T O P

everything is a sin

everything is a sin

hon_shu

Ultraorthodox jews: yes


DTPVH

Some of those are just flat out wrong. Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday, and cutting hair was only forbidden for people under a Nazarite oath, not everyone.


WrathsEntropy

Why bother with facts when you can nitpick to back up your narrative? Facts make people accountable and no one wants that. And since people get butthurt so easy, I am unapologetically sarcastic.


yunflyding

That’s old Testament. Most fr the priests of Leviticus.we live under the new covenant


Look-Away-From-Me

According to the old testament. And old testament rules were cast away when Jesus was crucified, because he took on the sins of the world and we no longer had a need for the rituals of the old testament. If you're gonna argue with evangelical, use actual biblical knowledge because this is literally flat out wrong. Source: was raised evangelical


SlothfulWrath

See there's a small teensy weensy problem with what you just said. I know some people who were raised to believe that the old testament still applied. And I was raised to believe that the intent rather than the strict following of the rules was the important bit. This means that there are atleast three schools of thought about this. And people get really angry at the slightest assumption that they may be wrong about their religion.


Rare-Technology-4773

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” So clearly evangelicals think that the abolishion of the law counts as its fulfillment (which is obviously wrong because Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but also) the old testament has no mention of this, so it very clearly isn't fulfilling the laws to not listen to them.


TumblrBotDetectBot

[300 days ago](https://redd.it/ifiqnc) -- 2611 points [411 days ago](https://redd.it/gdjslj) -- 6873 points I also found these posts with the same title, but I'm not 100% sure if they match: [372 days ago](https://redd.it/h850xs) (4517 points) (Image data was not identical) Hi! I'm a friendly bot currently being developed by /u/wallefan01 to detect not-so-friendly bots on r/tumblr! Each link above is to a post with not only the same image, but the same title as well. Often, these are not human reposters sharing a funny, but rather bot accounts reposting old posts that got a lot of upvovtes in the hopes of farming karma. OP can reply with "I'm not a bot" to delete this comment. If you don't see a reply from OP, please downvote this post. Don't give repost farmers your karma! Once again, for emphasis: **this bot does NOT detect reposts!** Reposts are perfectly fine, especially on a subreddit like r/tumblr. It's good that more people get to see old content. The problem arises when people write bots that create hundreds of accounts at a time and repost old posts with the exact same title, with the ultimate goal of selling the accounts once they have enough karma. Check OP's profile. The account is likely at most a few months old, less than 10,000 karma, and has more posts in its post history than comments, if it has any comments at all. Some of the bots are really obvious: commenting "Love the use of blur here! Did you make this in Photoshop?" on a post that is a screenshot of some text. These karma-farming scripts are becoming an increasingly large problem, not just here but across Reddit. For more about what I do, why I do it, and why you should care, check out this nice pair of write-ups by NightmareChameleon: https://redd.it/klig6u - https://redd.it/l68fnu I'm still undergoing active development as we speak, so check back soon for new features! Reply to this comment or contact /u/wallefan01 if you have any questions or concerns.


batnacks

What’s up with the fabric thing?


lloyd_the_llama

In the Old Testament, priests wore robes made of wool and linen. The law was basically telling common people not to impersonate priests.


TheDustOfMen

I think the only one who wasn't allowed to tear his clothes was the high priest. The Bible is full of people who tear their clothes for a variety of reasons. And, depending on which translation you use, tattoos as such aren't forbidden, it's specifically making skin carvings for the dead (to mourn them for instance). And working on Sundays? You sure about that? You sure it doesn't refer to, you know, working on the Shabbat which is definitely not on a Sunday?


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheDustOfMen

Cuz if you criticise something you might as well do it right.


[deleted]

It's sunday, and I'm working...


crqzybot

Uh oh, im sorry pal. See ya in hell, i guess.


Augusta_Ada_King

It's saturday which has the prohibition against working, so you're good.


[deleted]

And for the man shall not love ,an, that could have been a misstranslation and have meant man shall not love boy (as in pedophiles)


lloyd_the_llama

It was also likely addressing the practice of male prostitution, which was common in non-Israelite cultures at the time. Many of the seemingly ridiculous Old Testament laws were meant to separate the Israelites from the other groups living near them.


Augusta_Ada_King

I don't know why you think it's addressing male prostitution? Like, where did you get that from?


lloyd_the_llama

Having sex with temple prostitutes was a common form of worship in non-Israelite cultures. The Israelites weren’t supposed to worship (their) God in that way.


Augusta_Ada_King

I'm aware, but what makes you think the verse (which is smack in the middle of a bunch of other verses discussing sexual immorality e.g. incest) is talking about temple prostitution?


lloyd_the_llama

I’m not saying it’s necessarily talking about that. It’s just possible given the historical context. The laws given to the Israelites were meant to distinguish them from surrounding groups of people, so many of the laws address practices of those groups. The other examples of sexual immorality were also sort of common practices.


TheGrimlockReaper

Which, unfortunately, was fairly common when the old testament was written.


ToBeOrNotToBe3900

I've seen a lot of people say that. I'm not saying it's not true but where did this information come from? It would make sense, though, if it did as it was common for the Greeks to do those types of relationships.


[deleted]

I think that and the fact that it's been translated a lot has to do with it, you are bound to make a misstranslation wi th that many


amazing9999

No, it’s not. You see this every time this thing gets reposted. The Hebrew is extremely clear. The term Ish in Hebrew means man in every single usage


Rare-Technology-4773

The verse doesn't use איש, it uses זכר. Now I'm like 99% certain זכר isn't used to refer to a little boy but get your facts right y'know.


amazing9999

Vayikra 20:13 says ish


Rare-Technology-4773

Read again. It says "ish asher yishkav et zachar". If zachar means young boy that could still be talking about pedastry


Rare-Technology-4773

Where are you getting that from? The word it uses is זכר which means male, not child. E.g. by the creation of humanity it says, "זכר ונקה ברא אתם" which means "male and female did he create them." I can't think off the top of my head of any instance where זכר refers to a young boy specifically.


Royal-Ninja

This argument beaks down a bit when you know that a lot of people, specifically jews and muslims, still follow a lot of those rules you listed out.


Schmomas

But it kinda breaks back up when you remember that the post is about the Bible.


Royal-Ninja

The holy texts of Judaism and Islam contain large portions of the Christian Bible's Old Testament, including Leviticus, where most of those 'archaic' rules come from.


Schmomas

Yes, and yet how often do you see Jewish or Muslim people use the bible as an excuse towards being anti gay? For me, so far, it is never.


Rare-Technology-4773

I'm happy that it's never for you, for someone who lives in an orthodox Jewish community it is most certainly _not_ never.