I,
The Bible says specific things to specific people in specific times. In the Bible universal truth is revealed. But you also have dispensational truth. To say that the bible is outdated is incorrect. Certain aspects in the bible are out of commission. To say the bible is immoral says you have a standard by which to judge. Who are you to judge the Bible? By what objective standard can you say these things. Please be specific.
The system put in place by God to govern Israel is not universal. That doesn't mean that God approves homosexuality outside of Isreal's economy. Israel's system had a purpose. It did involve very intense penalties for behavior that violated the covenant. Paul Copan in his book, "Is God a moral monster" deals with all the cultural norms and conditions to help us gain better perspective on why things were the way they were. If you are remotely sincere in understanding the difficulties in the Bible, then take a humble pill and read this book. His research is exhaustive.
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
Those are all difficult things to understand. I can't say I have a full comprehension on them. I can however aprehend a little. I can also acknowledge that it would be totally unfair for me to judge a culture 2,000-3,000 years ago, by cherry picking things out of context.
I doubt that my opinions on right and wrong are the same as God's. I doubt my thoughts on sin are equal to that of God. For example. If I said, "If someone is caught in the act of torturing babies to death for pleasure, that person should be stoned to death," would you be concerned enough to put in a thread? No. You might even conceed that the punishment fits the crime. I hope that you and I would both agree that this is abhorrent behavior. Now we could also agree that you and I don't see a married couple having sex during menstation as abhorrent. It isn't a problem for us. Therefore, the punishment, in our eyes doesn't fit the crime. However, God obviously had a reason for this law with Israel. We simply don't have the perspective. What if I told you that people should go to jail for not making their beds? Without context, you'd say, "that's immoral." But, what if I said I am a drill seargent in the Army, and that the people I'm referring to are inlisted soldiers who in acts of insubordination refuse to abide by these rules. You may still think the punishment is extreme, but it would definately change your reaction. Why? Context and perspective.
We know that cerimonial purity is a big deal in the OT. It is a foriegn concept to us, but so are many customs of the anceint world. Just as many of our customs would seem barbaric to them. A lot of people get their jollies off of watching MMA fighters bash each other's brains in. Regarding Israel's laws, God definately had a higher standard regarding marriage, sex outside of marriage, and cerimonial purity than the average person does today. Just because we have a much lower view of these things doesn't make harsh judgment immoral. Nazi Germany did not view the torture and killing of Jews as a problem. You and I might say, people who torture Jews should be put to death or imprisoned for life. Yet, the Nazi following your line of thinking would think we were immoral for having such a distorted perspected.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
This shows that you really aren't interested in context, but merely plucking verses out of context that you don't understand. First, Jesus' quote of this verse is actually quoting the OPT to talk about how things will be in the resurrection.
The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.
Where are you getting your talking points from? It doesn't say that it is acceptable for man to have sex with a prostitute. Polygamy was a reality of those times, but show me where the bible endorses polygamy. There is no prohibition on interracial marriage. In fact that is pure ignorance. I beg of you man, before you start condmening everything, take the time to get some real context. The OT makes provisions for ANY one in the HUMAN race to become a proselyte Jew. It had nothing to do with race. a proselyte would have the same priveleges of one born a Hebrew. In fact, there would have been little to distinquish a Jew from an Ammorite, Philistine, Jebusites, etc. In fact, physically they were likely the same. Except for one thing. A little alteration of the foreskin on the males.
The law of Moses made specific regulations regarding the admission into the Jewish church of such as were not born Israelites (Ex. 20:10; 23:12; 12:19, 48; Deut. 5:14; 16:11, 14, etc.). The Kenites, the Gibeonites, the Cherethites, and the Pelethites were thus admitted to the privileges of Israelites. Thus also we hear of individual proselytes who rose to positions of prominence in Israel, as of Doeg the Edomite, Uriah the Hittite, Araunah the Jebusite, Zelek the Ammonite, Ithmah and Ebedmelech the Ethiopians.
My point is that these laws are archaic and only apply to the laws of that time. Think of it this way: Homosexuality was not accepted as a way of life until the 19th century. Until then, we were under the assumption that all people were heterosexual, and homosexual sex was just a choice. The people in the Bible who claimed that men should not lay with another man wrote that under the assumption that "a straight man should not lay with a straight man." Just as we've learned that these other biblical laws are immoral and ridiculous, these archaic statements by human beings (not Jesus) are equally outdated.
The age of law doesn't make it valid or in-valid. That is chronological snobbery. If we examine homosexuality outside the context of the Bible, then we can still find plenty wrong with endorsing it as a normal lifestyle.
Again, by what standard is it ridiculous or immoral?
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
