Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Oct 25, 2006 20:17:48 GMT -5
C'mon BC, no name calling.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 20:18:14 GMT -5
Ow.. That was insulting. You are a right wing fundie. You're over-rightiousness prooves it. In any of my posts did I say the Bible was wrong? Second. How do you know what church I follow? If any at all, so can you call on my practices? Feh...this is why I'm so irrated at my faith. I swear, when I'm 28, I'm going to be a raving nilhist << I'm sorry. I might have overstepped myself. I shouldn't have phrased myself the way I did; that was completely wrong. However, if you simply extend your logic, and use what you said earlier in your posts (specifically your statement about being in a "new day and age" and your comments about the Bible being riddled with errors and contradictions) that the viewpoint that the Bible should be discarded is pretty much the only logical location that one could arrive to. Furthermore, as for being overly-righteous, I specifically said that I occasionally jerk off to emphasize the point that I am not perfect and that I do sin and that I do mess up. I do all those things. I am far from perfect. However, the point is that one is not supposed to actively engage in sin and delight in it.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 20:31:20 GMT -5
C'mon BC, no name calling. Ok Grandi, this is way off-topic, but I loathe that second GIF of yours.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Oct 25, 2006 20:36:08 GMT -5
C'mon BC, no name calling. Ok Grandi, this is way off-topic, but I loathe that second GIF of yours. Fat dead comedians have the right to strip too.
|
|
|
Post by demonofthewest on Oct 25, 2006 20:36:28 GMT -5
Well shucks, now I'm confused. You're against homsexuality because of the Bible. However, the Bible also tells you that you cannot eat pork(Leviticus 11:7). Since the Bible is apparently divine, anyone who eats pork is a sinner. Unless there's some sort of divine logic I'm missing.
EDIT: Sorry, there were about twenty different posts before I finally got around to posting this and I missed some of your arguments. Some interesting, some downright strange. If biblical slavery was "indentured servitude" and not slavery then why does the Bible say that you can beat a slave and, as long as he doesn't die until the next day, you haven't sinned? Seems like New World slavery to me. Does the "Covenant of Jesus" specifically state which laws are no longer relevant? Because it sounds like many of Leviticus no longer are, which leads me to wonder why it is still a book in the Bible. Also, while Romans and such are against homosexuality, I don't think you can find a versus where the Big J is against it. Now that would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 20:53:58 GMT -5
Well shucks, now I'm confused. You're against homsexuality because of the Bible. However, the Bible also tells you that you cannot eat pork(Leviticus 11:7). Since the Bible is apparently divine, anyone who eats pork is a sinner. Unless there's some sort of divine logic I'm missing. It's because it was a suzerainty covenant treaty with Israel and God. In other words, the "Law" in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutoronomy was a contract between the Israelites and God. (Deutoronomy, which is written in the Hittite form of a suzerainty covenant treaty, is properly translated as "a repitition of the law", and because it's written in that form it pretty much means that the law is intended as such) If the Israelites lived up to their obligations, God would live up to his. There are three types of laws in the Torah. You have universal laws. These are like the laws not to commit adultery, not to murder, and not to commit beastiality or become a temple prostitute. The second type of laws are cultural laws based on objective morality. These are laws like the commandment to line the tops of your houses with railguards. This was because many people at the time had their liesure on their roofs, and one could easily fall off if one got too close to the edge of it. To make my point that this is cultural, what if there were a group of people who made their houses in such a way that they were underground, with one being able to walk on top of them? (like, if there were a vertical stairway going into it from the ground). Would the commandment to put borders on your roof apply then? Of course not: it was intended for their cultural circumstances. Finally, you have ceremonial laws, such as the commandments about shaving your beard (when you're a Levite priest) and how to build the Ark of the Covenant. The commandment not to eat pork falls into the second category. People died from disease by eating pork all