Homosexuality is not a Christian sin.

[Saigio]

That's right. I said it. Homosexuality is not a sin.

People claim that God made "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" which is great. If you want to be a moron. First of all, Adam and Eve where not the only humans. In Genisis, Cain was concerned that others would find and kill him. If his parents where the only humans, who would he be concerned about. And why did Cain build a city?

Genesis 6:1-2
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Where did these people come from if only Adam and Eve existed in the begining.


On to Leviticus.
Some use Leviticus as a claim of homosexual sin.
Leviticus also decrees that crossbreeding animals, combinig clothing materials, and cycling crops to be sinful.
The list is a long one.
But is Leviticus even Christian law? Well, to be honest, no.
Christ fulfilled those laws and others. The Ten Commandments where kept.


Sodom and Gomorrah.
Well lets see. First of all, sodomy is any sex other then male/female missionary style.
Raise your hand if thats the only type of sex you ever have. Ever.
Thought so.
And the "sin of Sodom"? That was the people wanting to rape the angels God sent to Lot, and inhospitality. The verse in Genesis (18:20-21) mentions an outcry to God. People consenting to sex would not be crying out to God (in the context given). People being raped would though.


Romans 1:24-27
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

It states lust. It also states that men left their natural use of women and vice versa. Homosexuality was viewed, rightly so, as natural in ancient Rome. People would not be changing. And the context hints towards orgies, something unnatural.


1 Corinthians 6:12-18 mentions "sexual immorality", which is, by the context, prostitution.


1 John 4:7-12,
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Looks like God condones love.

Well, that seems to do it.

[jimnyc]

I personally couldn't care less if people think it's a sin or not. It's vile, disgusting, deviant and reprehensible. Luckily for me, the overwhelming majority of the nation agrees with me and are slowly closing the doors on them.

Sick people don't need to be "accepted", they need treatment.

[darin]

That's right. I said it. Homosexuality is not a sin.

People claim that God made "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" which is great. If you want to be a moron. First of all, Adam and Eve where not the only humans. In Genisis, Cain was concerned that others would find and kill him. If his parents where the only humans, who would he be concerned about. And why did Cain build a city?

Genesis 6:1-2
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Where did these people come from if only Adam and Eve existed in the begining.



What does that have to do with homosexuality? If you wanna know more about Cain and Abel and Adam and Eve - don't put those questions in a thread about homosexuality.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion (though not many agree) God may-well have created OTHER folk not mentioned in the bible. Some folk think the bible implies incestuous activities.



On to Leviticus.
Some use Leviticus as a claim of homosexual sin.
Leviticus also decrees that crossbreeding animals, combinig clothing materials, and cycling crops to be sinful.
The list is a long one.
But is Leviticus even Christian law? Well, to be honest, no.
Christ fulfilled those laws and others. The Ten Commandments where kept.

Your claims about Leviticus are extremely out of context.


Sodom and Gomorrah.
Well lets see. First of all, sodomy is any sex other then male/female missionary style.
Raise your hand if thats the only type of sex you ever have. Ever.
Thought so.
And the "sin of Sodom"? That was the people wanting to rape the angels God sent to Lot, and inhospitality. The verse in Genesis (18:20-21) mentions an outcry to God. People consenting to sex would not be crying out to God (in the context given). People being raped would though.

But you got it backwards. What they did in Sodom - what it was KNOW for was 'sexual perversions'. Through time people labeled most other sex practices (other than man-on-top-of woman) sodomy. Doesn't mean they are right.

The sin which destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah were NOT that one instance you brought up - where the men of Sodom wanted to rape the guests of Lot; the cities were destroyed for their un-repentant wickedness.


Romans 1:24-27
Homosexuality was viewed, rightly so, as natural in ancient Rome. People would not be changing. And the context hints towards orgies, something unnatural.


:bs: Got a link to support that? Regardless, it was NOT viewed - NEVER viewed - as 'natural' by GOD. ;)



1 Corinthians 6:12-18 mentions "sexual immorality", which is, by the context, prostitution.


No, it does not.


1 John 4:7-12,
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Looks like God condones love.

Well, that seems to do it.

Homosexuality is NOT love. Having sexual relations with another man would be a display that I hate that man. Homosexual acts are self-serving and vile.

[Saigio]

Care to prove your claims, dmp?
As for the supposedly off topic comment about Cain, it's proof that Adam and Eve where not the first people, making the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" claim worthless.
Funny how uneducated people can be when it comes to sexuality.
Sexuality is who you are attracted to.

[darin]

Care to prove your claims, dmp?
As for the supposedly off topic comment about Cain, it's proof that Adam and Eve where not the first people, making the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" claim worthless.
Funny how uneducated people can be when it comes to sexuality.
Sexuality is who you are attracted to.


Prove what claims? I wasn't claiming ANYTHING. I was explaining things to you.

The "Adam and Steve" thing is an ILLUSTRATION. It shows God Created us, Male and Female, for a REASON. It shows God's plan for our sexuality. You bringing it up in the way you did does NOTHING to further your claims that God LOVES homosexuality.

Ironic you bring up education, yet end your sentence with a preposition.

In your world "Sexuality = to whom you are attracted". Fine. I got that. Enjoy that. But what if you are attracted to Money? Are you then a bank-robber? Sometimes I get attracted to a cheesecake, am I a cake-fucker? See the fallacy in your statement?

[manu1959]

if the church says it is a sin it is a sin....

more to the point .... homosexuality is biologically pointless

[Saigio]

Prove what claims? I wasn't claiming ANYTHING. I was explaining things to you.

The "Adam and Steve" thing is an ILLUSTRATION. It shows God Created us, Male and Female, for a REASON. It shows God's plan for our sexuality. You bringing it up in the way you did does NOTHING to further your claims that God LOVES homosexuality.

Ironic you bring up education, yet end your sentence with a preposition.

In your world "Sexuality = to whom you are attracted". Fine. I got that. Enjoy that. But what if you are attracted to Money? Are you then a bank-robber? Sometimes I get attracted to a cheesecake, am I a cake-fucker? See the fallacy in your statement?

I see a lack of logic in yours, and a lack of understanding.
I figured you'd understand that attraction was in referance to who you loved, not what you liked.
Looks like I was sadly mistaken.
And it's funny how I never claimed to be perfect, yet you attack me for making a mistake.
It's funny how vehemently against homosexuality you are.
Doe's it hurt you in anyway?
Doe's it hurt anyone?

[Saigio]

if the church says it is a sin it is a sin....

more to the point .... homosexuality is biologically pointless

So if the church said that not jumping off a bridge is a sin, would you leap of the nearest bridge?

Over-reproducing is biologically pointless too.

[jimnyc]

Doe's it hurt anyone?

It hurts society as a whole, IMO, and shouldn't be tolerated. My reasons are briefly stated above, but are expanded upon in many a thread on this board.

Again, they need treatment, not acceptance.

[darin]

I see a lack of logic in yours, and a lack of understanding.
I figured you'd understand that attraction was in referance to who you loved, not what you liked.
Looks like I was sadly mistaken.
And it's funny how I never claimed to be perfect, yet you attack me for making a mistake.
It's funny how vehemently against homosexuality you are.
Doe's it hurt you in anyway?
Doe's it hurt anyone?

Look skippy - if you want to debate, thats fine...but you are toeing a very thin line with your attitude. Do you REALLY want debate, or do you want to insult people who don't agree with you?

[manu1959]

So if the church said that not jumping off a bridge is a sin, would you leap of the nearest bridge?

Over-reproducing is biologically pointless too.

nope i don't follow the teachings of a church....

actually over reproducing ensures survival of the fittest and the species....

and gay sex ensures.......................

[Saigio]

Look skippy - if you want to debate, thats fine...but you are toeing a very thin line with your attitude. Do you REALLY want debate, or do you want to insult people who don't agree with you?

I'm willing to debate, if you are.
Sorry if you find my attitude reprehensible. I never said I was a nice guy.

[Saigio]

nope i don't follow the teachings of a church....

actually over reproducing ensures survival of the fittest and the species....

and gay sex ensures.......................

So sex that doesn't create offspring is bad?
So what happens to sterile people who have sex, old people that bang each other still, and people that use contraceptives?
Are they hurting humanity by not be a baby making machine?
over reproducing ensures a faster wasting of resources and larger strain on the planet.

[jimnyc]

I love when my posts go ignored, makes me know I touched a nerve, and made statements that are too hard to dispute for some. :)

[darin]

I'm willing to debate, if you are.
Sorry if you find my attitude reprehensible. I never said I was a nice guy.

Okay - go back to my first reply in this thread and DEBATE something.

You keep repeating your statements and stomping your feet.

re: You being a nice guy...

I don't give a rat's ass if you're a nice guy or not - but you WONT be an ass to long-time members of this forum simply because you CHOOSE to be.

If you only want to flame and snort and spit you and I will have a problem.

[-Cp]

Doe's it hurt you in anyway?
Doe's it hurt anyone?

Can someone please tell me what female deer have to do with this topic?

[jimnyc]

Can someone please tell me what female deer have to do with this topic?

Dunno :)

But some have a bad habit of claiming "homosexuality is ok because the animals have done it for so long" :laugh2:

[darin]

So sex that doesn't create offspring is bad?

