• 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.

Perverted homosexual arguments

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'll be back tomorrow. Please clarify this argument though. Unless I am too tired, all I see is you referencing scripture and then mentioning that there is no examples of living etc, etc....

Give reason!!! You have to give reason to argue that what you said justifies homosexual acts!! Saying that in scripture God commands whiping out entire cities wouldn't justify sexual immorality either.

If you would like to say you don't acknowledge the authority of scripture then say so. If you say so then don't argue from scripture anymore because you don't acknowledge it's authority. Whatever your argument is, make it with reason!!!

Thanks.
Give reasons as to why you are allowed to touch!!! Give reasons as to why you are allowed to drive a car!!!!!!
Give reasons as to why you are allowed to use a computer!!!
It's not in the Bible, so you must not be allowed to do it!!!! = same logic

human knowledge and human wisdom? no! refuting ridiculous arguments that God would ever condemn a loving relationship with another adult human. Let's not forget as I mentioned, that this type of a relationship wasn't even recongized till 1869...LONG after the Bible was written. So what was there to condemn? Historical context wouldn'tve been able to refute such a relationship... God allows polygamy in Exodus, yet you seem not be concerned with that, just pointing out something you see as a sin, attached to an orientation that cannot be changed.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
But you do that anyway. Unless you have somehow developed the ability to read books with your eyes closed. And without the use of language. But since you can do neither of these things, you are forced to acknowledge that despite how much it may injure your position, you interpret the Bible every time you pick it up.
Excellent post, I agree.

Everyone seems so arrogant in their understanding that "you should be judged because the way I see the Bible is the only way that it could possibly be!!!!"
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Polygamy condoned in Exodus, [Irrelevant!] slavery condoned throughout the WHOLE Bible, [Logical fallacy!]stoning to death of a rape victim [Irrelevant, contradicts next answer!], marrying of a rape victim for life (She has to marry her attacker), [<= Contradiction!] the Leviticus argument falls into a purity code violation [False statement!](we no longer follow those laws),

1 Cor 6:9-10 is a poor translation of an unknown word,

[size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size] what the early church called “SODOMY," 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. See this post for specific references http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32635683&postcount=82

that is inconsistent in translation (sexual pervert in 1 Timothy 1:10), Romans 1 is in conjunction w/pagan worship, orgies, promiscuity, backed with historical factual data of the time.
NO examples of loving, monogamous same sex relationships. Care to refute this argument?

No, NONE, NADA historical data. There are no examples of a loving monogamous relationship between a man and his goat either but bestiality is STILL condemned in the next verse.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,990
1,520
64
New Zealand
Visit site
✟620,160.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
The wife says you are an Anglican priest. Some day, after seminary, I will be an ordained Anglican priest (God willing). Just as my priest is an Anglican priest. For this reason I care all that much more for the light within you.

I do hope you plan on making a point with your indirect suggestions. Why not come out and say what your words imply?

Dare you to not, by any means, try to justify sin which God has condemned. But if you will, then do so in full light and speak plainly.

I have not seen one reasonable argument to biblically justify homosexual acts, only 666 suggestions. Also the fruits of houses divided against themselves.
Perhaps this article will help:

As a Christian living today there are a number of voices who claim to be speaking for all of us, they assail science and insist that we must literally accept every word in the [COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Verdana, Tahoma, Arial][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=Verdana, Tahoma, Arial]Bible[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] as true.

In doing so they fail both themselves and others for much in the Bible is parable or metaphor. When we, as Christians, insist that parable must be accepted as literally true we put a stumbling block of, well, biblical proportions in the way of earnest seekers.

It is for such seekers that I write this article.

Should you happen to visit the Answers in Genesis site you will find, among other things the following comment,
"... We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened..."

But are they right?

Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which impart to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son.

None of these New Testament stories are literal fact but they are true in a deeper, more meaningful way. So it is with the parables of Genesis 1 & 2. In them we are not being told that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. We are, however, being told that the world was created by God's intention, that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that God is a close to us as a friend who walks and talks with us in the cool of the day.

Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Serpent, Noah and his Ark may or may not be literal truth but they are markers of ultimate truth, of truth which can be held only in the imagination, of truth which can only be shown in images and symbols.

