So-Called "Persecution Against Christians":

There are number of falsehoods in your description of what the Bible says, but I'll just pick on this easy one.From Proverbs:

quote:

---

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

---

Of course I did not know what I would find when I checked the Bible. But instead of making claims, I looked this up. It did take several minutes.Of course, one might claim that the word abomination used in the KJV is not correct. If one follows that line of reasoning, then one finds the word translated as abomination with respect to homosexuality used 103 times in the Bible. It applies to things like usury, and oppressing the needy (see Ezekiel 18:6-13) and idolatry.As a final examplesGenesis 43:32 states that eating with Israelites is an abomination for Egyptians.
Deut. 25:15-16 states that using uncalibrated weights in commerce is an abomination.Yes it does apply to things like witchcraft, idolatry, but what you "recently found out" once again turns out to be completely wrong. Lots of things, some quite mundane, and some profane all turn out to be abominations as described in the Bible using the exact same terms used to describe homosexuality.ABE:I posted this before I saw Modulus post and your response. But given that you characterized all of his cites as not being personal sins, I think my addition is still relevant. Even your attempted correction is just plain wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right. And your excuse for dismissing the passages I pointed to in Genesis would be... First, you only designated personal versus sins against God (demon stuff and perhaps witchcraft, so are changing things here.Secondly, now that you've characterized it as a sexual sin and restricted the analysis to a portion of the Bible and confined it to sexual things, you've pretty much destroyed your argument about homosexuality special in some way.Secondly, you are wrong about it being uniquely applied to sexual sins. See Ezekial 22.Now you can call that proclamation, "Not law" if you want. But Ezekiel is every bit as much the word of God as the Torah. Unless your claim is that God did not really say what is written in Ez.Finally, If you want to insist on sexual sin in the Torah, I would point to Deuteronomy 24:2-4 which deals with illicit homosexual marriages that are abomination.Your argument is complete BS. I have no doubt that you are sincere, but your sincerity is not Biblical.

Which is neither disputed nor the point at all.Abomination is also a term used in the Bible to describe cheating folks at the butcher shop, and lending money and requiring interest, and some bad heterosexual marriage practices. What is clear is that abomination is not a term exclusive applied to homosexuality and demonic religious practices. We can find examples in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel and others part of the Bible including the Torah. In order to make some kind of exclusive statement, you have to apply so many disclaimers as to make the term "exclusive" meaningless.Again, the singling out of homosexuality as some kind of special sin that you are required to sanction people for while tolerantly looking the other way for other sins is not Biblical even if some Bible reading folks act as if it is.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Some people can justify just about anything. If you actually believe that there is no option to protect a former slave other than keeping her in slavery... well, just wow.

Excerpt from the verse in question:

quote:

---

But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master

---

Your claim: Let's examine your defense of the Bible. Your claim here is that keeping the woman in slavery is for the woman's protection. Yet there are circumstances here where we keep a freed man's wife and children away from her husband. Exactly whose benefit is that for? How is it protecting the woman to keep her away from her husband? And if that is a benefit, how come we don't do it on some occasions? Clearly your answer does not fit the facts. Actually I do. Which means that when I read practices based on those mentalities, I cannot assume that I am being directed to treat 21st century folk in accordance with that same mentality. In fact, of the folks in this discussion, only you advocate hateful treatment of your fellow man based on your own prejudice backed by demonstrably bad Bible interpretation."Inactive Member"Typical.