kiwimac said in post #756:
No one is offering children to Molech.
Now they are offered to convenience.
Upvote
0
kiwimac said in post #756:
No one is offering children to Molech.
that wasn't in your postThere is (Revelation 21:8).
But note that it is not lying to say that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that Biblical Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).
SilverBear said in post #762:
that's how it reads
SilverBear said in post #763:
that wasn't in your post
SilverBear said in post #763:
It has nothing to do with what i responded to.
No, it does not. It does not say to sons are to be killed.that's how it reads
Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.Well, not knowingly, and by name.
Jesus said if you aren't with Him, you are against Him. He also said that if anyone harms one of the little ones, it would be better for that man if he hadn't been born.
Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.
That first breath was considered to be the moment that a soul entersed the bodyUnder Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.
A child is consistently called a child in scripture, not a fetus.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...Jeremiah 1:5
"Rebekah his wife conceived [and] the children [Jacob and Esau] struggled together within her." Genesis 25:22
"Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Now drink no wine or similar drink… for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb…" –Judges 13:7
The death of or damage to a child in utero results in punishment for the perpetrator:
"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she give birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is further injury, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." –Exodus 21:22-25.
kiwimac said in post #767:
Under Jewish belief a "little one" was a born child not a foetus which was not fully human until after first breath.
You are incorrect. The harm is any that follows to either, the child or the woman. A child born prematurely is protected the same as the mother. Some pro-choice advocates attempt to argue that a child "going forth" must mean miscarriage so that the harm can be only to the woman, the child can be a nonentity, but the original language translation does not bear this out.You are taking scripture out of context. As for the Exodus 21 scripture, the harm referred to is to the woman not to the foetus for whom a fine is levied.
It's easy to claim that but just because you say it doesn't make it so.Not remotely relevant to this discussion. Race is inapplicable here. No, there is no correlation, despite the desperation to reach one.
"Why" is an interesting question because despite what Paul claims, Jesus says that nothing in the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away and all of the law is fulfilled. Matthew 5:18The questions you need to ask are whether the NT (which is the new covenant for Christians) agrees with the OT about (1) eating shrimp and (2) homosexuality.
And the answers are: (1) no (2) yes
A more interesting question is "why".
Likewise. The insistence that a behavior is exactly like an immutable characteristic of skin color doesn't make it so.It's easy to claim that but just because you say it doesn't make it so.
We aren't talking about behavior, we're talking about orientation.Likewise. The insistence that a behavior is exactly like an immutable characteristic of skin color doesn't make it so.
Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18The letter of its Mosaic law is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18).
Women as second-class citizens subordinate to males is not justice.Indeed, so we should not want anyone to be separated from the NT law.
Not according to Jesus in Matthew 5:18Not under the New Covenant/New Testament (Romans 7:6).
But it doesn't say or require that it is a mountain not here on earth You're adding that to explain away the problem. The Bible has proscriptions against that sort of thing. Proverbs 30:5-6Note that it doesn't say or require that.
And yet the mountain is not? Why add to the plain reading of the text?It was. For the heavenly city has no temple (Revelation 21:22).
Umm, because it happened.?Why would they have to?
What reference source are you using for that claim? According to Strong's it means "εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among."In Luke 18:35 the original Greek word (G1519) translated as "unto" can mean as Jesus came near "by" (Acts 27:2) a blind man next to Jericho, yet still on Jesus' way out of Jericho (Mark 10:46).
More adding to the Bible. You really have a problem with the plain reading of the text.Note that no account says or requires that Jesus did not touch their eyes.
Minors are not allowed to consent to marriage.That's right. And just as minors are allowed to consent to marriage, so in the future they could be allowed to consent to pedophilia.
Ridiculous. Orientation is not the same as paraphillia.Indeed, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia. For otherwise, pedophilia completely undermines all of their arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".
But not in any way that can be empirically proven, such as healing an amputee. Why do you think that is?So what? He still miraculously heals people (Matthew 9:35).
Maybe they were but sometimes it seems that God is peculiarly selective in his healing.Why can't they have been?
Do you feel the same about practitioners of Santeria?No, but forcing Biblical Christians to deny the "free exercise" of their religion is prohibited by the First Amendment.
Because they have a captive audience and that violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.No, even if all students at a graduation wanted to say a voluntary prayer out loud at the start, they cannot.
