Alcohol

[Shea]

Something that Alexander III said in the Homosexuality thread piqued my curiosity, but was deleted for being off topic. I can’t remember his exact words, but it was something like “Your lack of drunkenness offends me.” Is that because I believe drunkenness is a sin? I will reiterate here, I will not “judge” someone if they get drunk from time to time, or all the time for that matter. I believe it’s a sin so I stay away from it. I can’t be expected to voluntarily engage in an activity with which I’m uncomfortable. But I’m not going to shove my opinions down your throat either. Your choices are quite simply your choices. But my religious beliefs are not the only reason that I make the choice not to get drunk.

Let’s be hypothetical, so that my religious views do not get in the way. Say I’m an atheist. I still won’t get drunk for 2 reasons.

1.Too much alcohol once nearly ripped my family apart. (If you’ve ever had to deal with having a loved one in ICU for 5 days because of alcohol poisoning, you’ll know what I mean.)

2.I simply don’t have any desire to get drunk. I enjoy being able to think clearly. I hate the feeling of anesthesia whenever I have to have surgery of some kind. I don’t like the feeling of not being able to control my own body and brain.

That said, I’m not a teetotaler. At least I haven’t been for the past year. I have celiac disease and I find, so far, that the only thing that helps with the digestive pain of accidental “glutenings” is a glass of wine. We were visiting our neighbors once, and I was given a second glass because he wanted to know what I thought of the taste. I learned then that one glass is my limit. I got a buzz and was in that loathsome feeling of post-anesthesia. I also had the same feeling when I was once prescribed too much codeine. I now tell my doctors that I'm too sensitive to it, so they list it as an allergy.

So to my questions: are these reasons for not getting drunk offensive? What are your opinions on the topic?

[Emil Miller]

Something that Alexander III said in the Homosexuality thread piqued my curiosity, but was deleted for being off topic. I can’t remember his exact words, but it was something like “Your lack of drunkenness offends me.” Is that because I believe drunkenness is a sin? I will reiterate here, I will not “judge” someone if they get drunk from time to time, or all the time for that matter. I believe it’s a sin so I stay away from it. I can’t be expected to voluntarily engage in an activity with which I’m uncomfortable. But I’m not going to shove my opinions down your throat either. Your choices are quite simply your choices. But my religious beliefs are not the only reason that I make the choice not to get drunk.

Let’s be hypothetical, so that my religious views do not get in the way. Say I’m an atheist. I still won’t get drunk for 2 reasons.

1.Too much alcohol once nearly ripped my family apart. (If you’ve ever had to deal with having a loved one in ICU for 5 days because of alcohol poisoning, you’ll know what I mean.)

2.I simply don’t have any desire to get drunk. I enjoy being able to think clearly. I hate the feeling of anesthesia whenever I have to have surgery of some kind. I don’t like the feeling of not being able to control my own body and brain.

That said, I’m not a teetotaler. At least I haven’t been for the past year. I have celiac disease and I find, so far, that the only thing that helps with the digestive pain of accidental “glutenings” is a glass of wine. We were visiting our neighbors once, and I was given a second glass because he wanted to know what I thought of the taste. I learned then that one glass is my limit. I got a buzz and was in that loathsome feeling of post-anesthesia. I also had the same feeling when I was once prescribed too much codeine. I now tell my doctors that I'm too sensitive to it, so they list it as an allergy.

So to my questions: are these reasons for not getting drunk offensive? What are your opinions on the topic?

First you should consider the age of anyone who makes such statements, whether they be about sex or drink, and take them with a large pinch of salt. Secondly, you don't have to make excuses for not liking alcohol or anything else for that matter.
As someone who drinks more than is good for him, I never get drunk because my stomach will soon tell me when I have reached my limit but but even if I were to become inebriated, there is nothing clever about it as it's something that almost anybody can do and requires no ability except that of being able to pay. If you are able to enjoy life with resort to alcohol, then more power to your elbow despite jokey comments like ' Never trust a man who doesn't drink' etc.

[cacian]

Alcohol is one thing and a comment on how one should deal with drinking is a personal thing.
To drink or not to drink is not the point.
How to handle a drink or not is the very point.