He never said that. Address the statement he made - DON'T Change his statement.



over reproducing ensures a faster wasting of resources and larger strain on the planet.

That's the fallacy of False Dilemma - try again.


There are PLENTY of biological reasons to not engage in homosexual activity. Lose Bowel syndrome. Higher rates of STDs including HIV. Higher rates of domestic violence. Higher rates (per capita) of Child sexual abuses among practicing homosexuals. Short life spans.

In fact - Those are the reasons God likely tells us to NOT do that; those are probably among the reasons He calls it Sin. :)

BUT -

You're going OFF TOPIC....So stop with your current line of debate. Start a new thread in the Science/Health forum if you want to talk about the health issues of sex.

That goes for all of us in this thread.

[Saigio]

I love when my posts go ignored, makes me know I touched a nerve, and made statements that are too hard to dispute for some. :)

Sorry that I am busy with three other sites at the moment.
If you want me to address your mindless drivel, I will.

You think it is disgusting? Fine. Morals are different from person to person.
You think that the majority of america agrees with you? Hey, to each their own delusion. I have mine. It's that there are half decent conservatives that exist.
Did you know that those "Gay therapy" camps and such cause depression and lead to depression.
Sick people do need treatment. Thats why I support lobotomies for conservatives.

[Saigio]

He never said that. Address the statement he made - DON'T Change his statement.



That's the fallacy of False Dilemma - try again.


There are PLENTY of biological reasons to not engage in homosexual activity. Lose Bowel syndrome. Higher rates of STDs including HIV. Higher rates of domestic violence. Higher rates (per capita) of Child sexual abuses among practicing homosexuals. Short life spans.

In fact - Those are the reasons God likely tells us to NOT do that; those are probably among the reasons He calls it Sin. :)

BUT -

You're going OFF TOPIC....So stop with your current line of debate. Start a new thread in the Science/Health forum if you want to talk about the health issues of sex.

That goes for all of us in this thread.

Care to prove a bit of the bolded? If you feel uncomfortable with doing so openly, you can pm it to me.

[-Cp]

Dunno :)

But some have a bad habit of claiming "homosexuality is ok because the animals have done it for so long" :laugh2:

Yeah.... my cat licks its own ass - I suppose proponents of the argument you just said should start licking their asses too...

I find it sad when people place the moral equivilent of people to that of animals - not a shock I suppose since most of them think we're nothing more than "advanced animals"....

[darin]

Care to prove a bit of the bolded? If you feel uncomfortable with doing so openly, you can pm it to me.

If you want answers to the health-risks associated with homosexual behaviour, start a new thread...in the HEALTH area. :)

[Saigio]

Can someone please tell me what female deer have to do with this topic?

Sorry. I have some problems with certain spellings of words.

[Saigio]

If you want answers to the health-risks associated with homosexual behaviour, start a new thread...in the HEALTH area. :)

I told you that you could pm me the proof.
If you don't wish to, I will assume you can't.

[jimnyc]

If you want me to address your mindless drivel, I will.

I'll repeat what dmp stated, lose the attitude. If you want to get testy, I too can do the same, and from what I've seen of you thus far, you won't stand a chance in hell.


You think it is disgusting? Fine. Morals are different from person to person.
You think that the majority of america agrees with you? Hey, to each their own delusion. I have mine.

Yes, you DO have your delusions. That's why people having overwhelmingly been rejecting the queers at every opportunity! Try looking at the polls and see what the people think of this vile behavior.

[jimnyc]

I told you that you could pm me the proof.
If you don't wish to, I will assume you can't.

As I figured, just another who likes to ASSume things. Why am I not surprised.

[darin]

You Clearly don't wish to stay on-topic. Banned from Thread.

[jimnyc]

You Clearly don't wish to stay on-topic. Banned from Thread.

Oh man! And I was having fun with my new little toy, even if "it" was a toy meant for children. :)

Ooops, I now ban myself from this thread too. I could tell from the get go it would be pointless to try and have a proper debate with his kind. :(

[-Cp]

Care to prove a bit of the bolded? If you feel uncomfortable with doing so openly, you can pm it to me.


There are PLENTY of biological reasons to not engage in homosexual activity.


Higher rates of STDs including HIV.
http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html


Higher rates of domestic violence.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=800



Higher rates (per capita) of Child sexual abuses among practicing homosexuals.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

[avatar4321]

you're right. its not a christian sin. Its a universal one.

The union between a man and a woman to create life is sacred. Mocking that, immitating that, abusing the powers to procreate, is an offence to the Creator of life. Its mocking the Sacrifice made to Redeem life. And when you mock the Son of God, you are playing with fire.

[PostmodernProphet]

Some use Leviticus as a claim of homosexual sin.
Leviticus also decrees that crossbreeding animals, combinig clothing materials, and cycling crops to be sinful.
The list is a long one.
But is Leviticus even Christian law? Well, to be honest, no.
Christ fulfilled those laws and others. The Ten Commandments where kept.


actually, if you look at the original Hebrew text of Leviticus, you will see that those verses dealing with the levitical codes share a common Hebrew word which is roughly translated as "prohibited"....

the verses dealing with homosexual conduct are in a seperate section of Leviticus.....the word used in those verses, translated as 'abomination', shows up infrequently in scripture.....besides it's use in the context of homosexual conduct it is only used in verses dealing with human sacrifice, incest and idolatry......

Christ said that Christians are not bound by the Levitical code, those things which were 'prohibited'.....however, I think it is pretty obvious that God did not look favorably upon homosexual conduct, human sacrifice, incest, and idolatry......

[Guernicaa]

I personally couldn't care less if people think it's a sin or not. It's vile, disgusting, deviant and reprehensible. Luckily for me, the overwhelming majority of the nation agrees with me and are slowly closing the doors on them.

Sick people don't need to be "accepted", they need treatment.
Whats the difference between two guys having anal sex and a guy and a girl having anal sex?? You should watch talk sex with Sue or read some books on today’s sex culture. Anal's becoming big in the hetero world.

How about oral sex? What’s so "deviant, disgusting, and reprehesible" about oral sex? Everyone does it.

Just so you know, not all gay guys "fist" and lick out each others asses. Just as all straight people dont pee on each other and tit fuck.

[jimnyc]

Whats the difference between two guys having anal sex and a guy and a girl having anal sex?? You should watch talk sex with Sue or read some books on today’s sex culture. Anal's becoming big in the hetero world.

What's the difference? What you may find if you attempt a reach around! :)


How about oral sex? What’s so "deviant, disgusting, and reprehesible" about oral sex? Everyone does it.

Man on woman, woman on man - but man on man just makes me wanna vomit. I'd honestly sooner off myself than do that.


Just so you know, not all gay guys "fist" and lick out each others asses. Just as all straight people dont pee on each other and tit fuck.

Glad I just ate a short while ago! LOL

I don't even need to know about all that, just the thought of 2 men tongue kissing one another is enough to send me into convulsions.

[trobinett]

Whats the difference between two guys having anal sex and a guy and a girl having anal sex?? You should watch talk sex with Sue or read some books on today’s sex culture. Anal's becoming big in the hetero world.

How about oral sex? What’s so "deviant, disgusting, and reprehesible" about oral sex? Everyone does it.

Just so you know, not all gay guys "fist" and lick out each others asses. Just as all straight people dont pee on each other and tit fuck.

Don't know about the rest of the folks around here, but I sure am glad you pointed those "facts" out to us..................:poke:

Suppose that's personal experience talking................:cool:

[Guernicaa]

Don't know about the rest of the folks around here, but I sure am glad you pointed those "facts" out to us..................:poke:

Suppose that's personal experience talking................:cool:
Your welcome.

And no, that wasn't personal experience talking.

That was too much Talk Sex With Sue talking:
http://www.talksexwithsue.com/index2.html

And a little bit of personal experience..:laugh:

[Guernicaa]

What's the difference? What you may find if you attempt a reach around! :)



Man on woman, woman on man - but man on man just makes me wanna vomit. I'd honestly sooner off myself than do that.



Glad I just ate a short while ago! LOL

I don't even need to know about all that, just the thought of 2 men tongue kissing one another is enough to send me into convulsions.
If I attempt to reach around? We have the same anal cavities as women do. It feels no different when a girl takes it over a man taking it.

It makes you vomit? Ohh that sucks.
You know what makes me vomit? Those spinny rides at carnivals that spin you like 100 fucking times.
I hear they make the majority of people who ride them sick...Should we ban those??

Convulsions? LOL Really??? It scares you that much?
Your homophobia seems to be more of a "sickness" than trying to call homosexuality a "sickness".

[Gunny]

Care to prove your claims, dmp?
As for the supposedly off topic comment about Cain, it's proof that Adam and Eve where not the first people, making the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" claim worthless.
Funny how uneducated people can be when it comes to sexuality.
Sexuality is who you are attracted to.

"Adam and Steve" is YOUR strawman, not anyone's defense I have ever seen anywhere except on standup comedy.

[glockmail]

That's right. I said it. Homosexuality is not a sin.......
In fact, it may be the gravest of all sins.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=19684&postcount=1

[gabosaurus]

I find bigotry and homophobia to be vile and disgusting. People who embrace such need treatment, not acceptance.

