Leviticus apologetics: need help

[fish90]

So I am reading an article for philosophy class and the author presents a reason for not interpreting Holy Books for moral truth. The author cites Leviticus' prohibition of homosexuality and then points out what else the Book allows (probably a red herring, eh?).

For instance, Leviticus 25:44 to 46

44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.
45
You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/levit...eviticus25.htm

How do you defend such biblical statements such as this among others like Leviticus 21:9?

Thank you in advance,
fish90

[rdscheirer]

See history for what happened- Sodom and Gommorah? - gone

Confederate Federation of America- gone

S+G were destroyed for their abominations-?homosexuality-how do we know?

The confederate states were finally converted - "Love your neighbor as yourself"

[Catholic Dude]

Originally Posted by fish90

So I am reading an article for philosophy class and the author presents a reason for not interpreting Holy Books for moral truth. The author cites Leviticus' prohibition of homosexuality and then points out what else the Book allows (probably a red herring, eh?).

For instance, Leviticus 25:44 to 46

44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.
45
You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/levit...eviticus25.htm

How do you defend such biblical statements such as this among others like Leviticus 21:9?

Thank you in advance,
fish90

It is a red herring. What that is advocating is a form of second-class citizenship, not such a thing as you can mistreat a person you rule over at will. Slavery in itself is not necessarily evil, only certain forms of it.
The teacher needs to rephrase the question: Could God command man to sin? No. Thus the teacher's objection is a red herring. His only 'alternative' is to deny the inspiration of Scripture. With the "teachers" own "logic" NOTHING in Leviticus (which cites all sorts of moral teachings) can be denied, which is laughably absurd because he's now advocating all the moral teachings of Leviticus never were supposed to be intended as such!

[fish90]

How do such statements not make the Old Testament lose its value? Are these statements defended?

[NHInsider]

It's not clear what your situation/question is. Are you supposed to be developing a written response to the position in the article, are you being challenged to defend the Scripture verses, or are you reading this for a class and finding your own faith/interpretation of Scripture shaken?

[fish90]

Originally Posted by NHInsider

It's not clear what your situation/question is. Are you supposed to be developing a written response to the position in the article, are you being challenged to defend the Scripture verses, or are you reading this for a class and finding your own faith/interpretation of Scripture shaken?

I am reading this for a class and I had trouble being able to understand it.

[Reuben J]

Originally Posted by fish90

So I am reading an article for philosophy class and the author presents a reason for not interpreting Holy Books for moral truth. The author cites Leviticus' prohibition of homosexuality and then points out what else the Book allows (probably a red herring, eh?).

For instance, Leviticus 25:44 to 46

44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.
45
You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/levit...eviticus25.htm

How do you defend such biblical statements such as this among others like Leviticus 21:9?

Thank you in advance,
fish90

Leviticus is about the laws of the Old Covenant which Christians are not bound by except for spiritual laws.

The above verses are self-explained - be fair towards your slaves. This sounds offensive today because slavery is frowned upon and virtually non-existence. It was not so in ancient days or even during the era of the NT. Slavery was fact of life which is no less than paid workers today. Those families that could not afford livelihood by themselves would rather be slaves to rich masters who would look after their welfare in return for their service. Biblical teaching made it clear that they are to be treated fairly according to the accepted norm of the day. Later, St. Paul even suggested that a slave should be set free after completing a number of years doing servitude work to the master and to be considered as a brother. (Philemon).

Lev 21:19 is now considered as sin between man and God. God should be the judge, not human beings. None could throw the first stone.

God bless.

[fish90]

Originally Posted by Reuben J

Lev 21:19 is now considered as sin between man and God. God should be the judge, not human beings. None could throw the first stone.

God bless.

For sake of argument, why is the interpretation of Lev. 21:9 not taken as God allowing sin and permitting evil?

Why would the possible context of the the Jewish people being nomadic somehow allow such practices? Is the philosophy of cultural relativism truth?

Thanks,
fish90

[aragonjohn1]

What? Please explain.