I was discussing political views with a Quaker the other day. They had some objections to Christianity. For those unaware of what Quakers think and where they come from, I recommend these:

Cindy Mullins stated:

Please explain verses Leviticus 21:17-24. and tell me why any ‘ugly’ or ‘disabled’ person should feel comfortable in a church where God has banned them from?

Just to look at the verse:

17 “Tell Aaron: None of your descendants throughout your generations who has a physical defect is to come near to present the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect is to come near: no man who is blind, lame, facially disfigured, or deformed; 19 no man who has a broken foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has an eye defect, a festering rash, scabs, or a crushed testicle. 21 No descendant of the priest Aaron who has a defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect and is not to come near to present the food of his God. 22 He may eat the food of his God from what is especially holy as well as from what is holy. 23 But because he has a defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar. He is not to desecrate my holy places, for I am the Lord who sets them apart.” 24 Moses said this to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites.

One should notice that this isn’t in reference to the church. This is about the descendants of Aaron and that those with these characteristics were not allowed to function as Priests. They could still be saved, but they would be like those from the other tribes of Israel.

(4 Kings 2:23-24) God sent Bears to MURDER CHILDREN. Wow. Justify that one. When a group of LITTLE KIDS made fun of one of God’s followers Eliseus bald head he sent bears to KILL them. God had the bear maul 42 little kids to death about laughing at a man’s bald head. You want that to be your God – you can have him.

This was probably a teenage group that were intending to do harm to the prophet. God has the right to take human lives and violent teens are no exception to that principle. Since Democrats don’t value the lives of children. It is a bit strange you’re bothered by this.

Atheists love to quote this passage. One complication is the age-range denoted by ne’arim qetanim, which is ambiguous. cf. http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/grace-journal/03-2_12.pdf

For instance, Solomon uses that descriptor to characterize himself in 1 Kgs 3:7. Perhaps he’s waxing hyperbolic since he certainly wasn’t a little child when he became king. He was probably a young adult. So there’s no presumption that 2 Kgs 2:23-25 refers to preadolescent boys. They act like juvenile delinquents. The size of the group suggests street gang. In context they seem to be young thugs. But we can’t be too precise one way or the other.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/07/thugs-and-she-bears.html

Remember, that Quakers operate on personal revelation. They have no objective revelation to show that God has revealed to them the correct morality. Two hundred years ago, Quakers agreed that homosexuality was an abomination. Today, most of them have a ‘revelation’ that it’s perfectly fine and practice it themselves. Why trust the Quaker ‘god’? Why suppose their moral views are anything less than self-delusion?

1. My Political Party respects ALL religions. Jews, for example, don’t believe Christ is the son of God but that is okay and Jews won’t be condemned for it. Your Religion is one that is my way or no way. Not a kind God. 2. Numbers 5: 11-31 in the most used bible version NIV DOES support abortion – at the alter by a priest using ‘bitter water’ – here’s the passage: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-31&version=NIV. Thousands of Catholic authorities will argue life begins at first breath to counter your evangelical one and Catholic religion been around longer than yours 3. Exactly Slavery WAS NOT immoral in the bible which in and of itself is HORRIBLE and sexual use of women slaves was common – aka RAPE – so NO it is NOT better than our prison system and slaves are not prisoners they are innocent human beings BORN into slavery not like criminals condemned in court – don’t get it twisted. That is a fact. 4. sons / daughters of adam / eve would have to have INCEST by God’s design if you believe in YOUR GOD. So don’t tell me he condemns it. He condemned incest with Lot because Lot was Tricked but God in YOUR bible does NOT condemn the offspring of Adam/Eve for their incest . . . and said be fruitful and multiply instead. Cain’s wife was also a close relative and God did NOT condemn that either. Know your bible if you want to preach it

i) The Democratic party respects some religions that agree with its insane and childish ideas. Or those that fall in the intersectional hierarchy.

ii) As for the abortion claims:

https://spirited-tech.com/2022/06/08/abortion-in-the-bible/

iii) There was nothing inherently wrong with OT slavery and it is an improvement to modern theories of justice:

http://spirited-tech.com/2017/06/05/the-bible-and-slavery/

https://spirited-tech.com/2021/01/12/the-bible-and-slavery-answering-atheists/

https://spirited-tech.com/2020/05/06/the-ot-and-slavery/

iv) Incest occurs but that happens in everyone’s view. In evolution, we’re the byproducts of incest because human populations started smaller.

Incest between parent and offspring is always condemned but back then it wouldn’t have been wrong for incest on the horizontal level.

Incest takes two different forms:

(i) Vertical incest, between one generation and another (e.g. mother/son; mother-in-law/son-in-law; father/daughter; father-in-law/daughter-in-law; grandparent/grandchild; aunt/nephew).

(ii) Horizontal incest (brother/sister; brother-in-law/sister-in-law).

Vertical incest is always condemned. Horizontal incest is generally condemned, but allowed in the case of Levirate marriage. Horizontal incest was implicitly permitted, even essential, for the first few generations of the human race.

Horizontal incest was licit according to the nomadic and less regulated lifestyle of the patriarchs, but illicit under the Mosaic law—except for Levirate marriage, which is a customary carryover from the patriarchal period.

The implication is that vertical incest is intrinsically wrong, as involving an unnatural transgression of the social hierarchy.

Horizontal incest is not intrinsically wrong, but it is imprudent, and thus is ordinarily forbidden, except under special circumstances.

Because Israel was a tribal society, a certain amount of inbreeding was inevitable, so it came down to prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

And because Israel was a tribal society, the land belongs to the clan. Hence, inbreeding was a way of keeping property within the family.

This also accounts for the custom of the kinsman-redeemer (e.g., Book of Ruth).

Assuming that Scripture took tribalism into account on the subject of horizontal incest, the same allowance cannot be made in the case of cultures where tribalism has broken down.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html

You have no right to condemn incest because in your view there is no reason to prefer your moral account to those that support incest. Moral norms are illusions of various people praying to a ‘higher power’ that gives contradictory revelations. At least when it was no longer necessary, it was condemned in the Bible. What happened to ‘love is love’?

The BIBLE specifically tells its followers to RAPE young girls they capture in war as slaves Numbers 31:17 4. And you dismiss biblical incest as ‘it just occurs’ so you then agree the Bible promotes incest.

I don’t have all the time in the world to go over every arbitrary and uninformed claim about the Bible that has been dealt with ten times over. These aren’t sex slaves, they are war brides.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/04/midianite-virgins.html