Why is Homosexuality Still Wrong? (Moved from the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum)

Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Why is Homosexuality Still Wrong? (Moved from the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum)

i really hope this is in the right place but i shall go ahead for now.

I dont have a bible handy on me right now , but i am pretty sure that the only ruling agains Homosexuality was in the old testament.

 

so my question is since you guys and girls keeps aying the old testament rules dont count anymore since jesus sacrficed himself. why is homosexuality seen as wrong?


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Because xians pick and

Because xians pick and choose from the bible to support their ideas. I will search NT to see if there is anything in there, but I have only ever heard OT referenced. My guess is that it is simply NLU syndrome (not like us).

 

Would love to hear from some theists on this one....


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Rom.1:26-27 For this

Rom.1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

... as a suggestion, I wouldn't argue with Christians about homosexuality using the Bible.  God really does hate homosexuals, homosexual acts and fornication - There is no way around that.  As modern, thinking, reaosnable people (esp. in this overpopulated world) we can look at homosexuality not just neutrally (who cares?  love is love.), but also as beneficial (loving homosexual couples adopt children, etc.) and natural phenomenon ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
I've been given these NT

I've been given these NT verses before:

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Timothy 1:9-10
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
Rom.1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

... as a suggestion, I wouldn't argue with Christians about homosexuality using the Bible.  God really does hate homosexuals, homosexual acts and fornication - There is no way around that.  As modern, thinking, reaosnable people (esp. in this overpopulated world) we can look at homosexuality not just neutrally (who cares?  love is love.), but also as beneficial (loving homosexual couples adopt children, etc.) and natural phenomenon ...

 

i wasnt really aiming  it as an aruguement , i was jsut curious cause as i said i hadnt seen or heard anything on it


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
This is why religion can be

This is why religion can be so toxic.  It clearly states that homosexuals are to be hated.  My guess is that when the bible was written, it was necessary to produce children and homosexuality doesn't promote that.  I also believe that homosexuality isn't 'unnatural' - it can occur in other species as well.

 What exactly is the issue with fornication and homosexuality?  My Bible knowledge isn't up to par.  Is there an explanation or does it just say it's bad?

On a side note, Anthony Burgess wrote a novel called The Wanting Seed in which homosexuality is promoted (it's homo to be sapien) due to overpopulation.  It was a very good book, I'd recommed it.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
mindspread wrote: I've been

mindspread wrote:
I've been given these NT verses before: Romans 1:26-27 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

 


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: This is

pariahjane wrote:

This is why religion can be so toxic.  It clearly states that homosexuals are to be hated.  My guess is that when the bible was written, it was necessary to produce children and homosexuality doesn't promote that.  I also believe that homosexuality isn't 'unnatural' - it can occur in other species as well.

 What exactly is the issue with fornication and homosexuality?  My Bible knowledge isn't up to par.  Is there an explanation or does it just say it's bad?

On a side note, Anthony Burgess wrote a novel called The Wanting Seed in which homosexuality is promoted (it's homo to be sapien) due to overpopulation.  It was a very good book, I'd recommed it.

oh ok well i will deifaintly check that book out, i new their was like heaps of anit gay stuff in thier but i had only seen it in the OT , and since i dont have bible handy i couldnt check it up for myself


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: oh ok cool

Malice wrote:


oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

I imagine you'll get the "god didn't make them gay, the Devil did it." argument,

or the "god didn't make them gay, they chose to be gay." argument.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: mindspread

Malice wrote:

mindspread wrote:
I've been given these NT verses before: Romans 1:26-27 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

Fundys, religious homophobes, etc. reject the notion that homosexuals were born that way - promulgating instead that it is a choice, "born" of sin - you know that pesky sin that we inherited patrilineally from Adam ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
mindspread wrote: Malice

mindspread wrote:
Malice wrote:


oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

I imagine you'll get the "god didn't make them gay, the Devil did it." argument,

or the "god didn't make them gay, they chose to be gay." argument.

 

i feared that may happen when i made the post, that devil is like one of thier fav wild cards


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Conn_in_Brooklyn

Conn_in_Brooklyn wrote:
Malice wrote:

mindspread wrote:
I've been given these NT verses before: Romans 1:26-27 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 oh ok cool so their is stuff in thier , but this kidna raises the questions of why would god create gay people if its wrong??

