Leviticus only applies to the Levites

[RobbyPants]

So, I'm used to various excuses as to why Christians don't have to follow the laws of the Old Testament. Some gems include Christ's death nullifying it (cuz reasons), Jesus saying Kosher eating laws no longer apply (what about mixed fabrics), or Jesus coming to fulfill the law (never mind that not one iota is supposed to change). Today, I heard a new excuse:

Leviticus only applies to the Levites.

If that's the case, wouldn't 1st and 2nd Corinthians only apply to Corinth and Galatians only apply to Galilee? I'm trying to get the guy to explain his stance in a way that's not special pleading, but he's currently saying that he's "not following me".

Has anyone else heard this excuse? Was it better explained?

[ThePinsir]

Of course Leviticus only applies to the Levites!

...unless you're talking about gays, then all scripture is "god breathed", and the Bible is timeless and applies to every generation.

It's just a cop-out, yo.

[BlackSwordsman]

Of course Leviticus only applies to the Levites!

...unless you're talking about gays, then all scripture is "god breathed", and the Bible is timeless and applies to every generation.

It's just a cop-out, yo.

Hey if all scripture is "gawd breathed"

He has some nasty breath.

[vorlon13]

Ya, that guy is going to have a huge problem explaining why the gay stuff in Leviticus still applies to Godless queers, but doesn't apply to anyone else, especially Christians that would find most of the other 600 rules inconvenient.

And how about an accolade for RobbyPants for at least trying, if not succeeding, in getting a Christian to explain cafeteria-ism !!!!


I have really wondered (and tried myself) to get somebody in the Christian orbit to explain the criteria used in picking and choosing what scriptures they will submit to and what scriptures they won't. Nobody wants to go on record for that one.

---

and obviously, we all know why there is cafeteria-ism, virtually any church that renounces cafeteria-ism is very rapidly going to have a building full of empty pews on Sunday . . .oops, Saturday!

But right is right, and wrong is wrong, and having an empty church on the sabbath isn't any kind of reason a Christian theologian can cite as justification for a religious practice, er, unpractice.

[LostLocke]

It's this sort of 'reasoning' and scripture passage quoting that generates fine examples of loopholes.

[KUSA]

All that crap was was written to people back then so it really doesn't apply to us anyway.

I was arguing about taxes with a xtian and the "give unto Ceasar" thing was thrown at me. My response was "how do I give something to a dead man"?

He didn't know what to say.

[Bibliofagus]

Yeah. And the bible only applies to biblical people.

[vorlon13]

At another forum a poster was having quite a headache with his denominations proposed ordination of openly gay clergy. I asked if it was possible that in the past there might have been a similar brouhaha about divorced and/or remarried clergy, especially in view of Christ specifically mentioning it unlike anything about the gays.

Dragging an answer out wasn't easy, but I did finally get an admission he finds the divorced and remarried clergy in his denomination 'troubling', but I pointed out, not to the extent he is going to make waves to make things right.

I completely lost him when I asked about going further back to forbidding linsey woolsey vestments . . .

[Minimalist]

Rule 1 when dealing with jesus freak morons, Robby. Never believe a word they say.

[Huggy Bear]

Leviticus only applies to the Levites.

To put it simply.
The book of Leviticus explains to the priesthood (Levites) how they were to preform their duties.