[Delta40]

I don't have an issue with your reasons and personally think they're very good ones. I seldom drink, having come from a family of alcoholics and knowing that if I do drink, I'm liable to get smashed if I'm in the wrong environment so I make sure I don't put myself in places where it can happen. I don't like being out of control either and as someone with epilepsy, I'm guaranteed a seizure the next day. I also hate men hitting on me when they're drunk. My father only ever told me he loved me when he was drunk so men and alcohol giving me attention are really offensive.

[JuniperWoolf]

It was "your lack of drunkenness offends my pagan gods." Homosexuality is inexplicably a sin in your religion, correct? Do you not detect the similarity there or relevance to the conversation?

[Shea]

It was "your lack of drunkenness offends my pagan gods." Homosexuality is inexplicably a sin in your religion, correct? Do you not detect the similarity there or relevance to the conversation?

Hmm. Maybe it's because I'm currently suffering from a glutening, but I don't remember the pagan gods reference, and I really think I would have. So no, I didn't detect the relevence to the conversation.

As for the "inexplicable" sin reference, I'm not going to bother with that. I did explain it before, but as you have a habit of only skimming my posts, well...

I simply thought it was odd that someone would be offended by sobriety, and wanted to take religion out of the equation. Hence the new topic.

[JuniperWoolf]

As for the "inexplicable" sin reference, I'm not going to bother with that. I did explain it before, but as you have a habit of only skimming my posts, well...

Actually you didn't explain anything or answer any questions. Really, not one. Instead you said:


I really want to respond to everything here, but I'm very busy today.

And then you didn't post for a few weeks, so really you didn't bother with anything that anyone said to begin with. Which hey, whatever, duck out if you want to, but don't say that you explained something when you didn't. Lying is a sin.

Anywho, you see the relevance of the sentence now I take it?

[Shea]

Actually you didn't explain anything or answer any questions. Really, not one.

My words from the other thread...


yes, it does say [it's a sin] in the Bible. It also talks against drunkeness, rage, discord, hatred, and envy in the same context. (I really don't like things taken out of context) I have trouble with rage and envy sometimes. It's a struggle, and I fail sometimes. But I'm always trying to fix it in my own character.


The passage I'm referring to here is Galatians 5:19-21. And you know what? I correct myself. Homosexuality is not specifically listed here. So, ironically, my "in context" comment was not accurate. I don't know what version I was looking at, but I was also dealing with a bad headache at the time. I must have been confusing the list with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. This one does specifically mention it and both passages address the same thing, sins that will keep someone out of heaven. My apologies for not being accurate. I am after all a fallible human.

Is this ^ "explicable" enough for you?


And then you didn't post for a few weeks, so really you didn't bother with anything that anyone said to begin with. Which hey, whatever, duck out if you want to, but don't say that you explained something when you didn't. Lying is a sin.

I'm sorry if I have a life. If I've ever said anything untrue, it wasn't intentional. Since you are falsely accusing me of a sin, may I remind you, not to bear false witness, Romans 13:8-10


Anywho, you see the relevance of the sentence now I take it?

Still no. I began this thread with the idea that Alex himself was offended by my sobriety. I wanted to take religion out of it to see where that idea went. If his pagan gods are offended by it, it's still irrelevant because I never said I was offended by homosexuals. My whole point was that I didn't want to be called a bigot. But not many seemed to get that...

[Charles Darnay]

It was a joke (or at least satirical jab) - must those spin wildly out of control? Is sarcasm dead?

[Shea]

It was a joke (or at least satirical jab) - must those spin wildly out of control? Is sarcasm dead?

If he truly said that it offends his pagan gods, then yeah, now that you point it out I can definitely see the satire. Juniper's comments seemed to have hidden the wit.:rolleyes5:

[Babyguile]

I like that feeling just before drunkeness, where you feel slightly light-headed and carefree. When I drink, which is very rare because I don't like the tast/culture, I drink small portions of wine with high alcoholic percentage in order to reach that feeling with the littlest damage on the liver and wallet.

[Charles Darnay]

I'm not a fan of the taste of most alcoholics myself - their breath tends to smell. But wine is delicious.

Also, I recently tried skinos for the first time: delicious!

