Sorry for being away for so long... Tying up the loose ends
first
Aiyah... the prawn issue again..... well let's look at the
context of Leviticus:
Leviticus
1:1The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of
Meeting. He said, 2"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When
any of you brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering
an animal from either the herd or the flock.
bla bla bla bla bla bla
U see, Moses only have influence on israelites.
All the other tribes r probably killed and
became slaves when moses is on the journey to the promised land.
(those who believe r in judaism r "israelites", and not necessary
must be the citizens of Israel) In fact when Jesus address the
people on the mountian, when he deliver the speech they r all, in
fact, Israelites as well.
Do not think that I have come to
abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them
but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these
commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least
in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these
commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I
tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter
the kingdom of heaven
And from tis passage, he already clearly stated tat people who
follow the old laws r to be liked by god while those who do not
follow the law r least liked by him. As said before, if u felt tat
the old laws r for only israelites, then all the teachings from
jesus r for israelites only as well since the whole religion starts
basically from judaism.
unless I am an Israelite, I'd say the entire book of Leviticus
is not really meant for me, doctrinally
Then why do u think it is included in the bible 
Like I say I really don't care what his comments are. I like him
less than John Paul. He also condemned Harry Potter
However u do agree with him on the point of homosexual isn't it
?
You assume that all bigamous relation are problematic. Might not
be so.
My argument is NOT on discrimation. I have specifically stated that
I am against discrimination.
My argument is about translation and understanding of the
Bible.
If bigamous relation r not problematic, I have no problems with
it. The whole point about bigamy is really started by u. If u felt
tat it is only about translation and understanding of the bible,
then why do u bring tis into the picture ?
Well I have already stated who Leviticus is meant for.... the
Israelites and their leaders. There are so many verses in this book
stating clearly who should be reading it. So can we now give the
prawn issue a rest. I just had three crayfish last night....
IMO, it is meant for people of the lord, as seen in DT 27
Then Moses and the priests, who
are Levites, said to all Israel, "Be silent, O Israel, and listen!
You have now become the people of the LORD your
God.
And it sound completely reasonable since these laws apply for u if
u r a believer of god and if u r not the people of god then u don't
believe. If u think the laws r for israelites only, then why r
these laws part of the bible ?
The Church decides on how the bible should be interpreted and
taught. The lay people don't.
I thought the bible is meant to be simple and everyone can
understand them if they read it. Otherwise wat is the point of the
bible when it is hard to understand, no one can interprete it and
it is up to the imagination of a group of people to interprete
them
The Church compiled the books in the bible. So it doesn't make
sense if someone says that the Christians twist the words. The
bible teaching belongs to them in the first place.
Lets put it tis way. They r already one sided to just proclaim
the good side of the bible while defending against the words tat
speak badly about it.