Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ever read Numbers 6?
Numbers 6
1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin.
5 ‘All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. 6 All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body. 7 He shall not make himself unclean even for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head. 8 All the days of his separation he shall be holy to the LORD.
Hey, I'm not trying to be contentious here. I was merely pointing something out. That is antitypical of Christ on many different levels, as was Samson (in a way).Suicides go to hell. Ever heard that preached?
Samson took his own life, therefore many Christians believe (or ought to believe) that he didn't go to heaven.
Ever read Numbers 6?
Numbers 6
5 All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. .
Context, context, context.Without that, scripture cannot be understood.
[...]
Need I remind you that Paul was also well versed in the Law of the Prophets and Moses, and would have understood the importance of long hair in vows to God?
What point are you trying to make? We no longer need ritual sacrifice because the antitype was fulfilled in Christ.
So what are you trying to argue again?I don't get what you're trying to do with this scripture. Cor 11:10, has been used and is still used in churches, who tell their female members to cover their heads with a scarf when they are in church, and their male members, to not grow their hair long. So are you trying to say these churches have taken Paul's words out of context?
So what is the context, you refer to three times?
explain this context in plain english to us, so we can understand.
Is the context of nature, relevant to the time?
And I've already addressed the vows, you only half mention, leaving out the part about sacrificing a lamb. Are you trying to say the the NT and Paul endorse half a vow? Or do they endorse the vow without the unneeded elements such hair length and slain animals.
The guidelines for the ritual sacrifice changed, they consist of fasting and praying, and no longer on growing your hair, and dead animals.
I don't even understand why you are trying to argue this the way you do, why not be honest with yourself and with us, and just tell us you retain your long hair because you like it, and not because of a vow to god?
So we can end this run around, and prove my point.
As far as the KKK/homosexual discussion goes. For the sake of brevity, this is what you said:
The question arose because a another person on this forum, said that he does not seek to ban members of the KKK from getting married because the marriage is not a sin.
Since the bible defines the sexual act as a sin, and not the marriage of two men as a sin, why should we then say homosexual marriage is a sin, and seek to legally place a ban on it, but not use the same line of logic for others we consider to be sinners.
My original question was directed to a particular individual, who understood what I was implying.
... and this is what I said:
The point I was making is that your analogy is flawed.Besides, the sin that would be associated with KKK members is actively punished by our government, is it not? And rightly so. It causes harm not only overtly to society as a whole, but subtly to a minority group. It's justified. Taking the same action we take against KKK members and applying it to homosexuals would not be justified in the least, and would, in fact, be incredibly abusive.
So what are you trying to argue again?
That's one opinion. I don't believe they're the same either, but I can't prove that a Muslim is wrong about that.
But which God? Mine? Yours? The Mormon's? The Hindu's? Who's right? How do you prove it?
I read your earlier post and I read other user's earlier post also, notice how I didn't mention any names, i didn't explicitly say you, so don't take personal offense, and any topic that people have "strong" convictions is going to touch people in some sort of way that people are going to react either adversely or with strong support, people are going to say things that are strong and in some cases aspecially with this hurtful, or argumentative.
A rational individual who looks at the science of sexuality, and is familiar with gays and lesbians, understand that their sexuality is not a choice, same as my heterosexuality is not a choice. We even know that god creates individuals with two sex organs (and of course some say they are the result of demons), if the bases for your opposition is paul, and verses from the OT, then their is nothing to reason with, because you believe they spoke absolutes.
I cannot argue you with you, if you say homosexuality is wrong because a few verses in the bible says it is. If you believe homosexuality is wrong for reasons outside of the text, then we can reason together.
I understand your convictions shawn (because they are based on beliefs that are not your fault), and I should apologize for showing any animosity because you have them. I know that perhaps you will never come to my side on this one issue, but i do know that the number of christians who are own my side are growing and never declining, and that gives me hope.
Ah, so I guess you don't see that the number of Christians who support gay rights are increasing? as well as the number of Christians who do not believe all portions of the bible should be taken literally (and this includes the Pope and Billy Graham)?
I don't condone or condemn it. It's not my place and it's not my job.
Do you believe the laws God gave Moses in Leviticus, where laws for the people of that age, or for our age as well?
And do you believe the Paul's teachings are void of flaws?
The obvious, and relevant point, though: What angels?
I don't know about that, but according to many Christians he didn't go to heaven.
Suicides go to hell. Ever heard that preached?
Samson took his own life, therefore many Christians believe (or ought to believe) that he didn't go to heaven.
What point are you trying to make? We no longer need ritual sacrifice because the antitype was fulfilled in Christ.
I feel as if we've drifted off topic.
where do you get this????? this seems way off in left field somewhere..and not even right? BUT again, this is a thread about homosexuality, not your believes on the Bible and where it is collapsing. The last I head, HIS word DOES NOT return void..and it accomplishes what it is sent to do. I don't see the Word as 'irrelevent' as you seem to.Those who string to literal belief, hold on tightly to something that is not there. But the time is coming when all will be taken away from believers, and many will start to loose faith, and what you so blindly see as truth, others will see as fiction.
Christians today are not ready to provide answers, for the wave of unbelief that will arise in the coming years, as they hold on to verses that do not matter, instead of building there house on the sermon of stone.
All areas of the bible are needed for a particular people at a particular time, and when that time elapses areas become irrelevant. Every generation has a new message, and a new understanding of things. The only message that is relevant to our generation and generations beyond are the words of Christ in the gospels. But many of us are hiding from the truth, that is starting to arise now.
All I say, is out of a deep love for Christianity, and a longing to perserve it, before many start to see it as irrelevant.
My convictions are deep, and my love for God is strong.
where do you get this????? this seems way off in left field somewhere..and not even right? BUT again, this is a thread about homosexuality, not your believes on the Bible and where it is collapsing.
The last I head, HIS word DOES NOT return void..and it accomplishes what it is sent to do. I don't see the Word as 'irrelevant' as you seem to.
I see this thread has been renewed. I had a difficult time finding your answer to my question--I do not understand god's purpose for everything. Will i be able to understand why he allows the serpent to exist, who eventually kills a child? Will i able to understand why a child is born, to be raped and killed a few years later? Will I be able to understand why some of us are born to wealth and privilege, and others are born to starvation and death? Will i be able to understand why children are born with two sex organs? All i know is that all is created by his will.
God gave me the ability to reason, the compassion to help the less fortunate, the ability to understand. With reason and love, I can see, as well as most rational individuals can see, that homosexuality is not a choice, or a sin.
I praise god, for seeing the seeds of compassion are growing among us believers as we become more accepting as time goes on, and I praise god, for you as well.
God bless you dear brother.
The man was created to be with the woman and the woman created to receive the man.
Some people are born with two sex organs.
First, don't let this become the focus of your reply to my original question.
That being said, this tragedy has little to do with the question of whether men where created to be with woman and woman created to relieve the man.
We see however the same line of reasoning in your statement about those born with both sex organs. We see an attempt to say that because some are born in this way, that men may not have been created to be with women and women created to receive the man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?