Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If one is "born gay" how do you explain ex-gays?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by eider View Post

    Many Christians do not recognise the laws of Moses unless they are supported by Jesus.

    Which ones do you want to follow.?

    This is about gays, not political parties.
    Jesus says a man leaves his parents to go with a woman---not with a man.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by eider View Post
      This is about gays ....

      aka the sexually perverted

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WonderfulLordJesus View Post

        No kidding. The fact is, the Law of the Old Testament was never even given to the Gentile world, that is, to the whole world, only to Israel. The New Testament is very clear on what is for the entire world, and clear that what goes into the belly goes out the other end, more important that nobody is saved by religious works, at all, that we can't impress God with our legal righteousness, like even those devil Scribes and Pharisees, masters of the Law, thought they did. This is to say it's a non-starter argument to the Christian, that this or that, whatever of the Old Testament, even applies, just the mention of, well, "there are 613 laws" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China to a Christian, is an ignorant argument, to pull the "shrimp" card and such, in order to make some equivalence between shrimp and moral perversions, against very nature, in the first place? So many people fail to even consider the audience God was addressing, in this and many other cases, before jumping to out of context conclusions. This is a very common error.

        In any event, as posted recently, Romans 1 is clear of the Christian stance on homosexuality, and without a word about being turned over to reprobate minds over shrimp. It also seems convenient, somebody trying to make a morally equivalency to shrimp and such, that is, minimize homosexuality so. Very convenient. (They can talk themselves into anything.)
        Your reference to 'shrimp' is interesting. What is that?
        And so it seems that Christians do not focus upon any Laws of Moses because they have the words of Jesus to follow. Is that correct?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Derf View Post

          I'm asking you to explain which ones you feel Christians aren't following, since you've made such an accusation.
          I asked a question.
          You turned it in to an accusation, I think.

          You're the one that brought it up, so you must have at least a few that you've noticed.
          Yes, I brought up a question about what OT laws Christians might follow.
          Some of the laws do fit with the laws of the land where I live, but that's not the same. You either follow some of these laws or you don't.
          Other Christians say that they do not have to follow any OT laws unless they were re-given by Jesus.
          So..... any answers?

          Or are you more like the democrats, who impeached the Pres and then tried to figure out what he did wrong?
          I have read (on TOL) that President Trump does not speak out against gays, or so a prominent member here claims.
          So why are you talking about Democrats as if only Democrats support gays?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by eider View Post

            Your reference to 'shrimp' is interesting. What is that?
            And so it seems that Christians do not focus upon any Laws of Moses because they have the words of Jesus to follow. Is that correct?
            That was simply a reply to a common comment on Old Testament dietary laws and other Jewish laws people, primarily atheists, try to cite as Christian hypocrisies or inconsistencies, entirely false arguments.

            No, that wouldn't be exactly correct, not ANY LAWS, as in all laws, negated for Christians, but only codified Jewish law to an extent, relative to the Christian. Yes, the New Testament is the ruling doctrine(s) of Christianity, but this does not wholesale negate the Old Testament, as in all law of the Old Testament Law no longer relevant. Hardly. We have the Ten Commandments, which is in the category of moral law to all, for the most part, though the New Testament reveals keeping the sabbath is not necessary for the Christian, that a man may esteem all days as unto the Lord, have no holy days, in other words. So, it can be argued, of the ten, there are nine commandments that would apply to Christians.

            You'll actually find God's moral laws written on the consciences of man, generally, hence secular law against such as murder or theft, in all nations, and other traits, like being a liar or an adulterer, being greedy over somebody else's goods, or disrespecting honorable parents, anyway, are not thought of as moral. On the other hand, there's universal disobedience to loving the Lord, people having all sorts of idols, false religions or things more important than God they covet, in the unbelieving or pagan world, so not to say all moral commandments are adopted universally, in legal or societal norms. But, even on this front, God's Spirit draws all men, whether they listen, or not, this another thing. This is to say the moral law to love God is there, isn't negated, for lack of man's law. But, as to the shrimp, dietary laws, this is Jewish law never given to all mankind, only Israel, and likewise ceremonial law, and you could generally say the host of laws do not the least pertain to people that are not Jews, nor could those laws even save Jews. There is a mention in the New Testament about not eating meat of a strangled animal, that is with its blood undrained, but this was the result of a compromise with Judaism that can be argued a commandment of men, but this is a more complicated discussion.