[jimnyc]

If I attempt to reach around? We have the same anal cavities as women do. It feels no different when a girl takes it over a man taking it.

Ummmm..... A "reach around" has nothing to do with the anal area. It's when you're with your partner from behind, and reach around to the front to their genital area!


It makes you vomit? Ohh that sucks.
You know what makes me vomit? Those spinny rides at carnivals that spin you like 100 fucking times.
I hear they make the majority of people who ride them sick...Should we ban those??

If they caused disease, more crime and fucked up families - yes.


Convulsions? LOL Really??? It scares you that much?
Your homophobia seems to be more of a "sickness" than trying to call homosexuality a "sickness".

I believe homophobia would mean I "fear" something. Finding them repulsive and deviant hardly makes me fear them. I get equally as sick if I see crap already in the bowl when I use a "porta potty", does that make me a toilaphobe?

[jimnyc]

I find bigotry and homophobia to be vile and disgusting. People who embrace such need treatment, not acceptance.

Thanks for sharing! I'm glad I don't have to worry about you finding me disgusting then!

But that still leaves the queers needing medical assistance for their issues.

[glockmail]

....I believe homophobia would mean I "fear" something. Finding them repulsive and deviant hardly makes me fear them. I get equally as sick if I see crap already in the bowl when I use a "porta potty", does that make me a toilaphobe? The libs will simply redefine the meaning of "phobia" to suit you and I and most everyone else:


Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear", literally "fear of the same") is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[3][4] Several dictionaries also associate irrationality with this type of fear.[5][6][7] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

[jimnyc]

Well then, Glock, since you explain it that way, consider me a bigot with homophobia! LOL

I don't give a crap what people think either way. One's perception of me certainly isn't going to have me wake up one day and say "Oh, I just admire them there queers, and their lifestyle is to be commended".

If that's what some define it as, so be it.

[gabosaurus]

I respect the fact that you have accepted it. You are a bigger man than those who refuse to.

[Gunny]

I find bigotry and homophobia to be vile and disgusting. People who embrace such need treatment, not acceptance.

And you are recieving treatment WHERE exactly?:poke:

[Gunny]

I respect the fact that you have accepted it. You are a bigger man than those who refuse to.

It BS. Homosexuality is not normal, period. I don't have to fear them, nor discriminte against them, nor hate them to understand that simple fact.

[gabosaurus]

Hatred and bigotry are not normal, either. What part of "I am the God of ALL people" do you not understand?

[PostmodernProphet]

What part of "I am the God of ALL people" do you not understand?

are you extending that to people who have chosen to reject the possibility of his existence?

[stephanie]

Hatred and bigotry are not normal, either. What part of "I am the God of ALL people" do you not understand?

You might want to look in a mirror..

I've seen you post some pretty vile things against anyone who is a conservative or Republican, who has different views than you...

:poke:

[-Cp]

Hatred and bigotry are not normal, either. What part of "I am the God of ALL people" do you not understand?

How'd you get to be the God of all People?

Hmm.. .I know a guy you should talk to - he thinks he has thousands of "spirit children" whom he breathed into existance...

I guess this explains a LOT of why your views are so jacked up..

[BoogyMan]

That's right. I said it. Homosexuality is not a sin.

Saigio, my friend, you have never been able to prove this, and you have actually redefined terms in this post, which is a new tactic for you.

I will simply deal with the dishonest handling of the text from Romans.

Romans 1:24-27
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


It states lust. It also states that men left their natural use of women and vice versa. Homosexuality was viewed, rightly so, as natural in ancient Rome. People would not be changing. And the context hints towards orgies, something unnatural.

The very clear and simple text that you have misrepresented here is stating that that men and women abandoned their natural sexual function and began to engage in things that were un-natural. It further clarifies that as defining men with men and women with women. The passage is clear an no amount of wordsmithing on your part is going to change that.

Ancient Rome was a hedonistic society that held many beliefs that were debauched in nature. You claim they viewed homosexual activity as normal, well they also viewed watching men and women torn apart by animals in the coliseum as normal as well, do you support that?



1 Corinthians 6:12-18 mentions "sexual immorality", which is, by the context, prostitution.[

Sexual immorality is sexual immorality, YOU are the one who has defined it as prostitution.

Even the modern dictionary.com definition of sexual immorality mocks your usage here.


sexual immorality

noun
the evil ascribed to sexual acts that violate social conventions; "sexual immorality is the major reason for last year's record number of abortions"

[TheStripey1]

if the church says it is a sin it is a sin....

more to the point .... homosexuality is biologically pointless

based on what? their whims? IF it's such a damn sin to the catholics, why do they allow their priests to rape little boys?

There are a lot of things God called abominations in Leviticus... who gives anyone the right to determine which of those are to be followed NOW and which cast aside? To do so would be tantamount to declaring yourself equal to GOD.

Who here is so vain as to do that?

so... who eats shellfish? cmon, I know you're out there... raise your paw and confess to committing an abominable act every time you scarf down on that shrimp freshly roasted on your BBQ... or swallow that oyster... how about some nice lobster with drawn butter? crab louis? cmon... you know you love to abominate... admit it...

[Abbey Marie]

Hey Saigio , you might enjoy talking with LiberalNation. She is 17 too.

[darin]

based on what? their whims? IF it's such a damn sin to the catholics, why do they allow their priests to rape little boys?


That's seriously intellectually dishonest of you. C'mon...really now.



There are a lot of things God called abominations in Leviticus... who gives anyone the right to determine which of those are to be followed NOW and which cast aside? To do so would be tantamount to declaring yourself equal to GOD.

CONTEXT determines which are to be cast-aside. No, it doesn't make me GOD...it means i have God-given common-sense. Your very question shows you have little understanding of the Bible. It's not a rule book. It's a guidebook. It progresses and adapts and changes as God's plan for Humanity changed.


so... who eats shellfish? cmon, I know you're out there... raise your paw and confess to committing an abominable act every time you scarf down on that shrimp freshly roasted on your BBQ... or swallow that oyster... how about some nice lobster with drawn butter? crab louis? cmon... you know you love to abominate... admit it...

Why do you think it's abominable? What makes you think it's a sin? that's weird.

Certain dietary rules were given to the Jews for their protection and identification. Since Christ, believers are free to eat as they desire, except when eating something would offend another. As an example, I wouldn't serve Pork to my Jew friends. It'd be rude.

[-Cp]

based on what? their whims? IF it's such a damn sin to the catholics, why do they allow their priests to rape little boys?

There are a lot of things God called abominations in Leviticus... who gives anyone the right to determine which of those are to be followed NOW and which cast aside? To do so would be tantamount to declaring yourself equal to GOD.

Who here is so vain as to do that?

so... who eats shellfish? cmon, I know you're out there... raise your paw and confess to committing an abominable act every time you scarf down on that shrimp freshly roasted on your BBQ... or swallow that oyster... how about some nice lobster with drawn butter? crab louis? cmon... you know you love to abominate... admit it...

Because Homosexuality is the only one of those Abominations which carries over to New Testament teaching....

Paul clearly addresses the food issues as "all things being clean" - and also clearly address sexual immorality still being sinful....

I'd highly suggess you try reading the Bible before you grossly tell us what it means in such wreckless error...

[BoogyMan]

based on what? their whims? IF it's such a damn sin to the catholics, why do they allow their priests to rape little boys?

There are a lot of things God called abominations in Leviticus... who gives anyone the right to determine which of those are to be followed NOW and which cast aside? To do so would be tantamount to declaring yourself equal to GOD.

Who here is so vain as to do that?

so... who eats shellfish? cmon, I know you're out there... raise your paw and confess to committing an abominable act every time you scarf down on that shrimp freshly roasted on your BBQ... or swallow that oyster... how about some nice lobster with drawn butter? crab louis? cmon... you know you love to abominate... admit it...

Stripey, that is so funny. We are no longer under the old law. Consider what Romans 8:2-4 has to say:


1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

You might also consider reading Acts chapter 10 before espousing a falsehood that you cannot sustain when held up to the light of truth in the word.

[TheStripey1]

That's seriously intellectually dishonest of you. C'mon...really now.

Are you disputing the fact that the catholic church has swept their priests' immorality under the rug for decades?


CONTEXT determines which are to be cast-aside. No, it doesn't make me GOD...it means i have God-given common-sense. Your very question shows you have little understanding of the Bible. It's not a rule book. It's a guidebook. It progresses and adapts and changes as God's plan for Humanity changed.

Cast out one, cast them all out... who gave you the right? ARE YOU GOD?


Why do you think it's abominable? What makes you think it's a sin? that's weird.

It's in Leviticus... GOD calls it abominable when you eat shellfish... so are you now saying that you think GOD was wrong to say that? If he was wrong about eating oysters, maybe he was wrong about homosexuality as well...

But again, who gives you the right to say, I'm not going to follow this law or that and then turn around and say Leviticus says Homosexuality is an abomination...

sorry... you just can't have it both ways...

take one, take them all...


Certain dietary rules were given to the Jews for their protection and identification. Since Christ, believers are free to eat as they desire, except when eating something would offend another. As an example, I wouldn't serve Pork to my Jew friends. It'd be rude.



Got a link to that supposition or was that something you recently learned in sunday school?

[darin]

Are you disputing the fact that the catholic church has swept their priests' immorality under the rug for decades?


