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.
Yes, I recognize changes I need to make in myself...this isn't one of them though!It wasn't meant to be, it was meant to explain that I recognize the need for change, in myself, and for him to increase, and me to decrease.
I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in discrimination and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in homosexuality and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.
Actually I can. The enemy comes as an angel of light and ears will be tickled.
Leviticus also condemns the eating of shellfish, shaving, hair cutting, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, and attending church while wearing glasses. Leviticus also says slavery and killing your own child are acceptable things.If I offended anyone with the animal comment it was not my intent, and I apologize. However, it should be noted that I didnt compare it to 2 consenting male adults...the Bible did, in verses back to back. I just stated what it said. These verses are back to back in the same chapter.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
Leviticus 18:22-23
Yes, let it be known that if you are wearing clothing of mixed fabrics...you are LIVING IN SIN according to Leviticus! It is the same abomination (Tow'ebah=ritual unclean).Leviticus also condemns the eating of shellfish, shaving, hair cutting, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, and attending church while wearing glasses. Leviticus also says slavery and killing your own child are acceptable things.
I cannot fathom how Christians twist scripture to condone women in pants of mixed fibre who eat shellfish!I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in homosexuality and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.
Yes, let it be known that if you are wearing clothing of mixed fabrics...you are LIVING IN SIN according to Leviticus! It is the same abomination (Tow'ebah=ritual unclean).
Food was antitypal of gentile nations.4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' 8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
(Acts 11)
It was a correlation to stand to testify to Israel about consuming the cultures of other lands in replacement of that which God had given them. When the time came to establish the universality of God's sovereignty, the cultures were to be integrated into the Church and food was no longer seen as an abomination as the promises were fulfilled under the old covenant.4 The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat! 5 We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6 But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"
(Numbers 11)
In other words, if that food, in Acts 11, represented the Gentile nations, we can say this was only symbolic in the dream itself, but if you think about the logical extension of that - when gentile believers were added to the Church, would they be restricted from eating the foods which were symbolic for themselves? That would essentially amount to declaring themselves unclean gentiles! God did say "Do not call unclean what I have made clean." Thus, I must conclude that the dietary restrictions were prophetic towards the day when the gentiles would be permitted into the universally sovereign marriage between God and His Church.
Aren't we all set apart by the Holy Spirit in Christ? Wasn't that the other side to the idea of the Levite priests?Saved and happy, I don't doubt that there is a logical reason for saying that clothes of mixed fibre were abomination way back when, the POINT, is that we no longer consider it so NOW!
$10 says you are wearing a poly-cotton mix this very moment.
So... IF wearing mixed fibre is OK now, why not homosexuality?
Why do you get to pick and choose the bits of Leviticus you want to follow, but I don't?
savedandhappy1 said:Lev 19:19(last part)
neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee; for, as Josephus {l} says, none but the priests were allowed to wear such a garment, and with which the Misnah {m} agrees; in which it is asserted, that the priests have no other clothing to minister in, in the sanctuary, but of woollen and linen;
Aren't we all set apart by the Holy Spirit in Christ? Wasn't that the other side to the idea of the Levite priests?
All parties involved miss the point when debating the idea of slavery. The necessity of sin in homoeroticism goes right to the heart of what the marital covenant (and Christ's sacrifice on the cross as an indirect result) itself implies.It always struck me as odd, from reading the other post regarding slavery. Some christians will go to great lengths to massage the scripture to explain away why Slavery was deemed acceptable, but when it comes to Gay people they are quite Dogmatiic as to the authenticity and relevance of a few quotes made over 2000 years ago. It just does not sit right with me.
All parties involved miss the point when debating the idea of slavery. The necessity of sin in homoeroticism goes right to the heart of what the marital covenant (and Christ's sacrifice on the cross as an indirect result) itself implies.
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?