Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who REALLY goes by the OT?

Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 1:42:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hey, guys. I've been reading my Bible a lot lately. So far I'm at Chronicles. I'm no religion expert, however the first early books of the Old Testament really began to throw me off on the interpretation of what might be God.

For example, Deuteronomy was the chapter that really made me think how unusual certain beliefs are. (No offense to anyone who holds these beliefs.) One part of Deuteronomy that really grabbed my attention was Leviticus 18:22: "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Myself being a Christian, however, this was still just something that I could never stomach. Before I read this, I never truly believe homosexuality was directly spoken out against in the Bible, and that all the Christian hatred towards gay people all came from some totally misinterpreted phrase. This passage just blatantly puts out an anti-gay stance.

Here's what I thought: if the Old Testament (or Torah) is what the Jews go by, then why do we always hear the Christian right speaking out against gay marriage? (Ted Haggard, etc, etc.) If Christians are to go by the New Testament and follow the word of Christ, then why do very devout Catholics and Protestants seem to sometimes follow, what appears to be, Jewish law? If this is true, why do we almost never hear criticism from devout Jews?

Is my interpretation of who follows which Testament completely wrong?
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 1:44:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've already read the Bible. Read Ecclesiastes. It's about how we don't have a purpose.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Many Christians go by it because it is (if you believe in said religion) the word of God no matter how you put it.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 1:52:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
(*One part of LEVITICUS that grabbed my attention... what am I saying!?)

At 1/5/2010 1:48:06 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Many Christians go by it because it is (if you believe in said religion) the word of God no matter how you put it.

Yes, however, is it still Christian of someone to go by holy text that is anything other than the New Testament?
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 1:59:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 1:52:28 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
(*One part of LEVITICUS that grabbed my attention... what am I saying!?)

At 1/5/2010 1:48:06 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Many Christians go by it because it is (if you believe in said religion) the word of God no matter how you put it.

Yes, however, is it still Christian of someone to go by holy text that is anything other than the New Testament?

If you quote the OT to say homosexuality is wrong, etc. but don't follow everything it says then you're just being hypocritical.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 2:07:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 1:52:28 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
(*One part of LEVITICUS that grabbed my attention... what am I saying!?)

At 1/5/2010 1:48:06 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Many Christians go by it because it is (if you believe in said religion) the word of God no matter how you put it.

Yes, however, is it still Christian of someone to go by holy text that is anything other than the New Testament?

I can't post it write now, but I think there's a verse where Jesus requires that the OT must be followed. I can't stand it when Christians try to disregard the OT because it's an easy target to criticize, yet they cling to Genesis and the Ten Commandments found in the OT. The whole Bible itself is part of Christian docrtrine.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 2:12:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Old Testament is just as valid as the new. Unless Jesus clearly changed somethong it's still valid.

I've read it 3 times now.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 2:12:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 1:52:28 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
(*One part of LEVITICUS that grabbed my attention... what am I saying!?)

At 1/5/2010 1:48:06 PM, DevinKing wrote:
Many Christians go by it because it is (if you believe in said religion) the word of God no matter how you put it.

Yes, however, is it still Christian of someone to go by holy text that is anything other than the New Testament?

--I am no expert on Christianity but I am pretty sure that the OT is part of the Holy Book (Bible) and is still reguarded as the word of God. In other words yes.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 2:28:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Changes(from memory) - By Jese

Food - In Mattew I remember him saying "what does in the mouth cannot defile the soul only what leaves it questions purity"

Execution - Mark, He who is without sin cast the first stone: Jesus is told to stone and adultoress for adultry.

Divorce - Also Mark, Jesus say Moses only allowed Divorse because the Jews bept pestering him.

Other than that it's rather all the same.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 2:42:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 2:28:47 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Changes(from memory) - By Jese

Food - In Mattew I remember him saying "what does in the mouth cannot defile the soul only what leaves it questions purity"

Execution - Mark, He who is without sin cast the first stone: Jesus is told to stone and adultoress for adultry.

Divorce - Also Mark, Jesus say Moses only allowed Divorse because the Jews bept pestering him.


Other than that it's rather all the same.

Paraphrasing, Jesus said:
"I come not to change the Law (Old Testament), but to fulfill it".
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 2:55:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 2:28:47 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Changes(from memory) - By Jese

Food - In Mattew I remember him saying "what does in the mouth cannot defile the soul only what leaves it questions purity"

Execution - Mark, He who is without sin cast the first stone: Jesus is told to stone and adultoress for adultry.

Divorce - Also Mark, Jesus say Moses only allowed Divorse because the Jews bept pestering him.


Other than that it's rather all the same.

