Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The old Testament?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 3:21:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Christians, why are some old testament laws abrogated, but others are not?

Why is it permissable to eat pork, wear clothes of two different cloths, yet not engage in homosexual behaviour?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 3:49:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You didn't include one of my favorite old testament laws, the law of jubilee, basically Gods wealth/land distribution system.

Here is all you need to know, when reading the scriptures we need to ask our selves do we agree with it ? if the answer is no, then we shall say it not applicable in todays age and people who use it are just taking it out of "context"

If there is a passage we agree with, then we repeat it ad nausem. Any questions ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
christisking
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 12:19:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 3:21:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christians, why are some old testament laws abrogated, but others are not?

Why is it permissable to eat pork, wear clothes of two different cloths, yet not engage in homosexual behaviour?

Those based on the natural law carried over to us since they have always applied to all men. Those meant solely for the Jews have been cast aside since Christ's Church is meant for the whole world and not just the Jewish people.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 12:48:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 12:19:01 PM, christisking wrote:
At 8/8/2011 3:21:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christians, why are some old testament laws abrogated, but others are not?

Why is it permissable to eat pork, wear clothes of two different cloths, yet not engage in homosexual behaviour?

Those based on the natural law carried over to us since they have always applied to all men. Those meant solely for the Jews have been cast aside since Christ's Church is meant for the whole world and not just the Jewish people.

Source?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 4:51:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 3:21:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christians, why are some old testament laws abrogated, but others are not?

Why is it permissable to eat pork, wear clothes of two different cloths, yet not engage in homosexual behaviour?:

Biblical cherry-picking to suit agendas.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 5:28:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 3:21:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christians, why are some old testament laws abrogated, but others are not?

Why is it permissable to eat pork, wear clothes of two different cloths, yet not engage in homosexual behaviour?

The law died with Christ (Romans 7:4). Per your inquiry on homosexual behavior, that which is still applicable today is determined by whether or not it is still maintained by the precepts given by the New Testament. Christ, Peter and Paul specifically abolished the food laws and Paul allows for differences in Holy Days in Romans 14.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 5:36:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The law died with Christ (Romans 7:4). Per your inquiry on homosexual behavior, that which is still applicable today is determined by whether or not it is still maintained by the precepts given by the New Testament. Christ, Peter and Paul specifically abolished the food laws and Paul allows for differences in Holy Days in Romans 14.:

But there are many, many instances within the Halacha (like women's periods or laws against mold) that have not been addressed. Not all of it is dietary laws. So what about those?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 5:42:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 5:36:03 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The law died with Christ (Romans 7:4). Per your inquiry on homosexual behavior, that which is still applicable today is determined by whether or not it is still maintained by the precepts given by the New Testament. Christ, Peter and Paul specifically abolished the food laws and Paul allows for differences in Holy Days in Romans 14.:

But there are many, many instances within the Halacha (like women's periods or laws against mold) that have not been addressed. Not all of it is dietary laws. So what about those?

Then general rule is: if they are not repeated, they are not applicable.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 5:43:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 5:42:43 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 8/8/2011 5:36:03 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The law died with Christ (Romans 7:4). Per your inquiry on homosexual behavior, that which is still applicable today is determined by whether or not it is still maintained by the precepts given by the New Testament. Christ, Peter and Paul specifically abolished the food laws and Paul allows for differences in Holy Days in Romans 14.:

But there are many, many instances within the Halacha (like women's periods or laws against mold) that have not been addressed. Not all of it is dietary laws. So what about those?

Then general rule is: if they are not repeated in the New Testament, they are not applicable.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 5:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But there are many, many instances within the Halacha (like women's periods or laws against mold) that have not been addressed. Not all of it is dietary laws. So what about those?

Then general rule is: if they are not repeated, they are not applicable.:

Then that means you have to follow those laws as well. Even if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the issue why laws barring homosexuality exists but laws against mold in your house is considered antiquated. It doesn't make any sense. Did he fulfill the entire law or not?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 6:02:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 5:46:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But there are many, many instances within the Halacha (like women's periods or laws against mold) that have not been addressed. Not all of it is dietary laws. So what about those?