[Babyguile]

Yes yes

[Shea]

I don't like the taste of the alcohol either. Sometimes, if I have a sweet tooth, I'll get some Irish cream (after double-checking that it's gluten-free) and brew a cup of decaf. But I have to really be in the mood for something sweet, which isn't very often. As for wine, the drier the better, in my opinion, so long as it's not bitter. :) It's worth the alcohol taste to make the pain in my belly lessen a bit. Same thing with vinegar water for the nausea. :p

[tonywalt]

The passage I'm referring to here is Galatians 5:19-21. And you know what? I correct myself. Homosexuality is not specifically listed here. So, ironically, my "in context" comment was not accurate. I don't know what version I was looking at, but I was also dealing with a bad headache at the time. I must have been confusing the list with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. This one does specifically mention it and both passages address the same thing, sins that will keep someone out of heaven. My apologies for not being accurate. I am after all a fallible human.

Was not the teachings of the old testatment replaced after the death of Jesus on the Cross? (I would Hope so!) As I endured Evangelical Christianity Sunday morning, Sunday nite, Wednesday nite, all sort of sweaty camps and bible school centers run by an Evangelical Church I noticed from an early age the stange selective cherry picking of old testatment teaching - while others are junked.

Here is one of many Corkers in the Bible, which is Littered with guidelines on slavery and the commerce and trade of people. This is wholly relevant because it is found in the same old testatment (where Galatians is found) that you refer.

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."
—Exodus 21 7-11

And here are some more delights:

In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.


Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."

I can quote you some almost equally vile and misogynistic verses in the New Testatment as well.

So, which books, chapters, and verses in the old testament do you ignore? Which do you embrace? How does this peculiar selective science work?

[Shea]

Was not the teachings of the old testatment replaced after the death of Jesus on the Cross? (I would Hope so!) As I endured Evangelical Christianity Sunday morning, Sunday nite, Wednesday nite, all sort of sweaty camps and bible school centers run by an Evangelical Church I noticed from an early age the stange selective cherry picking of old testatment teaching - while others are junked.

Here is one of many Corkers in the Bible, which is Littered with guidelines on slavery and the commerce and trade of people. This is wholly relevant because it is found in the same old testatment (where Galatians is found) that you refer.

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."
—Exodus 21 7-11

And here are some more delights:

In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.


Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."

I can quote you some almost equally vile and misogynistic verses in the New Testatment as well.

So, which books, chapters, and verses in the old testament do you ignore? Which do you embrace? How does this peculiar selective science work?

Umm, Tony, I'm confused. Are you saying that Galatians is a book of the Old Testament?

[tonywalt]

Umm, Tony, I'm confused. Are you saying that Galatians is a book of the Old Testament?

Shea, my bad!-its new testatment.

But the question still stands, as many evangelical churches teached and still teach in various forms or fashions from the old testatment. I certainly was taught heavily (albeit selectively) from it.

I would say the brand of christianity found in the US today has a strong element of old testatment in it combined with the Calvinism.

[Shea]

Shea, my bad!-its new testatment.

But the question still stands, as many evangelical churches teached and still teach in various forms or fashions from the old testatment. I certainly was taught heavily (albeit selectively) from it.

I would say the brand of christianity found in the US today has a strong element of old testatment in it combined with the Calvinism.

The congregation that I meet with teaches that the Old Testament is a "tutor." Galatians Ch 3 explains this. We study the OT as a way to understand the nature of God, i.e. that He is a loving God but commands obedience. But no, we don't follow any commands in the OT unless they have been restated in the NT. We're pretty "strict" on this. We don't even use instruments in our worship service because the NT doesn't say to (even though the OT does). We sing a cappela because of Colossians 3:16.

[Shea]

Oh, and no worries about your mistake. I make them too. :D

[tonywalt]

The congregation that I meet with teaches that the Old Testament is a "tutor." Galatians Ch 3 explains this. We study the OT as a way to understand the nature of God, i.e. that He is a loving God but commands obedience. But no, we don't follow any commands in the OT unless they have been restated in the NT. We're pretty "strict" on this. We don't even use instruments in our worship service because the NT doesn't say to (even though the OT does). We sing a cappela because of Colossians 3:16.

So the nature of God as described in the Old Testatment was kind enough to promote:

Slavery
Vile treatment of women
Selling of Children as servants (even providing the price in Shekels-inflation adjusted I presume)
Concubines to your hearts(wrong body part) delight.
Child sacrifice

Well, I am glad God changed his/her mind on these issues as the bible was written through devine inspiration and is not the writing of Man(I cannot be corrected there by most churches). So, we cannot say 'that's they way it was done' but rather face the reality that God thought it was all pretty nifty!