Grammer Fail... almost as bad as banker
'sup DDO -- july 2013
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 3:08:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 2:55:24 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 1/5/2010 2:28:47 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Changes(from memory) - By Jese

Food - In Mattew I remember him saying "what does in the mouth cannot defile the soul only what leaves it questions purity"

Execution - Mark, He who is without sin cast the first stone: Jesus is told to stone and adultoress for adultry.

Divorce - Also Mark, Jesus say Moses only allowed Divorse because the Jews bept pestering him.


Other than that it's rather all the same.

Grammer Fail... almost as bad as banker

Nto rely..! it cudl be mch wors..!
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 5:26:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 1:44:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I've already read the Bible. Read Ecclesiastes. It's about how we don't have a purpose.

Isn't Ecclesiastes is about the emptiness of life without God, ie. eternity spent in oblivion/Sheol after death?

For believers, on the other hand: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The book is emphasizing the loss of meaning that Nietzsche recognized much later must come with the death of God. I'm curious if you've read any of his work.

Also, I think the other verse you have on your profile from Ecclesiastes is taken completely out of context; the fundamental worth of the human being is a key concept of Christianity that should form the basis of teachings on abortion. We ought to debate that some time.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 6:04:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm no expert, but I don't see any reason why christians should be rejecting the Old Testament as it's still considered part of the Bible(from my experiences most christians do disregard it in favour of the New Testament instead). It would make sense that truly devout christians would be following both books.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 7:11:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The problem with one religion going by the doctrine of both of the holy texts is that it leads to more hypocrisy and contradictions. The Bible alone is full of contradictions in itself, and anyone who can be honest with themselves can see that. My problem is, why is it that while God is, more often than not, praised in the New Testament to be loving and forgiving, yet in the Old Testament, God is, more often than not, presented as a vengeful being who literally demands your respect in order to avoid eternal suffering? God kills people for highly unusual and irrational reasons in the Old Testament, then in the New Testament, God, as a human, comes down to cure people from blindness, help the poor, and anything else that would be "the right thing to do."

I do not believe any religion on earth has it all, completely right. Things like this bring us to question, why would God come down on earth to save us from the sin He originally condemned us to in the Old Testament? This is where it appears there are two different Gods being spoken of in the Bible. Following both books just seems to be unreasonable and illogical. As a Christian, personally, I believe I must love all people of all races and orientations. Does hating gay people and loving thy neighbor sound very plausible? Of course not.

(Let me know if I need to clarify anything I just said...)
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 6:44:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 1:42:45 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Here's what I thought: if the Old Testament (or Torah) is what the Jews go by, then why do we always hear the Christian right speaking out against gay marriage? (Ted Haggard, etc, etc.) If Christians are to go by the New Testament and follow the word of Christ, then why do very devout Catholics and Protestants seem to sometimes follow, what appears to be, Jewish law? If this is true, why do we almost never hear criticism from devout Jews?

Is my interpretation of who follows which Testament completely wrong?

First of all, Christians believe that Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament and Law perfectly because sinful humans were unable to, and furthermore that Jesus demonstrated the purpose behind the laws that people had begun to forget. In this way Christians do not follow only the New Testament and not the Old. It would be impossible to do so, as the NT fulfills the OT and reveals to us the original purpose behind it all.

As for gay marriage, we are not commanded to hate gay people but to recognize homosexuality as a sin. By legally recognizing gay marriage, this nation would be promoting homosexuality. It's something about sex in general that strikes a nerve and makes Christians take a more public stance on gay marriage and sex outside of marriage than anything else like drunkenness or something, but other than that it's no different than any other moral stand Christians take.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 6:56:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 7:11:26 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
The problem with one religion going by the doctrine of both of the holy texts is that it leads to more hypocrisy and contradictions. The Bible alone is full of contradictions in itself, and anyone who can be honest with themselves can see that. My problem is, why is it that while God is, more often than not, praised in the New Testament to be loving and forgiving, yet in the Old Testament, God is, more often than not, presented as a vengeful being who literally demands your respect in order to avoid eternal suffering? God kills people for highly unusual and irrational reasons in the Old Testament, then in the New Testament, God, as a human, comes down to cure people from blindness, help the poor, and anything else that would be "the right thing to do."

I do not believe any religion on earth has it all, completely right. Things like this bring us to question, why would God come down on earth to save us from the sin He originally condemned us to in the Old Testament? This is where it appears there are two different Gods being spoken of in the Bible. Following both books just seems to be unreasonable and illogical. As a Christian, personally, I believe I must love all people of all races and orientations. Does hating gay people and loving thy neighbor sound very plausible? Of course not.

(Let me know if I need to clarify anything I just said...)

For contradictions, let me know what you think of my debate so far http://www.debate.org...