            Most importantly, it's not appropriate to relegate Christianity to adhering to the bulk of the Law given only to Israel by God, never, ever given to the entire world. Even more importantly, in a very real sense, Christianity is more strict than all the laws: the Lord Jesus taught that the hateful mind is murder, the lustful mind adultery, that we are to seek cleanliness within, as a matter of fact, not be some religious person, going through the motions, some long checklist, but with black little, unregenerate hearts. The Lord Jesus roundly condemned the most religious Jews of His day, the Scribes and Pharisees, the biggest keepers of the letter of the Law as being, even, Satanic, simply huge hypocrites, empty suits. And surprise, surprise, in their minds, they were up to murdering the Lord Jesus, the only sinless Man to ever walk the planet, hence broke a major, big, ten commandment sin, for all their legal bluster, that would "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

            Anyway, Christianity is not simply another world religion, but a living, spiritual faith that IS Jesus Christ, based upon a repentant believer actually having the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, literally living in our hearts, to comfort and guide us into conforming to the image of Christ. In other words, all Godless evil or perversion, regardless whether there's a moral law attached, is sin. For instance, coin collecting or any art would be a sins, sports, whatever, though no explicit mention of such sin in scripture, if a person cherished collecting or such more than the pursuit of God, though this is covered under having idols in the New Testament, rooted in covetousness of other things, more than God. But the point is the Christian law is righteousness, as commanded by righteous, Holy God, and out of love of God and fellow man, and love of God means seeking to obey, seeking righteousness, because you agree He is holy and right, have repented of evil, turned from evil, generally. "The law" of the Christian is simpler, on the page,

            Matthew 22

            37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
            38 This is the first and great commandment.
            39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
            40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


            Simpler to state, but also a taller order, than all the sundry other Jewish law, combined.

            Anyway, Christianity doesn't lay the plethora of Jewish law, given only to Israel, on Christians, a much smaller subset codified, like those moral laws mentioned, and other guidelines to what is reprobate, like homosexuality, evils of murder, theft, adultery reiterated, to flee fornication, moral code such as that. But you could say, generally, lust is wrong, or things born in envy, in self will, are sin, the point is it's not what you eat in Christianity, rather what you are, not what is temporary and material, but what is eternal and spiritual that you are, that is, baptized of the Spirit of Christ. It's highly inappropriate to argue most of the Law, again, given only to Israel, as a premise that it's also Christian law, the point as to what is going back and forth here in discussion. You can only argue the whole Law against Jews, but calling out the likes of shrimp or other unclean foods, etc, is not the Christian's burden, in the first place, hence not indicative of any hypocrisy, to any Gentile or even Messianic Jew, freed of the legal monkey on their back as to, primarily, ceremonial laws, diet, whatever.

            The point is, it's an empty argument to say a Christian that eats shrimp may as well be a homosexual, for the simple reason the Christian was never instructed not to eat shrimp, and never any instruction to the world to be Jews. Now, one could say, if a Christian is a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, etc, and condemns homosexuality, that is hypocrisy, but, as mentioned, these things are addressed in Christian scripture, but not shrimp, catfish or pigs and the like, rather Christianity teaching you are not what goes in your belly, but what you are in your heart, teaches material versus spiritual mandates and pursuits, being Godless or of faith, loving or unloving, of the flesh and the material world, or of the Spirit of Christ, the spirit of such doctrine:

            Matthew 15

            11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
            ...
            17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
            18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
            19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
            20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

            1 Corinthians 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. [Things of the flesh are material, temporary, pass away.] Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.


            I hope this explains a few things for you, a hard subject, as best I feebly can. In any case, Christianity is not a lot of the arguments against Christianity you get from unbelievers, to be frank, many arguments based in utter ignorance, that should not be made, at all, for being invalid arguments.