Yea, I get you go to a progressive church, and that only supports the reality that religon is designed and changes to suit the purposes and practicalities of society at any given time - Surely you see this-please tell me.

[Shea]

So the nature of God as described in the Old Testatment was kind enough to promote:

Slavery
Vile treatment of women
Selling of Children as servants (even providing the price in Shekels-inflation adjusted I presume)
Concubines to your hearts(wrong body part) delight.
Child sacrifice

Well, I am glad God changed his/her mind on these issues as the bible was written through devine inspiration and is not the writing of Man(I cannot be corrected there by most churches). So, we cannot say 'that's they way it was done' but rather face the reality that God thought it was all pretty nifty!

Yea, I get you go to a progressive church, and that only supports the reality that religon is designed and changes to suit the purposes and practicalities of society at any given time - Surely you see this-please tell me.

I'm not a profound Bible scholar, and after having grown up Catholic (where we barely studied it), I'm still learning. It may help if you read this written by a friend of mine, http://www.bible.ca/b-Why-OT-NT.htm . I specifically want to point out...

"To return to the old law, that is, to bind parts of the old law on Christians is to say that Christ died for nothing (Study Galatians 2:21). It is to be severed from Christ and fall from grace (Galatians 5:4), it is to return to sin and death (Romans 8:2), it is to sink back into perdition (Hebrews 10:39).

The following are some comparisons between the Old and the New: Death versus Life (II Corinthians,3:6-8). Bondage versus Freedom (Galatians 5:1). The Old was to Jews only (Mal.4:4) while the New is to all men (Matt.28:18-20). Temporal versus Eternal (Galatians 3:19 and Matthew 24:35). Carnal versus Spiritual (Hebrews 9:10 and John 4:23-24). Continued Guilt versus Pardon (Romans 8:2 and Hebrews 9:12-14)."

It's interesting that you said, "you go to a progressive church, and that only supports the reality that religon is designed and changes to suit the purposes and practicalities of society at any given time " We actually teach against this. We strive to behave and worship the way the 1st century christians did.

[tonywalt]

I'm not a profound Bible scholar, and after having grown up Catholic (where we barely studied it), I'm still learning. It may help if you read this written by a friend of mine, http://www.bible.ca/b-Why-OT-NT.htm . I specifically want to point out...

"To return to the old law, that is, to bind parts of the old law on Christians is to say that Christ died for nothing (Study Galatians 2:21). It is to be severed from Christ and fall from grace (Galatians 5:4), it is to return to sin and death (Romans 8:2), it is to sink back into perdition (Hebrews 10:39).

The following are some comparisons between the Old and the New: Death versus Life (II Corinthians,3:6-8). Bondage versus Freedom (Galatians 5:1). The Old was to Jews only (Mal.4:4) while the New is to all men (Matt.28:18-20). Temporal versus Eternal (Galatians 3:19 and Matthew 24:35). Carnal versus Spiritual (Hebrews 9:10 and John 4:23-24). Continued Guilt versus Pardon (Romans 8:2 and Hebrews 9:12-14)."

It's interesting that you said, "you go to a progressive church, and that only supports the reality that religon is designed and changes to suit the purposes and practicalities of society at any given time " We actually teach against this. We strive to behave and worship the way the 1st century christians did.

It's hardly Ironic that once the Christians gained dominance (the early Popes were vicious and egomaniacal) they seamlessly went on to persecution and intolerence.

Annoying petty things like burning people alive, slaughtering tens of thousands of Irish Catholics-the list goes on and on. Also, the Puritans went to America for Freedom and then turned around and were savagely intolerant of other religons - particularly the Indians, who they slowly and surely smushed out the picture.

Sorry, the idea that God changes his mind into Old and New - makes no sense. No sense at all. But, I am thrilled that he changed his mind on the whole sacrificing, slavery, and selling children for Shekels.

The issue many have here with you is that you do not answer the questions, but just point out websites or talk about a peripheral topic.

Question: Why did god suddenly change his mind from guiding the abhorrant practices of human sacrifice, slavery, and selling of children for Shekels? Why would he have condoned such actions to begin with?

[Shea]

The issue many have here with you is that you do not answer the questions, but just point out websites or talk about a peripheral topic.

