If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[But is it art]

avoiceofreason

But is it art

So, this is how I see it.
Militant Christian. You were fairly strong originally in your opinions, stating that God is true and sure. But, it has been shown past your ability to debate that the Bible is against homosexuality, so you are bitter. So now you are going from a Christian, to someone who is calling God a liar.
Because your lifestyle did not fit God, you have decided to pose yourself against him. What a fantastic Christian you are!

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

Come on children, don't get off the subject.

Bestiality is irrelevant. You are only holding onto it because Lucifer used it as a point. If he never brought it up, the point not be in debate.

Animals were not made for us to have sex with. Look at your p***s or your v****a. The mans p***s has been perfectly shaped to fit in the womans v****a. The angle it protrudes, the size, the shape of the mans head is perfectly shaped to fit inside the womans v****a. Find me an animal who has the identical p***s to a mans, and then we will talk animal sex.

God cannot be a liar, for this would contradict the entirety of the Bible. Man DID die as soon as he took of the fruit, even I know this. He died in the sense that his soul had died. He was perfect. Then he became entirely corrupt. Dead in his sins. Then somewhere I think it is mentioned that the blood of the Christ cleaned him, giving him a new life. I don't own a bible, but I am sure I could google this.

Back on topic now.
Play nice
heart

My what a solid head you have on your shoulders! biggrin

Don't irritate me with your flattery.
I never said you were right. I've no opinion on the matter. If I see you slip up, I will not hesitate to prove you wrong. The bible is a book, just like Harry Potter is a book, and Lord of the Rings is a book. Some people believe they are real, some don't. The thing with all you groups is that you will always debate with each other on the meaning, or the small details.

Militant Christian

But is it art

So, this is how I see it.
Militant Christian. You were fairly strong originally in your opinions, stating that God is true and sure. But, it has been shown past your ability to debate that the Bible is against homosexuality, so you are bitter. So now you are going from a Christian, to someone who is calling God a liar.
Because your lifestyle did not fit God, you have decided to pose yourself against him. What a fantastic Christian you are!

My lifestyle? And what lifestyle would that be? Not only am I heterosexual, I've been happily married for four years. I'm opposed to restricting homosexual rights as I believe that it's unchristian to enact theological law in a secular nation.

+10 for a baseless assumption and Ad Hominem attack for your first post, btw, great job.

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

Come on children, don't get off the subject.

Lucifer has earned a permanent place on my ignored list, I'm not going to bother.

Quote:

Bestiality is irrelevant. You are only holding onto it because Lucifer used it as a point. If he never brought it up, the point not be in debate.

Animals were not made for us to have sex with. Look at your p***s or your v****a. The mans p***s has been perfectly shaped to fit in the womans v****a. The angle it protrudes, the size, the shape of the mans head is perfectly shaped to fit inside the womans v****a. Find me an animal who has the identical p***s to a mans, and then we will talk animal sex.

Feel free to take that up with Lucifer, then.

You already said earlier that you were so fierce because it was a matter dear to you. I assume that someone you are close to is gay. Regardless, if you want to have a relationship with more then one wife as you claim, the sex would have 2 chicks in it. A bi then.

So what you are saying is that Lucifer offended you in some way, so that everything he says is false, or ignored. Sounds like Appeal to Spite to me.

Why would i bother taking up bestiality with Lucifer? I mean, yea, he is stupid for bringing it up. But it be a waste of time. How will it answer as to what God thinks of homosexuality. One is dogsex, one is same-gender sex.

All I am seeing is the for-homosexuality party lurking around, and devouring the posts that are not well supported, but are leaving the big bait, and the anti-homosexuality party is pouncing on everything it sees, regardless.

Both tactics are tasteless.

[X - Citation Needed - X]

But is it art

Militant Christian

But is it art

So, this is how I see it.
Militant Christian. You were fairly strong originally in your opinions, stating that God is true and sure. But, it has been shown past your ability to debate that the Bible is against homosexuality, so you are bitter. So now you are going from a Christian, to someone who is calling God a liar.
Because your lifestyle did not fit God, you have decided to pose yourself against him. What a fantastic Christian you are!

My lifestyle? And what lifestyle would that be? Not only am I heterosexual, I've been happily married for four years. I'm opposed to restricting homosexual rights as I believe that it's unchristian to enact theological law in a secular nation.