the way into the seventeen hundreds. That's the theory about how Mozart died: He died from eating a piece of pork that was somewhat undercooked. God, in the situation, didn't want the Israelites having to deal with rampant disease while they were travelling through the desert and being raided by other nations on all sides. However, the New Testament puts away the Hebrew Kosher, but still affirms the objective laws in the Tanakh. The objective laws apply to Christians today; the cultural laws do not. If you don't buy that homosexuality is intended to be a universal law, read Leviticus chapter 18. It's a set of laws regulating sexuality that goes from least to worst in the order of offences. The first law mentioned is having sex with a girl during her menstrual period. Then, various types of incests (such as marrying a woman, and then marrying her mother) are mentioned. Read Leviticus 18:22 though. It's right in between adultery and beastiality. In other words, it's worse than adultery but less than beastiality in its offensiveness. So, yes, the argument from Leviticus does work. Besides, there are passages in the New Testament that affirm the offensiveness of homosexuality, so your response about Leviticus does not really matter in the first place. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my former post.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 21:33:04 GMT -5
Actually, this passage used to seem "New World Slaveryish" ( ) to me as well. However, they are not. If you read the preceding passage, it specifically says that, if you beat somebody but they don't die, you are to pay them for their loss of time. However, with a slave, them being in your household is a constant "payment" to them, (that's what slavery was done for: If you can't take care of yourself, you become a slave, and then you have a roof over your head and food to eat every day). However, the passage specificallys says that the slave of the owner is his "economic output" (it's normally translated as "property", but the word is more analogous to economic output), and because of that, he is losing money because of the slave not being able to work for him. So, it was pretty much the same punishment for both freemen and slaves. You can object to the law in general about people beating other people, but you can't really object to its application on slavery. Furthermore, Exodus has a passage that specifically says that if one beats out your slave's tooth or destroys his eye, that he is to be set free. The term "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" meant general injuries, so it's likely that it means the same thing in that passage. So, put those two things together, and the result is that the master wouldn't have to pay the servant in money, but he would be forced to allow him to go free. I've explained this elsewhere. Besides, the idea that Jesus, who was a Jew, would be against homosexuality would be very likely.
|
|
Avatarbeefcake
Avatar Korra
"There are Hidden Air Temples"
Posts: 1,004
|
Post by Avatarbeefcake on Oct 25, 2006 21:43:40 GMT -5
I have no problems or ill will against homosexuals but I don't think they should be allowed to marry. They should allow civil unions though. Marriage is between opposite sex's civil unions are for same sex marriages.
|
|
|
Post by zukofan21 on Oct 25, 2006 21:49:05 GMT -5
Well, here's my opinion.
Personally, I do believe that homosexuality is a sin as Tertius covered nicely earlier. It is a sin just as fornication and adultery. However, I'm not going to judge what they do; who am I to judge a person? I could be judged on many things I have done; all I can do is work hard to live as a Christian since I have accepted Christ and his laws.
Now I want to mention about the pork. The Mosaic Law does indeed mention they were not to eat pork. But (I know you mentioned it Tertius, sorry!) but in Acts 10:9-15, Peter had a vision form God and it was shown to him that the Hebrew Kosher was indeed nullified since Christ 's covenant was actually replacing the Mosaic Law and animals noramlly not eaten pork included are edible under Christ's new covenant. We can still learn from the Mosaic Law, since there are scriptures in the New Testament to confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by Brightfire18 on Oct 26, 2006 0:09:34 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't really have much of an opinion on homosexuality. If people are gay, then they're gay. I really don't think it's any of my business to go up to a couple and tell them they're wrong for loving each other because my religion says so. If two people of the same sex want to get hitched, who am I to stop them? Plus, I think there are bigger problems than who's attarcted to who. That's just me, though.