Fundys, religious homophobes, etc. reject the notion that homosexuals were born that way - promulgating instead that it is a choice, "born" of sin - you know that pesky sin that we inherited patrilineally from Adam ...

i hate the its a choice argument so badly , no sane person would choice a life of persicutaion and hate.

 

and as for the devil one , like i said its just one of those wild cards they enjoy throwing around


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
I need to step in here

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything.  There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality. 

First, let me state that the OT message is not what I'm going to be referring to because, to a Christian, that law no longer applies thanks to Jesus.

Second, no person can condemn another according to the bible as that's God's job.  Hate the sin, not the sinner and use gentle approaches via love to the person who is not following God's law.  

Homosexuality as an act is a sin.  The person who commits the sin however is not condemnable by another person.  That's what it comes down to. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I need

razorphreak wrote:

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything.

True, because god doesn't exist. Smiling  

razorphreak wrote:
There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality.

False: http://www.godhatesfags.com <---

I imagine you'll try to tell me these people (and anyone else who hates homosexuals) isn't a true Christian. My answer: No True Scotsman Fallacy.


razorphreak wrote:
Homosexuality as an act is a sin. The person who commits the sin however is not condemnable by another person. That's what it comes down to.

Sigh.

The whole idea that homosexuality is a "sin" is what leads to the hatred in the first place.  I know this from first-hand experience because when I was a Christian, I hated gays.  Without using the bible, tell me what a "sin" is.  Also, explain why homosexuality is a sin.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: True,

Iruka Naminori wrote:
True, because god doesn't exist. Smiling

Stick to the thread please... 

Iruka Naminori wrote:
False: http://www.godhatesfags.com <---

I imagine you'll try to tell me these people (and anyone else who hates homosexuals) isn't a true Christian. My answer: No True Scotsman Fallacy.

I've posted about this group before and I will say it again...the Westboro Baptists are 100% wrong in this.  Anyone who hates a PERSON is performing judgement on that individual and that is one of the things that Jesus stated several times not to do as we are not judge or jury.


Iruka Naminori wrote:
The whole idea that homosexuality is a "sin" is what leads to the hatred in the first place. I know this from first-hand experience because when I was a Christian, I hated gays. Without using the bible, tell me what a "sin" is. Also, explain why homosexuality is a sin.

I agree with you here.  The problem is, and it's in the bible, we are not to hate the sinner.  There are many who do not understand this concept however Jesus himself showed the example, in how he treated all who came to him equally (like the Roman soldier, the Samaratan woman, and the woman caught in adultery).  

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything. There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality.

Are you serious? no hate? umm the whole condem them to death part sounds pretty hateful to me.

Second, no person can condemn another according to the bible as that's God's job. Hate the sin, not the sinner and use gentle approaches via love to the person who is not following God's law.

Homosexuality as an act is a sin. The person who commits the sin however is not condemnable by another person. That's what it comes down to.

i am gonna have to disagree with your last statements , yous ay you cant condem a person according to the bible and yet at the same time , the bible says that if someone does certain acts we should condem them to death??


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: Are you

Malice wrote:
Are you serious? no hate? umm the whole condem them to death part sounds pretty hateful to me.

Who said anything about condemning to death? 

Malice wrote:
i am gonna have to disagree with your last statements , yous ay you cant condem a person according to the bible and yet at the same time , the bible says that if someone does certain acts we should condem them to death??

No it doesn't.  Find me where it says that in the new testament... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Malice

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
Are you serious? no hate? umm the whole condem them to death part sounds pretty hateful to me.

Who said anything about condemning to death? 

razorphreak wrote:

I need to step in here because I got to tell you, God does not hate anything.  There is no hate with God or with those who have actually read the bible and understand the message in regard to homosexuality. 

the condeming to death comment was in resposne to the above you  when you said god does not hate anything. Pretty sure saying somoene should be put to death becuase they like boys counts as being hateful.  
razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
i am gonna have to disagree with your last statements , yous ay you cant condem a person according to the bible and yet at the same time , the bible says that if someone does certain acts we should condem them to death??