+10 for a baseless assumption and Ad Hominem attack for your first post, btw, great job.

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

Come on children, don't get off the subject.

Lucifer has earned a permanent place on my ignored list, I'm not going to bother.

Quote:

Bestiality is irrelevant. You are only holding onto it because Lucifer used it as a point. If he never brought it up, the point not be in debate.

Animals were not made for us to have sex with. Look at your p***s or your v****a. The mans p***s has been perfectly shaped to fit in the womans v****a. The angle it protrudes, the size, the shape of the mans head is perfectly shaped to fit inside the womans v****a. Find me an animal who has the identical p***s to a mans, and then we will talk animal sex.

Feel free to take that up with Lucifer, then.

You already said earlier that you were so fierce because it was a matter dear to you. I assume that someone you are close to is gay. Regardless, if you want to have a relationship with more then one wife as you claim, the sex would have 2 chicks in it. A bi then.

It is true that I am in favor of Homosexual rights, and that I personally know homosexuals, but your statement was that my issue was that I was attempting to defend my lifestyle. Homosexuality is not my lifestyle. And I am male, and no, Polygamy does not always include homo- or bisexuality. So again, wrong.

Quote:

So what you are saying is that Lucifer offended you in some way, so that everything he says is false, or ignored. Sounds like Appeal to Spite to me.

He went off on me for agreeing with him, and then baselessly attacked my faith for not having the exact same mindset as him. As I am not interested in pursuing an extended flame war, and it was obvious he wasn't reading and comprehending my posts fully, I saw no reason to continue discussion with him, and placed him on ignore. As he is on ignore, I cannot view any of his posts unless they are quoted by someone else first, so attempting a debate with him now(especially as it was pointless before) would be fruitless.

And I also never called God a Liar, that was Lord Setar. I simply stated that at the moment I have nothing to say to debate it, and that I needed to research it further.

Quote:

Why would i bother taking up bestiality with Lucifer? I mean, yea, he is stupid for bringing it up. But it be a waste of time. How will it answer as to what God thinks of homosexuality. One is dogsex, one is same-gender sex.

He's the one that brought it up initially. I don't care about it.

If you're referring to the comment on the previous page, the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" bullshit is, well, bullshit. I was simply using sarcasm and being my typical a*****e self to point out how pointless that bullshit is.

Quote:

All I am seeing is the for-homosexuality party lurking around, and devouring the posts that are not well supported, but are leaving the big bait, and the anti-homosexuality party is pouncing on everything it sees, regardless.

Both tactics are tasteless.

And you're just here to...what? Flame everyone for freedom and justice?

[avoiceofreason]

But is it art

avoiceofreason

But is it art

So, this is how I see it.
Militant Christian. You were fairly strong originally in your opinions, stating that God is true and sure. But, it has been shown past your ability to debate that the Bible is against homosexuality, so you are bitter. So now you are going from a Christian, to someone who is calling God a liar.
Because your lifestyle did not fit God, you have decided to pose yourself against him. What a fantastic Christian you are!

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

Come on children, don't get off the subject.

Bestiality is irrelevant. You are only holding onto it because Lucifer used it as a point. If he never brought it up, the point not be in debate.

Animals were not made for us to have sex with. Look at your p***s or your v****a. The mans p***s has been perfectly shaped to fit in the womans v****a. The angle it protrudes, the size, the shape of the mans head is perfectly shaped to fit inside the womans v****a. Find me an animal who has the identical p***s to a mans, and then we will talk animal sex.

God cannot be a liar, for this would contradict the entirety of the Bible. Man DID die as soon as he took of the fruit, even I know this. He died in the sense that his soul had died. He was perfect. Then he became entirely corrupt. Dead in his sins. Then somewhere I think it is mentioned that the blood of the Christ cleaned him, giving him a new life. I don't own a bible, but I am sure I could google this.

Back on topic now.
Play nice
heart

My what a solid head you have on your shoulders! biggrin

Don't irritate me with your flattery.
I never said you were right. I've no opinion on the matter. If I see you slip up, I will not hesitate to prove you wrong. The bible is a book, just like Harry Potter is a book, and Lord of the Rings is a book. Some people believe they are real, some don't. The thing with all you groups is that you will always debate with each other on the meaning, or the small details.