Question: Why did god suddenly change his mind from guiding the abhorrant practices of human sacrifice, slavery, and selling of children for Shekels? Why would he have condoned such actions to begin with?

Okay fair enough. But like I said, I'm not a profound Bible scholar. It would take me more time than I have right now to provide you the most accurate information. That's why I'd hoped that the link I provided might clarify this a bit. Off the top of my head, I believe a lot of what you are refering to is how people who were not God's "chosen" were dealt with. But I'd like to research that. I have no idea what you are referring to with the human sacrifice thing. Can you be more specific please?


It's hardly Ironic that once the Christians gained dominance (the early Popes were vicious and egomaniacal) they seamlessly went on to persecution and intolerence.

Annoying petty things like burning people alive, slaughtering tens of thousands of Irish Catholics-the list goes on and on. Also, the Puritans went to America for Freedom and then turned around and were savagely intolerant of other religons - particularly the Indians, who they slowly and surely smushed out the picture.


These are not behaviors that are supported by the New Testament. BTW, there is no Biblical support for the papacy. Paul spent pages and pages warning the new christians about false teachers. The first verse that comes to my mind is 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Anyway, I've spent too much time here today. I'm sorry, I really need to get back to my kids.

[tonywalt]

[QUOTE=Shea;1162355]Okay fair enough. But like I said, I'm not a profound Bible scholar. It would take me more time than I have right now to provide you the most accurate information. That's why I'd hoped that the link I provided might clarify this a bit. Off the top of my head, I believe a lot of what you are refering to is how people who were not God's "chosen" were dealt with. But I'd like to research that. I have no idea what you are referring to with the human sacrifice thing. Can you be more specific please?



The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. Really?! This is disturbing for any God to do this sort of thing.

Even though he didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone's prison-*****. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love.


The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.



Even more peculiar is God's obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an *** with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice. These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers. What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom? A kidnapper! If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.

I should add that the whole animal sacrifice thing is equally disturbing.


Why did God suddenly change tact? Did he/she say "Eh, forget about doing those things, we are going to change it up a bit."

Another disturbing thing about evangelical Christians is, and it has to be said, is how little they do know. This is why they get pounded so much.


These are not behaviors that are supported by the New Testament. BTW, there is no Biblical support for the papacy. Paul spent pages and pages warning the new christians about false teachers. The first verse that comes to my mind is 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

You are not answering the question - why did God change his mind about the grotesque teaching of his, as reflected in the divinely inspired writing of the old testatament.

Does it not bother you that God chucked out all his guidelines(old testament) and came up with some newer cooler guidelines(new testament)?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Anyway, I've spent too much time here today. I'm sorry, I really need to get back to my kids.

You have kids?!?!?!?!?!? I don't think you've mentioned that.

[Shea]

You have kids?!?!?!?!?!? I don't think you've mentioned that.

:lol: Yep, 2 wonderful, high action boys ages 2 and 4. :D I'm a stay-at-home mom till they start school.

I'm working on my response Tony, but I have a feeling that all this will be deleted for being off- topic anyway. :p If that happens I'll pm you.


[QUOTE]

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice.

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. Really?! This is disturbing for any God to do this sort of thing.

Even though he didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone's prison-*****. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love.


The first seven chapters of Leviticus have extensive rules regarding animal and food sacrifices. These offerings are supposed to be burnt so that God can smell them. If you read through these it seems clear to me that the priests were getting their followers to make a big feast for them every week. The priests were very particular about what kind of food to bring and how to prepare it.

Okay, since the OT is our tutor think of it this way. The bit with Abraham is an example of how we are to appreciate the sacrifice that God made when Christ died for us. Can you see the parallels? Abraham was willing sacrifice his beloved son because he had such strong faith. We are supposed to have the same kind of faith. Hebrews 11:17-19 says, “17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.” It was test of his faith. Pure and simple.

As far as animal sacrifice goes, its purpose was to make atonement for sins, Leviticus 1:4 and if done improperly, God was not pleased, see Leviticus 10:1-2. He also required piety with the sacrifice, 1 Samuel 15:22, Psalms 40:6, 50: 8-14, 51:16-17, Proverbs 21:3 and 17. God didn’t need animals burned for him. He wanted his people to be obedient and to make an active appreciation for how much they loved Him. If you’re a farmer and you give God the absolute best of your cattle and sheep (let’s be honest, most people would say, “but I could get tons of money for selling them!”), and do it because you love Him, that is what was pleasing. Even if you gave the best, but did it with a grudging heart, God was not pleased with it. Honestly, if someone were to give you a car, wouldn’t it be nicer if they gave it because they wanted to and not because you had to give them a guilt trip for it?