No it doesn't.  Find me where it says that in the new testament... 

i know its not in the NT hence the whole reason for this thread,  i was refering to the OT because you said that no man can condem according to the bible.which means both OT and NT.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: the condeming

Malice wrote:
the condeming to death comment was in resposne to the above you when you said god does not hate anything. Pretty sure saying somoene should be put to death becuase they like boys counts as being hateful.

Again..where does it say this?  Sounds like you are making up stuff now...

Malice wrote:
i know its not in the NT hence the whole reason for this thread, i was refering to the OT because you said that no man can condem according to the bible.

The problem with your point of view here is that you believe man was to take into his own hands Lev 20:13.  At no time does it say that man should kill another man for a sin.  Sorry, the bible does NOT say to kill another man.  And what's more so is CHRISTIANS follow the NT, and that puts Lev 20:13 out of context as well. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: i really

Malice wrote:

i really hope this is in the right place but i shall go ahead for now.

I dont have a bible handy on me right now , but i am pretty sure that the only ruling agains Homosexuality was in the old testament.

 

so my question is since you guys and girls keeps aying the old testament rules dont count anymore since jesus sacrficed himself. why is homosexuality seen as wrong?

 This is from ReligiousTolerance.org and there's more there. We all know that the Bible we have now is nothing like what it was compared to the earliest versions we have available. 

 

 The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (malakoi; some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai)." Although these are often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste."  That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
bullet"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
bullet"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5

 

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Malice

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
the condeming to death comment was in resposne to the above you when you said god does not hate anything. Pretty sure saying somoene should be put to death becuase they like boys counts as being hateful.

Again..where does it say this? Sounds like you are making up stuff now...

Malice wrote:
i know its not in the NT hence the whole reason for this thread, i was refering to the OT because you said that no man can condem according to the bible.

The problem with your point of view here is that you believe man was to take into his own hands Lev 20:13. At no time does it say that man should kill another man for a sin. Sorry, the bible does NOT say to kill another man. And what's more so is CHRISTIANS follow the NT, and that puts Lev 20:13 out of context as well.

Leviticus 18:22 says ""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."

 Saying that "real" Christians only follow the NT and discredit this violent ideology does very little for the fact that a majority use these quotes as a basis for their views hence the constant focus on why gays are bad and don't deserve to be equal.

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote:

Lynette1977 wrote:
Malice wrote:

i really hope this is in the right place but i shall go ahead for now.

I dont have a bible handy on me right now , but i am pretty sure that the only ruling agains Homosexuality was in the old testament.

 

so my question is since you guys and girls keeps aying the old testament rules dont count anymore since jesus sacrficed himself. why is homosexuality seen as wrong?

This is from ReligiousTolerance.org and there's more there. We all know that the Bible we have now is nothing like what it was compared to the earliest versions we have available.

 

 The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (malakoi; some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai)." Although these are often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
bullet"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.
bullet"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5

 

whoa thats pretty cool , i am defaintly gonna have to check out that site thanks for the link Sticking out tongue

 

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
the condeming to death comment was in resposne to the above you when you said god does not hate anything. Pretty sure saying somoene should be put to death becuase they like boys counts as being hateful.

Again..where does it say this? Sounds like you are making up stuff now...

 

Malice wrote:
i know its not in the NT hence the whole reason for this thread, i was refering to the OT because you said that no man can condem according to the bible.

The problem with your point of view here is that you believe man was to take into his own hands Lev 20:13. At no time does it say that man should kill another man for a sin. Sorry, the bible does NOT say to kill another man. And what's more so is CHRISTIANS follow the NT, and that puts Lev 20:13 out of context as well.

are you serious your really gonna claim that the bible doesnt say to kill another man.

Leviticus 18:22 says ""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."

i am guessing the above qutoe Lynette1977 provieded isnt acutal from the bible then??

 

maybe you should have a read of that bible of yours again Sticking out tongue


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
OK let me explain something

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

As to what Lynette wrote, the word used in Lev 20:13 is the hebrew word "zakar" (Strongs 02145) which is correct in its usage. I will submit that in 1 Cor 6 it is possible that the writings are in reference to "sexual immorality" and not specifically "homosexual" (although what I've researched so far, the word "arsenokoites" does in fact mean homosexual activity and the NASB, which is the most litteral translation, has it correct), however Romans 1:27 is VERY clear in the context of homosexuality.