Both tactics are tasteless.

Statement retracted. Also another victim of internet anonymity, i.e, you don't know who i am, so i am better than you. Flame somewhere else please.

Back on topic now.
Play nice
heart

[Ravynne Sidhe]

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place. But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your wife. He said I'm not a Christian because I choose not to bastardize Jewish laws when...I'm not a Jew nor do I have the right. I'm a Gentile, I follow the NT. I've since blacklisted him because I can't be arsed to deal with someone that thinks attacking someone's faith falls under the Law of Agape, heh...it doesn't.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

[Ravynne Sidhe]

Quote:

You already said earlier that you were so fierce because it was a matter dear to you. I assume that someone you are close to is gay. Regardless, if you want to have a relationship with more then one wife as you claim, the sex would have 2 chicks in it. A bi then.

Um you don't have to have sex with two other people in a polyamourous relationship nor does the other person besides your wife/husband have to be bi. A good friend of mine is in a polyamourous relationship and her husband is cool with it. They're all not having wild threesomes if that's what you're assuming.

Quote:

So what you are saying is that Lucifer offended you in some way, so that everything he says is false, or ignored. Sounds like Appeal to Spite to me.

There is no spite, proof plox.

Quote:

Why would i bother taking up bestiality with Lucifer? I mean, yea, he is stupid for bringing it up. But it be a waste of time. How will it answer as to what God thinks of homosexuality. One is dogsex, one is same-gender sex.

Well you were the one asking.

Quote:

All I am seeing is the for-homosexuality party lurking around, and devouring the posts that are not well supported, but are leaving the big bait, and the anti-homosexuality party is pouncing on everything it sees, regardless.

There is no "for homosexuality" It's for love, for Christ. Christ isn't going to condemn people because they're gay, there is no evidence that even supports "anti-homosexuality" most of what's brought up is misinterpreted scripture, mistranslated scripture, and lack of context. Whereas the "other side" actually have proof by proving the scripture that's been wrongly interpretated is wrong and show what it's actually talking about.

Quote:

Both tactics are tasteless.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

No your wild eyed assumptions are actually tasteless. Kthxbai.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Ravynne Sidhe

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place.

Contestable, but people generally don't understand what toyevah are in the first place.

Quote:

But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your with.

You can still consider breaking kosher a sin, it just may not be an abomination. Holy different levels of lawbreaking, Batman.

When it comes to Jewish Law, like I told Angus, just stop dealing with it. At all. You are doing yourselves favours, particularly since Col. 2:14 says you don't have to deal with it in the first place.

[Ravynne Sidhe]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Ravynne Sidhe

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place.

Contestable, but people generally don't understand what toyevah are in the first place.

Quote:

But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your with.

You can still consider breaking kosher a sin, it just may not be an abomination. Holy different levels of lawbreaking, Batman.

When it comes to Jewish Law, like I told Angus, just stop dealing with it. At all. You are doing yourselves favours, particularly since Col. 2:14 says you don't have to deal with it in the first place.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Good point. Just the whole "We're Christians we have the right to bastardize the OT becuase it's in the Bible blah blah blah" bullshit just irks me. A lot.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Lucifer Scar

Quote:

I belive the word of Jesus, and of God, trumps his.

I believe that the Holy Spirit hath breathed into him the words which he wrote. I believe that everything in the Bible has been placed in the Bible because God has so chosen it to, through the hands of man, be placed there-in. God and Jesus and the Spirit, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are three separate beings, but one divine God. God would not contradict himself.

Too bad he does, in the first book of the Bible no less. And it's a flat out contradiction:

Genesis 1: Plants are made before humans.
Genesis 2: Humans are made before plants.

You cannot have both, sorry. If the Bible is God-breathed, then guess what? God contradicts himself.

Quote:

Here, for your memories sake.

Quote:

Collosians 2:14, NIV
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 7:18, NIV
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

The two texts you presented me with, text in which you claim state that the OT is no longer necessary.

If someone told you that, they're dumb. The OT is absolutely necessary. The following of Levitical Law? Not so much.

Quote:

Hebrews 7:16-19 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

This is a shitty passage to use in the first place, however, you're missing the part in verse 22, wherein it is said that Jesus's diatheke is better. When we're talking about the diatheke, we're not talking about just the regulation of priests, we're talking about the whole covenant. However, like I said, this passage is shitty because it doesn't really outline Jesus' new and better covenant. Just that there is one. However, it kind of follows that if there is a new covenant, the old one probably isn't being followed anymore.