            The Lord Jesus, through the writings of Paul, addressed these matters in some detail, the mandates of law versus grace, and what applies and does not, what is Jewish, only. It’s all in the New Testament.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by eider View Post
              I asked a question.
              You turned it in to an accusation, I think.
              Let's review, shall we? Here's you bringing up the subject:

              Originally posted by eider View Post
              That might wash, if only the homophobes would take notice of about 500 other OT laws.
              ....which they don't seem to do.
              This is an accusation, though perhaps not a strong one. It DEFINITELY was not a question. So now that you have been shown that you started by accusing "homophobes" of not taking notice of about 500 other OT laws, would you like to explain which ones you are talking about?

              Here's your next post to me:
              Originally posted by eider View Post
              If you want to follow the OT laws as written, then follow them but don't add your own clauses. And the 106 sacrificial/ceremonial laws were removed by Jesus himself (I will have mercy and not sacrifice) and so the 507 others remain, very few of which you seem to bother about.... ?
              This proceeds from a general accusation to a specific one--one focused on me in particular--where you don't think I bother about those 507 laws.

              If those are so important to you, I would think that you would be able to name some of them. After asking numerous times, you haven't named any to me. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.(sorry for the poor quality)

              Yet you seem to think I am not bothering about very many of them.

              Yes, I brought up a question about what OT laws Christians might follow.
              Some of the laws do fit with the laws of the land where I live, but that's not the same. You either follow some of these laws or you don't.
              Other Christians say that they do not have to follow any OT laws unless they were re-given by Jesus.
              So..... any answers?
              I can't find a question in there.

              I have read (on TOL) that President Trump does not speak out against gays, or so a prominent member here claims.
              So why are you talking about Democrats as if only Democrats support gays?
              My comment about democrats had nothing to do with gays. Are you having trouble reading my posts? You don't answer my direct questions, and you misconstrue what I'm saying to make it about gays. It seems you are hung up about gays for some reason. (And I might add that you don't seem to be able to read your own posts, thinking you've asked a question, when you have only made statements, and saying you didn't make accusations when you obviously did.)

              If it matters, I think President Trump is foolish to try to get homosexuality legalized all over the world.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                Let's review, shall we? Here's you bringing up the subject:

                This is an accusation, though perhaps not a strong one. It DEFINITELY was not a question. So now that you have been shown that you started by accusing "homophobes" of not taking notice of about 500 other OT laws, would you like to explain which ones you are talking about?
                You clearly do not understand what a question-mark means.

                Here's your next post to me:

                This proceeds from a general accusation to a specific one--one focused on me in particular--where you don't think I bother about those 507 laws.

                If those are so important to you, I would think that you would be able to name some of them. After asking numerous times, you haven't named any to me. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

                Yet you seem to think I am not bothering about very many of them.

                I can't find a question in there.
                This is question time.,
                All you have to do is read each law, selected at random, and tell me whether or not you think it still applies to Christians. Easy.
                Just three laws from one book.
                Here we go............ can't wait for your ansdwers.

                1. Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
                Yes.... or No?

                2. Deuteronomy {22:5} The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
                Yes........ or No?

                3. Deuteronomy {23:24} When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put [any] in thy vessel.
                Yes...... or No?

                Let's start there. Those were selected by turning to a page and placing a finger on the page. Easy.


                My comment about democrats had nothing to do with gays. Are you having trouble reading my posts?
                So why write jibes at a political party on a thread about Gsys? That's just obtuse, imo.


                If it matters, I think President Trump is foolish to try to get homosexuality legalized all over the world
                In which case, leave mention of political parties out of it, why don't you?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by eider View Post
                  1. Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
                  Yes.... or No?
                  great!

                  so we can erase this from our budget?


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eider View Post
                    1. Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
                    Yes.... or No?


                    What the Christian reads:
                    Spoiler




                    what retards like eider read:
                    Spoiler



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by eider View Post
                      You clearly do not understand what a question-mark means.
                      Or the lack of one, apparently...

                      This is question time.,
                      All you have to do is read each law, selected at random, and tell me whether or not you think it still applies to Christians. Easy.
                      Just three laws from one book.
                      Here we go............ can't wait for your ansdwers.

                      1. Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
                      Yes.... or No?

                      2. Deuteronomy {22:5} The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
                      Yes........ or No?

                      3. Deuteronomy {23:24} When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put [any] in thy vessel.
                      Yes...... or No?