Genesis can only be understood in that it is our story, each of us is Adam, each of us is Eve, we misunderstand the Genesis parables when we fail to realize that they are addressed to US alone.

Genesis, then, is our unique, individual story told as parable it is not some pre-scientific attempt to explain how all things came to be but rather a profound series of meditations on why things should be in the first place.

Once we realize this, we can see there are no contradictions, can be no contradictions between the findings of science and God's word to us in Genesis. Let us happily give up our insistence on a literal Genesis and seek the deeper, foundational religious truths that await us there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dannager
Upvote 0

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,708
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can you account for God as apart from what the Holy Scriptures teach?

I say this because the foundational element in all Lutheran churches I have ever known has been the "Lutheran" principle of 'Sola-Scripture (coined in term by Martin Luther himself). That is to say that the Holy Scriptures are taken to be the only authority in all doctrine and life of the church. I find this written in the first or second line of every Lutheran church I've known (eg, Missouri/ LCC, ELCIC, ELCA). It is a defining characteristic of the Protestant Reformation!!

Not to say that the bible defines God, but that God defines the bible as being a true account of Jesus Christ, ie: the written word of God. Scripture teaches to worship God and God alone, not letters.

So if you claim a god other than God, who the bible speaks of, who or what is your god? Can you account for God as apart from the Scriptures account?

-Sincerely

Why, yes. All the time, as a matter of fact.

In fact, it's just amazing all the places God can (and will) be found once we get our heads out of a book! ;)

FYI: The Gospels (and Acts 1) are an account of Jesus Christ. Luke is the only Gospel which attempts anything at a historical account of Jesus' life.
 
Upvote 0

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟16,069.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why, yes. All the time, as a matter of fact.

In fact, it's just amazing all the places God can (and will) be found once we get our heads out of a book! ;)

FYI: The Gospels (and Acts 1) are an account of Jesus Christ. Luke is the only Gospel which attempts anything at a historical account of Jesus' life.

Let me make sure I am understanding you- are you saying that you encounter God in action in contradiction to Holy Scriptures all the time (which is what Im understanding outside the Scriptures to mean), and that the Holy Scriptures should be relegated to merely the Gospels?

G
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
[size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size] what the early church called &#8220;SODOMY," lust,&#8221; &#8220;impurity,&#8221; &#8220;works of the flesh,&#8221; &#8220;carnal,&#8221; &#8220;lawless intercourse,&#8221; &#8220; shameless,&#8221; &#8220;burning with insane love for boys,&#8221; &#8220; licentiousness,&#8221; &#8220;co-habitors with males,&#8221; &#8220;lusters after mankind&#8221;, etc. See this post for specific references http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32635683&postcount=82



No, NONE, NADA historical data. There are no examples of a loving monogamous relationship between a man and his goat either but bestiality is STILL condemned in the next verse.
Again, this proves nothing except someone's "translation" of something again. The Scholars are not agreed, but you think they are because of your little text arguments you bring in here. Again, INCONSISTENT translations between 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Cor 6:9-10.

There was no such thing as "co-habitors with males", these definitions are crap at best, I don't know why you think they suffice, THEY DON'T.
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But you do that anyway. Unless you have somehow developed the ability to read books with your eyes closed. And without the use of language. But since you can do neither of these things, you are forced to acknowledge that despite how much it may injure your position, you interpret the Bible every time you pick it up.

So you are saying you don't believe in the Holy Spirit's interpretation? You don't believe that God can open our eyes and the scriptures to them?

If I were you, only awknowledging the matereal and not the spiritual of the bible, then I would toss it in the garbage and make my own religion up. After all, if it is just a book written by men 2000 + years ago, what good is it to us now?

Yet if it is a true account of God and if God does testify through His Holy Scriptures, then what you say is missing the point. Scripture itself condemns relying on human wisdom thoughout. If you don't believe in the Holy Spirit, written about throughout scripture, then why are you discussing God's morality with me?
 
Upvote 0

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,708
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let me make sure I am understanding you- are you saying that you encounter God in action in contradiction to Holy Scriptures all the time (which is what Im understanding outside the Scriptures to mean), and that the Holy Scriptures should be relegated to merely the Gospels?

G

Oh, horrors!

