ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[EnemyPartyII]

Okay so we agree the OT laws are important.

Sure. Who ever said they aren't?

But while they are important, they are not:

inerrant
complete
intended to be followed blindly
Or, necesarily, relevant today

 

[david_x]

Sure. Who ever said they aren't?

But while they are important, they are not:

inerrant
complete
intended to be followed blindly
Or, necesarily, relevant today

Well this started after somthing Dave said about that.

Hey, quick question. You like to group the anti-homosexual rule in the OT with women and their periods and other things. My problem is I haven't seen them grouped that way. I've always seen them with the do not do have sexual relationships with close relatives. Why?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hey, quick question. You like to group the anti-homosexual rule in the OT with women and their periods and other things. My problem is I haven't seen them grouped that way. I've always seen them with the do not do have sexual relationships with close relatives. Why?

I like to group the homosexual laws with others that are no longer considered relevant today, irrespective of their placement in the cannon

 

[davedjy]

I like to group the homosexual laws with others that are no longer considered relevant today, irrespective of their placement in the cannon

Exactly. They are always combined with pagan worship/idolatry, even in Leviticus, otherwise it would've included one for lesbianism.
Women didn't dress up as women and roleplay to these gods, it was a ceremonial violation (tow'ebah = abomination = ritual/ceremonial law).

 

[david_x]

But it is mixed into the anti-interbreeding section. Why did you pick just that one out? Doesn't that look suspicious.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But it is mixed into the anti-interbreeding section. Why did you pick just that one out? Doesn't that look suspicious.

There are bits all through the OT that are no longer relevant today... you have to use your brain to determine which bits are relevant today and whuch arent

 

[davedjy]

But it is mixed into the anti-interbreeding section. Why did you pick just that one out? Doesn't that look suspicious.

No, those included both sexes with them!

The beast one, the incest ones, all include that.

Did you see the one about having sex with a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle...a few verses up, same chapter! (Leviticus 18)

 

[Der Alte]

There are bits all through the OT that are no longer relevant today... you have to use your brain to determine which bits are relevant today and whuch arent

Using that pick and choose method everybody would just keep on doing whatever turns them on. The O.T. rules valid today are the ones reiterated by Jesus, and the apostles for example Jesus abrogated the dietary laws, Mk 7:18-19. This was reinforced by the triple vision of Peter, Acts 10:10-16

 

[davedjy]

Did ya read Romans 7 or skip over the part about the law?

 

[david_x]

There are bits all through the OT that are no longer relevant today... you have to use your brain to determine which bits are relevant today and whuch arent

You can't use your brain nor can I use mine. Humans are not capable of such an undertaking. You must desiphor using God's word and his spirit in a group setting.

No, those included both sexes with them!

The beast one, the incest ones, all include that.

Did you see the one about having sex with a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle...a few verses up, same chapter!

"Do not have sex with a women during her period." I don't see seven anywere.

If any are different it is the having sex with a beast one. None of the other's include women as not being allowed to do somthing.

 

[david_x]

No, those included both sexes with them!

The beast one, the incest ones, all include that.

Did you see the one about having sex with a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle...a few verses up, same chapter!

"Do not have sex with a women during her period." I don't see seven anywere.

If any are different it is the having sex with a beast one. None of the other's include women as not being allowed to do somthing.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You can't use your brain nor can I use mine.

Speak for yourself Dave... if you don't believe you are capable of using your brain, I will certainly accept what you say. However, please do not consider everyone else on the planet to have the same disregard of our God given mental structure

 

[david_x]

Speak for yourself Dave... if you don't believe you are capable of using your brain, I will certainly accept what you say. However, please do not consider everyone else on the planet to have the same disregard of our God given mental structure

We are human, what can we possibly understand that compares to what God can?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We are human, what can we possibly understand that compares to what God can?

does NO^T equal "don't use your brain because God gave us all the answers already..."

 

[david_x]

does NO^T equal "don't use your brain because God gave us all the answers already..."

pigs fly.

What are you trying to say?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What are you trying to say?