                      Let's start there. Those were selected by turning to a page and placing a finger on the page. Easy.
                      I think those apply to everybody--not just Christians. So put me down for 3 "yes's". I don't see the need to do away with laws that help us know how to love our neighbors as ourselves.

                      Since you are now asking questions (thank you!), are you now saying you DON'T think I am neglecting these? Or at least do you admit that you don't know how well or poorly I'm fulfilling these laws?

                      I can tell you this. I don't have a vineyard, nor do I grow crops. I don't cross-dress, nor have I allowed my children to do so, though it is sometimes difficult to discern some types of clothing as male or female.

                      That first one is somewhat subjective. I have a brother that isn't very responsible with his money. I haven't seen him starving, so I haven't been very eager to open my hand to him. Same with my immediate neighbors. They all seem to have what they need. I have some friends that have been out of work, and we have tried to help them in some ways. We've given food and clothing (like jackets and gloves and blankets) to some standing on street corners, and sometimes they appreciate it, sometimes they don't.

                      Re. the second one: Do you think it's a concern if Christians cross-dress? Do you think it's possible for everybody either in the time of Deuteronomy or today to avoid cross-dressing? Do you think it's a good idea to avoid such? Why or why not?

                      So why write jibes at a political party on a thread about Gsys? That's just obtuse, imo.



                      In which case, leave mention of political parties out of it, why don't you?
                      If it's too obtuse for you, you can ignore.

                      Comment


                      • Eider is running a classic Alinsky game here - he's trolling, which is why I'm not interested in being polite to him - he's holding his opponent to a standard he doesn't intend to meet, which is why he's been so reluctant to get into specifics, and which is why he's so reluctant to answer direct questions and instead prefers to avoid, ignore and obfuscate

                        his (concealed) argument is that if you oppose homosexuality based on OT law AND don't follow all the rest of OT law, you're a hypocrite

                        put that clearly, it's easy to refute, which is why Eider won't put it that clearly.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eider View Post
                          You clearly do not understand what a question-mark means.


                          This is question time.,
                          All you have to do is read each law, selected at random, and tell me whether or not you think it still applies to Christians. Easy.
                          Just three laws from one book.
                          Here we go............ can't wait for your ansdwers.

                          1. Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
                          Yes.... or No?

                          2. Deuteronomy {22:5} The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
                          Yes........ or No?

                          3. Deuteronomy {23:24} When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put [any] in thy vessel.
                          Yes...... or No?

                          Let's start there. Those were selected by turning to a page and placing a finger on the page. Easy.



                          So why write jibes at a political party on a thread about Gsys? That's just obtuse, imo.



                          In which case, leave mention of political parties out of it, why don't you?
                          What does the old law say to do with poor homosexuals?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            Or the lack of one, apparently...

                            I think those apply to everybody--not just Christians. So put me down for 3 "yes's". I don't see the need to do away with laws that help us know how to love our neighbors as ourselves.
                            There we are, so you would support a law which obligates wealthier people to support poorer people. That's good.
                            Personally I don't think that there should be any laws which make people wear 'gender' clothing, or have 'gender' haircuts etc. There are countries in the World where the religious police will drag you out of the shop (or wherever) and give you a beating if you don't fit the correct 'gender' appearance. We don't really want that back, but if you like it then you do.
                            The law which allows folks to wander in to their neighbours yards and scrump their fruit etc, but forbids them to take it away in 'carriers' is a bit didgy for some countries because of gun-nuts who live to kill trespassers. I think that laws against intrusion or vagrancy laws could save lives there if the land is awash with idiot gun-nut landowners. But that's just me.

                            Ok, so it looks as if you just accepted all those.


                            I can tell you this. I don't have a vineyard, nor do I grow crops. I don't cross-dress, nor have I allowed my children to do so, though it is sometimes difficult to discern some types of clothing as male or female.

                            That first one is somewhat subjective. I have a brother that isn't very responsible with his money. I haven't seen him starving, so I haven't been very eager to open my hand to him. Same with my immediate neighbors. They all seem to have what they need. I have some friends that have been out of work, and we have tried to help them in some ways. We've given food and clothing (like jackets and gloves and blankets) to some standing on street corners, and sometimes they appreciate it, sometimes they don't.