Then general rule is: if they are not repeated, they are not applicable.:

Then that means you have to follow those laws as well. Even if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the issue why laws barring homosexuality exists but laws against mold in your house is considered antiquated. It doesn't make any sense. Did he fulfill the entire law or not?

I don't have to follow any laws, per its death with Christ. I follow the moral principles of the New Testament because I love Christ, not because they procure salvation (because they don't). Just remember, what does and does not make sense is in no way contingent upon YOUR understanding, nor mine for that matter. The law was fulfilled and the law died. That's it. The law /= morality. So things like don't murder and the like are repeated in the New Testament not BECAUSE they were laws, but because they are moral. The converse is not always true however.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 6:10:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't have to follow any laws, per its death with Christ.:

So you can murder people because Jesus died on the Christ? If not, why not?

I follow the moral principles of the New Testament because I love Christ, not because they procure salvation (because they don't). Just remember, what does and does not make sense is in no way contingent upon YOUR understanding, nor mine for that matter.:

Well, that's very convenient. We have a manuscript that we're supposed to follow, but heaven forbid we might actually have to interpret it.

The law was fulfilled and the law died. That's it. The law /= morality. So things like don't murder and the like are repeated in the New Testament not BECAUSE they were laws, but because they are moral. The converse is not always true however.:

Every single law that has passed on any continent in any point in time is because of a moral framework of some kind. That's why there are laws. Did not Paul say that the Law was written in our hearts (i.e. a moral framework)? Secondly, what's the difference between fulfilling the law and abolishing it? Jesus supposedly fulfilled it, but if we don't use them anymore, then he most certainly did abolish it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 6:10:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 5:46:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But there are many, many instances within the Halacha (like women's periods or laws against mold) that have not been addressed. Not all of it is dietary laws. So what about those?

Then general rule is: if they are not repeated, they are not applicable.:

Then that means you have to follow those laws as well. Even if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the issue why laws barring homosexuality exists but laws against mold in your house is considered antiquated. It doesn't make any sense. Did he fulfill the entire law or not?

The mold was a unclean defiled issue. Jesus took care of that one too.

Matt 15:18

18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 6:42:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The mold was a unclean defiled issue. Jesus took care of that one too.

Matt 15:18

18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.:

Remeber the verse where Jesus condemned homosexuality? Me neither... cuz it's not there. Secondly, defiling one's temple could include sexual sin, so did Jesus cover that too?

So, again, why are some laws abrogated while others remain intact to this day?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 7:04:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 6:42:01 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The mold was a unclean defiled issue. Jesus took care of that one too.

Matt 15:18

18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.:

Remeber the verse where Jesus condemned homosexuality? Me neither... cuz it's not there.

Lol, now you move the goal post by requiring Jesus to say it.

Secondly, defiling one's temple could include sexual sin, so did Jesus cover that too?

Actually that's the only way I can think of to defile your temple. Everything else comes from within.

So, again, why are some laws abrogated while others remain intact to this day?

There is your misunderstanding. God made the laws for a stiff-necked people because He knew it was all they could handle. Jesus came to fulfill the laws that were viewed through a veil by the Jews. He didn't remove any of them with out fulfilling them.

The people of old wanted what you want, a loop hole.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 7:14:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Remeber the verse where Jesus condemned homosexuality? Me neither... cuz it's not there.

Lol, now you move the goal post by requiring Jesus to say it.:

No, that was InquireTruth's arbitration, not mine. But if Jesus didn't mention it, you're left with Paul (a Pharisee) making the declaration.

Secondly, defiling one's temple could include sexual sin, so did Jesus cover that too?

Actually that's the only way I can think of to defile your temple. Everything else comes from within.:

What are you basing your opinion off of?

So, again, why are some laws abrogated while others remain intact to this day?

There is your misunderstanding. God made the laws for a stiff-necked people because He knew it was all they could handle.:

Source?