That's different than "allowed them to".



Cast out one, cast them all out... who gave you the right? ARE YOU GOD?

Cast out what?



It's in Leviticus... GOD calls it abominable when you eat shellfish... so are you now saying that you think GOD was wrong to say that?

No he doesn't. God never made a blanket statement like that.


If he was wrong about eating oysters, maybe he was wrong about homosexuality as well...

But again, who gives you the right to say, I'm not going to follow this law or that and then turn around and say Leviticus says Homosexuality is an abomination...


I have a right to say because I can read the bible and know. Were the instructions about diet in the same verse/area as the instructions about sex? To whom were each given? Under what context? You don't KNOW context, and because you don't know the context, you are betraying God's intent.


Got a link to that supposition or was that something you recently learned in sunday school?

Would you like a link? Would it help you? Would it serve a purpose, or would you simply continue the little insult-quips?

[TheStripey1]

Because Homosexuality is the only one of those Abominations which carries over to New Testament teaching....

Paul clearly addresses the food issues as "all things being clean" - and also clearly address sexual immorality still being sinful....

I'd highly suggess you try reading the Bible before you grossly tell us what it means in such wreckless error...


Link :link: ...

and -cp? I have read it many times... how about you?

Paul... was Saul the actual son of God or the son of just another man?

You either follow GOD's laws, all of them, or you don't follow any of them at all... who are you to choose which ones are to be followed and insist others do the same and which ones you can kick aside?

Are YOU GOD?

[theHawk]

That's right. I said it. Homosexuality is not a sin.

1 Corinthians 6:12-18 mentions "sexual immorality", which is, by the context, prostitution.


Its pretty funny how you read through 1 Corinthians but missed verses 9-10.

9Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake-the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, 10thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nice try though to spin things around about God being all about love. God makes it very clear there is a heaven and a hell and quite often states if you engage in certain sins you'll end up in the latter!



Also of course
Leviticus 18:22
You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.


Romans 1:26-28
26That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

27why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

28In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour.
It doesn't matter what the Romans thought was natural. That has nothing to do with what God says about homosexuality.


If want to continue to break the second commandment and create your own god to suit you, then by all means continue to do so. But don't come around here trying to pass off your beliefs as that of the will of God.

[darin]

Paul... was Saul the actual son of God or the son of just another man?


Paul SPEAKS for God. Pauls words ARE God-inspired. Biblically, they carry the same weight for instruction as do Christ's.

Are you a christian, Stripey?



You either follow GOD's laws, all of them, or you don't follow any of them at all... who are you to choose which ones are to be followed and insist others do the same and which ones you can kick aside?


Christian's are not subject to The Law of Moses; Christ came to FULFILL the requirements of that law. Now, our instructions for living are set forth primarily in the New Testament, and it's CLEAR by taking those instructions, in context, to heart, we see Homosexual behavior is akin to any OTHER sin. Sin being 'something which will keep you from God.'

:)

[-Cp]

Link :link: ...

www.biblegateway.com - you pick the version



and -cp? I have read it many times... how about you?


I guess I should've said "perhaps you should read it with some Comprehension and put down the pot pipe."



Paul... was Saul the actual son of God or the son of just another man?
WTH?



You either follow GOD's laws, all of them, or you don't follow any of them at all... who are you to choose which ones are to be followed and insist others do the same and which ones you can kick aside??

I follow the teachings of Christ....


Are YOU GOD?

Yes I am.....thanks for asking....
:fart:

[Gunny]

Hatred and bigotry are not normal, either. What part of "I am the God of ALL people" do you not understand?

Bigotry is QUITE normal. We are ALL bigots in one way or another, and anyone claiming otherwise is either delusional, a liar, or has no opinion on anything.

Hatred is hardly uncommon as well. The world of Man has been dictated by it since Cain and Abel.

Try again, please.

[TheStripey1]

That's different than "allowed them to".

No it isn't... they allowed their priests to rape little children and then when they found out about it, transferred them to new parishes without telling anyone why... you may consider that to be above board, but I do not.




Cast out what?God's Laws... the ones in Leviticus.. you know... where He calls homosexuality an abomination...


No he doesn't. God never made a blanket statement like that.

never? really? no blanket statements about what can and can't be eaten?

what's this?


Leviticus 11:
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

4 Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

9 ¶ These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.


do crabs have scales? not last time I looked... How about scallops? Shrimp? Oysters? Lobster? helll, you can't even have eel or shark...


I have a right to say because I can read the bible and know. Were the instructions about diet in the same verse/area as the instructions about sex? To whom were each given? Under what context? You don't KNOW context, and because you don't know the context, you are betraying God's intent.

Got a Bible? Leviticus is the third book in it... give it a read...





Would you like a link? Would it help you? Would it serve a purpose, or would you simply continue the little insult-quips?

what insult quips? I asked if you thought you were GOD because you are telling me which of his laws are to now be followed and which ones aren't. that's not an insult. It's a question. Who gave you the right to choose which laws are now valid and which ones aren't?

IF they aren't valid any longer, as y'all claim, why not just strip them ALL out of the Bible?

oh wait... if we did that then the law calling homosexuality an abomination would be tossed out as well... "sorry bout that"

and around and around we go...

[PostmodernProphet]

It's in Leviticus... GOD calls it abominable when you eat shellfish... so are you now saying that you think GOD was wrong to say that? If he was wrong about eating oysters, maybe he was wrong about homosexuality as well...

But again, who gives you the right to say, I'm not going to follow this law or that and then turn around and say Leviticus says Homosexuality is an abomination...

sorry... you just can't have it both ways...

as I pointed out earlier, the Hebrew word used regarding shellfish is a different word with a different meaning than the word used regarding homosexual conduct.....thus, when they are two seperate ways, you CAN have it both ways.....

[TheStripey1]

Paul SPEAKS for God. Pauls words ARE God-inspired. Biblically, they carry the same weight for instruction as do Christ's.

says who? Saul? based on what?


Are you a christian, Stripey?

that is between me and my God... and none of your concern whatsoever...


Christian's are not subject to The Law of Moses; Christ came to FULFILL the requirements of that law. Now, our instructions for living are set forth primarily in the New Testament, and it's CLEAR by taking those instructions, in context, to heart, we see Homosexual behavior is akin to any OTHER sin. Sin being 'something which will keep you from God.'

:)

Link... where is your link... just because you and I read the bible doesn't mean that everyone reading this does... so how about backing up your statement with a link... or at least quote the passages as I did above...

do you need an online bible? just ask, I'll be happy to loan you mine...

so those that read the New Testament are no longer bound by the laws stated in the Old Testament? is that your allegation?

really? what about all the Jews of the world?

[TheStripey1]

www.biblegateway.com - you pick the version

I want you to provide the link to the passages, not give me the whole book... surely if you are as well read, as you claim to be, you should know exactly where to find the passages that support your position.


I guess I should've said "perhaps you should read it with some Comprehension and put down the pot pipe."

bearing false witness is a no no... a big no-no... at least it is in the Old Testament...



I follow the teachings of Christ....

by what? preaching hatred? who did Christ hate?


Yes I am.....thanks for asking....
:fart:

oooo, that's blasphemy...
well, I take it back... there is ONE here who is so vain as to equate themselves with GOD...

[TheStripey1]

Bigotry is QUITE normal. We are ALL bigots in one way or another, and anyone claiming otherwise is either delusional, a liar, or has no opinion on anything.

Hatred is hardly uncommon as well. The world of Man has been dictated by it since Cain and Abel.

Try again, please.

psst, gunny... they are saying we don't get to use the Old Testament any longer... please make a note of it...

hey gunny!!! how the heck are you? LTNS... How was your summer?

[darin]

No it isn't... they allowed their priests to rape little children and then when they found out about it, transferred them to new parishes without telling anyone why... you may consider that to be above board, but I do not.



You're just being silly now.



God's Laws... the ones in Leviticus.. you know... where He calls homosexuality an abomination...



never? really? no blanket statements about what can and can't be eaten?

what's this?


See?


Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,.

Are you a Jew?


helll, you can't even have eel or shark...


Sure I can. Read Acts Chapter 10. God has fulfilled his 'eating requirement policies' - in fact, he's fulfilled His Law, with Christ Jesus



what insult quips? I asked if you thought you were GOD because you are telling me which of his laws are to now be followed and which ones aren't. that's not an insult. It's a question. Who gave you the right to choose which laws are now valid and which ones aren't?

Your little "...or did you just learn that at SUNDAY SCHOOL". It was a jab and you know it.


IF they aren't valid any longer, as y'all claim, why not just strip them ALL out of the Bible?

Because they are valid. They show the progression of God's relationship with Man.


oh wait... if we did that then the law calling homosexuality an abomination would be tossed out as well... "sorry bout that"

and around and around we go...

You REALLY Love the idea that god might sanction sexual immorality.



says who? Saul? based on what?


Says THE BIBLE.



that is between me and my God... and none of your concern whatsoever...


You're right. But if you refuse to identify yourself as a Christian, why should anybody CARE what you say in regards to what is or is not a Christian 'Sin'?



Link... where is your link... just because you and I read the bible doesn't mean that everyone reading this does... so how about backing up your statement with a link... or at least quote the passages as I did above...