I'm TRYING to say... use your brain and think for yourself when it comes to interpreting scripture... don't just swallow what anyone else tells you without engaging your critical thinking facility.

 

[Der Alte]

There are bits all through the OT that are no longer relevant today... you have to use your brain to determine which bits are relevant today and whuch arent

Exactly. They are always combined with pagan worship/idolatry, even in Leviticus, otherwise it would've included one for lesbianism.
Women didn't dress up as women and roleplay to these gods, it was a ceremonial violation (tow'ebah = abomination = ritual/ceremonial law).

I like to group the homosexual laws with others that are no longer considered relevant today, irrespective of their placement in the cannon

And how do we determine the ones that are no longer relevant today. Eeny, meeny, miney, moe? Paper, rock, scissors?

The standard that the church has always used is those laws reiterated in the N.T. are binding on Christians. For example, all the commandments are reiterated in the N.T. more than once except for # 4, the Sabbath. Because the Sabbath was given specifically to the children of Israel as a sign. Conversely the dietary laws were abrogated by Jesus in Mk 7:18-19, and God the father , Acts 10:10-16. Homosexuality, pederasty, adultery, idolatry are all condemned in the N.T.

Don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim that all the verses which condemn homosexuality are mistranslated, they don't mean what Christians have said they mean, etc., etc.

The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] as “ ”SODOMY,” “FILTH OF SODOMY,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc. The above quoted from; Polycarp, 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD. Note the dates of these writings extend from ca. 85 AD through 258 AD.

Previous Post: Irrefutable evidence from the Talmud and the early church condemning homosexuality!

 

[inyourarmsalways]

And how do we determine the ones that are no longer relevant today. Eeny, meeny, miney, moe? Paper, rock, scissors?

The standard that the church has always used is those laws reiterated in the N.T. are binding on Christians. For example, all the commandments are reiterated in the N.T. more than once except for # 4, the Sabbath. Because the Sabbath was given specifically to the children of Israel as a sign. Conversely the dietary laws were abrogated by Jesus in Mk 7:18-19, and God the father , Acts 10:10-16. Homosexuality, pederasty, adultery, idolatry are all condemned in the N.T.

Don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim that all the verses which condemn homosexuality are mistranslated, they don't mean what Christians have said they mean, etc., etc.

The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] as “ ”SODOMY,” “FILTH OF SODOMY,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc. The above quoted from; Polycarp, 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD. Note the dates of these writings extend from ca. 85 AD through 258 AD.

Previous Post: Irrefutable evidence from the Talmud and the early church condemning homosexuality!

All that from a word that means "male" and "bed" ?

yeah, there is no way to get that much from it...

The Talmud also admits that it is a ceremonial/idolatry violation practice as seen in Leviticus.

God ordains polygamy in Exodus, incest in Genesis, and we have problems with same sex relationships? I am struck with wonder...

 

[Der Alte]

All that from a word that means "male" and "bed" ?

yeah, there is no way to get that much from it...

I have been speaking Greek since Sputnik I. Do you know anything about Greek except this crud you read at some GLBT-Я-us website? I quoted every reference I could find from the early church, including a student of John, Polycarp, and a student of Polycarp, Irenaeus.

The Talmud also admits that it is a ceremonial/idolatry violation practice as seen in Leviticus.

Then why don't you google on Talmud and find me the specific Tractate, and Folio which does that. I quoted from the Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 54b, the major reference in the Talmud to this toopic and ceremonial/idolatry is NOT mentioned<period>

That is just more anti-Bible pro-gay rhetoric that people who don't know what the heck they are talking about spread around, to people who only read and hear what they want to vs. the truth.

God ordains polygamy in Exodus, incest in Genesis, and we have problems with same sex relationships? I am struck with wonder...

Do you have a point? And OBTW neither of those statements are true

 

[inyourarmsalways]

Do you have a point? And OBTW neither of those statements are true

1) Solomon had how many wives, and did God have a problem with that? nope

2) God's law is absolute and doesn't change. How do you think the human race continued after Adam and Eve? incest is the only way