Romans 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I think you need to actually stay with the conversation then read the bible to understand what it's actually saying.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: OK let

razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

Leviticus 18:22 says ""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."

umm i am sorry but how on earth did you interpret that as spiritual death?? it doesnt say anythign about the spirit what so ever  so unless you have a version of the bible no one else has i dont get how you came to that conculsion.

 

razorphreak wrote:

If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

hey that would be contradiction wouldnt it Sticking out tongue  


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: OK let

razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

B/c of the forum i will be as kind as possible. you are ignoring history AND the bible. people were stoned to death back then and TO THIS DAY in the middle east. where have you been?

the NT story about jesus stopping the adulterous women from BEING STONED TO DEATH? HELLO!?!?

I have posted several threads about the intersexed/ hermaphodites and how that poses a HUGE problem for theists. Check 'em out or research the issue yourself.

Also, one has to ignore genetics, chromosomes, nature/nurture, etc, etc, and on and on... 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
dassercha

dassercha wrote:
razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

B/c of the forum i will be as kind as possible. you are ignoring history AND the bible. people were stoned to death back then and TO THIS DAY in the middle east. where have you been?

the NT story about jesus stopping the adulterous women from BEING STONED TO DEATH? HELLO!?!?

I have posted several threads about the intersexed/ hermaphodites and how that poses a HUGE problem for theists. Check 'em out or research the issue yourself.

Also, one has to ignore genetics, chromosomes, nature/nurture, etc, etc, and on and on...

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I find it amusing how few ever address the issue at all of intersexed individuals. Male or female? Straight or gay? I've heard people even say "they need to repent" but my question is from what...being born? If it's not hard to understand people are born with physical differences, why not other chemical or genetic ones? Science will one day make the find and it will finally put an end to the judgmental superiority and the plight of GLBT individuals will be seen as yet another stain of blood on the hands of the religious.

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: B/c of the

dassercha wrote:
B/c of the forum i will be as kind as possible.

Well I appreciate you being civil...

dassercha wrote:
you are ignoring history AND the bible. people were stoned to death back then and TO THIS DAY in the middle east. where have you been?

the NT story about jesus stopping the adulterous women from BEING STONED TO DEATH? HELLO!?!?

Did I ever say people were perfect?  You aren't listening (reading) to what I'm saying (writing)... 

dassercha wrote:
I have posted several threads about the intersexed/ hermaphodites and how that poses a HUGE problem for theists. Check 'em out or research the issue yourself.

Also, one has to ignore genetics, chromosomes, nature/nurture, etc, etc, and on and on...

There is no conflict despite your desire to be one.  PEOPLE have problems with PEOPLE.  But it is written, it has been said time and time again, a person who comes under the realization of God's word will not behave this way and will not use God as an excuse for violence or hatred, PERIOD

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
raz: i feel your purpose

raz:

i feel your purpose here is to inflame. period.

i just refuted your claim plain & simple. Your response?

i'm not listening to you or reading your responses.

maybe others here will bite, but not i. sorry. that's well, nevermind.

bye... 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
There is no conflict despite

There is no conflict despite your desire to be one.  PEOPLE have problems with PEOPLE.  But it is written, it has been said time and time again, a person who comes under the realization of God's word will not behave this way and will not use God as an excuse for violence or hatred, PERIOD.
Very insistent on that point. Underlined and everything. Pretty sweet.
It's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, if I'm not mistaken.
Here's a thought: If a person can pledge themselves to a belief and contradict it just the same (which most people do as a matter of course, since many of the morals prescribed are inapplicable or barbaric) then how is that person any more morally reliable than a person who simply admits his or her own morals aren't set in stone, but are derived from society, culture and personal preference? (Which is what I'd argue most believers are doing in rejecting the incoherent and unappealing verses of their dogma.)