You quoted out-of-context passages which actually proved MY point and yet you want more, okay....hrm...There are MANY verses where Christ calls-out the "keepers of the Law."...but...To show we are not 'in' the law anymore...I'll use these:

First - Showing how "Keeping the Law" is not enough:


"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.


0Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Those are just two. Should I copy and paste all 200?





so those that read the New Testament are no longer bound by the laws stated in the Old Testament? is that your allegation?

really? what about all the Jews of the world?


No - those that accept CHRIST are not bound by The Law, but bound by Grace and by Faith.
The Jews? Unless they accept Christ, they seem doomed.

More on Jews...and the Law:


17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[b]

25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

[TheStripey1]

as I pointed out earlier, the Hebrew word used regarding shellfish is a different word with a different meaning than the word used regarding homosexual conduct.....thus, when they are two seperate ways, you CAN have it both ways.....

as I quoted in Leviticus 11... it's an abomination to eat anything from the waters that is without scales or fins... do shrimps have scales? how about fins?

nope, neither...

but now, the others are saying we don't have to follow any of the laws in the Old Testament any longer... just those that Christ or Saul wrote down...

pretty convinient... wouldn't you agree?

[PostmodernProphet]

Levitisus 11:10 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Hebrew word "Sheqets" root word "Shaqats" meaning to detest, make abominable, count filthy, make detestable to detest to make detestable

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08263&version=kjv

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Hebrew word "Tow`ebah" root word "Ta`ab" meaning to abhor, be abominable, do abominably (Niphal) to be abhorred, be detested in the ritual sense, in the ethical sense

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=8581&version=kjv

some of the other things that were Tow'ebah......

incest, bestiality, human sacrifice......

how did God feel about these actions?.....18:25 "And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. "

[TheStripey1]

You're just being silly now.

there is nothing silly about pedophilia.



Are you a Jew?

again, that is between yod he vod he and myself... and no concern of yours whatsoever... but to answer your question, even tho I don't have to, no.



Sure I can. Read Acts Chapter 10. God has fulfilled his 'eating requirement policies' - in fact, he's fulfilled His Law, with Christ Jesus

do you want my online bible (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/)? there... now if you don't mind, how about quoting the passages that support your position so everyone reading can see them, too...




Your little "...or did you just learn that at SUNDAY SCHOOL". It was a jab and you know it.

laffs... well... ok... a small one... but that too was a question about where you found your information. because dmp, Sunday School is where most of us received our primer education about religion... do you disagree?




Because they are valid. They show the progression of God's relationship with Man.

So show us then...


You REALLY Love the idea that god might sanction sexual immorality.

You mean like the kind Larry Craig practices? Or the kind Bill Clinton did? which? or perhaps both?

nope, sorry, I don't DO sexual immorality... but I am having fun in this thread...

[darin]

there is nothing silly about pedophilia.



That's beside the point. Random.



again, that is between yod he vod he and myself... and no concern of yours whatsoever... but to answer your question, even tho I don't have to, no.

If you aren't a Jew, the instructions He gave don't apply to you, now do they?



laffs... well... ok... a small one... but that too was a question about where you found your information. because dmp, Sunday School is where most of us received our primer education about religion... do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.



You mean like the kind Larry Craig practices? Or the kind Bill Clinton did? which? or perhaps both?


Craig? I don't know him. I don't consider Clinton a Christian. I've seen NO 'fruit' or other signs he's a follower of Christ...but I don't know the man.

[TheStripey1]

Says THE BIBLE.

actually says Saul within the New Testament... there's a whole slew of stuff attributed to him that he alledgedly wrote to this church or that, years after Christ was gone...

is your version of the Bible the King James version? Wasn't King James of questionable character? Seems I read something about that recently... I wonder if that file was in my old computer... hmmmmm...


You're right. But if you refuse to identify yourself as a Christian, why should anybody CARE what you say in regards to what is or is not a Christian 'Sin'?

I don't have to be one to be able to read what it expected of them. And as far as I can tell, we were discussing Old Testament laws... from Leviticus as I recall... so uhhhh, dmp? what does Leviticus have to do with Christian 'sin'?


You quoted out-of-context passages which actually proved MY point and yet you want more, okay....hrm...There are MANY verses where Christ calls-out the "keepers of the Law."...but...To show we are not 'in' the law anymore...I'll use these:

I quoted the first half of Leviticus chapter 11... would you like the entire book? I can give it to you if you like... no biggie...

Leviticus (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/03/1.html#1)


First - Showing how "Keeping the Law" is not enough:
Those are just two. Should I copy and paste all 200?

yep.

J/K... how about the ones that stipulate EXACTLY which laws are to be followed and which ones aren't. should be less than 200...


No - those that accept CHRIST are not bound by The Law, but bound by Grace and by Faith.
The Jews? Unless they accept Christ, they seem doomed.


I imagine that they would find that to be fightin' words...

[TheStripey1]

Levitisus 11:10 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Hebrew word "Sheqets" root word "Shaqats" meaning to detest, make abominable, count filthy, make detestable to detest to make detestable

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08263&version=kjv

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Hebrew word "Tow`ebah" root word "Ta`ab" meaning to abhor, be abominable, do abominably (Niphal) to be abhorred, be detested in the ritual sense, in the ethical sense

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=8581&version=kjv

some of the other things that were Tow'ebah......

incest, bestiality, human sacrifice......

how did God feel about these actions?.....18:25 "And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. "

well... IMO, it's not our place to decide which law shall be followed and which ones shan't... that decision is GOD's... To cherry pick them is blasphemous, IMO...

and obtw, I tried to give you reppage for this post... but alas... I have to spread it around some more before I can...

[BoogyMan]

based on what? their whims? IF it's such a damn sin to the catholics, why do they allow their priests to rape little boys?

There are a lot of things God called abominations in Leviticus... who gives anyone the right to determine which of those are to be followed NOW and which cast aside? To do so would be tantamount to declaring yourself equal to GOD.

Who here is so vain as to do that?

so... who eats shellfish? cmon, I know you're out there... raise your paw and confess to committing an abominable act every time you scarf down on that shrimp freshly roasted on your BBQ... or swallow that oyster... how about some nice lobster with drawn butter? crab louis? cmon... you know you love to abominate... admit it...

Stripey, that is so funny. We are no longer under the old law. Consider what Romans 8:2-4 has to say:


1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

You might also consider reading Acts chapter 10 before espousing a falsehood that you cannot sustain when held up to the light of truth in the word.

[darin]

actually says Saul within the New Testament... there's a whole slew of stuff attributed to him that he alledgedly wrote to this church or that, years after Christ was gone...

huh? PAUL wrote stuff years after Christ. What's your point?


is your version of the Bible the King James version? Wasn't King James of questionable character? Seems I read something about that recently... I wonder if that file was in my old computer... hmmmmm...


I don't read the King James, no. Regardless of the man's PERSONAL character, it's still a pretty - darn - good translation.


I don't have to be one to be able to read what it expected of them. And as far as I can tell, we were discussing Old Testament laws... from Leviticus as I recall... so uhhhh, dmp? what does Leviticus have to do with Christian 'sin'?


What does the list of things God told those jews have to do with Christian sin? I have no idea.



I quoted the first half of Leviticus chapter 11... would you like the entire book? I can give it to you if you like... no biggie...

Leviticus (http://aol.bartleby.com/108/03/1.html#1)



Right - I know the book. I want to know you are reading the stuff IN CONTEXT though. That'd be the first place to start. YOU reading stuff and understanding stuff in context. Apart from that happening, we have nothing to debate.


J/K... how about the ones that stipulate EXACTLY which laws are to be followed and which ones aren't. should be less than 200...


You're silly now. That's like asking What kind of sandwich is authorized in the bible. There are 200 scriptures/passages which deal with 'the law'. I'm not going to post every one. I posted TWO which show our salvation and redemption are NOT based in The Law.


I imagine that they would find that to be fightin' words...

eh? Fighting because I know their 'faith' is wrong? We're talking about JEWS here....NOT muslims who'd KILL ME for speaking against their beliefs. But So what? Why would I care if they feel I'm wrong? Christ is 100% right, or he's a liar. I believe he's right. HE said NO person will find God apart from Him. Thus, if the Jews haven't accepted Christ they're going to be separate from God (Hell).

(shrug).

[TheStripey1]

That's beside the point. Random.

Not when we are discussing catholic priests raping little children. That IS the point. There is NOTHING silly about pedophilia. Even when priests do it...



If you aren't a Jew, the instructions He gave don't apply to you, now do they?

are you now claiming that the 10 Commandments no longer apply as well? wow...


Yes, I disagree.

really? It's where I got my first education about God and Jesus over 50 years ago... where did you get yours?


Craig? I don't know him. I don't consider Clinton a Christian. I've seen NO 'fruit' or other signs he's a follower of Christ...but I don't know the man.

You don't know Larry Craig and so refuse to comment on his devient behavior but you will about Bill Clinton... why? is it because he is of the other party, that you feel it ok to talk about his foibles?

and about his fruits... who made you his judge? are YOU GOD?

Do you equate a married man having sexual relationships with another woman on par with a married man having sexual realtionships with another man?

I don't...

[TheStripey1]

Stripey, that is so funny. We are no longer under the old law. Consider what Romans 8:2-4 has to say:


Glad you found it funny... I don't... are you also saying that the Ten Commandments no longer applies?


