What part of 'ALL' cannot be understood?

[crumbs2000]

To all of you who thought it was clever to mention the US constitution and laws in response to my reply, you should be reminded that the country in question is Spain and they do not share the constitution of the U.S.A.

To all of you who said that the Bible does not oppose homosexuality, suffice to say you are incorrect. Since you have such an ethnocentric perspective about this issue, anyway, you should ask your President who agrees with my interpretation of the scriptures.

Was this posted by mistake looks - like it belongs to the Spain thread.

 

[crumbs2000]

Animals can have bacteria in their blood. Pig blood is toxic and probably why God ordered them not to eat it. I boil my rabbit first before frying. Kills all the little bugs and cooks it all through first.

One of the reasons why muslims don't eat pork is they believe the pig is unclean. Pigs will eat anything including human flesh. Once the pigs eat us then we eat them, we consume the human(cannibalism).

Personally, I don't have a problem with eating pork, except the fact that they are pretty damn cute and it would be hard for me to see one being butchered(any animal actually)!!!

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

No, crumbs, a reply in the "Spain" thread was referenced here.

 

[ebia]

To all of you who said that the Bible does not oppose homosexuality, suffice to say you are incorrect.

Since when were you the infallible guide to the bible?

The bible doesn't mention homosexuality. It mentions specific sexual acts between specific people in specific circumstances. Generalising from that is dubious to say the least.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

You call it generalising, I call it the Truth. It's obvious that i'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

 

[seebs]

You call it generalising, I call it the Truth. I think it's obvious that i'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Well, yes, it is.

In Leviticus 20:13, we read: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Okay.

So are you saying we should kill gay men? I don't want to read too much into what you said, but you started talking about Truth, then quoted this.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

I don't think we should kill gay men, i'm just saying that's one of many verses which condemn homosexuality.

 

[ebia]

I don't think we should kill gay men, i'm just saying that's one of many verses which condemn homosexuality.

... in the context of a Law that we don't begin to follow, and arguably is refering to sexual acts in a ritual context. Certainly it's talking about specific sexual acts, not sexuality.

On what basis can you say the first part of the verse applies generally, and the second not at all?

 

[seebs]

I don't think we should kill gay men, i'm just saying that's one of many verses which condemn homosexuality.

Well, yes. It says that people who engage in a particular act "shall surely be put to death".

Do the parts of the verse we don't have to follow show up in a different color in some Bibles, or something?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

seebs, the lessons of Leviticus are not obselete.

Concerning death, "The sentence of death applied to homosexual sin in Leviticus is in the New Testament applied to us all."

http://www.harvestusa.org/articles/lev18&20.htm

 

[ebia]

seebs, the lessons of Leviticus are not obselete.

Concerning death, "The sentence of death applied to homosexual sin in Leviticus is in the New Testament applied to us all."

http://www.harvestusa.org/articles/lev18&20.htm

In other words it's ok to re-interpret the second half of the verse in the light of the NT, but not the first?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

That's not what I did.

 

[seebs]

seebs, the lessons of Leviticus are not obselete.

So what is Acts 15 about?

Concerning death, "The sentence of death applied to homosexual sin in Leviticus is in the New Testament applied to us all."

Hmm. So, we should kill everyone, only we shouldn't because it turns out that we shouldn't kill people.

I don't follow this reasoning.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

The lessons of Leviticus are not obselete. What God has proven is that man cannot please Him by following laws.

Jesus declared that all men are mortal sinners. He died to fulfill these punishments.

 

[seebs]

Hmm.

Okay, but that lesson ("we cannot please God by following laws") does not imply that any particular law is pleasing even if we could follow it.

I don't see any reason why I should follow any specific law just because it's in Leviticus. That doesn't mean that an action which breaks those laws is necessarily okay; it just means that "against Leviticus" is totally irrelevant to any moral question.

So, Leviticus taught us that following laws did not, in fact, allow us to please God. Why, then, would we try to follow those laws in the hopes of pleasing God?

 

[kopilo]

Actually the law of moses in the bible seems to be dependant on the two greatest commandments.
The greatest commandment: "Love the lord your God with all your heart and all your soul."
The second greatest commandment: "Love your neighbour as you would love yourself".
Matthew 22:34-40

By all means we should try to break as little as the laws as possible and just because someone keeps these two laws may not make them free of their sin (for only forgiveness can do that).

However I wonder is it better for a person to break other laws if it means they can keep these two laws?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

It's important to realise that Leviticus doesn't just contain rules for ceremonial and archaic behaviors, but things like theft, deceit, slander, hatred and revenge. (http://www.harvestusa.org/articles/lev18&20.htm). If we say that everything in Leviticus is obselete, then we're saying that God has changed his mind about all kinds of wrong-doing.

 

[kopilo]

*deleted*

 

[Polycarp1]

It's important to realise that Leviticus doesn't just contain rules for ceremonial and archaic behaviors, but things like theft, deceit, slander, hatred and revenge. (http://www.harvestusa.org/articles/lev18&20.htm). If we say that everything in Leviticus is obselete, then we're saying that God has changed his mind about all kinds of wrong-doing.

But it's OK to pick and choose some laws from Leviticus to enforce on others. regardless of what Jesus may have said about doing that? Because that is what it sounds like you're advocating. You really do need to clarify what you are attempting to convey here, Middlemoor, and to suggest what is our criterion for recognizing which laws are still in effect and which superseded, and how we can tell the difference.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

No, Polycarp. Jesus has fulfilled the whole of the law.

As for your demands, 1 Timothy 4:12, "Let no one despise or think less of you because of your youth..."