                            Re. the second one: Do you think it's a concern if Christians cross-dress? Do you think it's possible for everybody either in the time of Deuteronomy or today to avoid cross-dressing? Do you think it's a good idea to avoid such? Why or why not?

                            If it's too obtuse for you, you can ignore.
                            Look..... you gave those laws a Yes, so don't start wandering off in to 'maybes' or 'Nos', OK?

                            Here's just one more and I didn't pick it, it got brought up here already. What the uneducated have called the 'shrimp' law, with mention of catfish as well. Where I live our national and local governments do INSTRUCT all visitors to our sea shores 'DO NOT EAT THE SHELLFISH!' Now why do you think that is? For instance, do you think it's a 'religious' law? One way to find out why the Mosaic Laws banned such foods is easy to discover simply by researching deadly killer sicknesses such as 'shellfish poison paralysis' or the 'accumulation of poisons in omnivore/carnivore creatures'.

                            Me? I break that law above once a fortnight because I walk out on our local tideline and collect a feed of oysters, but I have learned to boil them for a few minutes in order to reduce the high risk of sickness which is associated with them. If they are to be eaten live then they must be kept under ultr-violet light for three days beforehand. I guess that the Jews didn't know about such things back then.

                            And that is why LAWS CAN ADAPT. And that is why more and more Christians do accept freedom of dress-codes, freedom of sexuality, freedom of sexual choice, same sex marriage and partnerships, female priests and Bishops, etc etc. Where I live many Christians accept all of those conditions, as do their churches.

                            If you like I'll random select three more and stick them up later today, but I do assure you that NONE of them are 'religious' laws, they were tough laws for the production of a sickness free, healthy, cohesive, very successful nation of people to not only survive their aggressive neighbours but to be much much stronger than any of them. But where time has enabled people to adapt them, just as Jesus adapted the sacrificial, ceremonial and (probably) dress-code laws. Easy. One just has to focus upon Jesus rather than all the rest of it, I guess.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by eider View Post

                              There we are, so you would support a law which obligates wealthier people to support poorer people.
                              Eider's inherent dishonesty (as evidenced above) is another reason I call him a troll


                              Deuteronomy {15:11} For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.



                              Thee doesn't specify wealthy or wealthier people

                              see: the widow and her mite


                              additionally, it does not say "support"


                              typical of Eider, it's not worth going past the first sentence

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eider View Post

                                There we are, so you would support a law which obligates wealthier people to support poorer people. That's good.
                                Personally I don't think that there should be any laws which make people wear 'gender' clothing, or have 'gender' haircuts etc. There are countries in the World where the religious police will drag you out of the shop (or wherever) and give you a beating if you don't fit the correct 'gender' appearance. We don't really want that back, but if you like it then you do.
                                The law which allows folks to wander in to their neighbours yards and scrump their fruit etc, but forbids them to take it away in 'carriers' is a bit didgy for some countries because of gun-nuts who live to kill trespassers. I think that laws against intrusion or vagrancy laws could save lives there if the land is awash with idiot gun-nut landowners. But that's just me.

                                Ok, so it looks as if you just accepted all those.




                                Look..... you gave those laws a Yes, so don't start wandering off in to 'maybes' or 'Nos', OK?

                                Here's just one more and I didn't pick it, it got brought up here already. What the uneducated have called the 'shrimp' law, with mention of catfish as well. Where I live our national and local governments do INSTRUCT all visitors to our sea shores 'DO NOT EAT THE SHELLFISH!' Now why do you think that is? For instance, do you think it's a 'religious' law? One way to find out why the Mosaic Laws banned such foods is easy to discover simply by researching deadly killer sicknesses such as 'shellfish poison paralysis' or the 'accumulation of poisons in omnivore/carnivore creatures'.

                                Me? I break that law above once a fortnight because I walk out on our local tideline and collect a feed of oysters, but I have learned to boil them for a few minutes in order to reduce the high risk of sickness which is associated with them. If they are to be eaten live then they must be kept under ultr-violet light for three days beforehand. I guess that the Jews didn't know about such things back then.