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: i feel

dassercha wrote:
i feel your purpose here is to inflame. period.

i just refuted your claim plain & simple. Your response?

i'm not listening to you or reading your responses.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  You don't know me, you don't understand what I wrote, and you dare tell me I'm here to inflame? 

magilum wrote:
Here's a thought: If a person can pledge themselves to a belief and contradict it just the same (which most people do as a matter of course, since many of the morals prescribed are inapplicable or barbaric) then how is that person any more morally reliable than a person who simply admits his or her own morals aren't set in stone, but are derived from society, culture and personal preference? (Which is what I'd argue most believers are doing in rejecting the incoherent and unappealing verses of their dogma.)

And then this.

You also don't know me.

Answer me something, both of you, how can you tell me that I am a walking contradiction when you don't know me and you don't know how I live my life?  You don't understand my faith yet you presume to know that because of it I'm a contradiction?

How dare you both...you claim to want to be left alone yet you both presume so much about me you'd rather tear me down than understand... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
You didn't answer respond to

You didn't respond to my question, but you do go on to contradict yourself.
How DARE YOU!!!
Haha...


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Oh... I get it. By acting

Oh... I get it. By acting all offended you can pretend my question was an ad hom attack rather than the broader observation that it clearly was.


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
dassercha wrote:
i feel your purpose here is to inflame. period.

i just refuted your claim plain & simple. Your response?

i'm not listening to you or reading your responses.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You don't know me, you don't understand what I wrote, and you dare tell me I'm here to inflame?

razorphreak wrote:
Did I ever say people were perfect?  You aren't listening (reading) to what I'm saying (writing)...

hows that for idea on what his talking about?? pretty sure you told him he wasnt listening becuase he gave you a reponse you didnt like.

razorphreak wrote:
Answer me something, both of you, how can you tell me that I am a walking contradiction when you don't know me and you don't know how I live my life?

they can tell you that from your reponses to question and answers

 

razorphreak wrote:
How dare you both...you claim to want to be left alone yet you both presume so much about me you'd rather tear me down than understand...

i may be blind but umm neither claimed that tehy wanted to be left alone 

 

dassercha , you brought up some intresting  points i havent thought about before  thanks, 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Oh... I get

magilum wrote:
Oh... I get it. By acting all offended you can pretend my question was an ad hom attack rather than the broader observation that it clearly was.

What question?  Your question doesn't make any sense and furthermore, I can't answer your question because if you didn't direct it towards me, then you are making an observation that I cannot say anything about.

I'm not offended, I've got thicker skin than that, but your refusal to even acknowledge what I said as being what being a Christian is about because someone else in society did otherwise?  You don't even understand what "no true scotsman" means....

If one person, claiming to be Christian, does something that is not Christian like behavior, so you'd associate ALL Christians?  I never said that a Christian wouldn't do such a thing, I said that Christianity teaches not to do such a thing.  People are not perfect but somehow you are turning that into some kind of fallacy?  Man, you don't even understand what you write...

And don't you start assocating me with that...because if you didn't, you sure sounded like you did. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote:

Quote:
pretty sure you told him he wasnt listening becuase he gave you a reponse you didnt like.

No...he gave a response that wasn't even related to what I wrote...that's why I said that... 

Malice wrote:
they can tell you that from your reponses to question and answers

What?

Malice wrote:
i may be blind but umm neither claimed that tehy wanted to be left alone

Just as you generalized theists, I just did the same on athestis...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Quote:
pretty sure you told him he wasnt listening becuase he gave you a reponse you didnt like.

No...he gave a response that wasn't even related to what I wrote...that's why I said that...

 razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else

dassercha wrote:
you are ignoring history AND the bible. people were stoned to death back then and TO THIS DAY in the middle east. where have you been?

the NT story about jesus stopping the adulterous women from BEING STONED TO DEATH? HELLO!?!?

 Theirs the question and repsonse , pretty sure that was realted to the topic at hand you just didnt like the answer.

 

Malice wrote:
they can tell you that from your reponses to question and answers

What?

my response wasnt clear i i will give you that , you said that they dont know you how can teh claim your a contradiction , what i am trying to say is their view of you is  based on your resonses to questions.

Malice wrote:
i may be blind but umm neither claimed that tehy wanted to be left alone

Just as you generalized theists, I just did the same on athestis...

what are you serious? when did i generalize ? , i have had a look at your posts on other threads adn you seem to use this excuse a whole lot , also that did not answer my question , not once did either say tehy wanted to be left alone.

