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.
You really ought to learn to grasp the concept of context. The Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel - ancient Israel. I'm not an ancient Israelite. Because of Jesus I don't have to obey it to be righteous.
But...and get this, because it's actually kind of tricky.........homosexuality is denounced in the New Testament, too. Yes--believe it or not, it's called sexual immorality and it's wrong.
Now....I'm sure you and the rest of the usual suspects on this thread will completely miss my point....but I figured it was worth a shot. At least maybe some lurkers will get it.
Maybe you should take your own advice. Look at those "homosexual" verses in the context of where they were written, when they were written, and to whom.
It's funny how you can claim context when there is a verse you don't like, but the homosexual verses have to be taken literally word for word from the translated, and edited text.
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality. If some god declares it verboten (again, I do not) then who are mere mortals to argue with their god? The same could be said for a whole host of issues, such as bible literalist ignoring the laws of their Old Testament, even they are the rules of their god or they aren't. Either you have absolute rules or you engage in a slippery course of ever changing and subjective morality. So perhaps theist can explain how this works.
Well, seeing as the Bible wasn't written in English or in the 21st Century, it's not a black and white issue. Abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew, so how can homosexuality be called that? And who was Leviticus addressed to? The Levite priesthood of the Ancient Israelites. Not gay people.
The understanding that a mating connection exists between the same gender refuse's scientifically the given world which the God believer understands was at the hands of the creator , and creates another world. Anything away from what is, just says hey God , I'm the god not you. Thats mans biggest problem thinking he is God.
Its not even a matter of spirituality, either a person can see the rejection of this world or they cannot, a consciousness issue by value. Awareness is what it is, look it up, were not animals and also have unique immune systems as far as that sometimes seen argument goes.
As far as our thoughts making and changing the given world a thought in this thread, this is a fantasy, iow try and stop Niagra falls from what it does with the mind.
Trying to argue the human being is perfect is another deal and part of the theist understanding enter the values in humility and love thy neighbor, man is all from the same vine and "supposed, to learn and become together, with all the special talents and non abilities which all have, its how it works.
People are so brainwashed by Christianity in their upbringing without the youngster Ed, and looking for ways to wiggle out of things, and still look after that nagging conscience its unbelievable. Right is right and wrong is wrong, generally wrong will be anti-science. Everybody does wrong stuff all the time, for example if you note an attitude in this , I have had it up to here with my next door nieghbour a few doors down and considered a few things out of the norm for myself and getting my sht together in rethinking a few things.
Last edited by alexcanter; 11-24-2013 at 12:02 PM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,954,247 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
You really ought to learn to grasp the concept of context. The Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel - ancient Israel. I'm not an ancient Israelite. Because of Jesus I don't have to obey it to be righteous. ....
Except you kind of are ignoring this little part of the NT:
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
In other words, why are you not promoting stoning for a myriad of things called for in the OT?
You need to know the difference between statutes and laws. laws are still upheld with regards to eating pork. its just not good for us because they are bottom feeders, or scavengers, like, yes, shrimp too. They were/are considered unclean. God did not want us to eat them, because God created them to be our garbage men. Say, today, God see's man adding substitutes, or inferior ingredients to pigs in pork farms, where pigs do not scavenge or cannot keep the environment clean like God intended them to do, then it would be wise to change the law according to our discretion. God even changed laws into statutes too. They are call dispensations. When Jesus finially arrived, men and women were told to be circumsized in our hearts, instead of men's bodies. Then we are told that God changed another law into a statute and said HE doe'snt want sacrifices in the temple, but wants our love.Well, this did'nt go over so well either, man could not even do that, so God in his infinite love, sent us Jesus for atonement to see if that would work. And ever since, we have been in the dispensation of Grace.
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality. If some god declares it verboten (again, I do not) then who are mere mortals to argue with their god? The same could be said for a whole host of issues, such as bible literalist ignoring the laws of their Old Testament, even they are the rules of their god or they aren't. Either you have absolute rules or you engage in a slippery course of ever changing and subjective morality. So perhaps theist can explain how this works.
It is wrong to claim that "fundamentalists" are really following the rules and not ignoring anything. The Bible also has clear instructions about forbidding women to speak during church, forcing raped girls to be married to their rapists, and very clear instructions about how to treat slaves. Or about all the stuff in the Bible about God ordering genocide and the deaths of children. Even fundamentalists don't preach that straight, and try to explain it away with "historical contexts" and what not. So yes, it is entirely false to claim that conservatives who pick some rules (or what they present as rules) to uphold have a more valid understanding or are doing less "picking and choosing" with the Bible than so-called "liberals."
This is something that non-believers and conservatives have in common: they both insist that conservatives have the right or valid interpretation of the Bible - conservatives of course because that is what they believe; non-believers as a way to show that the Bible is hateful or intolerant and that good, rational people should abandon it entirely.
Except you kind of are ignoring this little part of the NT:
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
In other words, why are you not promoting stoning for a myriad of things called for in the OT?
And was he incorrect? The Law (Judaism) still exists.
Doesn't say anywhere that Jesus followers will adhere to it.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,954,247 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
And was he incorrect? The Law (Judaism) still exists.
Doesn't say anywhere that Jesus followers will adhere to it.
So stoning should be upheld?
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.