Next up, Collosian 2:14.

Quote:

Collosians 2: 9-15 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.


The ENTIRE text speaks of how circumcision of the flesh is no longer required, for we are now circumcised (an act in which baptism represents) in Christ, a circumcision so great that instead of just losing the tip of one’s foreskin, out entire being is cut off, and buried, being raised as Christ has through our faith. God made us alive although we were dead, forgiving us our sins and cancelling the charge against us, the legal debt we have due to God. In doing this, he made a mockery of the persistent authorities, who claim our salvation through works alone, and a mockery towards death itself, for he had conquered that.
This text does NOT disprove the validity of the Old Testament in the LEAST bit. It shows to us that circumcision of the flesh is no longer of value, and that Jesus has paid for our sins.

I'm really not liking your summation of the passage here either. What is being "blotted out" is literally dogma. He nailed the dogma to the cross. Dogma is a lot larger than the laws which govern circumcision. We are not talking about a stand alone law when we use the word dogma. We're talking about a set of them. So the entire set of laws, including circumcision is nailed to the cross. You are narrowing the scope of the translation too much. The Greek is using big ******** wide words, stop trying to say it only applies to circumcision. Also, God's contradicting himself again here. If the Law is good, why is at the very least part of it hypenantios to us now?

However, what I'm surprised at is the lack of the most substantial passage here. And just to show you I'm not afraid of context, I'll post the whole passage.

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. 18 For truly I tell you, 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. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly 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. 20 For 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

So here we have Jesus saying the Law is totally valid (I have never argued you on that, btw, Jesus never invalidated the Law. He did something else to it entirely, but we're getting there) and to get into Heaven, until everything is accomplished, you're going to have to out-righteous the Pharisees, something damned hard to do.

Which brings us to the two important parts of this passage: What is everything and when is it accomplished, and what does he mean by abolish vs fulfill?

The first part is generally none disputable. Most people are going to agree that Jesus is referring to all the things he came to Earth to do. So the finish point for what he's talking about is basically the crucifixion.

The second part is harder. Jesus makes it clear that he didn't come to kataluo the Law (literally "I break the bonds of" wink , but to pleroo the Law. For some reason, people like to stick to the fact that he's not breaking the bonds of the law, but totally ignore what pleroo means. The most basic translation is "I make x complete". Basically, think of it this way: Let's say I make a promise to you to mow your lawn until you buy a new lawn mower. When you buy a new one, do I have to mow your lawn anymore? Nope, because we've passed the completion point of the promise. The promise is now fulfilled.

Anyone telling you the OT is invalid is completely missing the point. It's not invalid. It's just done. And furthermore, all of it is done. The entire nomos meaning the entire Mosaic Law. From traif to circumcision laws to moral laws, it's all done. This doesn't mean people are now off scot free. Later in the same chapter Jesus imposed some heavy antitheses to the Law, some of which are actually kind of harsher than Levitical Law. I mean, hell, Jews were at least allowed to hate their enemies. Not Christians.

Granted, this is one of the most hotly debated passages in Christian morality, but speaking as a person who can read the text completely divorced from the sentiment thereof, I do not see the reason for argument. There is no figural language, pleroo is pretty definite. I mean, I get why people hang onto the whole "till heaven and earth pass bit", so as to say that the Law isn't truly done until the Second Coming, but the "until everything is accomplished" part kind of puts a foot in it. Sure there's an argument that "everything" doesn't mean the work of Christ, but instead the whole duration of time, but then we have to assume that the only Judaic Laws we don't have to follow are the ones that Jesus specifically refutes, which, out of 613 mitzvot, isn't much. Like yeah, he gets rid of most of the traif laws, but there's a lot of stuff that isn't touched at all. Like the wearing of blended fabric for example.

So when it comes to straight translation on this, I'm going to have to agree with the Anabaptists on this one, because either it's being completed at the point of the crucifixion and Christians don't have to follow any Levitical Laws, or it's being completed at the Second Coming, and Christians should still be following a lot more Levitical Laws than they are (but not all as others are specifically refuted elsewhere) It's coming down to pick one, really, and I would hope it would be the one that makes Jesus not a huge d**k.

Quote:

The Greek word originally used for Fulfil means to teach, to enforce.

Pleroo does not mean enforce, not in this sense. The only time it means anything close is when you're talking about matters of duty, then it can mean "to execute" however, when were are talking about promises or laws (laws count as "sayings" in Greek, since they were often verbal), the most usual translation is "to make complete, fulfill" To say it means enforce in this situation would be an extremely obscure use of pleroo. When dealing with the NT we generally take the most common and basic translation since the authors of the NT are not writing in their native tongue. They aren't stupid, and they can play out some neat language tricks (John 1:1 is actually about twice as beautiful as most people think it is once you understand the Greek), but the reason they were writing in the lingua franca of the time was for ease of understanding. Additionally, I'm seeing nothing in the Strong's on teaching, like, in the slightest. Looking at the LSJ, it has "execute" as an obscure definition to begin with. Also again, no teaching. Given that two of the most widely accepted Ancient Greek Lexicons aren't agreeing with you, I'm going to have to say you're wrong here.

ETA: I just realised that even if you could make a good argument for "to enforce" (you can't, really), Jesus is still giving us an endpoint for his promise. So even if Jesus is enforcing the Law until it's done, it's still rendered done by crucifixion (until we want to take the end point as the end of time, in which case Jesus is a huge d**k, sorry to say).

So yeah, still agreeing with the Anabaptists.

[Stxitxchxes]

800 ******** pages of this? Are you people ******** serious? I remember when this topic was first posted. You shitwits really mean to tell me that in 800+ pages, every angle of this has not already been argued, rehashed, argued again, and then spewed out of your anuses, digested and rotting?

Christians, stop using our ******** book as a roadmap for how you are suppose to live. It's not your ******** book, those laws were not meant for you. There are seven Noahide laws in the Old Testament that /are/ meant for you. So ******** off.

[But is it art]

Ravynne Sidhe

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place. But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your wife. He said I'm not a Christian because I choose not to bastardize Jewish laws when...I'm not a Jew nor do I have the right. I'm a Gentile, I follow the NT. I've since blacklisted him because I can't be arsed to deal with someone that thinks attacking someone's faith falls under the Law of Agape, heh...it doesn't.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

You did a pretty shitty job, thats for sure. Being bi and all, if I was a Christian his argument would make me feel a little guilty. He brought up the Jerusalem thing, and it was poorly refuted, save for the weak 'what is sexual sin' which was responded to by him saying 'it gives a list of sexual sins in leviticus' and then someone said it was irrelevant, so he said something along the lines of 'it mentions blood eating as well, and right before the list of sexual sins is the blood eating' which would lead me to assume that thats what the council was referring to. but no-one could see past the seemingly uselessness of the bloodeating.


Might as well through out the book then, and keep a little paper in your wallet just quoting the law of agape then. Its your replacement for your bible. OR you could be like me, and just live by your own religion. Make it up as you go. Makes life less difficult, with no guilt.

Basically, all I have gleamed from this is that both parties really suck at being the supposed loving christians they want to be. Lucifer (devils name...?) threw stones (even though only the blameless should) and you threw them back (see previous statement) and the reason he threw them is because the title of the topic threw them first. Your all guilty of throwing stones. Your all being pretty lousy at following the Bible. (Or the Law of Agape, your preferred book)

Bunch of loving christians for sure.
Better off joining the church of Oprah

[Ravynne Sidhe]

But is it art

Ravynne Sidhe

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place. But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your wife. He said I'm not a Christian because I choose not to bastardize Jewish laws when...I'm not a Jew nor do I have the right. I'm a Gentile, I follow the NT. I've since blacklisted him because I can't be arsed to deal with someone that thinks attacking someone's faith falls under the Law of Agape, heh...it doesn't.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

You did a pretty shitty job, thats for sure. Being bi and all, if I was a Christian his argument would make me feel a little guilty. He brought up the Jerusalem thing, and it was poorly refuted, save for the weak 'what is sexual sin' which was responded to by him saying 'it gives a list of sexual sins in leviticus' and then someone said it was irrelevant, so he said something along the lines of 'it mentions blood eating as well, and right before the list of sexual sins is the blood eating' which would lead me to assume that thats what the council was referring to. but no-one could see past the seemingly uselessness of the bloodeating.


Might as well through out the book then, and keep a little paper in your wallet just quoting the law of agape then. Its your replacement for your bible. OR you could be like me, and just live by your own religion. Make it up as you go. Makes life less difficult, with no guilt.

Basically, all I have gleamed from this is that both parties really suck at being the supposed loving christians they want to be. Lucifer (devils name...?) threw stones (even though only the blameless should) and you threw them back (see previous statement) and the reason he threw them is because the title of the topic threw them first. Your all guilty of throwing stones. Your all being pretty lousy at following the Bible. (Or the Law of Agape, your preferred book)

Bunch of loving christians for sure.
Better off joining the church of Oprah

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not bi. I'm straight. If anything I could be bi-curious because I do have very random tendencies to like the same sex, but it's nothing too serious and I have no intention of ******** the same and different sex. I love guys too much.

Considering I'm not a Jew, I have no business whatsoever looking at Leviticus or any book in the OT, as Stich has ever so eloquently put it, it's not my business. I focus on the New Testament, which is ment for gentiles like me.

Lucifer is a Babylonian Prince, if you actually read Isaiah 14 I believe it even says it's talking about a Babylonian Prince. See what reading in context can do for you smile

Also the Law of Agape is in the Bible located in the New Testament. Specifically in Matthew, Romans, Acts, and Galatians. Again what wonders reading within context can do for you smile

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

[But is it art]

Ravynne Sidhe

But is it art

Ravynne Sidhe

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place. But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your wife. He said I'm not a Christian because I choose not to bastardize Jewish laws when...I'm not a Jew nor do I have the right. I'm a Gentile, I follow the NT. I've since blacklisted him because I can't be arsed to deal with someone that thinks attacking someone's faith falls under the Law of Agape, heh...it doesn't.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

You did a pretty shitty job, thats for sure. Being bi and all, if I was a Christian his argument would make me feel a little guilty. He brought up the Jerusalem thing, and it was poorly refuted, save for the weak 'what is sexual sin' which was responded to by him saying 'it gives a list of sexual sins in leviticus' and then someone said it was irrelevant, so he said something along the lines of 'it mentions blood eating as well, and right before the list of sexual sins is the blood eating' which would lead me to assume that thats what the council was referring to. but no-one could see past the seemingly uselessness of the bloodeating.


Might as well through out the book then, and keep a little paper in your wallet just quoting the law of agape then. Its your replacement for your bible. OR you could be like me, and just live by your own religion. Make it up as you go. Makes life less difficult, with no guilt.

Basically, all I have gleamed from this is that both parties really suck at being the supposed loving christians they want to be. Lucifer (devils name...?) threw stones (even though only the blameless should) and you threw them back (see previous statement) and the reason he threw them is because the title of the topic threw them first. Your all guilty of throwing stones. Your all being pretty lousy at following the Bible. (Or the Law of Agape, your preferred book)

Bunch of loving christians for sure.
Better off joining the church of Oprah

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not bi. I'm straight. If anything I could be bi-curious because I do have very random tendencies to like the same sex, but it's nothing too serious and I have no intention of ******** the same and different sex. I love guys too much.

Considering I'm not a Jew, I have no business whatsoever looking at Leviticus or any book in the OT, as Stich has ever so eloquently put it, it's not my business. I focus on the New Testament, which is ment for gentiles like me.

Lucifer is a Babylonian Prince, if you actually read Isaiah 14 I believe it even says it's talking about a Babylonian Prince. See what reading in context can do for you smile

Also the Law of Agape is in the Bible located in the New Testament. Specifically in Matthew, Romans, Acts, and Galatians. Again what wonders reading within context can do for you smile

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

I was saying that I personally am bisexual. I do not really have to read anything in context. I am not a christian, nor have i even read the bible. Lucifer is commonly known to be the name of the Devil. The Evening Star, the fallen serpent, the angel who rebelled. But I was referring to the person lucifer scar, and the irony in that his name is infact Lucifer, the evening star, the fallen serpent, the angel who rebelled. You act as if the entirety taught though is on the law of Agape. Which apparently, after googling is just loving each other and God. So remind me to love God when I die so I can go to heaven with the rest of you.


Congrats on not being Jewish. Do you want a star, or a chest to pin it on?
Oh wait, awkward, thats a Jewish thing.
No star for you. smile

[secretly a penguin]

A. Mosaic Law:
1. Leviticus 18:22-23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."
2. Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

B. The argument:
1. Leviticus is not where we go for our moral instruction. It is a central thesis of Paul that Jesus has freed us from the Law.
2. Leviticus is that book of the Law which has specifically to do with cult--sacrifice, priesthood, ritual purity. It is in this regard that it touches on homosexuality.
3. The Hebrew word "toevah" (translated "abomination" and "detestable act" ) is a cultic, not a moral, term. The English "abomination" means abhorrent, loathsome, unspeakably bad. Toevah means ritually unclean. Eating pork is toevah; having sex with a menstruating woman is toevah. You cannot come to worship after doing these things until you have been purified.
4. Nor does the naming of the death penalty mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Also punishable by death in the Law is disobedience to parents (no age specified), picking up sticks on the Sabbath, adultery, and many other actions." [1]

C. Ralph Blair argues [2]:

1. That this was for ritual purity of the priests and not for moral purity.
2. The Law no longer applies to the New Testament Christian.

D. Analysis:
It's true, much of the Law deals with religious activity rather than universal morality. However:
1. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct.
2. This section was not addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (v. 2).
3. This isn't merely ritual purity.
a. Context determines the meaning here.
b. The "toevah" (abomination) of homosexuality here is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if you committed adultery, bestiality, or child sacrifice you had to be careful to wash up before you came to church?
4. Moral aspects of the Law do still apply, as NT citations demonstrate.
5. It's curious that some claim homosexual practice was minor because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Why don't they conclude that both homosexuality and Sabbath breaking etc. were so offensive to God and such a threat to Judaism that they were capital offenses? If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment.

E. No, Moses spoke clearly here:
1. The fact that the Law has just two references to it and none of the prophets directly address it is inconsequential.
2. The paucity of reference is do to one simple fact.
a. It's not because it was unimportant; it was a capital crime.
b. It's because it wasn't prevalent, like idolatry; homosexuals were executed.


[1] - It's curious Dr. Hart chose to conclude from this that homosexual practice was minor because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Why didn't he conclude that both homosexuality and Sabbath breaking were so offensive to God and such a threat to Judaism that they were capital offenses? If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment.

[2] - An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality, Moody Press, 1963

Gregory Koukl

[deadmanjay]

But is it art

Lucifer is commonly known to be the name of the Devil. The Evening Star, the fallen serpent, the angel who rebelled. But I was referring to the person lucifer scar, and the irony in that his name is infact Lucifer, the evening star, the fallen serpent, the angel who rebelled. You act as if the entirety taught though is on the law of Agape. Which apparently, after googling is just loving each other and God. So remind me to love God when I die so I can go to heaven with the rest of you.

Wooweee...what a massive appeal to popularity. You and Lucifer both. Research Lucifer beyond stupid little websites created by little dunderheads who don't even know that Jesus was also called the morning star.

Frankly, if you want to argue what the bible says then you should at least read the skeptics version. You will be laughed at for all the fail and crap context that copy/pasters of it use, but at least you won't feel the need to flame and try to make fun of Christians who are actually right in that the New Testament homosexuality really isn't mentioned. Disregarding punishments for ******** statues of horned demons with tentacles that stretch toward the schoolgirls of course. Not that the bible says to go forth and spread your seed upon every man, but then, that really isn't what homosexuality is about. That would just be called being a slut.

But is it art

Congrats on not being Jewish. Do you want a star, or a chest to pin it on?
Oh wait, awkward, thats a Jewish thing.
No star for you. smile

If you are going to troll or flame you should at least know what the topic is about, have some wit, and make people laugh. Or you could learn from this experience, take that edumacation to Lifestyles of the poorly executed and kick some a** there. In other words, try again, and this time, with gusto. 3nodding

Now let's ******** move beyond Romans and Leviticus for peaches and creams sake.

[Ravynne Sidhe]

But is it art

Ravynne Sidhe

But is it art

Ravynne Sidhe

Quote:

Somebody, now, address Lucifer Scar point for point. If homosexuality is OK, you will be able to do so with no issue. If it is wrong, you wont be. Then I will get to see what kind of God you once served. Does he like homosexuals, or no. I want to know. So go on. tell me.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Do me a favor a read the past 10 pages or so. I've already explained to him how homosexuality was never a sin in the first place. But that homosexual practices back in the old days was used in idoltarous rituals and is just as unkosher as having period sex with your wife. He said I'm not a Christian because I choose not to bastardize Jewish laws when...I'm not a Jew nor do I have the right. I'm a Gentile, I follow the NT. I've since blacklisted him because I can't be arsed to deal with someone that thinks attacking someone's faith falls under the Law of Agape, heh...it doesn't.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

You did a pretty shitty job, thats for sure. Being bi and all, if I was a Christian his argument would make me feel a little guilty. He brought up the Jerusalem thing, and it was poorly refuted, save for the weak 'what is sexual sin' which was responded to by him saying 'it gives a list of sexual sins in leviticus' and then someone said it was irrelevant, so he said something along the lines of 'it mentions blood eating as well, and right before the list of sexual sins is the blood eating' which would lead me to assume that thats what the council was referring to. but no-one could see past the seemingly uselessness of the bloodeating.


Might as well through out the book then, and keep a little paper in your wallet just quoting the law of agape then. Its your replacement for your bible. OR you could be like me, and just live by your own religion. Make it up as you go. Makes life less difficult, with no guilt.

Basically, all I have gleamed from this is that both parties really suck at being the supposed loving christians they want to be. Lucifer (devils name...?) threw stones (even though only the blameless should) and you threw them back (see previous statement) and the reason he threw them is because the title of the topic threw them first. Your all guilty of throwing stones. Your all being pretty lousy at following the Bible. (Or the Law of Agape, your preferred book)

Bunch of loving christians for sure.
Better off joining the church of Oprah

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not bi. I'm straight. If anything I could be bi-curious because I do have very random tendencies to like the same sex, but it's nothing too serious and I have no intention of ******** the same and different sex. I love guys too much.

Considering I'm not a Jew, I have no business whatsoever looking at Leviticus or any book in the OT, as Stich has ever so eloquently put it, it's not my business. I focus on the New Testament, which is ment for gentiles like me.

Lucifer is a Babylonian Prince, if you actually read Isaiah 14 I believe it even says it's talking about a Babylonian Prince. See what reading in context can do for you smile

Also the Law of Agape is in the Bible located in the New Testament. Specifically in Matthew, Romans, Acts, and Galatians. Again what wonders reading within context can do for you smile

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

I was saying that I personally am bisexual. I do not really have to read anything in context. I am not a christian, nor have i even read the bible. Lucifer is commonly known to be the name of the Devil. The Evening Star, the fallen serpent, the angel who rebelled. But I was referring to the person lucifer scar, and the irony in that his name is infact Lucifer, the evening star, the fallen serpent, the angel who rebelled. You act as if the entirety taught though is on the law of Agape. Which apparently, after googling is just loving each other and God. So remind me to love God when I die so I can go to heaven with the rest of you.


Congrats on not being Jewish. Do you want a star, or a chest to pin it on?
Oh wait, awkward, thats a Jewish thing.
No star for you. smile

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Well shame on me on my part then, I misread, as had Militant smile

And to understand the Bible fully you do have to read within context. If you read the Bible out of it's context and take things out of context like Lucifer for example, then you make the Bible just as worthless as Twilight smile

As for Lucifer, no he's not commonly know as the Devil, Satan, whatever. That's a misconception and a very common one. No instead he's a Babylonian Prince. The whole Lucifer=Satan thing comes from a fictional book. Yeah something that is totally not canon. Not to mention it's been spread around since said fictional book came out -cough- Paradise Lost -cough-. No Satan never rebelled. He's still sitting next to God, I mean come on. He's an angel, he has NO free-will . He can only do what God commands him to do, and what we allow him to do. Yeah nice try.

Do us a favor, pop open the Bible, hell pop open the Torah. Read in context, and educate yourself. For the love of God Almighty!

Edit: Also a word of the wise. I was a non-Christian when I happened upon the M&R. Typically when you want to debate the Bible you need to actually study it and familiarize. The whole "oh I'm not a Christian so I don't have to use it" doesn't fly. In arguments like these, the Bible is your proof of evidence for whatever argument you have against Christians. You might as well know how to use it.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'