 

 

 

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: Theirs the

Malice wrote:
Theirs the question and repsonse , pretty sure that was realted to the topic at hand you just didnt like the answer.

No, it wasn't.  He's stating what history shows that MAN did to what the bible says.  He isn't responding to what I am saying as to the message of the bible itself is, irregardless of what man did to what the bible states.  There is a difference.

Malice wrote:
what are you serious? when did i generalize ? , i have had a look at your posts on other threads adn you seem to use this excuse a whole lot , also that did not answer my question , not once did either say tehy wanted to be left alone.

OK I didn't say YOU generalize...I said ATHESTIS generalize.  Geez... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
What question?  Your

What question?  Your question doesn't make any sense and furthermore, I can't answer your question because if you didn't direct it towards me, then you are making an observation that I cannot say anything about.

Except that you have been making just such observations on the failures of people to live up to Christian ideals (whatever those are, you've got about a million little factions with each believer holding a different interpretation still). These people who have failed to “live up to” “god”'s commands are suddenly off the table? Good to know. If you don't want to respond to my question because you think it's off topic, that's fine, but don't be deliberately dense.

I'm not offended, 

Then don't sound aghast, dude. “HOW DARE YOU!”

[...] If one person, claiming to be Christian, does something that is not Christian like behavior, so you'd associate ALL Christians?

Show me where I said that.

I never said that a Christian wouldn't do such a thing, I said that Christianity teaches not to do such a thing.

If a Christian isn't bound to morals by scripture, what's the point of scripture? As a guide? If the average believer disregards a lot of his or her own dogma as a prerequisite to living in a modern society, that person has failed to live up to their belief system and has left the bosom of religiously-guided morals and entered the realm of cultural, societal and personally-based morality. In disregarding dogma, they've admitted either their failure to live up to dogmatic ideals, or the failure of dogma to translate into relevance in the modern world.

[...]


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Malice

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
Theirs the question and repsonse , pretty sure that was realted to the topic at hand you just didnt like the answer.

No, it wasn't. He's stating what history shows that MAN did to what the bible says. He isn't responding to what I am saying as to the message of the bible itself is, irregardless of what man did to what the bible states. There is a difference.

The message coulnt be any mroe clear , it says tehy should be put to death , it doenst mention spirit once, and i dont remember seeing anywhere that god was gonna come down and slay the gays himself so i think its safe to say it meant people were to kill the gays.  

Malice wrote:
what are you serious? when did i generalize ? , i have had a look at your posts on other threads adn you seem to use this excuse a whole lot , also that did not answer my question , not once did either say tehy wanted to be left alone.

OK I didn't say YOU generalize...I said ATHESTIS generalize. Geez...

if this wasnt kill them with kindness..

 

razorphreak wrote:

Just as you generalized theists, I just did the same on athestis...

i must be crazy but i am pretty sure i see a YOU in thier 

 

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Except that

magilum wrote:
Except that you have been making just such observations on the failures of people to live up to Christian ideals (whatever those are, you've got about a million little factions with each believer holding a different interpretation still). These people who have failed to “live up to” “god”'s commands are suddenly off the table? Good to know. If you don't want to respond to my question because you think it's off topic, that's fine, but don't be deliberately dense.

Why do you assume I said they were off the table?  I never said they were, but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about what the message from the bible is...not about them.  You are changing the subject time and time again and that isn't what I'm talking about...

magilum wrote:
Then don't sound aghast, dude. “HOW DARE YOU!”

Because it sure sounded like a personal attack..

magilum wrote:
If a Christian isn't bound to morals by scripture, what's the point of scripture? As a guide? If the average believer disregards a lot of his or her own dogma as a prerequisite to living in a modern society, that person has failed to live up to their belief system and has left the bosom of religiously-guided morals and entered the realm of cultural, societal and personally-based morality. In disregarding dogma, they've admitted either their failure to live up to dogmatic ideals, or the failure of dogma to translate into relevance in the modern world.

