Do you support gay marriages?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Rainbow always was the symbol of how beautiful our world is. And I don't associate it to LGBT propaganda. LGBT propaganda is not only flag and colors, it's in the mass culture mostly.

Well, nowadays rainbow is associated only with LGBT movement and it's not like it's going to change anytime soon. You need to forget about the rainbow as the symbol of beauty. Now it's the symbol of ugliness.

University of Hawaii alumni will of course disagree.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

literally two sentences later she says to not wear clothing woven of two different materials. the verse after that, she tacitly condones slavery. another few verses later, she forbids people from cutting their sideburns and getting tattoos.

Material woven of two different materials was not particularly practical for the time. Quite a few of the Levitical regulations are anti-luxury and that's one of them. Strictly speaking the prohibitions against cutting hair and scarring the body are in the context of doing so as a means of mourning. As for slavery in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, you're dealing with a society that had no coinage or money in the form we have it today.  As a result, labor contracts tended to be lengthy, the equivalent of what today we'd consider slavery or peonage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As for slavery in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, you're dealing with a society that had no coinage or money in the form we have it today.  As a result, labor contracts tended to be lengthy, the equivalent of what today we'd consider slavery or peonage.

They were not 'labour contracts'.

Leviticus states that slaves may be purchased, treated as property, their offspring treated as property and passed to your children as a 'permanent inheritance'

That is slavery.

On the matter of Hebrew slaves, the male slave may go free after seven, but his wife and children (if gained during that time) cannot go free. That is a forced choice. And no loving man would choose it, therefore he becomes his masters property forever and is branded.

That is slavery.

A female slave that does not 'please' the man that bought her can be bought back again.

That is sex slavery.

And that's before we get to Jesus.

Don't bullsh-t with the 'it's not really slavery' argument It is.

That wasn't my argument, as should be obvious since I said that it essentially was what we'd call slavery.  My argument was that ancient economics weren't subtle enough to meet the demand for labor without it.  Indeed, they were unsubtle enough that Ancient Hebrew used the same word for "slave" and "indentured servant".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Strictly speaking the prohibitions against cutting hair and scarring the body are in the context of doing so as a means of mourning.

you could make that argument but it's not explicitly said

Depends on how good the translation is, Verses 27 and 28 are linked by a conjunction in the original Hebrew, so just as scarring the body in not to be done for the dead, I think it clear that the haircutting provisions are similarly restricted. Combined with the prohibitions in Leviticus 21, the clear intent is do not alter the body as a means of respect for either the dead or for God.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Basically, the Bible is for the Church to interpret, not a gaggle of random posters on an internet forum. Debate closed.

Uh, the Bible is for God's children, not a group of robed elitists in a dark room.

And with your logic we might as well shut down the whole forum.

Of course the Bible is for God's children... and being children, they lack the ability to interpret the Bible correctly by themselves.

So presumably I am just God's infant and the elites are his adult children. Even as a Catholic, that hierarchical metaphor is disturbing.

Well I'm not really a fan of the whole 'God's children' concept; I'm not the son of God, Jesus was the one and only son of God. My basic point is that individuals who are not priests and have no formal training or education in scripture have no right or competence in interpreting the Bible, in the same way as a person who has no medical training has no right or competence to make pronouncements upon medical issues.

I would question whether priests have enough life experience to interpret the breadth of human existence and therefore make pronouncement's on it.

But who does? No one does, yet someone must do so to in order for society to function. In my view it may as well be priests.

I agree, but then I'm a Protestant, so I hold to the priesthood of all believers.