I never said anything about the Holy Scriptures being relegated to merely the Gospels -- though there is quite a bit of excellent theology to be found in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians if we can get Christian conservatives to stop using just three short sections out of each epistle in order to condemn gays and lesbians, and conveniently overlooking the rest of the contents of those epistles!

I'm saying that while the Bible is the revelation about God's interaction with us from about -3000 BC to 90 CE, God is still bigger than the Bible and it's possible that God (being God) might even choose to do something which is outside the Bible and even without first checking with Christian conservatives to see if it was OK with them if God chose to do something!

I see God working through other people -- INCLUDING liberals, INCLUDING Muslims, INCLUDING agnostics and atheists, INCLUDING gays and lesbians -- whether or not Christian conservatives have given God their stamp of approval on whether He may or may not use these people; and I see God working through circumstances and situations -- even if many Christian conservatives believe that New Orleans brought the destruction of Hurricane Katrina on itself for its "decadent and sinful lifestyle", even if many Christian conservatives believe that Southeast Asia brought the tsunami upon itself for the "sin" of worshipping Allah.

In fact, the more I see many conservative Christians in action, the less I really care what they think. They point their fingers at liberals, gays, lesbians and others and cluck about "THOSE people have surely missed the mark" while they, themselves are completely unaware that not only have they missed the mark but are aiming in the wrong direction!
 
Upvote 0

Gusoceros

Head Rhino
Mar 1, 2004
465
25
✟16,069.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, horrors!

I never said anything about the Holy Scriptures being relegated to merely the Gospels -- though there is quite a bit of excellent theology to be found in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians if we can get Christian conservatives to stop using just three short sections out of each epistle in order to condemn gays and lesbians, and conveniently overlooking the rest of the contents of those epistles!

I'm saying that while the Bible is the revelation about God's interaction with us from about -3000 BC to 90 CE, God is still bigger than the Bible and it's possible that God (being God) might even choose to do something which is outside the Bible and even without first checking with Christian conservatives to see if it was OK with them if God chose to do something!

I see God working through other people -- INCLUDING liberals, INCLUDING Muslims, INCLUDING agnostics and atheists, INCLUDING gays and lesbians -- whether or not Christian conservatives have given God their stamp of approval on whether He may or may not use these people; and I see God working through circumstances and situations -- even if many Christian conservatives believe that New Orleans brought the destruction of Hurricane Katrina on itself for its "decadent and sinful lifestyle", even if many Christian conservatives believe that Southeast Asia brought the tsunami upon itself for the "sin" of worshipping Allah.

In fact, the more I see many conservative Christians in action, the less I really care what they think. They point their fingers at liberals, gays, lesbians and others and cluck about "THOSE people have surely missed the mark" while they, themselves are completely unaware that not only have they missed the mark but are aiming in the wrong direction!

I am in almost 100% agreement. I do not believe it is possible that God would contradict Himself. I also believe you paint with an erroneous generalization about Christian conservatives- I am one, and I do not believe according to any of the examples you cited.

Those aside, we pretty much agree.

G
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Give reasons as to why you are allowed to touch!!! Give reasons as to why you are allowed to drive a car!!!!!!
Give reasons as to why you are allowed to use a computer!!!
It's not in the Bible, so you must not be allowed to do it!!!! = same logic

human knowledge and human wisdom? no! refuting ridiculous arguments that God would ever condemn a loving relationship with another adult human. Let's not forget as I mentioned, that this type of a relationship wasn't even recongized till 1869...LONG after the Bible was written. So what was there to condemn? Historical context wouldn'tve been able to refute such a relationship... God allows polygamy in Exodus, yet you seem not be concerned with that, just pointing out something you see as a sin, attached to an orientation that cannot be changed.

So basically I hear you saying that God, in the bible, was unaware of our understanding of homosexuality. Yet I see verses speaking of men lusting one another. I see verses of men having sex with one another. Of course I don't condemn loving relationships between two of the same sex, but why do you have to chuck your dick into someone in order to love them?:scratch:

I entirely disagree with the notion that homosexuality, or understanding it, is new.

Men have been burning with sexual passion for one another for as long as we can remember. The bible is quite clear in acknowledging this also. So whatever you think is new about our understanding, I'm not seeing it.

Then I hear you using polygamy in exodus to argue against God's Law in the bible.... I'll give you a hint for this debate: If you reject scriptural authority then do so out-right! If you reject biblical law then just say so.