Jesus came to fulfill the laws that were viewed through a veil by the Jews. He didn't remove any of them with out fulfilling them.:

So how did dying on the cross fulfill the ghastly sin of eating shellfish but not the ghastly sin of homosexuality? You yourself stated that it was about defilement, yet shellfish and mold and periods (which used to defile you) no longer does, but sexual sin still defiles you. You're being completely inconsistent.

The people of old wanted what you want, a loop hole.:

How can I want a loophole on something I don't even believe exists?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:10:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 7:14:19 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Remeber the verse where Jesus condemned homosexuality? Me neither... cuz it's not there.

Lol, now you move the goal post by requiring Jesus to say it.:

No, that was InquireTruth's arbitration, not mine. But if Jesus didn't mention it, you're left with Paul (a Pharisee) making the declaration.

I didn't see you reply to St. Paul so I figured.

The Apostles had the authority to teach on Faith and Morals. Jesus sent them, they sent others and so on. They had as much authority on earth as Jesus did.

Secondly, defiling one's temple could include sexual sin, so did Jesus cover that too?

Actually that's the only way I can think of to defile your temple. Everything else comes from within.:

What are you basing your opinion off of?

Scripture.

So, again, why are some laws abrogated while others remain intact to this day?

There is your misunderstanding. God made the laws for a stiff-necked people because He knew it was all they could handle.:

Source?

Scripture.

Jesus came to fulfill the laws that were viewed through a veil by the Jews. He didn't remove any of them with out fulfilling them.:

So how did dying on the cross fulfill the ghastly sin of eating shellfish but not the ghastly sin of homosexuality?

Eating shellfish was for the stiff-necked Jews that needed laws. You were never defiled by eating shellfish. I believe the shellfish, pig, clothing, worship regulations were all designed to keep the Jews seperate from the heathen nations around them.

You yourself stated that it was about defilement, yet shellfish and mold and periods (which used to defile you) no longer does, but sexual sin still defiles you. You're being completely inconsistent.

All those things never defiled you like sexual sins do. The stiff necked people wanted rules and laws so they could have something to boast about. So they could feel like they were "good" without actually living it in a real way.

Remember Jesus talking about hating brother? There was no law for that because it couldn't be enforced the way the people wanted. They could stone anyone. And looking in a women with lust in your heart being the same as adultry.

Jesus wrapped up the 10 Commandments and all the other laws in just two commandments. And I'm not fully convinced the laws of Moses were the direct laws of God. But that doesn't really matter though.

Just like the sacrifices. They never cleansed the sins, just covered them until Jesus finished it. The Jews needed a way to feel righteous when they had sinned. God provided the way.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:33:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Comment: You all do realize that you are talking about text that was written hundreds and hundreds of years ago by men right? Men. Not God. Not Gods. Men.

If you have some proof showing otherwise... I would like to see it. If not, I don't see how you can take any of it as truth or fact, outside of blind faith.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:20:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:33:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
Comment: You all do realize that you are talking about text that was written hundreds and hundreds of years ago by men right? Men. Not God. Not Gods. Men.

If you have some proof showing otherwise... I would like to see it. If not, I don't see how you can take any of it as truth or fact, outside of blind faith.

We are not discussing whether you take it as fact or not.

We are having a conversation about Scriptures. Calling it all made up and therefore a bunch of bull comes towards the end if the conversation. You know, when there are no more assertions or false perceptions to lean on. ;)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:31:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 7:14:19 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Actually that's the only way I can think of to defile your temple. Everything else comes from within.:

What are you basing your opinion off of?

Sorry I gave the short answer earlier, battery was dying.

Jesus already said that what defiles you cones out of you, from your heart.

Now look at these verses in 1 Corinthians chapter six.

18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

This would be defiling the temple, or you body. If every sin except sexual sin is without the body I don't see how I'm wrong. Couple that with Jesus saying what defiles you comes from within I see no other outcome.


So, again, why are some laws abrogated while others remain intact to this day?

There is your misunderstanding. God made the laws for a stiff-necked people because He knew it was all they could handle.:

Source?

It is every where, all throughout the Bible. It will take me some time to gather up verse for verse. But here is a short preview.

Have you read of Moses and the Jews wandering in the wilderness? God repeatedly showed them He was all powerful and with them but they still complained.

