alwight
New member
Try reading my post where I listed them Stripe and point out the ones that I got wrong.
lain:
toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
lain:
Sure thing. :thumb:Try reading my post where I listed them Stripe and point out the ones that I got wrong.
None of these are described as "abominations to God".
Reading - The bane of the evolutionist. :chuckle:
Acts 10. Try again.
Those are not symbolic. If we can throw out these laws then we can throw out "Do not murder."
Ask a Jew sometime about the difference between the laws applied solely to them and the laws that should apply to all. They know the difference; why don't you?
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans is in the new testament and if you need to see what Jesus said about what marriage IS and that for those who cannot accept that, that they need to remain celibate, see matthew chapter 19
Romans and Matthew are in the NT
alwight
New member
:doh:
If I were making the argument that The shall not Murder, thou shall not steal and thou shall not commit perjury were intended to apply to all people for all time, you must circumcise your son on the 8th day was only meant to apply to Jews, you probably wouldn't admit I was right since it undermines your argument. In fact Peter James and John were insisting new converts to Christianity be circumcised until Paul set them straight.
I have a confession to make. I have zero OT evidence that the prohibition of homosexuality was not ceremonial law. The clearest evidence that the God of the Bible considers it to be a sin, for all people comes from the Book of Romans in the NT
edit: and I see Angel4Truth already provided that for you.
Why do people read small sections of Romans? The context of Romans 1 is those who reject God are given over to vile things. Paul then cites a few examples. Then he tells his readers in the first verse of Romans 2 that they who condemn are even worse. Remember that originally the letters of Paul were not segmented into chapters and verses. That was done centuries later by editors to facilitate easier reading. And for further accuracy I should note that the term homosexual did not exist until the nineteenth century.
My point is that Paul was communicating that if you reject God your life will be a mess and he used examples such as
"29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"
So, if Paul were trying to communicate in 2012 he might put it this way....
If you reject God your life will become a mess. You risk becoming an addict, unemployed, homeless and devoid of any satisfying relationships with others. But those of you who condemn others are even worse because not only is your own life full of sin but you look down upon the lost instead of extending love to them.
Perhaps my understanding is incorrect but when I get a letter I read it all the way through to gain an understanding of the thoughts the author is trying to convey. Just for the record I admit to condemning homosexuality earlier in life. Later I discovered that my primary concern should be my own relationship to God. Now I pray for others regardless of whether they live as I do. And I trust God to do the judging.
My point is that Paul was communicating that if you reject God your life will be a mess and he used examples such as
"29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:"
So, if Paul were trying to communicate in 2012 he might put it this way....
If you reject God your life will become a mess. You risk becoming an addict, unemployed, homeless and devoid of any satisfying relationships with others. But those of you who condemn others are even worse because not only is your own life full of sin but you look down upon the lost instead of extending love to them.
Perhaps my understanding is incorrect but when I get a letter I read it all the way through to gain an understanding of the thoughts the author is trying to convey. Just for the record I admit to condemning homosexuality earlier in life. Later I discovered that my primary concern should be my own relationship to God. Now I pray for others regardless of whether they live as I do. And I trust God to do the judging.
Looking down on the lost would be to say to the proud of sin "hey im ok you're ok" and let them die in their sin choice believing that its not sin.
The world is dying. Hating those in it would be to just let them, since we are saved anyway.
I thought the believers primary objective is to love God with all ones heart and to love their neighbor as themselves. Love protects.
A real friend tells you the truth. Not whatever makes you feel good.
PS the words sodomite and catamite existed though and so did the concept of a male lying with a male as with a woman and a man exchanging the natural use of the woman for another man, pretty clear imagery by any stretch of the imagination.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Last edited:
Can't get any clearer than that.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
alwight
New member
I see that you are perhaps quibbling about the particular words I used Stripe. A red herring imo.
For some reason you seem to want to object to "abominations to God".
You perhaps think that God instead proclaims them to be abominations to man but are not necessarily abominations to God Himself?
I was wrong to infer that perhaps?
God's perhaps making up rules for the sake of it then, having a laugh? :liberals:
God worries about people getting food poisoning maybe?
Otherwise please don't be shy to explain.
It's been explained. :idunno:
God made some laws that were ceremonial. He said they were to be an abomination to those people who were under them. Thus He had no problem doing away with them and did just that.
Other laws are moral. They are an abomination to Him.
alwight
New member
So it was not about food poisoning, just ceremony then?
Sorry Stripe you may think I'm a "loon ball" but I actually see some rational thinking involved in your ancient scripture from its writers, not the nonsense you turn it into.
There were probably quite sensible and rational reasoning involved in the rules applied at the time.
Shellfish can be poisonous if you're not careful and know what not to eat. Certain sexual practices can also be best avoided unless the right precautions are taken.
It really has nothing to do with any absolute God-given morality imo, it's often based in some practical common sense for the most part.
The unfortunate thing imo is that some fundamental religionists like to see such ancient text as literal, not illustrative or figurative of the time. They will falsly try to apply it today as a literal truth, as confirmation for their own bigotry against those who may genetically have a different sexually orientation or those who just want none of it.
lain:
It's difficult to take passages like the following one as meaning anything other than what it plainly says. Pretending it might have some new-age, figurative, spiritual-only, namby-pamby, evolutionist-friendly hidden meaning is just plain stupid.
This passage:
Numbers 35:16-21
16 “‘If anyone strikes someone a fatal blow with an iron object, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. 17 Or if anyone is holding a stone and strikes someone a fatal blow with it, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. 18 Or if anyone is holding a wooden object and strikes someone a fatal blow with it, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when the avenger comes upon the murderer, the avenger shall put the murderer to death. 20 If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at them intentionally so that they die 21 or if out of enmity one person hits another with their fist so that the other dies, that person is to be put to death; that person is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when they meet.
..makes you the stupidest person on TOL. :first:16 “‘If anyone strikes someone a fatal blow with an iron object, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. 17 Or if anyone is holding a stone and strikes someone a fatal blow with it, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. 18 Or if anyone is holding a wooden object and strikes someone a fatal blow with it, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when the avenger comes upon the murderer, the avenger shall put the murderer to death. 20 If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at them intentionally so that they die 21 or if out of enmity one person hits another with their fist so that the other dies, that person is to be put to death; that person is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when they meet.
alwight
New member
What is more stupid imo is for you to assume you know the context and culture of the time well enough to conclude that such sentiments above and the ones below are not simply figurative and/or allegorical.
(*** = Donkey btw, not arse. :nono
Numbers 22:28-31 KJV
"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ***, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
22:29 And Balaam said unto the ***, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
22:30 And the *** said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ***, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face"
"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ***, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
22:29 And Balaam said unto the ***, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
22:30 And the *** said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ***, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face"
...you are perhaps a talking *** Stripe.
We have, from the NT, the obvious message that God did away with some of the laws, completely [they apply to no one for any reason] and did not do away with others [some things are still wrong, no matter what, and should not be committed by anyone]. Why is that so hard to understand?
alwight
New member
You wouldn't simply be cherry picking then? :nono:
We have plenty of verses in the NT that show dietary laws, including the eating of meat offered to idols, to be moot. We also have verses showing circumcision of the flesh, and event the Sabbath, to be moot. We have no verses showing laws regarding homosexual sex to be moot, in fact we have the opposite; verses to the contrary.