And again, we are not commanded to hate gay people and somehow still love thy neighbor. The OT says that HOMOSEXUALITY (the sin) is detestable. Nothing is said of hating HOMOSEXUALS (the people). I hope that clears it up for you. It's the old 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing.

Because the OT focused on God's establishment of His chosen people and His will for them, it obviously includes a lot of stuff about God's punishments for their disobedience. This does not mean that God was not loving then, and it does not mean that He does not punish disobedience now. But because the NT focuses on Jesus' life, teachings, and resurrection, it obviously mentions God's wrath less as it is just a lot of teaching, although the wrath is still mentioned and demonstrated. Check out Acts 5:1-11.

I know many Christians have been confused about the 'mean God' of the OT and the 'nice God' of the NT, but I hope it is more clear to you now. The misunderstanding goes away when we understand the overall focus of each testament, and we get a very clear picture of God when we consider them together (OT + NT).
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 6:59:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 6:56:44 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
And again, we are not commanded to hate gay people and somehow still love thy neighbor. The OT says that HOMOSEXUALITY (the sin) is detestable. Nothing is said of hating HOMOSEXUALS (the people). I hope that clears it up for you. It's the old 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing.

So, um, stoning and murdering homosexuals, as is stated in the OT, is not hating homosexuals, but simply hating the sin of homosexuality, do I have that right?

That, frankly, makes no sense; how can you only "hate the sin" yet be commanded to stone a homosexual if you are not hating, detesting, reviling, the individual himself? Hm?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 10:32:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 6:56:44 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Because the OT focused on God's establishment of His chosen people and His will for them, it obviously includes a lot of stuff about God's punishments for their disobedience. This does not mean that God was not loving then, and it does not mean that He does not punish disobedience now. But because the NT focuses on Jesus' life, teachings, and resurrection, it obviously mentions God's wrath less as it is just a lot of teaching, although the wrath is still mentioned and demonstrated. Check out Acts 5:1-11.

So if i go out and stone and kill a homosexual, as per the laws in the OT, do you think ive done wrong? After all, God commanded these laws unto the israelites, and yet, as you claimed, he did this out of love.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 10:40:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 6:59:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/12/2010 6:56:44 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
And again, we are not commanded to hate gay people and somehow still love thy neighbor. The OT says that HOMOSEXUALITY (the sin) is detestable. Nothing is said of hating HOMOSEXUALS (the people). I hope that clears it up for you. It's the old 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing.

So, um, stoning and murdering homosexuals, as is stated in the OT, is not hating homosexuals, but simply hating the sin of homosexuality, do I have that right?

The homosexuals are supposed to actually refrain from acting homosexual.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:06:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/5/2010 1:42:45 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
Hey, guys. I've been reading my Bible a lot lately. So far I'm at Chronicles. I'm no religion expert, however the first early books of the Old Testament really began to throw me off on the interpretation of what might be God.

For example, Deuteronomy was the chapter that really made me think how unusual certain beliefs are. (No offense to anyone who holds these beliefs.) One part of Deuteronomy that really grabbed my attention was Leviticus 18:22: "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Myself being a Christian, however, this was still just something that I could never stomach. Before I read this, I never truly believe homosexuality was directly spoken out against in the Bible, and that all the Christian hatred towards gay people all came from some totally misinterpreted phrase. This passage just blatantly puts out an anti-gay stance.

Here's what I thought: if the Old Testament (or Torah) is what the Jews go by, then why do we always hear the Christian right speaking out against gay marriage? (Ted Haggard, etc, etc.) If Christians are to go by the New Testament and follow the word of Christ, then why do very devout Catholics and Protestants seem to sometimes follow, what appears to be, Jewish law? If this is true, why do we almost never hear criticism from devout Jews?

Is my interpretation of who follows which Testament completely wrong?

I don't know what bible you are reading but that text reads:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"
-King James Version-

that is the only acceptable interpretation.

As a Christian, you should know that marriage is defined in the bible as a union between one man and one woman for the sole purpose of representing the relationship between God and his people and the strength and love implied in that relationship. To take part in homosexuality is openly represent God as in love with another god or God's people worshiping other people rather than God.

That might put into perspective.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:10:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh and by the way...

God didn't change when Christ was born. He is and was and forever will be the same.
Some laws of the old testament were specifically directed to the Jews and thus don't apply to today. The ban on homosexuality is not one of those. The only laws cancelled by Jesus were those he actually said were cancelled, such as no eating pork, or required animal sacrifice. Homosexuality is and was and always will be a sin just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery and bestiality and poligimy and ....etc.
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 12:53:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:10:14 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
Oh and by the way...

God didn't change when Christ was born. He is and was and forever will be the same.
Some laws of the old testament were specifically directed to the Jews and thus don't apply to today. The ban on homosexuality is not one of those. The only laws cancelled by Jesus were those he actually said were cancelled, such as no eating pork, or required animal sacrifice. Homosexuality is and was and always will be a sin just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery and bestiality and poligimy and ....etc.