You might also consider reading Acts chapter 10 before espousing a falsehood that you cannot sustain when held up to the light of truth in the word.

so Cut and Paste it then... you obviously know how it's done cuz you did it with Romans... good job, by the way...

what falsehood have I espoused? that GOD said not to eat fish without scales and fins? I quoted it didn't I... it's in Leviticus 11...

are you saying that my online Bible is lying? why is mine lying and yours is not? because I'm the one quoting from mine and you are the one quoting from yours?

:fu:

obtw, welcome to the board...

[Gunny]

psst, gunny... they are saying we don't get to use the Old Testament any longer... please make a note of it...

hey gunny!!! how the heck are you? LTNS... How was your summer?

I do not use the bible or my religion as a basis for my argument regarding the topic of homosexuality. Kinda narrows down the bogus arguments I have to endure.

My summer has alternated between flooding/rain and HOT.:laugh2:

[darin]

Not when we are discussing catholic priests raping little children. That IS the point. There is NOTHING silly about pedophilia. Even when priests do it...


Logical fallacy time. You were talking about the catholic church ALLOWING Gay priests to molest kids. I'm saying it's NEVER been allowed - although it seemingly wasn't prosecuted much, for awhile.
[/quote]



are you now claiming that the 10 Commandments no longer apply as well? wow...

I AM? Really??? That's a LEAP! I'm saying the GREATEST commandment is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul...AND your neighbor as yourself.



really? It's where I got my first education about God and Jesus over 50 years ago... where did you get yours?


Mom and Dad's example.


You don't know Larry Craig and so refuse to comment on his devient behavior but you will about Bill Clinton... why? is it because he is of the other party, that you feel it ok to talk about his foibles? [/quote]

I didn't talk about their activities - I spoke to what I knew.


and about his fruits... who made you his judge? are YOU GOD?

Christians are SUPPOSED to judge the fruits of others.


Do you equate a married man having sexual relationships with another woman on par with a married man having sexual realtionships with another man?

I don't...

yeah.

[TheStripey1]

huh? PAUL wrote stuff years after Christ. What's your point?

that IS the point, SAUL wrote that stuff YEARS after Christ was gone... thanks for playing...


I don't read the King James, no. Regardless of the man's PERSONAL character, it's still a pretty - darn - good translation.

still loooking for that information... how do you know it's a good translation? and which version do you read?




What does the list of things God told those jews have to do with Christian sin? I have no idea.

So we no longer have to follow the Ten Commandments? dayum...



Right - I know the book. I want to know you are reading the stuff IN CONTEXT though. That'd be the first place to start. YOU reading stuff and understanding stuff in context. Apart from that happening, we have nothing to debate.

I read it from the beginning to the end... how do you read it? in this case, I started with Leviticus 1:1... Is that where you start too? or somewhere else?


You're silly now. That's like asking What kind of sandwich is authorized in the bible. There are 200 scriptures/passages which deal with 'the law'. I'm not going to post every one. I posted TWO which show our salvation and redemption are NOT based in The Law.

no I'm not... surely you can find the passage that specifically states what Old testament laws are to be followed and which ones cast aside... Christ telling us that, not Saul... Christ... that should cut down on those 200 passages even more...



eh? Fighting because I know their 'faith' is wrong? We're talking about JEWS here....NOT muslims who'd KILL ME for speaking against their beliefs. But So what? Why would I care if they feel I'm wrong? Christ is 100% right, or he's a liar. I believe he's right. HE said NO person will find God apart from Him. Thus, if the Jews haven't accepted Christ they're going to be separate from God (Hell).

(shrug).


I dunno... I've met some pretty militant jews in my travels... both online and off...

[TheStripey1]

I do not use the bible or my religion as a basis for my argument regarding the topic of homosexuality. Kinda narrows down the bogus arguments I have to endure.

you are a wise man, Gunny... a wise man, indeed...

so what do you base your opinion on homosexuality on? (note to grammar marm... I know that's a hanging preposition... thanks anyway)


My summer has alternated between flooding/rain and HOT.:laugh2:

bummer... hope winter spares you more of the same...

[BoogyMan]

Since you don't know much scripture Stripey1 the "lurkers" you always pontificate about will appreciate knowing that 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated in the New Testament. The only one not repeated is to "remember the Sabbath."

9 of those commandments still stand.

The falsehood, and I know you know it is a falsehood because I do believe we have been through this before, is that Old Testament law is still in effect.

You have access to the net, go and read Acts chapter 10, the whole thing is germane to the discussion. There is no need to paste a whole chapter into the discussion.

[TheStripey1]

Logical fallacy time. You were talking about the catholic church ALLOWING Gay priests to molest kids. I'm saying it's NEVER been allowed - although it seemingly wasn't prosecuted much, for awhile.


if they don't turn them over to the police for their despicable actions, then they are condoning them... and that's what they did, for years...



I AM? Really??? That's a LEAP! I'm saying the GREATEST commandment is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul...AND your neighbor as yourself.

No... you said the GOD's Laws as set forth in the Old Testament are no longer valid... the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament... therefore your statement has to mean that they aren't valid.

So are the Ten Commandments still valid? IF they are, then why aren't the laws set forth in Leviticus still valid?


Mom and Dad's example.

were they ministers? or just good ol' fashioned church folk?



the stripey1
You don't know Larry Craig and so refuse to comment on his devient behavior but you will about Bill Clinton... why? is it because he is of the other party, that you feel it ok to talk about his foibles?


I didn't talk about their activities - I spoke to what I knew.

You condemn Clinton for his indescretions and yet say nothing about Craig's... does that mean you think what Craig did was ok but what Clinton did bad?

why?


Christians are SUPPOSED to judge the fruits of others.


really? Where does it say that? specifically that is... I want to see chapter and verse... cuz I've always heard it the opposite way...

show me...

[TheStripey1]

Since you don't know much scripture Stripey1 the "lurkers" you always pontificate about will appreciate knowing that 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated in the New Testament. The only one not repeated is to "remember the Sabbath."

9 of those commandments still stand.

The falsehood, and I know you know it is a falsehood because I do believe we have been through this before, is that Old Testament law is still in effect.

You have access to the net, go and read Acts chapter 10, the whole thing is germane to the discussion. There is no need to paste a whole chapter into the discussion.


So post it then... why are you being so obstinate? is it your nature to be that way?

copy and paste the information... I KNOW you know how it's done... I've seen you C&P before...

chop chop...

[BoogyMan]

Ahh, see the obfuscation by the kitty cat dear "lurkers?" That is just precious.

You have no intent of reading it even if it gets posted Stripey, which would be a huge post to drop in a thread like this as it is a WHOLE chapter.

[PostmodernProphet]

To cherry pick them is blasphemous, IMO...


true, cherry picking is bad....does that mean you intend to treat homosexual conduct, incest, beastiality and human sacrifice equally and come out in favor of them all?........

[PostmodernProphet]

are you now claiming that the 10 Commandments no longer apply as well? wow...


Christ specifically reaffirmed the 10 Commandments....
Matthew 22:36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

These are the traditional Hebrew summaries of the first and second tables of the 10 Commandments. They are also found in Deut. 6 "5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. " and Leviticus 19:18 "but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".....


as far as the question of whether Christians are required to comply with the levitical codes, that was resolved in Acts 15....bear in mind that the purpose of the levitical codes was to insure cleanliness of spirit....part of the process was the systematic sacrifices offered by the priests to maintain the purity of Israel......Christianity teaches that Christ made the final sacrifice and that we are made clean in spirit through belief in him, not through systematic sacrifice....the Apostles concluded " 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well."....in short, that which was retained was that which was "abomination"....idolitry and fornication.....which in the OT included homosexual conduct, beastiality and incest........

[BoogyMan]

Christ NEVER reaffirmed the 10 commandments PostModernProphet, the law has been done away. 9 of those 10 commandments, however, WERE restated in the New Testament. We are not now bound by sabbath keeping as the Jews were.

Consider Romans 8:2-4 in order to fully understand whether or not the old law is still in effect.

[Gunny]

you are a wise man, Gunny... a wise man, indeed...

so what do you base your opinion on homosexuality on? (note to grammar marm... I know that's a hanging preposition... thanks anyway)





bummer... hope winter spares you more of the same...

My opinion is based on the fact that serves no biological function; therefore, it is neither normal nor natural behavior.

[manu1959]

My opinion is based on the fact that serves no biological function; therefore, it is neither normal nor natural behavior.

but but but...dolphins have blowhole sex.....:poke:

[darin]

Guys - Stripey is a non-christian cherry-picking scripture guy. It's impossible to teach him anything. You're wasting your electrons. :-/

[manu1959]

Guys - Stripey is a non-christian cherry-picking scripture guy. It's impossible to teach him anything. You're wasting your electrons. :-/

i am non-christian i will tell you gay sex is a sin....you know why ..... cuz the church says so and they are in charge of what is and is not a sin

[darin]

But YOU are reasonable. :)

:D

[PostmodernProphet]

Christ NEVER reaffirmed the 10 commandments PostModernProphet

???....then how do you explain this?....

Matthew 5:17"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.