And when a Wiccan teacher leads their class in a prayer to Diana or a Muslim wants to hand out copies of the Quran, will you support that?For, since 1962, the government has illegally denied prayer at school events.
This must be overturned.
Did you bother to read the article, written by an evangelical Christian that I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it:No, it isn't. Non-religious people in the audience can simply play with their smartphones during the prayer.
So that meant it was OK when we did it to the Native Americans?Note that God allowed the Israelites to do that in Canaan.
"Most" of the population was NOT against it. Why do you think that half the states at the time seceded from the Union in order to preserve slavery?Most of the U.S. populace was rightly against that. What do you think the Civil War was supposed to be about?
We aren't talking about church, we're talking about rights as an American citizen.Regarding gender, it is not immoral to discriminate. For in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, for example, the restrictions on women are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). And they are applicable in all congregations (1 Timothy 2:11-12). For they are based on the general principles of Eve being formed after Adam (1 Timothy 2:13), and Eve being deceived, and Adam not being deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).
While the Lord forbids women to speak anything from their own minds in church meetings, such as asking questions (1 Corinthians 14:34-37), or teaching (1 Timothy 2:11-14), nothing requires that He forbids them to operate in the Spiritual gifts which involve speaking by the miraculous inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, such as prophesying, or speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:8-11). So women, like men, should be allowed to speak out loud in tongues in church meetings, one at a time, when a tongues-interpreter is present (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). And those women who are prophetesses (Acts 21:9; cf. Luke 2:36, Judges 4:4) should be allowed, like male prophets, to prophesy in church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:29).
Paul's writings are scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). And so they are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16). That some Christians might choose to ignore parts of them does not change this fact, just as some Christians choosing to ignore parts of what Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 5:39, Mark 10:11-12) does not change the fact that His teachings are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16).
When you have a captive audience and pray to them, they are forced to listen.No one is promoting force.
Basing laws under the Constitution on whether something is a sin is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.Not if it is a sin. Murder is a choice.
Because it is not a sin.
So a Hindu student can post verses from the Bhagavad Gita on a Christian student's locker and you'd be OK with it?To preach the Gospel to everyone (Mark 16:15).
Sorry, no. You don't get to change the scenario. You saidIf they aren't or don't, they can do something else during the prayer.
Answer the question; how do they know?But they can't pray out loud at school activities, even if everyone in the school is Christian and wants to pray.
No, it is not. It is upholding the Establishment Clause.Denying prayer at school events is denying the free exercise of religion.
Which is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time.Any prayer should be up to the students, not the teacher.
Nope, making a cake for one couple but refusing to make an identical cake for another couple based on sexual orientation is discrimination against a person.No, it is discriminating against a sinful activity, which discrimination is required for Biblical Christians (Ephesians 5:11).
No, but it does justify the legal upholding of the establishment clause at school events.That does not justify the illegal denial of the free exercise of religion at school events.
wrong.It is Christians who are now the outcasts because they do not serve the current schools' religion of "political correctness".
And yet they do it all the time.But Christians are never to treat any non-Christians as outcasts (Mark 2:16).
That is exactly what is happening. If I have to be at a location for something and someone starts reciting a Islamic Call to Prayer, I'm forced to listen to it.Note that there is no need for any force or outcasting.
It isn't voluntary when you have no choice but to be there and listen to it.Voluntary school prayer is not establishment.
As I said above, this is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time. Not at school sponsored events and especially not at events where attendance is mandatory.Any prayers should be up to the students.
Because those "Biblical" Christians decided to open a business to the public but refuse to treat all American citizens the same.Indeed, why can't homosexuals just leave Biblical Christians alone?
From WebstersNote that Webster's doesn't say "pre-pubertal" in its definition for pedophilia, which can refer to children generally, as in minors.
No, that is not what makes someone a pedophile. See above definition from Webster'sHe is, in the sense of statutory rape of a minor, or possessing minor inappropriate contentography, which is illegal.
By Webster's, as shown above.By whose definition? Someone who wants to prey on post-pubertal minors, who can be as young as 12 or 13?
According to Jesus there is no such thing. Matthew 5:18Not under the New Testament/New Covenant.
1. There are multiple documented cases of homosexuality in animals.Because it is against nature, and can lead to horrible diseases.
Maybe, but that does not mean that we can outlaw something just because the Bible says so. That is a huge violation of the First Amendment.Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) in the sense of how God created nature to work:
For the umpteenth time, just because something is proscribed in the Bible does not mean that the US can make it illegal just because the Bible proscribes against it. There must be a secular reason for the law. Ever heard of the Lemon Test?Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.
