I need answers!

[raulbrey]

I can’t defend my faith. I have a friend who is atheist who knows the bible better than I do. How do I respond to his crazy attacks?

1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

I’m stumped.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

This might be true. Some people carry this verse too far. A man can look at a woman and find her attractive (including sexually attractive). That’s not lust - lust is when we actually imagine ourselves having sex with someone (we take that initial attraction and “run with it”). But I do believe that many men have included this in their confessions (and it applies to women as well, BTW).

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

Old covenant. Tell your Bible-citing friend to brush up on Romans and Hebrews.

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Ibid

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)

This is also the teaching of the Catholic Church (if you delete the adjective “super”). Many protestant faiths have forsaken this doctrine, but the Catholic Church has not.

Tell your friend he might be much more comfortable in the Catholic Church.

 

[ahs]

+1 on David Filmer’s post.

If you find you are not able to defend your Faith…it’s time you started studying Scripture and learning your Faith. We should always be “ready to give an account for the hope that is within” us. (That’s also from Scripture. )

At least you’re in a good spot to start learning!

 

[stewstew03]

I can’t defend my faith. I have a friend who is atheist who knows the bible better than I do. How do I respond to his crazy attacks?

1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

I’m stumped.

Tell him ‘yes’ we are all sinners - some of us are even “super sinners.” As Peter Kreeft likes to say, “the Church is not a museum for Saints, but a hospital for Sinners.”

Finally, read your bible and read your catechism (both of which are available online).

 

[JohnAlexander]

Your friend is a child. He has very childish interpretations of the Bible. Do not fear.

If you are troubled by his arguments you can find answers to ever single one of them. Any well catechized person will quickly recognize the flaws in his thinking. He is just taking advantage of your child like faith.

Being a child is not necessarily a bad thing. Jesus said

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

(Matthew 18:2-6 ESV)

Your so called friend seems to be the type who is trying to cause “one of these little ones” (i.e. you) to sin.

 

[LoyalViews]

This might be true. Some people carry this verse too far. A man can look at a woman and find her attractive (including sexually attractive). That’s not lust - lust is when we actually imagine ourselves having sex with someone (we take that initial attraction and “run with it”). But I do believe that many men have included this in their confessions (and it applies to women as well, BTW).

Old covenant. Tell your Bible-citing friend to brush up on Romans and Hebrews.

Ibid

This is also the teaching of the Catholic Church (if you delete the adjective “super”). Many protestant faiths have forsaken this doctrine, but the Catholic Church has not.

Tell your friend he might be much more comfortable in the Catholic Church.

Now that’s a dissection

 

[JRKH]

I can’t defend my faith. I have a friend who is atheist who knows the bible better than I do. How do I respond to his crazy attacks?

Haven’t read the other responses…but her is my 2cents…

1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

1. This assumes that every man, “looketh on a woman to lust after her”, something that your friend cannot possibly know because he cannot know the heart of every man.
   1.a) In fact I could go further and say that the statement is patently false because not every man can see - therefore a blind man is unable to commit this particular sin.
2. Even those men who have done it can only be accused of having committed adultery - not being an adulterer (present tense). Those who have done this and repented are no longer an adulterer.

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

Your friend does not know the bible as well as he thinks he does. The Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15 did away with these laws This what the council was about. Christians are under the new covenant are nor bound by the Old Laws, unless expressly bound by the Church which has the authority from Christ to
Bind and Loose" - “whatever” (Mt 18:15-18)

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

This is a ticklish situation and would depend on whether the person has received a decree of nullity.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

As mentioned above…obviously your friend does no know the bible as well as he thinks he does.
Mt 18:15-18 gives the Church authority to bind and loose “whatever”. Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem specifically sets aside much of the mosaic law for Christians.
So it appears that “Christians” aren’t the only ones who pick and choose from the bible…

Peace
James

 

[JohnAlexander]

1. Every man is an adulterer. Not necessarily true. Even if it were 100% true that in itself is not a problem as long as they repent. God will forgive any sin as long as we are truly sorry.
2. Unclean for two weeks. Your friend does not understand what the Jews understood unclean to mean. Jews back then did not always have a correct understanding of what uncleanliness meant.
3. What is the congregation of the Lord? What did they mean by illegitimate child? Primarily it referred to children of mixed race (as the Jews understood race) The idea was to prevent the Jews from being overrun by foreigners. It should be obvious that there were ways for people to become legitimized without having to wait ten generations.

Anyone can go to Church but in order to be part of the “congregation of the Lord” you must first become Catholic. Just get baptized and don’t sin. Baptism will legitimize an illegitimate child.

1. Orthodox Catholics agree with your friends point number 4. It is a great scandal.

"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

The Bible also does not say that you should just read the Bible and try and interpret it yourself. Only since the Protestant reformation have people been doing so. This leads to huge amounts of confusion. Anyone who takes one verse here and one verse there and tries to apply it universally is just ignorant. You have to understand the whole Bible if you want to apply any of it. The Church understands the Bible.

