(no subject)

[chess]

After the comments to my last post, I feel I ought to clarify things.

I am *not* saying that the verse in Leviticus is irrelevant. I'm just saying it's far too easy for people to pick holes in it, so it's not the best starting point for a discussion. A discussion with another Christian, or someone who wants you to go into more depth about it, should include that verse, yes. But it shouldn't be your starting point - because it's so easy for them to point at something else in Leviticus and say 'well, you don't do this any more, surely it's the same thing?'. It's possible for them to do that with some of the stuff in Paul's letters (to fend off another criticism :-) ), but not as easy. Yes, you can probably explain why the things in Leviticus that don't need to be done any more don't, but it eats away at your argument.

I'm just fed up of seeing people dismiss the objections in Leviticus and not go on to deal with all the other places the Bible objects to it.

Comments

Homosexuality and Gay reviewed

[speccy67.livejournal.com]

Jesus came to fufill the law, not abolish it.

I had a reply done up for you. but instead I would recommend both of you read this for the truth

http://www.catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

Re: Homosexuality and Gay reviewed

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info... but I was mostly curious what chess has to say.