Romans 8:2-4

living in accord with the Spirit IS following the 10 Commandments.....they are the basis for all Christian ethics.....

keep in mind that the Jewish tradition of seeking 'salvation' through the law was never intended by God.....the purpose of the 10 Commandments is set forth in Deuteronomy 6

5 See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." 7 What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

[BoogyMan]

I must beg to differ. You are quoting a verse saying that we will not lose any of the Old Testament and using it to claim we are still under that law which you cannot prove by the scripture.

The 10 commandments is not outside the law, but it is a part of that levitical law as given to Moses.

Honestly you must read Romans 8:2-4 and consider its teaching. You must also consider the teaching of Galatians 3:23-29


23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The purpose of the old law has been fulfilled in that it brought us to Christ.

[PostmodernProphet]

The purpose of the old law has been fulfilled in that it brought us to Christ

yes, he fulfilled it and restored it to it's original purpose, which was never a means to salvation....it would be wrong to say the Ten Commandments serve no purpose in Christianity......Christ fulfilled it, not eliminated it......


Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law

it was not God that held humanity prisoners of the law, it was the distortion of Jewish culture that created the prison.....it had reached the point where the Pharisees were employed to create diverse and complicated structures that permitted mankind to mold the law to their desires so that mankind might control their own salvation.....it was that which Christ condemned.....

[BoogyMan]

The 10 commandments are not as such listed in the New Testament, only 9 of them are re-iterated in the new covenant. Sorry, but that is just a fact.

It was the Old Law which was done away with as the blood of bulls and goats could only cover sin, the blood of Christ washed it away.

[PostmodernProphet]

so when he said the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; I wonder why he didn't add...."by the way, we're going to chuck that 'Sabbath for man' part".......

[glockmail]

Guys - Stripey is a non-christian cherry-picking scripture guy. It's impossible to teach him anything. You're wasting your electrons. :-/ Sums it up nicely. :coffee:

[glockmail]

The 10 commandments are not as such listed in the New Testament, only 9 of them are re-iterated in the new covenant. Sorry, but that is just a fact.

It was the Old Law which was done away with as the blood of bulls and goats could only cover sin, the blood of Christ washed it away. I don't agree that Christ had to re-iterate every sin, do you?

[BoogyMan]

Hey glockmail,

No, He didn't re-iterate every sin, but the Sabbath is done away with as it was a requirement under the old law. That was the whole of that point.

[JackDaniels]

if the church says it is a sin it is a sin....

Another example of those on the religious right blindly following their cult.


more to the point .... homosexuality is biologically pointless

So are blowjobs and beer. Doesn't mean they aren't GREAT THINGS :dance::dance:

[JackDaniels]

nope i don't follow the teachings of a church....

You JUST said "if the church says it's a sin, it's a sin" :lol::lol:


actually over reproducing ensures survival of the fittest and the species....

Most of the over reproducing being done is in the redneck families. Hardly survival of the fittest

[darin]

You JUST said "if the church says it's a sin, it's a sin" :lol::lol:



Uh...He says "Any organization can call whatever it WANTS a 'sin' - it's none of his concern, and he wouldn't tell any church what or what-not to deem sinful".


Get it?

[gabosaurus]

I find hate, prejudice and homophobia to be sinful. Jesus always found love for his fellow man. Even the lepers were loved.
We don't have lepers in the current era. We do have homophobic Republicans, who are just as bad.

[JackDaniels]

Uh...He says "Any organization can call whatever it WANTS a 'sin' - it's none of his concern, and he wouldn't tell any church what or what-not to deem sinful".


Get it?

Considering every church wants to control your life by calling different things sins, I'd say it's pretty sheepish.

[JackDaniels]

Uh...He says "Any organization can call whatever it WANTS a 'sin' - it's none of his concern, and he wouldn't tell any church what or what-not to deem sinful".


Get it?

This is also precisely why organized religion is so anti-intellectual. The CHURCH isn't a reference on how to live your life if you're a Christian, the BIBLE is.

Organized religion exists to give unreasonable hope and an explanation to stupid people.

[hjmick]

We don't have lepers in the current era.

Actually, yes we do.

In 2003 there were 7,000 reported cases of leprosy in the U.S. alone, some of these cases were contracted here, in the U.S. In the forty years prior to 2003, there were only 900 reported cases.

Where do you the surge in the cases of leprosy came from? What do you think is the main cause?

I have no idea what the worldwide numbers for leprosy are, but I do know that Mexico, Brazil, India and the Caribbean are leprosy breeding grounds. Africa as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Both leprosy and tuberculosis are on the rise in the U.S.

I wonder what the reason is...?

[glockmail]

Hey glockmail,

No, He didn't re-iterate every sin, but the Sabbath is done away with as it was a requirement under the old law. That was the whole of that point.
The 7th Day Adventists disagree with the very strongly. They all go to church on Saturdays.

[darin]

This is also precisely why organized religion is so anti-intellectual. The CHURCH isn't a reference on how to live your life if you're a Christian, the BIBLE is.

Organized religion exists to give unreasonable hope and an explanation to stupid people.


You're being silly now.

[JackDaniels]

You're being silly now.

Looks like you have given up :lame2:

[gabosaurus]

You're being silly now.

I totally agree on this. Religion is a means of guidance and reassurance to many people. It provides guidelines and answers questions.

I stand corrected on the leprosy thing. Thanks for the information.

[hjmick]

I stand corrected on the leprosy thing. Thanks for the information.

No problem. I just happened upon an article about it recently so it was fresh in my mind. Definately a topic for another thread.

[Yurt]

Not sure if somone mentioned this:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Lev. 18:22

[Yurt]

The 7th Day Adventists disagree with the very strongly. They all go to church on Saturdays.

absolutely.

[Gunny]

You JUST said "if the church says it's a sin, it's a sin" :lol::lol:



Most of the over reproducing being done is in the redneck families. Hardly survival of the fittest


You aren't real bright are you? WHO ELSE besides the church decides what is and is not a sin? One doesn't have to follow any religion to figure out 1st grade basics.

And the most over reproducing is done in Hispanic families, jimbob. DO try and keep up with the world, huh?

[trobinett]

You aren't real bright are you? WHO ELSE besides the church decides what is and is not a sin? One doesn't have to follow any religion to figure out 1st grade basics.

And the most over reproducing is done in Hispanic families, jimbob. DO try and keep up with the world, huh?

There you go again Gunny, giving intolerance, where its NOT deserved.

As to RELIGION, well, why do you think we are in the mess we are right now?

If I was King for a day, I would BANE religion, and guess what, the worlds problems would go away.........

What say you?

[Gunny]

There you go again Gunny, giving intolerance, where its NOT deserved.

As to RELIGION, well, why do you think we are in the mess we are right now?

If I was King for a day, I would BANE religion, and guess what, the worlds problems would go away.........

What say you?

Intolerance? Wrong. Junior G-Man decides to act intellectually superior when he's not even intelligent enough to figure out what Manu said is correct.

"Sin" is a Judeo-Christian word that translates to "crime against God." Christian churches define this for their members. Pretty simple, huh? And it doesn't take some Bible-thumping zealot to figure that out.

If you tried to ban my religion you'd get this: :fu:

[Gunny]

There you go again Gunny, giving intolerance, where its NOT deserved.

As to RELIGION, well, why do you think we are in the mess we are right now?

If I was King for a day, I would BANE religion, and guess what, the worlds problems would go away.........

What say you?

I'd also like to know how it is "I" who is showing intolerance when the person I responded to has shown intolerance toward religion, not I.

I'm inotlerant of "stupid." I don't care what color it is, what it worships, nor what's it's gender is.

[glockmail]

Gunny you insensitive ass. :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

I'd also like to know how it is "I" who is showing intolerance when the person I responded to has shown intolerance toward religion, not I.

I'm inotlerant of "stupid." I don't care what color it is, what it worships, nor what's it's gender is.


You are clearly stupidphobic. Shame!

[JackDaniels]

Intolerance? Wrong. Junior G-Man decides to act intellectually superior when he's not even intelligent enough to figure out what Manu said is correct.

Wrong. It is precisely this anti-intellectual following that causes all the problems in the world.


"Sin" is a Judeo-Christian word that translates to "crime against God." Christian churches define this for their members. Pretty simple, huh? And it doesn't take some Bible-thumping zealot to figure that out.

You're really not getting it. It's the fact that religious nuts follow the church blindly even though many injustices have been committed throughout history. Perhaps you should use the organ is your head and decide for yourself what sin is without resorting to blindly follow a cult that, in the end, wants nothing more than your money.

[PostmodernProphet]

decide for yourself what sin is

lol, isn't that exactly what got humanity in trouble with God in the first place?

[jimnyc]

Perhaps you should use the organ is your head and decide for yourself what sin is without resorting to blindly follow a cult that, in the end, wants nothing more than your money.

I very rarely chime in regarding the religious section but this statement is so retarded it deserved a response.

I have read the bible. I've reached out to the Lord on many occasions, regretfully more so when I was in suffering. I look to God when I am in bad spots, and I do my best to thank him when I am blessed. My wife and I have sought assistance from our local church where the priest was more than happy to have a discussion with us. I keep a small bible in my room at all times and have a crucifix on display to keep me humble and give me reassurance at times. Although I've been quite the sinner in my life, being a Christian has kept me in check.