                                And that is why LAWS CAN ADAPT. And that is why more and more Christians do accept freedom of dress-codes, freedom of sexuality, freedom of sexual choice, same sex marriage and partnerships, female priests and Bishops, etc etc. Where I live many Christians accept all of those conditions, as do their churches.

                                If you like I'll random select three more and stick them up later today, but I do assure you that NONE of them are 'religious' laws, they were tough laws for the production of a sickness free, healthy, cohesive, very successful nation of people to not only survive their aggressive neighbours but to be much much stronger than any of them. But where time has enabled people to adapt them, just as Jesus adapted the sacrificial, ceremonial and (probably) dress-code laws. Easy. One just has to focus upon Jesus rather than all the rest of it, I guess.
                                You're slow, but you eventually agreed that our government can and should be able to set temporary bans, or require extra protective measures on things that are dangerous to the population--like a command to boil water before drinking, after, say, a sewage spill. I'm not disagreeing with you at all on the likelihood and necessity of laws in some instances and not in others. But just like the government sometimes knows things that the general populace doesn't, and therefore might have occasion to command something that doesn't make sense to the rest of us, so does God. Thanks for circling back around to say what I said in one of my early posts to you.

                                I think it's funny that you both complain about my "maybes" and "nos", and do exactly the same thing by saying that sometimes laws can change based on the needs of the society at the time. I am in agreement with you. Not that ALL laws are of that kind, but that SOME are. You aren't suggesting, are you, that murder is ok now? You aren't suggesting, are you, that bearing false witness is ok now? How would we know which can be cast off as no longer necessary and which must persevere? Maybe we should look at the New Testament to see if those laws still should apply to us. Many do, if they fit with our situations. If I have a vineyard, then people should be able to walk into it and eat from it--until the poor begin to take advantage of the generosity and overwhelm to ability of the vineyard to produce for the owner (me, in this example).That's the principle given by Paul: "If they won't work, neither let them eat." 2 Thes 3:10. And reason is given in the following verses:
                                [2Th 3:11 KJV] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
                                [2Th 3:12 KJV] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

                                These commands--1) to share food with the poor, and 2) to work for your food--go together. They illustrate principles, by which we can determine the spirit of the laws, and not just the letter. For instance, commanding that someone eat their own bread does not mean they don't have to eat their own grapes or meat. "Bread" illustrates the principle of all kinds of food.

                                In the same way, opening ones hands to the poor illustrates general generosity, NOT just giving them what is in ones hands at the time, lest we circumvent the law by never carrying anything in our hands. Nor does the principle move beyond the immediate vicinity of the target of the law. The principle doesn't seem to extend to opening other people's hands. I shouldn't have the right to walk into your house, or accost you on the street, and demand that you feed the poor 2000 miles away. You can offer. But the law doesn't demand it.

                                Has the need for that second one gone away, now that we have unisex clothing? First, tell me the principle of the law, and then we can discuss whether it is no longer needed.

                                The same might or might not be necessary for the shrimp law you mentioned. Jesus was less concerned about what we eat as He was about what we do.
                                [Mar 7:19 NKJV] "because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods?"
                                [Mar 7:20 NKJV] And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man.
                                [Mar 7:21 NKJV] "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
                                [Mar 7:22 NKJV] "thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
                                [Mar 7:23 NKJV] "All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

                                Jesus didn't seem to care so much about shrimp. But He did care about "evil thoughts", "adulteries", "fornications", and "lewdness". These include sexual propensities, and Jesus said they come from within and they defile a man. Now we have a few principles we can deal with:
                                1. That there are some sexual sins that defile a man
                                2. That it is bad to defile one's self
                                3. That we can't just "follow our hearts", because these things proceed from our hearts, if we let them
                                4. That sexual sin is compared to murder, blasphemy, theft, deceit, and pride (ever hear of Gay "Pride"?)

                                Does that inform us about transvestism? It seems like it. If Deuteronomy calls it an abomination, is that just because of a temporary harm it might do to the people? Or is it a person trying to attract the same sex and lure someone into another abomination, homosexuality? And even if a man feels like he was born with a desire to wear women's clothing and wear makeup like a woman, that doesn't mean it is a feeling that should be indulged, but rather fought against, lest he defile himself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X