|
|
|
Post by writer on Oct 26, 2006 18:05:28 GMT -5
Ow.. That was insulting. You are a right wing fundie. You're over-rightiousness prooves it. In any of my posts did I say the Bible was wrong? Second. How do you know what church I follow? If any at all, so can you call on my practices? Feh...this is why I'm so irrated at my faith. I swear, when I'm 28, I'm going to be a raving nilhist << I'm sorry. I might have overstepped myself. I shouldn't have phrased myself the way I did; that was completely wrong. However, if you simply extend your logic, and use what you said earlier in your posts (specifically your statement about being in a "new day and age" and your comments about the Bible being riddled with errors and contradictions) that the viewpoint that the Bible should be discarded is pretty much the only logical location that one could arrive to. Furthermore, as for being overly-righteous, I specifically said that I occasionally jerk off to emphasize the point that I am not perfect and that I do sin and that I do mess up. I do all those things. I am far from perfect. However, the point is that one is not supposed to actively engage in sin and delight in it. So what do you after you wank? Flog yourself infront of a cruxifix. *has da vinci's code thrown at her* Do you go to a confessional and profess to your priest about your sexual desires? Personally, sin is sin. It's who we are. I don't care if I sin because I know that in heart I am forgiven. Christ has forgiven me. Do my sins past present and furture matter now?
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 26, 2006 19:06:16 GMT -5
Bard...check your PMs.
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Oct 26, 2006 20:21:50 GMT -5
That's the wonderful thing about being a Christian, we are forgiven. The Bible lists a lot of things as sins that have now become policially incorrect to call 'sin'. But you don't have to be a zealot to see that the New Testament calls homosexuality a sin.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Now, whether you believe the Bible or not is entirely up to you. That's not really the theme of this thread ("What's your stand on the Bible" is an excellent thread for that). If you say "I don't believe the Bible, I'm not a Christian." Then that's entirely your choice and I would be the last person to push you to believe anything. I believe that Jesus meant for people to come to him out of their own choice, not because it was shoved down their throats.
But if you do make a choice for Jesus, it's a choice. We are no longer to conform to the world's image, but to Jesus'. We are to try our best to live our lives according to his commands. Does this mean we don't ever sin anymore? No way! I'll be the first to say I am far from perfect. There's a lot that God is still working on in my life. What it *does* mean is that we are continually questing toward godliness, dying to self every day and living in Christ.
To say "I sin, but it's okay because I am forgiven" is missing the wonderful, beautiful truth of the Gospel. You see, sin is an enslavement. Whether it's porn, or alchohol, or gossip, or envy (ask me about that one, I can tell you), or any other kind of sin you can think of, we all have vices and we all struggle with a sin that would dominate us. But Jesus offers us freedom from those sins! We don't have to be under their dominion anymore. That's the beautiful, wonderful truth of the Gospel. Of course, it doesn't happen overnight. As long as we remain in these human bodies prone to weakness, we will always be prone to sin, but Jesus offers us strength.
I think this verse sums it up nicely:
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death or of obedience leading to righteousness?" Romans 6:15-16
|
|
|
Post by fullmetalavatar on Oct 26, 2006 20:24:40 GMT -5
Matthew 7: 1 -- Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Edit: I reread the thread and realized that BC'sanger was completely understandable, this debate somehow became an attack on her character.
I have no problem with homosexuals, heterosexuals, or anyone inbetween, as long as everybody is a consenting adult.
|
|
|
Post by demonofthewest on Oct 26, 2006 21:09:03 GMT -5
"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Luke 16:18
In case you're wondering, Jesus said that. Which means any "New Covenant" rules wouldn't really apply, correct? So let's see. New Testament(Corinthinans, specifically)doesn't like homosexuality. And they ain't going anywhere near heaven, apparently. Of course, neither are adulterers. And, as Jesus just said, divorced people are adulterers, so they're out. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the right-wing anti-homsexual rhetoric is this. The bible doesn't like homosexuals, so of course they can't be married. That's just wrong, right? But then why are divorced people allowed to marry? I recall a statistic that said that nearly 50% of reborn christians have been divorced at some point. I'm looking forward to a reply, Tertius. This is starting to get interesting.
|
|