See there you go again, jumping to assumptions.  Christians are SUPPOSED to be bound to the morals taught by scripture.  The bible is not dogma; Catholism, Baptist, Methodist, etc etc etc are dogmatic forms of Christianity.  We all fail to live up to God's desire (Romans 3) but again, nobody's perfect.  I am not perfect and I slip however it's a matter of learning from that just the same as showing others their mistakes as well...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: The message

Malice wrote:
The message coulnt be any mroe clear , it says tehy should be put to death , it doenst mention spirit once, and i dont remember seeing anywhere that god was gonna come down and slay the gays himself so i think its safe to say it meant people were to kill the gays.

OK, you're wrong.  I've told you you're wrong already.  It is about spirit because God did not say "and you should put them to death"....it's not talking about a person must take an action against another man.  It isn't....and it's not safe to say - you are assuming.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
The message coulnt be any mroe clear , it says tehy should be put to death , it doenst mention spirit once, and i dont remember seeing anywhere that god was gonna come down and slay the gays himself so i think its safe to say it meant people were to kill the gays.

OK, you're wrong. I've told you you're wrong already. It is about spirit because God did not say "and you should put them to death"....it's not talking about a person must take an action against another man. It isn't....and it's not safe to say - you are assuming.

 

I am wrong because you say i am wrong , nice work. JUST BECUASE YOU SAY IT DOSNT MAKE IT SO.

Leviticus 18:22 says ""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."

It dosnt mention spirit once , show me the word spirit , whats that you cant , sucks to be you then dont it?

it does however mention that tehy should be put to death and thier blood upon them

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: I am wrong

Malice wrote:
I am wrong because you say i am wrong , nice work. JUST BECUASE YOU SAY IT DOSNT MAKE IT SO.

Leviticus 18:22 says ""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."

It dosnt mention spirit once , show me the word spirit , whats that you cant , sucks to be you then dont it?

it does however mention that tehy should be put to death and thier blood upon them

 See this is where you need understanding of the WHOLE message of the bible, not just from one verse.  I'm sorry you don't understand it, honestly I am, because if you did you'd understand what the message was as a whole, you'd understand that when God speaks of abominations, he means it in the spiritual sense.  Jesus corrected man's misunderstanding of the law...

Matthew 5:44-45 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

The individuals who use God's word and law to "put to death" a person do not understand that message either.   This is what I've been trying to tell you all along...and yet you assume something else?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

See this is where you need understanding of the WHOLE message of the bible, not just from one verse. I'm sorry you don't understand it, honestly I am, because if you did you'd understand what the message was as a whole, you'd understand that when God speaks of abominations, he means it in the spiritual sense. Jesus corrected man's misunderstanding of the law...

Matthew 5:44-45 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

The individuals who use God's word and law to "put to death" a person do not understand that message either. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along...and yet you assume something else?

I dont assume anything it is set in writing , that matthew verse really dosnt give your argument any credit at all, and is also a contradtion to what the levi verse says.

 

also this sint what you ahve been trying to say all along , you were saying it was a spirital death now your saying that i dont under stand the whole messgae , for starters that message above came after the levi one, so know i am getting the whole message. , which as fair as i am concerened is crystal clear.

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: that matthew

Malice wrote:
that matthew verse really dosnt give your argument any credit at all, and is also a contradtion to what the levi verse says.

This is why I say you don't understand the full message.  It is a spiritual death that Leviticus speaks of because God wanted what Jesus spoke about from the begining.  Men in their misunderstanding and in wanting to be something bigger than what God had intended, perverted the verse to meaning take the law into your own hands.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Why do you assume I said

Why do you assume I said they were off the table?  I never said they were, but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about what the message from the bible is...not about them.

So you can invoke them to make your argument about the prescriptions of scripture being ignored due to human imperfections, but I can't use them to argue about the failure of scripture to remain applicable to modern life (as anything but a curiosity with some incidental overlap with very basic morals). Again, good to know.

You are changing the subject time and time again and that isn't what I'm talking about...

Haha... how do ya figure? I've remained consistent with my emphasis and argument, it's just not the thing you want to focus on. You want to focus on the nothing-to-do-with reality theoretical “true” Christianity, rather than what the actual practice translates into. There's where the “no true Scotsman” comes in to play. If anyone could show definitively, and not arbitrarily, what text was vital to the practice of “true” Christianity, there would either be very few true practicing “Christians” in the world, or there would be very little dogma left.

Because it sure sounded like a personal attack..

