Stance On Gay Marriage May Cost Rev. His Church (soldiers, racism, March)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So eating shellfish is still a sin since the Law was not erased one iota?
Just pick and choose what Old Testament laws make good sense to you. That's how Christians do it. For instance, a number of them would choose NOT to commit the sin of homosexuality in a million years and then go cheat on their spouses, even though that is quite clearly a sin in the Old Testament.
Just pick and choose what Old Testament laws make good sense to you. That's how Christians do it. For instance, a number of them would choose NOT to commit the sin of homosexuality in a million years and then go cheat on their spouses, even though that is quite clearly a sin in the Old Testament.
Adultery within the ranks of the church is unfortunately a serious problem that needs to be dealt with - and believe me - there are many churches who actively combat this alarming trend. However - your observance of the actions of some people does not equate to a general law that applies to all Christians. You really do like to use logical fallacies in your arguments, don't you? Never mind that doing so entirely destroys your credibility.
I've talked about this several times over the years on this board, but some theologians actually believe that Christians are divided into two camps that share almost nothing in common except for the name "Christian." They're like completely different religions. One side is "rule of love" based--God is loving, and we're focused on teaching and living kindness and compassion, and growing closer to God by following Christ's teachings. You study the bible to search for meaning and understanding, but it's not meant to be taken literally. It's the living word of God, so it has to be understood with the context of the times it was written, and the time we live in now (for instance, we understand more about science now). Because it's divine, we believe it is presumptuous and arrogant to believe that you can completely and perfectly understand scripture--it unfolds as we understand more.
The other side is "rule of law." They see the bible as a rule book that you follow literally word for word (despite the fact that scriptural interpretations are all over the place) and god is viewed as oriented toward strict order and reward punishment. Current knowledge and discovery isn't part of the formula, SO in their view the world is 6000 years old and cavemen rode dinosaurs.
Like I said--completely different faiths sharing the same name...
I think Jesus was conflicted within himself. On the one hand as a Jew he felt that "not one jot or tittle" of the law should pass away, but on the other hand he amended OT law in several ways, including gathering food on the Sabbath which was at that time a very serious sin punished by death.
There's no question that men having sex with other men was considered to be a sin also punishable by death in the OT. It was explicitly forbidden in the law: Leviticus 20:13 New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
However Jesus (like Rabbi Hillel before him) apparently felt that the Law of Moses was a wee bit brutal, and tried to soften it up - generally saying things about how everyone commits sins of lust or from hunger, cut them some slack, the Law was made for the people and not people for the Law. He elevated "love your neighbor as yourself" above the stern commandments in the OT, saying that it together with "love god with all your heart mind and soul" together perfectly summarized Mosaic Law. They didn't really do that, but kudos to him for trying - he influenced many after his time to take that interpretation, people such as the OP rev.
I have some questions for you.
What do you think that the verse Leviticus 18:21 means? And why do you think it was placed where it was?
Are you aware that almost all the prohibitions with death penalties in Leviticus 20 were repeated almost verbatim in Deuteronomy? But Lev 20:13 wasn't repeated at all. Instead there was Deuteronomy 23:17 about no daughter and no son of Israel were to become cult shrine prostitutes 'qadesha' and 'qadesh'.
Looking at the verses hermeneutically, Lev 18:22 and 20:13 could very well have been referring to the Canaanite practice of men worshipping the local pagan gods using male and female shrine prostitutes who were dressed like the fertility gods and godesses.
Both Leviticus Chapters 18 and 20 set the context with warnings about not doing as the Canaanites do and with warnings about worshipping the god Molech.
Again you attempt to present an argument that has no basis, either you are not a Christian or you have not received any training in hermenutics.
You choose to ignore man's sin nature or the burden of free will, so be it.
My previous post stands on Biblical precepts, yours do not.
Pure irony. Referring to training in hermeneutics and not being able to spell it correctly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