As I was telling my wife, I believe the only way for a "Christian" to endorse homosexual acts is to completely reject the authority of scripture. Perhaps you can explain why you put so much effort into arguing with scripture if you don't accept it as authoritative?

As far as your argument of historical context, you have failed to show anything new about our understanding. Saying it is new is not reasoning.

P.S. I have no need to give reasons for driving a car etc. Nor did I ever say that if it's not in the bible it is not ok. Nor did I say that if it's not in the bible then it is ok. Continue making a point with this logic if you want but I think you know where it will end up.

Cheers man.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
So basically I hear you saying that God, in the bible, was unaware of our understanding of homosexuality. Yet I see verses speaking of men lusting one another. I see verses of men having sex with one another. Of course I don't condemn loving relationships between two of the same sex, but why do you have to chuck your dick into someone in order to love them?:scratch:

I entirely disagree with the notion that homosexuality, or understanding it, is new.

Men have been burning with sexual passion for one another for as long as we can remember. The bible is quite clear in acknowledging this also. So whatever you think is new about our understanding, I'm not seeing it.

Then I hear you using polygamy in exodus to argue against God's Law in the bible.... I'll give you a hint for this debate: If you reject scriptural authority then do so out-right! If you reject biblical law then just say so.

As I was telling my wife, I believe the only way for a "Christian" to endorse homosexual acts is to completely reject the authority of scripture. Perhaps you can explain why you put so much effort into arguing with scripture if you don't accept it as authoritative?

As far as your argument of historical context, you have failed to show anything new about our understanding. Saying it is new is not reasoning.

P.S. I have no need to give reasons for driving a car etc. Nor did I ever say that if it's not in the bible it is not ok. Nor did I say that if it's not in the bible then it is ok. Continue making a point with this logic if you want but I think you know where it will end up.

Cheers man.
Burning with sexual passion or simply "attraction" that the Bible doesn't even remotely ever bring up?

Your interetation is that it rejects the authority of Scripture, but that doesn't mean that it does...just in your eyes it does.

I never said Scripture isn't authorative, we just have a different VIEW of the Scripture. 28 denominations "reject" Scripture???? NO, just have a different intepretation of what was being said...

Read this page, to see another view on the subject:

http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Burning with sexual passion or simply "attraction" that the Bible doesn't even remotely ever bring up?

Your interetation is that it rejects the authority of Scripture, but that doesn't mean that it does...just in your eyes it does.

I never said Scripture isn't authorative, we just have a different VIEW of the Scripture. 28 denominations "reject" Scripture???? NO, just have a different intepretation of what was being said...

Read this page, to see another view on the subject:

http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

Dave, you are not entertaining me :wave:

Continue to make your point because you've started both your arguments already. What new thing have 'we discovered' about homosexual acts other than the attraction and act?

As far as your interpretation, it seems you take 'Do not lie with another man as one lies with a woman' to mean 'It is ok to lie with another man as one lies with a woman if you want to'. Seems quite silly to me.
 
Upvote 0

davedjy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2006
2,184
1,080
Southern California
✟33,592.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Dave, you are not entertaining me :wave:

Continue to make your point because you've started both your arguments already. What new thing have 'we discovered' about homosexual acts other than the attraction and act?

As far as your interpretation, it seems you take 'Do not lie with another man as one lies with a woman' to mean 'It is ok to lie with another man as one lies with a woman if you want to'. Seems quite silly to me.
Just like you are most certainly wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or come in contact with a footbal (pig skin is an abomination in Leviticus 20). WE DON'T FOLLOW THE OLD LEVITICUS LAWS ANYMORE. If you take this out of there, you are cherry picking.
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just like you are most certainly wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or come in contact with a footbal (pig skin is an abomination in Leviticus 20). WE DON'T FOLLOW THE OLD LEVITICUS LAWS ANYMORE. If you take this out of there, you are cherry picking.

You have got to be kidding me.

So I guess the ten commandments are out, murder all you want, worship whicher god.

Also, levitical, sexual morality of course....

Basically I now hear you saying there is no right and wrong. If God's Law was recorded in Leviticus and you now say we don't follow it anymore, then what I hear you arguing is that we don't follow God's Law anymore.