An example from the secular world.
If you earn $58,000 dollars you can look at a tax table and see that it says you have to pay $10,631 in taxes. It is the law. But there is also a law that say you can deduct certain things from your income. You have to look at all the laws to find out what you really owe. You might need a professional if your income and deductions are complex enough.

Religious beliefs and practices are much more complicated because the stakes are much greater. A good Priest is to your soul as a good tax accountant is to your wallet.

Your friend is obviously very interested in religion. For someone who thinks it is all nonsense he seems to have spent a lot of time on it. Why do you think that is?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I can’t defend my faith. I have a friend who is atheist who knows the bible better than I do. How do I respond to his crazy attacks?

1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

I’m stumped.

So your friend is giving you a bath in Scriptures.
And so, he thinks that he is better than you.
No problem that he may be better than you, why not?
His whole arguments lies in a false terrain: that Christians are perfect.
That is utterly wrong.
The only perfect Person is Jesus Christ. Period.
Now he can find millions of sins in Christians, so what is the fuss? He knows so well the Bible does not he know that Christians are sinners? So, why point sin in people we already know are sinners?
He reads the Bible but he does not know the Bible.

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[Rainaldo]

1.Every man is and adulterer.

Jesus died for every man. Even andtheists.

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters.

Jesus said “I will it: Be thou clean” (Mt. 8:3)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

"A bitched"? LOL. Sounds like someone has never entered into an actual copy of a Bible, much less the congregation of the Lord.

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

Well that’s the first sensible thing you’ve said all day.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

**Good point. "As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth ****not **his mouth", Isaiah 53:7. Sooo … unless you have more to add, this conversation is over big guy.

 

[bengland]

Regarding the divorce, that has already been addressed. He’s right about that unless the previous marriage had been annulled.

Regarding shellfish, mixed fibers, clean/unclean, and the rest of the Levitical code - It’s all about the covenants. That particular covenant was made with the Israelites, who agreed to be bound by it, when the Lord brought them out of Egypt.

Exo 24:7 Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, All that the LORD has said, we will heed and do.
Exo 24:8 Then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words of his.

and a word from Jeremiah

Jer 31:31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.

This essentially sums it up, but it would be helpful for you to study that on your own. There is a new covenant, as has been pointed out before. All of the things that Christians are supposed to be ignoring are laid out in the book of Acts. The suggestion that your friend brush up on Romans and Hebrews is a good one, as well as the rest of the NT. Many of the points he brought up are listed on atheist websites for the purpose of evangelizing Christians, oddly enough.

The NT does lay out some ground rules, but it’s also been pointed out that the Church has the power to bind and loose, within certain parameters.

Some verses that deal with Old Covenant restrictions in the New Testament -

Act 10:10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.
Act 10:11 And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter. Kill and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said: Far be it from me. For I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.

also:

Act 15:5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.
Act 15:6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
…
Act 15:27 So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth:
Act 15:28 ‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
Act 15:29 namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’
Act 15:30 And so they were sent on their journey. Upon their arrival in Antioch they called the assembly together and delivered the letter.
Act 15:31 When the people read it, they were delighted with the exhortation.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God,
Rom 3:20 since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;
Rom 3:23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.
Rom 3:24 They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,
Rom 3:26 through the forbearance of God–to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles,
Rom 3:30 for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law.

and finally from James

Jas 2:8 However, if you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well.
Jas 2:9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.
Jas 2:11 For he who said, You shall not commit adultery, also said, You shall not kill. Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak and so act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom.
Jas 2:13 For the judgment is merciless to one who has not shown mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

I hope that was helpful.

 

[cessnawag]

Ask your friend what the underlying issue is here. Does he have a pro lem with catholicism or religion in general? Ask how this all started. You could bend the arguments around to something your more comfortable with. Ask why he’s atheist. Ask if he is 100% sure and if so why does he spend so much time in the bible? To convice himself maybe? And as for the bible a person could make that say ANYTHING you want to hear. Sounds to me like you need to start asking him more questions. Me, you and your friend know there’s a god but hes trying very hard to disprove it.:dts: Get to therefore underlying isses and see wheree that takes you.

 

[raulbrey]

Thank you all very much. I’m working very hard at getting myself educated in my faith. I’m reading the a study bible using the CC. Any other suggestions?

 

[stewstew03]

Thank you all very much. I’m working very hard at getting myself educated in my faith. I’m reading the a study bible using the CC. Any other suggestions?

Yes - keep asking questions on CAF.

 

[jschutzm]

I can’t defend my faith. I have a friend who is atheist who knows the bible better than I do. How do I respond to his crazy attacks?

1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

I’m stumped.

Oh this is a VERY common tactic. I have my doubts that he even knows the bible and found these supposed ‘inconsistencies’ himself. Most of the time they are just restating what they’ve found on the internet.

The default premise is that if I can find something that I don’t understand OR that seems hypocritical - then your entire religion is false.