Now go ahead an ask me how much money my religion has asked for me in return for so much wonderful guidance.

[Gunny]

Wrong. It is precisely this anti-intellectual following that causes all the problems in the world.



You're really not getting it. It's the fact that religious nuts follow the church blindly even though many injustices have been committed throughout history. Perhaps you should use the organ is your head and decide for yourself what sin is without resorting to blindly follow a cult that, in the end, wants nothing more than your money.

Hate to break the news to you, but without societal direction, the "organ in your head" teaches you nothing but basic survival. More fallacy on YOUR part. What you consider to be right and/or wrong is most certainly rooted in "blindly following a cult."

More in the hate to break it to you dept: Money, power and/or intolerance has caused almost all the problems in the world. The intolerance you have displayed thus far in this thread differentiates you from a rabid, foaming at the mouth Islamofascist HOW exactly?

[Gunny]

You are clearly stupidphobic. Shame!

I know. I intend to seek counseling at the earliest possible time.:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

actually, if you look at the original Hebrew text of Leviticus, you will see that those verses dealing with the levitical codes share a common Hebrew word which is roughly translated as "prohibited"....

the verses dealing with homosexual conduct are in a seperate section of Leviticus.....the word used in those verses, translated as 'abomination', shows up infrequently in scripture.....besides it's use in the context of homosexual conduct it is only used in verses dealing with human sacrifice, incest and idolatry......

Christ said that Christians are not bound by the Levitical code, those things which were 'prohibited'.....however, I think it is pretty obvious that God did not look favorably upon homosexual conduct, human sacrifice, incest, and idolatry......

I wish I could positive rep you for this but it says I have to spread some around.

It is UNFORTUNATE that the originator of this thread has been banned from his own thread.... I think it would have been GOOD for him to have been able to read and respond to your very informative, Christian post....and good for us, to have your knowledge here, defending us, Bibilcally....

I feel angst and sorrow that the person that wrote this original thread was not able to be "witnessed to"....am I wrong in your opinion for feeling this way? (you can pm me if off topic)

Also, I wanted to say that I have learned a great deal from some of your posts, and appreciate the lessons...just in case I am either too lazy to positive rep you or I need to spread some rep around.

jd

[trobinett]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but name one local, national, or international crisis, that was ever solved or in fact didn't become worst once some religion played their card.:slap::slap:

Now, before all the born again's, and other zealots go off the deep end, I'm NOT saying religion doesn't have its place, its just not the squeaky clean, solver of problems, that some would have us believe.:poke:

I can just feel the love......................:cheers2:

[Gunny]

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but name one local, national, or international crisis, that was ever solved or in fact didn't become worst once some religion played their card.:slap::slap:

Now, before all the born again's, and other zealots go off the deep end, I'm NOT saying religion doesn't have its place, its just not the squeaky clean, solver of problems, that some would have us believe.:poke:

I can just feel the love......................:cheers2:

It'd be a lot easier if you'd name the ones that weren't blamed on religion but were really about power and money .....

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Care to prove your claims, dmp?
As for the supposedly off topic comment about Cain, it's proof that Adam and Eve where not the first people, making the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" claim worthless.
Funny how uneducated people can be when it comes to sexuality.
Sexuality is who you are attracted to. your a sick freak aren't you :fu:

[JackDaniels]

I have read the bible. I've reached out to the Lord on many occasions, regretfully more so when I was in suffering. I look to God when I am in bad spots, and I do my best to thank him when I am blessed. My wife and I have sought assistance from our local church where the priest was more than happy to have a discussion with us. I keep a small bible in my room at all times and have a crucifix on display to keep me humble and give me reassurance at times. Although I've been quite the sinner in my life, being a Christian has kept me in check.

Now go ahead an ask me how much money my religion has asked for me in return for so much wonderful guidance.

This statement has literally no meaning. Are you trying to insinuate that your church does not request that it's congregation tithe? Otherwise your statement is pretty meaningless.

[JackDaniels]

lol, isn't that exactly what got humanity in trouble with God in the first place?

The attitude you hold is the same that Muslim extremists use as the basis for jihad. "The authority tells me so, so I do it."

[jimnyc]

This statement has literally no meaning. Are you trying to insinuate that your church does not request that it's congregation tithe? Otherwise your statement is pretty meaningless.

My statement has plenty of meaning. I my church has never asked me for a red cent. Some give willingly of course, and that's their right. But to make a claim that it's all about money is absurd.

[JackDaniels]

Hate to break the news to you, but without societal direction, the "organ in your head" teaches you nothing but basic survival. More fallacy on YOUR part. What you consider to be right and/or wrong is most certainly rooted in "blindly following a cult."

So you consider taking from an authority your basis for right and wrong as being independent, and trying to decipher for yourself is "blindly following a cult"?

You are incredibly uneducated.


More in the hate to break it to you dept: Money, power and/or intolerance has caused almost all the problems in the world. The intolerance you have displayed thus far in this thread differentiates you from a rabid, foaming at the mouth Islamofascist HOW exactly?

Because I do not follow a belief system that has wanted war (as the church's history has) or blindly accepting doctrine from an authority (as church goers do)

[JackDaniels]

My statement has plenty of meaning. I my church has never asked me for a red cent. Some give willingly of course, and that's their right. But to make a claim that it's all about money is absurd.

Does your church send you an envelope to send in your tithe?

[Abbey Marie]

Does your church send you an envelope to send in your tithe?

Mine does not.

[jimnyc]

Does your church send you an envelope to send in your tithe?

No Sir! Never received a single letter from them. I don't give them my personal information, and not once have I ever been frowned upon by them when going to church, or seeking their assistance in discussion.

[Abbey Marie]

No Sir! Never received a single letter from them. I don't give them my personal information, and not once have I ever been frowned upon by them when going to church, or seeking their assistance in discussion.

Oh, and not to mention the awful things they do with money they do collect. Prison ministries, Habitat for Humanity projects, African aid, etc., etc. It's too horrible to contemplate.

[JackDaniels]

Oh, and not to mention the awful things they do with money they do collect. Prison ministries, Habitat for Humanity projects, African aid, etc., etc. It's too horrible to contemplate.

I don't know about you, but in some of the poorer communities where I'm from, all the ministers drive BMWs and the like. These people, in these parishes, are taking complete advantage of their congregation.

Every church I've ever belonged to (3 or 4...I went to Catholic school all my life) send envelopes in order to send in your "suggested" tithe. It's sickening, really.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know about you, but in some of the poorer communities where I'm from, all the ministers drive BMWs and the like. These people, in these parishes, are taking complete advantage of their congregation.

Every church I've ever belonged to (3 or 4...I went to Catholic school all my life) send envelopes in order to send in your "suggested" tithe. It's sickening, really.

The envelope thing is very Catholic, in my experience, though some others do it as well. The churches I've attended, do not have these kind of ministers. They have all lived comfortably, but not even close to extravagantly. And to a man, they vacation at homes offered to them for that purpose by congregants to save money. I would not attend a church where the minister flaunted material possessions.

[glockmail]

I don't know about you, but in some of the poorer communities where I'm from, all the ministers drive BMWs and the like. These people, in these parishes, are taking complete advantage of their congregation.

Every church I've ever belonged to (3 or 4...I went to Catholic school all my life) send envelopes in order to send in your "suggested" tithe. It's sickening, really. I've been a Catholic my whole life and never heard any Catholic call it a tithe, which by biblical standards is 10%. Every year the priest sends us a letter noting our total contrubutions, saving us boku in taxes, and thanks us profusely for giving around 1%. All preists are sworn to poverty and the ones I've know pretty much live that way with dignity.

Gotta agree with you about some of the urban "ministries", though. A guy on my street is one-such preacher, lives in 4000sf all brick home in a fashionable suburban subdivision far from his church, and when I met him he treated me like a low life. I found out later that he has special funds for all sorts of stuff, including one for his "wife's hats", all of which are basically candy bowls for his selfish wants.

[Gunny]

So you consider taking from an authority your basis for right and wrong as being independent, and trying to decipher for yourself is "blindly following a cult"?

You are incredibly uneducated.

And your purposeful misinterpretation of what I said amounts to little more than a lie. If you honestly believe that your sense of right and wrong is not based on Judeo-Christian, Western ethic, then it is YOU who are uneducated.



Because I do not follow a belief system that has wanted war (as the church's history has) or blindly accepting doctrine from an authority (as church goers do)

Sorry, no sale. Your intolerance and hatred is every bit the same as theirs.

[Said1]

I don't know about you, but in some of the poorer communities where I'm from, all the ministers drive BMWs and the like. These people, in these parishes, are taking complete advantage of their congregation.

Every church I've ever belonged to (3 or 4...I went to Catholic school all my life) send envelopes in order to send in your "suggested" tithe. It's sickening, really.


Well, I've never seen 'tithe envelopes' in all my yrs spent in Catholics schools and going to church. Incidentally, putting money in the collection plate was always the funnest part - that and shaking hands after communion. My parents never put in bills, nor did I see many as the plate went by.

Also, the priests, brothers, nuns and sisters all live communally (by gender of course) in my area and many, many others. I think they took their vows of poverty quite seriously.

The other denominations are quite poor, you can tell by the lack of BMWs and cracked stucco exterior church walls.