As a Christian, I abide in Christ's teachings. He taught from the Law frequently, quoting Leviticus ("You have heard it said, thou shalt not.."). But if you are somehow smarter than Jesus....

My counter argument consists of this, there is right and wrong. That Jesus is the Lord. That His teachings are true. Therefore the Law is still valid, just as the scriptures say.

Any perverted argument which seeks to abolish the Law is anti-Christian to me. You already tried denying the law and then skipped the other thread. Refer to where we left off in "It's my turn on the gay issue".
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus spoke of the Law

MT 5: [bible]"18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."[/bible]

Now some will gripe, saying how difficult it would be to uphold ever single Law. Which is why at the Jerusalem council it was decided:

[bible]Acts 15 "19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.""[/bible]

To deny the validity of levitical law is to deny the validity of Christ's teachings and those of the early church fathers.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
You have got to be kidding me.

So I guess the ten commandments are out, murder all you want, worship whicher god.

Also, levitical, sexual morality of course....

Basically I now hear you saying there is no right and wrong. If God's Law was recorded in Leviticus and you now say we don't follow it anymore, then what I hear you arguing is that we don't follow God's Law anymore.

As a Christian, I abide in Christ's teachings. He taught from the Law frequently, quoting Leviticus ("You have heard it said, thou shalt not.."). But if you are somehow smarter than Jesus....

My counter argument consists of this, there is right and wrong. That Jesus is the Lord. That His teachings are true. Therefore the Law is still valid, just as the scriptures say.

Any perverted argument which seeks to abolish the Law is anti-Christian to me. You already tried denying the law and then skipped the other thread. Refer to where we left off in "It's my turn on the gay issue".
Do you personally adhere to all the laws of Leviticus?

Remember according to Leviticus shaving is a sin
Cutting your hair is a sin
Wearing clothing made of two different fabrics is a sin
Eating shellfish is a sin
Playing football (pigskin remember) is a sin
Wearing glasses (at least in church) is a sin

Leviticus also says that owning a slave and killing your own child are perfectly OK things.
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[F New Roman]Do you personally adhere to all the laws of Leviticus?[/FONT]
[F New Roman] [/FONT]
[F New Roman]Remember according to Leviticus shaving is a sin[/FONT]
[F New Roman]Cutting your hair is a sin[/FONT]
[F New Roman]Wearing clothing made of two different fabrics is a sin[/FONT]
[F New Roman]Eating shellfish is a sin[/FONT]
[F New Roman]Playing football (pigskin remember) is a sin[/FONT]
[F New Roman]Wearing glasses (at least in church) is a sin[/FONT]
[F New Roman] [/FONT]
[F New Roman]Leviticus also says that owning a slave and killing your own child are perfectly OK things.[/FONT]


As a gentile I focus on what was decreed at the Jerusalem council. The more I learn the law, the more sin I am aware of. Christ is the one who redeems me from sin, not my own efforts at adhering to the law.

I find it disgusting how people quote/ misquote parts of the law they understand nothing about to try and invalidate the law entirely.

Yet I have no time to talk with every denier of the law about every single law that is written. Learn the ten commandments and abide by their teachings. Consider the importance of what the Jerusalem council decreed. This is my advice. Perhaps then one day you will understand what else is written in the law.

More than anything, learn from Christ.

I will not waste my time teaching you about the vanity of shaving your beard. Nor will I talk to you about the health effects of non-kosher eating. Nor will I try to explain things I do not myself understand. When one is perverting their inward parts with sexual immorality, that is what one should seek to learn about. This we can all understand, this is what has been stressed!

ABSTAIN FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY! So it is written, so let it be.:amen:
 
Upvote 0

Full_Moon

Newbie
Mar 30, 2004
352
29
44
Calgary
✟783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you personally adhere to all the laws of Leviticus?

Remember according to Leviticus shaving is a sin
Cutting your hair is a sin
Wearing clothing made of two different fabrics is a sin
Eating shellfish is a sin
Playing football (pigskin remember) is a sin
Wearing glasses (at least in church) is a sin

Leviticus also says that owning a slave and killing your own child are perfectly OK things.

Let me ask you something. Same question goes out to all others.

Do you deny the teachings of Christ regarding the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gusoceros
Upvote 0