Moral Judgments

Thanks for clearing this up. I was wondering if you could explain the criteria for deciding which parts of Leviticus we should still follow and which parts we shouldn't? As per your example should we only follow those things that agree with modern science or is there a broader set of criteria?

You could but that would open a whole can of worms as to what is "common sense". In the defense of those who believe in the OT but are not building arks God was specifically talking to Noah here. But what if someone tries to use Leviticus to establish the "laws of the land"? Shouldn't we first determine which parts to use and which parts to throw away? I think that if we are going to be using Leviticus we need to firmly establish the criteria for determining what is useful. I really thing that common sense isn't going to be sufficient because it is clear that some things which are obvious to me are not obvious to others and vice versa.

Tal,I understand that it is not up to us to fulfill the law but according to your quote from Matthew shouldn't we still be following it? It doesn't appear that everything has been accomplished yet.

quote:

---

From post #49: Example of a levitical law you would like to see passed?

---

I have to admit there isn't one I want passed but I have heard people wanting to use Leviticus as the basis of legislation such as DOMA and Bush's "marriage is between one man and one woman" amendment. I was just trying to determine how one can pick one piece of Leviticus to legislate and not all of Leviticus. And if we are to use common sense then shouldn't we just do away with Leviticus entirely and just work from a "what is reasonable/fair" point of view?

Not that this has anything to do with morality but I would like to raise your paltry 2,350,000 total aids cases that you were able to muster by 15,000,000 women and children (under 15) with AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa. (That was out of 23,000,000 cases.) My math isn't very strong; can you calculate for me the percentage of women and children who have AIDS as opposed to men?Data | Be in the KNOWI don’t remember who started the harm = immoral argument but you seemed to go along with it. If these numbers show that there is no more harm in being homosexual than heterosexual does that make both equally moral/immoral?edited to correct a spelling errorThis message has been edited by bob_gray, 01-15-2005 22:30 AM