Notice that in almost all of these types of cases… they use the Old-English translation of the bible.
WHY? – I think for one it makes them feel more ‘holy’ to use all the thees and thous - but it also contains stronger language and words we don’t use today or who’s meaning has changed. This makes it easier for people like this to create their own interpretation.

ALSO notice that in all of his supposed ‘inconsistencies’ or ‘arguments’ he conveniently negates FORGIVENESS. He makes it seem like if you sin, you are a sinner and sinners go to hell, ergo EVERYONE is going to hell. – This is a false premise and the exact type of thing that Satan tries to do. To ‘convict us’ by our own actions, make us feel hopeless.

ALL of those verses were for the nation of Israel, for the Jews in a time before Christ, before the Messiah. They were designed to keep the Jewish people safe and pure until the coming of the Messiah.
The Old Testament is an illustration of how mankind needs boundaries and rules to keep on the safe and narrow path. Throughout the Old Testament, the Jews struggled with keeping their faith in God. They would follow him and things would be good. They would forsake him and their enemies would conquer them.
From the bible we see clearly that the Jews struggled with remaining faithful and not letting other cultures influence them.
The laws established were for THEM, not necessarily us. For THAT time, not necessarily our time.

Your friends issues stem from A) a literalist interpretation of the bible. B) a sola scriptura, aka Protestant bent on ‘bible alone’ C) He is ignoring the teaching authority of the magestrium which Catholics are supposed to follow when interpreting the bible. Protestants do not have that consistency…so they are more easily stumbled by this.

There are 2 covenants and somethings carry over… some do not.
I like the previous posters analogy of Tax law. We still keep the tax code intact, even though it has been amended.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please answer this question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

 

[James224]

I can’t defend my faith. I have a friend who is atheist who knows the bible better than I do. How do I respond to his crazy attacks?

1.Every man is and adulterer. “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

3.He also says all children born out of wedlock are doomed because they can not attend church. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”" (Deuteronomy 23:2)

4.He says a mutual friend is a super sinner because he is divorced and remarried and has accepts the Eucharist in his body. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”" (Luke 16:18)
He says all members of the Christian faith that have been divorced and/or remarried would be sinners and hypocrites.

And a ton more. I’ve tried different things but he always comes up with this,
"Christians are ignoring certain biblical teachings by not observing them. The Bible does not say you can pick and choose which teachings to follow.

I’m stumped.

Tell your bible-toting atheist about Matt 12:30 which says, “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.”

 

[Uzziah1]

I have long said that Bible literalism – a powerful force in Protestant AND CATHOLIC circles, including in this very website – feeds into the nasty skepticism of those who are motivated to dismiss Judeo-Christianity as nonsense because they don’t want to be bothered by Judeo-Christianity.

The Bible ISN’T “the book with all of the answers.” It ISN’T the case that “every jot and tittle is literally true.” It’s NOT a “perfect science book.” It’s NOT a “perfect history book.”

Instead, it is a complex, inspired book which takes YEARS to learn, where that which is, in fact, historically true is mixed in with fiction written to teach THEOLOGICAL truth in a symbolic fashion.

Re (1), Christ’s words make a PERFECTLY valid point. Every man IS an adulterer. Christ’s point was, “Cool the hypocrisy! Stop condemning others for their OBVIOUS sins while you ignore your SUBTLE, NOT-SO-OBVIOUS sins.”

The fact that your friend made this a significant point reflects his LACK of insight, rather than comprising a criticism of Christianity.

I’ll deal with other verses in separate posts, otherwise my post will get too wordy.

 

[Uzziah1]

2.He says my wife is unclean because I we have 3 daughters. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.”" (Leviticus 12:5)

I’m stumped.

The Old Testament rituals contain pictures of the New Testament salvation process. To understand Leviticus 12:5, you need to read it FIGURATIVELY, and IN CONTEXT. Using it in the literal fashion your friend does is to read it and use it improperly.

Note, in Leviticus 12:2-4, that when the woman experiences an isssue of “blood” in giving birth, if her offspring is “male,” the Man Type meaing “godly,” she is tame – the Hebrew term unfortunately translated “unclean” – for “7” days, and unavailable for sex “33” days, or “11” x “3” days. “7” means “perfect,” and “11” means “extremely much” and “3” means “the will of God.” The verses are a picture of the fact of how the coming of the blood can make humans “godly,” and that this is very much “the will of God.”

In Leviticus 12:5, when the woman experiences an issue of “blood” in giving birth, if the offspring is “female,” the Woman Type meaning “in need of salvation,” she is tame for “2” weeks, and unavailable for sex “66” days, or “11” x “6” days. “2” means “Church,” and “11” means “extremely much” and “6” means “evil.” The verse is a picture of the fact of how, if the coming of the blood leaves someone "in need of salvation, it would be a “very evil” event in the “Church.”

To restrict the meaning of these verses to their literal meaning with a pejorative understanding of the word “unclean” is to use Scripture in a most perverse fashion.

Literalist Bible readers here who restrict Scripture to plaintext meaning, only, just feed into the dark skepticism of your friend.