Not in the United States under our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is amazing how many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals wave the Constitution around when it suits their purposes but seem to always forget about the prohibition against the government establishing a religion. In spite of the fact that it is right there in the same First Amendment that they beat people over the head with. And in fact comes before the free exercise clause.Of course it is (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4).
You're arguing against a straw man here. I'm arguing that the Bible condoned of chattel slavery. I made no mention of race.Also remember that at the time that the Bible was written, thousands of years ago, slavery was not at all based on race. For back then there were many more white slaves than black. And no doubt some of the white slaves had black masters. The Bible is not racist (Acts 17:26, Revelation 5:9).
Really? Exodus 21:20-21Also, the Old Testament forbade the cruel treatment of slaves (Leviticus 25:43, Exodus 21:26-27), of whatever race
Now that's funny. And that's coming from a liberal.and forbade the return of escaped slaves to their masters (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Similarly, the New Testament commands the right treatment of slaves (Colossians 4:1), and says that slaves should obtain freedom from mortal masters if they are able to (1 Corinthians 7:21). But Christians are to remain the voluntary slaves/servants of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1, Romans 6:22, Revelation 1:1), who has freed them from slavery to sin (John 8:34-36), and offers them eternal life (Romans 6:22-23).
Also, the world today takes pride in its outlawing of slavery. Yet the world overlooks the billions of "wage slaves" today who are not paid a living wage, while their corporate masters grow rich off of their labor. So slaves today are cared for less by their masters than slaves in Bible times were to be cared for (Colossians 4:1, Exodus 21:5).
You are incorrect. The harm is any that follows to either, the child or the woman. A child born prematurely is protected the same as the mother. Some pro-choice advocates attempt to argue that a child "going forth" must mean miscarriage so that the harm can be only to the woman, the child can be a nonentity, but the original language translation does not bear this out.
" . . .The Torah does not address the issue directly. The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23) concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.
The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth. . ."
Queller said in post #774:
. . . despite what Paul claims, Jesus says that nothing in the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away and all of the law is fulfilled. Matthew 5:18
Queller said in post #776:
We aren't talking about behavior, we're talking about orientation.
Queller said in post #777:
Women as second-class citizens subordinate to males is not justice.
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Matthew 4:8]
But it doesn't say or require that it is a mountain not here on earth
Queller said in post #777:
You're adding that to explain away the problem. The Bible has proscriptions against that sort of thing. Proverbs 30:5-6
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Matthew 4:5 was on earth]
And yet the mountain is not?
Queller said in post #777:
Why add to the plain reading of the text?
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Why would Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 have to mention the second blind man that was healed in Matthew 20:29-34?]
Umm, because it happened.?
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: In Luke 18:35 the original Greek word (G1519) translated as "unto" can mean as Jesus came near "by" (Acts 27:2) a blind man next to Jericho, yet still on Jesus' way out of Jericho (Mark 10:46)]
What reference source are you using for that claim? According to Strong's it means "[Greek], a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among."
I don't see anything there about it meaning "by".
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 do not say or require that Jesus did not touch the blind eyes, as in Matthew 20:29-34]
More adding to the Bible. You really have a problem with the plain reading of the text.
Did you ever think that by having to add so much to the Bible might mean something is off about your interpretation of it?
Queller said in post #777:
You do know that Mark and Luke were not at Jericho with Jesus right? That they got their accounts from other witnesses?
Queller said in post #777:
Minors are not allowed to consent to marriage.
Queller said in post #777:
Orientation is not the same as paraphillia.
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Jesus miraculously heals people (Matthew 9:35)]
But not in any way that can be empirically proven, such as healing an amputee. Why do you think that is?
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Why can't people in the here and now have been healed by God?]
Maybe they were but sometimes it seems that God is peculiarly selective in his healing.
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Forcing Biblical Christians to deny the "free exercise" of their religion is prohibited by the First Amendment]
Do you feel the same about practitioners of Santeria?
Queller said in post #777:
[Re: Even if all students at a graduation wanted to say a voluntary prayer out loud at the start, they cannot]
Because they have a captive audience and that violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Queller said in post #777:
And when a Wiccan teacher leads their class in a prayer to Diana or a Muslim wants to hand out copies of the Quran, will you support that?