So you responded to what you (mis)characterize as a personal attack, but you weren't offended. But I'm the one that's all over the place, apparently.

[...]Christians are SUPPOSED to be bound to the morals taught by scripture.

But they aren't necessarily, and most tacitly reject parts they don't like.

The bible is not dogma; Catholism, Baptist, Methodist, etc etc etc are dogmatic forms of Christianity.

Really? Christianity is used as an example of dogma in the dictionary I'm looking at.

[...]I am not perfect and I slip however it's a matter of learning from that just the same as showing others their mistakes as well...

True with or without a book.


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Malice

razorphreak wrote:

Malice wrote:
that matthew verse really dosnt give your argument any credit at all, and is also a contradtion to what the levi verse says.

This is why I say you don't understand the full message. It is a spiritual death that Leviticus speaks of because God wanted what Jesus spoke about from the begining. Men in their misunderstanding and in wanting to be something bigger than what God had intended, perverted the verse to meaning take the law into your own hands.

you keep saying spiritual death yet you make no effort to show any real fact , on it being one.  your mattew qutoe does not shed light to it being spiritual becuase it doenst mention the spirit.

also jsut because you say its a spirit death doenst make it so, iw ant you to show me where in the bible god says :hey guys when i say kill i mean totaly in a spiritual sense and not for yuo goes to go around killing all these people that brake my word okay. cause i in knowone condone vilonce. 

i am pretty sure that levi adn stuff are gods word so in you saiyng the emssage was perverted is to say that the OT isnt true that it was changed by men , which means that if the OT has been messed with , what makes you think the NT wasnt. escpically since it was written after jesus death, and before it was written down  was kept in the form of word of mouth. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
See this is where you need

See this is where you need understanding of the WHOLE message of the bible, not just from one verse.  I'm sorry you don't understand it, honestly I am, because if you did you'd understand what the message was as a whole, you'd understand that when God speaks of abominations, he means it in the spiritual sense.

Does it say that somewhere, or is that an interpretation?

Jesus corrected man's misunderstanding of the law...

Matthew 5:44-45 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Is there more to the distinction you specify than the juxtaposition of the two seemingly contradictory verses?

Leviticus 18:22 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.

Matthew 5:44-45 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Malice wrote: you keep

Malice wrote:
you keep saying spiritual death yet you make no effort to show any real fact , on it being one. your mattew qutoe does not shed light to it being spiritual becuase it doenst mention the spirit.

See my response to magilum's juxtaposition below...

magilum wrote:
Does it say that somewhere, or is that an interpretation?

Neither.  It's conclusion (shared with other bible scholars) based on research of the written word.  Somewhere I remember that's what science does too isn't it? 

magilum wrote:
Is there more to the distinction you specify than the juxtaposition of the two seemingly contradictory verses?

It's not a juxtaposition...I'm trying to show you where they are related and how man screwed it up; people assumed it was taking it into their own hands and it was never so.  Trying to say one says something other than the other is where you are not understanding the message and that's why I'm trying to explain it to you...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Malice
Malice's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Neither. It's conclusion (shared with other bible scholars) based on research of the written word. Somewhere I remember that's what science does too isn't it?

show me this reaseacrh, who are these other scholars , 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Neither.  It's conclusion

Neither.  It's conclusion (shared with other bible scholars) based on research of the written word.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy unless you want to substantiate it.

Somewhere I remember that's what science does too isn't it? 

Scientists generally start with the observation of actual things, not unsubstantiated claims. A theory of gravity might start with observing a falling apple, not a dogmatic claim that gravity exists followed by throwing fruit at the ground to prove it. A more apt analogy in this case might be throwing fruit upward to dispute the theory of gravity.

A feature of a scientific hypothesis is it can be tested and confirmed or shown to be wrong. What conditions determine whether the extraordinary claims of the bible are true or false?

It's not a juxtaposition...I'm trying to show you where they are related and how man screwed it up;

I agree that man screwed up. Writing holy books was a bad idea.

people assumed it was taking it into their own hands and it was never so.

Which is clearly illustrated by...?

Trying to say one says something other than the other is where you are not understanding the message and that's why I'm trying to explain it to you...

Well, if you put it that way --WHA...!?