Oh, so the laws that say that you must stone homosexuals or adulterous people, must be followed? Okay.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 12:53:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:06:41 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
At 1/5/2010 1:42:45 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
Hey, guys. I've been reading my Bible a lot lately. So far I'm at Chronicles. I'm no religion expert, however the first early books of the Old Testament really began to throw me off on the interpretation of what might be God.

For example, Deuteronomy was the chapter that really made me think how unusual certain beliefs are. (No offense to anyone who holds these beliefs.) One part of Deuteronomy that really grabbed my attention was Leviticus 18:22: "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Myself being a Christian, however, this was still just something that I could never stomach. Before I read this, I never truly believe homosexuality was directly spoken out against in the Bible, and that all the Christian hatred towards gay people all came from some totally misinterpreted phrase. This passage just blatantly puts out an anti-gay stance.

Here's what I thought: if the Old Testament (or Torah) is what the Jews go by, then why do we always hear the Christian right speaking out against gay marriage? (Ted Haggard, etc, etc.) If Christians are to go by the New Testament and follow the word of Christ, then why do very devout Catholics and Protestants seem to sometimes follow, what appears to be, Jewish law? If this is true, why do we almost never hear criticism from devout Jews?

Is my interpretation of who follows which Testament completely wrong?

I don't know what bible you are reading but that text reads:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"
-King James Version-

that is the only acceptable interpretation.

As a Christian, you should know that marriage is defined in the bible as a union between one man and one woman for the sole purpose of representing the relationship between God and his people and the strength and love implied in that relationship. To take part in homosexuality is openly represent God as in love with another god or God's people worshiping other people rather than God.

That might put into perspective.

Isnt this passage completely void of lesbian relationships?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 12:56:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 12:53:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:10:14 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
Oh and by the way...

God didn't change when Christ was born. He is and was and forever will be the same.
Some laws of the old testament were specifically directed to the Jews and thus don't apply to today. The ban on homosexuality is not one of those. The only laws cancelled by Jesus were those he actually said were cancelled, such as no eating pork, or required animal sacrifice. Homosexuality is and was and always will be a sin just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery and bestiality and poligimy and ....etc.

Oh, so the laws that say that you must stone homosexuals or adulterous people, must be followed? Okay.

He also said to love your neighbor. And you don't stone the neighbors you love.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 1:04:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 12:56:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/12/2010 12:53:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:10:14 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
Oh and by the way...

God didn't change when Christ was born. He is and was and forever will be the same.
Some laws of the old testament were specifically directed to the Jews and thus don't apply to today. The ban on homosexuality is not one of those. The only laws cancelled by Jesus were those he actually said were cancelled, such as no eating pork, or required animal sacrifice. Homosexuality is and was and always will be a sin just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery and bestiality and poligimy and ....etc.

Oh, so the laws that say that you must stone homosexuals or adulterous people, must be followed? Okay.

He also said to love your neighbor. And you don't stone the neighbors you love.

Yeah, thanks for pointing out another Biblical contradiction. So you're telling me it's ok to stone homosexual strangers, but you put the stone down if the homosexual is your friend?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 1:25:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 1:04:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/12/2010 12:56:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/12/2010 12:53:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:10:14 AM, resolutionsmasher wrote:
Oh and by the way...

God didn't change when Christ was born. He is and was and forever will be the same.
Some laws of the old testament were specifically directed to the Jews and thus don't apply to today. The ban on homosexuality is not one of those. The only laws cancelled by Jesus were those he actually said were cancelled, such as no eating pork, or required animal sacrifice. Homosexuality is and was and always will be a sin just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery and bestiality and poligimy and ....etc.

Oh, so the laws that say that you must stone homosexuals or adulterous people, must be followed? Okay.

He also said to love your neighbor. And you don't stone the neighbors you love.

Yeah, thanks for pointing out another Biblical contradiction. So you're telling me it's ok to stone homosexual strangers, but you put the stone down if the homosexual is your friend?

Everybody is your neighbor. Metaphorically, at least.

As for contradiction, we're discussing what OT laws were repealed by Jesus. Laws involving death are pretty much all repealed.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 1:28:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 1:25:17 PM, mongeese wrote:
As for contradiction, we're discussing what OT laws were repealed by Jesus. Laws involving death are pretty much all repealed.

Woah, woah, woah.

Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

The Fulfillment of the Law

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. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 1:44:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nags ftw.

And mongeese, how convenient that you think Jesus abolished the naughty laws.

But thanks to Nags, he proved that you, as a Christian, are still required to stone me and anyone else who disbelieves.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat