Welcome to Gaia! ::

We all have a Facebook or know someone that does.
I found this pic and thought that I would do a repost and see what everyone says about it.



Your thoughts?

The only thing that comes to mind is people usually tell me that it's old testament.

My friend explained the difference between the new and old, but I still don't see how the old testament's bans aren't supposed to count....

I have two things to say, there is scriptural evidence for your second paragraph where Paul is speaking of the Circumcision and whether the Gentiles who accept Christ have to adhere to this or not. I must also point out that "fulfilling the law" and doing away with them are two separate things. Actually around that exact same verse Jesus tells them that he did not come to destroy the laws, but fulfill them and that the laws shouldn't be tossed away till the end. So the clearer idea of what is meant by fulfilling the law would be pointing out the spirit, or meaning, of the law itself. For instance, when Jesus appeared to Peter in a dream and told him to "kill and eat," this is a situation where it more fully shows the spirit of the laws of 'not eating pork.' It isn't that eating pork was a horrible sin, it is just that pork, as it still is, is one of the most unhealthy and more dangerous meats to eat. (Same with shell fish and the like.) Towards the spirit of the law one can also point back to Pauls argument about the "Circumcision" where he points out that "it is the spirit of the Circumcision" aka "spirit of the law."

The atheists in this argument are usually too high strung on the letter of the law and cannot get passed that, they can't get passed the physical nature. And why should they? They live in a dogmatic world where they can't even believe their own spirit, so things of the spirit would be lost on their understanding. (Now I also understand that there are more than atheists that like to argue on these terms, but of course they are also lacking in understanding of the spiritual world, seeing how they are without spiritual life, without Christ. Yet they are also more likely to understand, because they do have more of a spiritual understanding than any atheists would be expected to have.)

To be entirely honest, I may be a devout Christian but I do not adhere strictly to the Bible. You have to remember that scripture has been subject to change under many reigns, such as that of King James, purely for the purpose of controlling and conforming the masses to how said ruler saw fit. Thus, I cannot adhere strictly to the Bible.

The bible is one of the most accurately translated books you'll run into as proven by early/original manuscripts including the Dead Sea scrolls. It even has more early/original manuscripts than many of the things we consider historically accurate.

I am taking your word at face value, and I was merely stating that the bible is very accurately translated and preserved. Even the added verses and the like (which there really isn't that many) do nothing to change the over all message. We can take what we have and know that it is well preserved and is trustworthy in the message it conveys. (As for Original manuscripts, we have incredibly early manuscripts (earlier than many of the texts we take as historically accurate) preserved in the original language which it was written.) Now when you say 'strictly to the bible' I do need some elaboration, do you mean this as the Catholics mean it or do you mean it as in, "well this or that verse may be wrong so I'll go by my personal preference on this moral choice."?

Oh, that is what I thought. This doesn't really seem like a conquerors stance, but rather a stance of cowardice against this day and age. We say homosexuality is wrong, but the world says it isn't, so I cannot go with what the bible says merely because they disagree. >.> I don't mean to sound rude on this.... but I think you should probably study yourself in fear and trembling. I could also be mistaken. That is a possibility.

Neither do I, my issue with your judgement at the moment is that it is a flawed one. The Bible has proven additions to it but no proven flaws. As pointed out before despite the one verse which we know for almost certain was added, it does nothing to change the meaning being given within Scripture or even where the verse seems to be added. You are running off of the much more fallible man than the proven highly accurate Scripture given by inspiration of God. "Lean not on your own understanding." And not all morals are generally pain or negative based in the sense you are taking them, rather they are based on a certain code or premise found knitted within the confines of reality which is made reflecting the image of God. Essentially, the evidence of Nature itself (not corrupted nature) is a sign of morality in and of itself, which we often get confused by our own mistaken views. Paul in Romans points out the issue of homosexuality is within the nature of it as a corruption of a sanctity as established by God from the beginning of Creation, which is sexual intercourse between man and woman. (Respectfully a married man and woman.) He argues that it is "unnatural" and therefore not of God. This is not something which can be tossed out because you might feel differently, but is argued in a rationalistic sense by the studied Paul in Romans and even before hand argued by God in the old testament when talking about the spiritual law behind sexual conduct.