1.God made the Laws as a covenant. They obviously were never going to love Him otherwise. He said "keep up your end I'll keep up mine". When they kept their end it was milk and honey. When they didn't it was slavery and disgrace. The OT is basically a broken record repeating itself over and over. The Jews rebel they suffer. They repent they are made whole. It's all a huge sign for Gods mercy.

2. You don't know what sin is unless you have a guideline. This goes back to what I said about keeping them separate from the heathen nations around them. Remember there were many gods worshiped all around the Jews. Something as simple as a long robe when serving at the alter of Our God rooted out the heathen worship that was practiced nude or nearly nude.

3. All of it points to Jesus. It points to His commandments.

4. It was milk for the young in spirit (the Jews) before they were able to grow spiritually are were able to accept the real food.

There is so much in Scripture that ties this all together. The the final tapestry is Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Have you ever read about the graven image God had Moses make? The image was lifted up on a pole, and all that looked at it were healed. Jesus came and healed the sick, lame and possessed. And this was still only a parable for the true healing Jesus gives. He talked about that you know.

There is so much more. But I'm afraid all the books in the world couldn't contain all that there is.


Jesus came to fulfill the laws that were viewed through a veil by the Jews. He didn't remove any of them with out fulfilling them.:

So how did dying on the cross fulfill the ghastly sin of eating shellfish but not the ghastly sin of homosexuality? You yourself stated that it was about defilement, yet shellfish and mold and periods (which used to defile you) no longer does, but sexual sin still defiles you. You're being completely inconsistent.

The people of old wanted what you want, a loop hole.:

How can I want a loophole on something I don't even believe exists?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 7:31:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 5:28:14 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 8/8/2011 3:21:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Christians, why are some old testament laws abrogated, but others are not?

Why is it permissable to eat pork, wear clothes of two different cloths, yet not engage in homosexual behaviour?

The law died with Christ (Romans 7:4). Per your inquiry on homosexual behavior, that which is still applicable today is determined by whether or not it is still maintained by the precepts given by the New Testament. Christ, Peter and Paul specifically abolished the food laws and Paul allows for differences in Holy Days in Romans 14.

So there is no theological argument against homosexuality?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 7:33:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 7:04:22 PM, jharry wrote:
At 8/8/2011 6:42:01 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The mold was a unclean defiled issue. Jesus took care of that one too.

Matt 15:18

18 But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.:

Remeber the verse where Jesus condemned homosexuality? Me neither... cuz it's not there.

Lol, now you move the goal post by requiring Jesus to say it.

Erm... how is that moving the goal posts?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 7:55:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What are you basing your opinion off of?

Scripture.:

That means I was looking for specific scripture.

Source?

Scripture.:

That means you're supposed to validate your claim with specific scripture.

Eating shellfish was for the stiff-necked Jews that needed laws. You were never defiled by eating shellfish.:

You clearly don't understand the principle of clean and unclean and how the unclean are abominations that defile.

"And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten. Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth; these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them." -- Leviticus 11:41-43

Notice how they are defiled by simply eating shellfish. Notice also how shellfish (one of God's own creations) and homosexuals (also one of God's own creations) are both considered:

1. Abominable
2. Unclean
3. Defiled

This totally contradicts your assertions, and therefore the OP's question remains unsatisfactorily answered.

Jesus wrapped up the 10 Commandments and all the other laws in just two commandments. And I'm not fully convinced the laws of Moses were the direct laws of God. But that doesn't really matter though.:

Well, all throughout Leviticus it says "And the LORD said [insert prohibition here]...."

Just like the sacrifices. They never cleansed the sins, just covered them until Jesus finished it. The Jews needed a way to feel righteous when they had sinned. God provided the way.:

Right, so if Jesus finished it then why are some former abominations (shellfish) now acceptable while others (homosexuality) are not?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 8:20:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 7:31:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So there is no theological argument against homosexuality?