Just like the best of the livestock, Jesus was the best of mankind. He was also God’s only son, John 3:16 (notice again the parallel to Abraham). He was the sacrifice for us. The example of the proper Israelite attitude is what the Bible teaches we should emulate when we worship God.


Even more peculiar is God's obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me." Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an *** with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that "consecrate" means a burning sacrifice. These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers. What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom? A kidnapper! If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.

Okay, with all due respect, this is a little bit of a convoluted way of coming to this conclusion. Consecrate doesn’t always mean sacrifice and human sacrifice is not what the context is implying.

Dictionary.com defines consecrate as:
1. to make or declare sacred; set apart or dedicate to the service of a deity: to consecrate a new church building.
2. to make (something) an object of honor or veneration; hallow: a custom consecrated by time.
3. to devote or dedicate to some purpose: a life consecrated to science.
4. to admit or ordain to a sacred office, especially to the episcopate

Furthermore, Exodus 13:15 states, “When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’” When looking at the words “consecrate” and “redeem” in regards to the firstborn sons, I’m inclined to think that the firstborns were probably the ones who became the priests. This was the “price” of being freed from Egypt; their lives were consecrated to God.

Also, Hosea 13:2 shows how God was angry about human sacrifices.

But in all honesty, having grown up Catholic, I’m not all that familiar with these topics. I like to run them by the preacher where I attend and see if he might be able to help.


Does it not bother you that God chucked out all his guidelines(old testament) and came up with some newer cooler guidelines(new testament)?

He didn’t "chuck out" anything. Here’s a passage from the link I gave you:

“The Old Testament promised a New Testament (Jer. 31:31). The prophet Isaiah spoke of the days to come when the new law would go forth from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2-4). In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul stated that the law of Moses had been given until the seed, which is Christ Jesus, had come (study Galatians 3:19-27).”

So now to the issue with slavery and selling childeren. You quoted:


"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."
—Exodus 21 7-11

Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver."


There is a lot of history involved here, and this truly is why it has taken so long to form my response. Honestly, I’m still working on it and like the issue of "sacrificing the firstborn sons," I’d like to run it by my preacher for help. But what I’ve come up with so far, is that you should look at it through the eyes of the Israelite people at the time. Especially here in America, when someone thinks of slavery, they think of abducted African people being whipped to work plantations while the wealthy white man sat back and enjoyed the fruits of their slave’s labors. From what I can tell so far, this Biblical account is more like indentured servants. If you read Leviticus 25:35-55, the only people who were really allowed to be “slaves” were the people from the surrounding nations (and these people were not God fearing). If an Israelite sold themselves or daughters (which looks to me like more of an arranged marriage) into slavery, it was usually because they could not pay a debt and they were to be eventually released anyway. I have also not found any evidence that the “masters” did no work.

I’m posting this now even though I’m not completely finished, because I’m waiting to hear back from my preacher. I guess he was busy today, so I left a message (it is, after all, Saturday :) ). But I’ll post more references if you like after I talk to him or even one of the other elders if he's not available. I’m really lousy at book, chapter, and verse. Even if you don't need anymore quotes, I wouldn't mind having a study with someone who has more knowledge on the subject anyway :D

Oh, and please let me know if I've not addressed something. I'm still suffering from a glutening which always makes me feel like I've got cotton stuffed in my head. (In other words, I'm forgetful and have a difficult time focusing :) )

[Shea]

I’m posting this now even though I’m not completely finished, because I’m waiting to hear back from my preacher. I guess he was busy today, so I left a message (it is, after all, Saturday :) ). But I’ll post more references if you like after I talk to him or even one of the other elders if he's not available. I’m really lousy at book, chapter, and verse. Even if you don't need anymore quotes, I wouldn't mind having a study with someone who has more knowledge on the subject anyway :D

Hey Tony, just wanted to let you know that my preacher did get back to me. However, my 4 year old accidentally "re-glutened" me (just when I was getting over the last bout :cryin: ). I'll try to get back to this when I feel better. Sorry.