. Although we almost all agree that we are not under the Law, some fundamentalist groups (with whom I disagree quite strongly) will argue that God gave the commands He did to the Israelites because not following them is immoral. It's a plausible idea, but as of yet I can see no reason to believe that it is correct.


Also, some food for thought: it is often argued that the punishment for any sin is death. However, we are justified through faith in (and obedience to {according to some}) Christ: he has already taken the death penalty for us! So yes; adultery, homosexuality etc. are punishable by death, but Jesus has already taken that punishment for us.

I'm having some troubles with Leviticus 20:9-26.

That there are so many claimed objective moralities means that they can't all be objective. Either one is or none are and objective morality doesn't exist.

Quote:

If morality is actually subjective, then talking of things as being right and wrong without qualifying the context or the purpose for which they are right/wrong is entirely meaningless. "Right" and "wrong" have no objective meaning. If morality is subjective then, for example, when a person says that action x is wrong, they cannot be saying that it is morally wrong; they must be saying that is bad for purpose y. There is no objective standard to which we can "measure" immoral actions. Expressions of right and wrong boil down to questions of what is preferable for society or an individual. In this sense, is it not misleading to actually refer to morality as [subjective] morality? It would be more consistent to just claim that morals do not exist, I think.

If morality is subjective, then right and wrong differs from person to person, which is why it needs to be discussed and debated for modern society. To me, the difference is that if everyone has their own subjective morality, they realise it's subjective and only an opinion. If God's objective morality goes up against the morality an atheist/agnostic may express, the suggestion is that God's morality is the only correct one. No room for discussion.

I'm willing to accept that the Bible is not a list of written commandments. Yet it's still a fundamental basis for Christian morality and many passages are often quoted as God's word to suggest or enforce Christian morality on others. I've heard Leviticus quoted for its passage about homosexuality and adultery before as a means of condemning both.

Quote:

When I'm buying something at a shop and the cashier demands $x, do I take that to be a statement that the cashier considers giving him $x to be objectively moral? Of course not! So why do the same in the case of a deal between the Israelites and God? This is probably the worst non-sequitur that I come across frequently when discussing such issues, and I honestly just don't get why it's so hard to understand! God asking people a not to do b is not God saying that it is always wrong for anyone to do b!

So why do Christians base their morality on it and then claim that God says "B" is wrong, no exceptions?

Subjective morals change with society, while religious ones tend to be based on scripture thousands of years old. They serve our community better because they were decided by our community through secular reasoning.

Well, morality wouldn't exist as objective. And morality would only be objective if there came a time when morals could no longer evolve. And there would need to be something to suggest that morals had reached their peak and destination.

Thank you for the explanation.

Quote:

With respect to homosexuality specifically, YHWH directly says that lying with a man as one does with a woman is abomination. Although the command not to do so is directed at the Israelites, YHWH still states clearly that it is an abomination. Not only this, but I believe Paul references homosexuality being sinful multiple times in the Epistles.

Homosexuality is stated as an abomination, which is then used by Christians to justify hate/dislike/a rejection of the lifestyle and rights of said people. I'm aware of one passage in Corinthians, but from what I've read, there is much debate over the translation of that passage. Otherwise, I'd need specific passages.

Quote:

It's also worth remembering that a lot of Christians do still use the Law. Although we almost all agree that we are not under the Law, some fundamentalist groups (with whom I disagree quite strongly) will argue that God gave the commands He did to the Israelites because not following them is immoral. It's a plausible idea, but as of yet I can see no reason to believe that it is correct.

Well, many fundamentalist groups as well as your average Christian could (and many do) claim multiple things to be sinful based on commands that God gave to Israel on the base that they're immoral because God told people not to do it in the past.

Quote:

Also, some food for thought: it is often argued that the punishment for any sin is death. However, we are justified through faith in (and obedience to {according to some}) Christ: he has already taken the death penalty for us! So yes; adultery, homosexuality etc. are punishable by death, but Jesus has already taken that punishment for us.

Very admirable man.

Yea, I didn't notice any superiority. Unlike this odd display of moral high-horsing.

Well, congrats. I'm white. My dad was white, my mom was white. My kids will at least be half-white. Unless they come out gray. Though I think that's still considered half. Black stripes, white stripes.

Still, why should I have to ignore my color? White people are awesome. We have slaves? Sure, but so did the Africans and the Asians and the Middle-Easterners. Oh well, chalk that one down as the human instinct of being a dick.

I don't get the justification of why I should be ashamed of myself. 'Oh no! I accidentally checked the Caucasian Box during my character selection!' What the fuck am I supposed to do, reroll? I see race. I prefer Brazilians. I think Korean girls make the hottest Asians. I am white. I take advantage of people's perception of what that means. If I was Black, I'd do the same thing because I'm not going to ignore an obvious reality for a conjured ideal.

-Signed, a straight, white, middle-upper class, atheist.

Originally Posted by Nory The majority of muslims are perverts, uneducated, filthy, and are changing Islam into a religion which represents them, amateurs.

the way this thread was fucking written...

Let the religion speak for itself and not the followers.
Islam is very similar to Christianity. And just like Christianity, one follower or a hundred followers still won't reveal what the religion is about. Read, analyze, and study the Koran and then speak.

And btw, there's a such thing called interpretation. And like every piece of literature, there is always more than one way to interpret it.

My answer is YES.
I don't hate Islam, so we should tolerate islam

...

Also, as for you others, may I ask why your/society's moral norms are correct?