It's probably something along the lines of sex without the intent of procreation being immoral or some sh!t like that. It's hilarious when Christians bring up homosexuality being immoral, considering most (should) use protection -- especially now that the Catholic Church endorses condoms due to social pressure after all that time of saying birth control was wrong. Of course they will cherry pick what values to hold onto and what to abandon based on the times like usual. One day when the majority of society realizes how absurd it is to be anti-homosexual, I'm sure the Church will soon follow suit and find some loophole to interpret the scripture differently. As for now there are already branches that do not interpret anti-gay scripture as actually being anti-gay (for example, the Sodom and Gomorrah story). They interpret it not condemning homosexual behavior but condemning the the right to interrogate the strangers from the story. That's another thing - I love how God is ambiguous (and leaves subject to interpretation) His holy message lol. Very convenient.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 8:28:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 8:20:40 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/9/2011 7:31:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So there is no theological argument against homosexuality?

It's probably something along the lines of sex without the intent of procreation being immoral or some sh!t like that. It's hilarious when Christians bring up homosexuality being immoral, considering most (should) use protection -- especially now that the Catholic Church endorses condoms due to social pressure after all that time of saying birth control was wrong. Of course they will cherry pick what values to hold onto and what to abandon based on the times like usual. One day when the majority of society realizes how absurd it is to be anti-homosexual, I'm sure the Church will soon follow suit and find some loophole to interpret the scripture differently. As for now there are already branches that do not interpret anti-gay scripture as actually being anti-gay (for example, the Sodom and Gomorrah story). They interpret it not condemning homosexual behavior but condemning the the right to interrogate the strangers from the story. That's another thing - I love how God is ambiguous (and leaves subject to interpretation) His holy message lol. Very convenient.

You are of course completely spot on, I have no idea why I attempt to find meaning in this!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 2:15:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 7:55:19 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are you basing your opinion off of?

Scripture.:

That means I was looking for specific scripture.

Source?

Scripture.:

That means you're supposed to validate your claim with specific scripture.

I replied twice to that. It is back on the second page. Anyway sorry, my battery was about dead.

Jesus already said that what defiles you comes out of you, from your heart.

Now look at these verses in 1 Corinthians chapter six.

18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

This would be defiling the temple, or you body. If every sin except sexual sin is without the body I don't see how I'm wrong. Couple that with Jesus saying what defiles you comes from within I see no other outcome.

Eating shellfish was for the stiff-necked Jews that needed laws. You were never defiled by eating shellfish.:

You clearly don't understand the principle of clean and unclean and how the unclean are abominations that defile.

"And every creeping thing that creeps on the earth shall be an abomination. It shall not be eaten. Whatever crawls on its belly, whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth; these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination. You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them." -- Leviticus 11:41-43

If you look at the verse it says shall be. This is part of the first covenant. If you look at homosexuality scriptures say that the act IS an
abomination. The OT laws were to set them apart from other nations.

Notice how they are defiled by simply eating shellfish. Notice also how shellfish (one of God's own creations) and homosexuals (also one of God's own creations) are both considered:

1. Abominable
2. Unclean
3. Defiled

The act is considered unclean making you defiled.

This totally contradicts your assertions, and therefore the OP's question remains unsatisfactorily answered.

OT law is finished because the NT has been established. Jesus sealed up the old law and gave a new one. And the new agreement or covenant is outlined in the gospels and epistles.


Just like the sacrifices. They never cleansed the sins, just covered them until Jesus finished it. The Jews needed a way to feel righteous when they had sinned. God provided the way.:

Right, so if Jesus finished it then why are some former abominations (shellfish) now acceptable while others (homosexuality) are not?

It's a contract or a agreement. If I do abc then I get xyz.

Its this. Say I paid a million dollar debt for you. But the condition is you do abc. I offer the deal with any conditions I desire.

Take it or leave it. :)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 6:30:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So just to clarify the Christian consensus (on this site) is that there is no restriction against homosexual acts?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:43:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 6:30:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So just to clarify the Christian consensus (on this site) is that there is no restriction against homosexual acts?

Strange.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 12:44:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyone?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 12:51:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:43:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/9/2011 6:30:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
So just to clarify the Christian consensus (on this site) is that there is no restriction against homosexual acts?

Strange.

It really isn't as strange as you think.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp