Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 181 of 234 (63076)
10-27-2003 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Asgara
10-27-2003 10:02 PM


Oh. It's not actually a corn-flower, is it? Well, now I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Asgara, posted 10-27-2003 10:02 PM Asgara has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 182 of 234 (63085)
10-28-2003 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by crashfrog
10-27-2003 9:59 PM


I think that echinacea is corn flower.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2003 9:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Asgara, posted 10-28-2003 12:35 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 194 by Rrhain, posted 10-28-2003 11:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 183 of 234 (63086)
10-28-2003 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by NosyNed
10-28-2003 12:31 AM


Echinacia would be coneflower, not cornflower. Purple Coneflower to be exact.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 12:31 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 12:39 AM Asgara has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 184 of 234 (63088)
10-28-2003 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Asgara
10-28-2003 12:35 AM


Why thank you I haven't seen it written before and have always had it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Asgara, posted 10-28-2003 12:35 AM Asgara has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 234 (63115)
10-28-2003 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by roxrkool
10-23-2003 7:43 PM


How is this possible? I'm sure homosexuals were around at the time so why would they have no name for it? Is it basically because it was unimportant to them?
It's not. 1st line of defense is to disassociate yourself from the particular crime. How shall we do this ? Well, perhaps describe the event as badly defined and thus not 'techinically' applying to them.
Shall we try.
You describe homosexuality. Shall we try with 'Man inserting his penis into another man's anus'. Alas, this means a Man performing oral sex with another man, does not qualify , so thats ok. How about a man masterbation another man? Not penetrative so its ok. How about a man simply rubbing up on another man ?
Eventually we can write an entire chapter in the Bible about what type of homosexual acts are sin, but is that really neccesary ?
Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. It was clearly around in Levitical times, just as adultery, beastiality, masterbation, incest and all the rest. They knew about all those.. but not homosexuality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by roxrkool, posted 10-23-2003 7:43 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rei, posted 10-28-2003 12:40 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 10-28-2003 11:33 PM Zealot has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 186 of 234 (63129)
10-28-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Zealot
10-28-2003 8:06 AM


quote:
Eventually we can write an entire chapter in the Bible about what type of homosexual acts are sin, but is that really neccesary ?
Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. It was clearly around in Levitical times, just as adultery, beastiality, masterbation, incest and all the rest. They knew about all those.. but not homosexuality
But the thing is, they did write a whole chapter about what types of sexual acts are sins. And it does include things such as adultery, beastiality, etc. And much of the chapter is in the context of pagan rituals.
And once again, since you've refused to answer, I'll pose it again: Are Christians bound by Levitical law? I.e., are you going to hell because you wear a shirt that's 50 cotton/50 poly?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Zealot, posted 10-28-2003 8:06 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Zealot, posted 10-28-2003 8:13 PM Rei has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 187 of 234 (63130)
10-28-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rrhain
10-27-2003 9:17 PM


quote:
quote:
To add to it, pink itself is named after the flower,
Um...I'm not so sure about that. In English, "pink" is a pure color term. "Turquoise" is not.
According to my dictionary, "pink" is derrived from Middle English pingen and pinken, which comes from the Latin pungere, which means to "push back" or "prick". That's how pinking shears got their name. Pinks (such as carnations) are named because their flowers look "pinked".
Of course, in modern usage, pink isn't related to an object, people use it as a pure color, as you mentioned. People don't just look at a light blue and say "cornflower" or "sky blue" immediately; the reaction time for "pink" is far shorter, it's much more embedded into our language.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rrhain, posted 10-27-2003 9:17 PM Rrhain has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 188 of 234 (63143)
10-28-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
10-27-2003 7:36 PM


Thanks, Rrhain. Very informative post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 10-27-2003 7:36 PM Rrhain has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 234 (63171)
10-28-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Silent H
10-23-2003 1:06 PM


The portions immediately surrounding Lev20:13 do not put it into proper context. My analogy to pulling clips out of a work manual still holds.
Usually the texts before and after a verse is pretty much the ‘context’. Those probably make up a chapter, then we read the chapter in context of the book. Thus we will discuss the various chapters in detail.
Let us look at this reasonably. Read the entirety of Leviticus (in English). This should not take you too long, as I did it last night.
You’re an impressive reader. I’ll make a point however to do just that Done. I hope you don’t mind, I’ve used an application life study Bible to provide popular Christian belief. Since this topic is indeed about Christianity's views on homosexuality, I dont think you should have too much of a problem. I’m afraid to follow my discussion; you might have to have a look at the Book again.
It goes through religious practices... lots of religious practices. It defines what is considered clean and unclean for later consideration of who can do what in the temple. It also defines punishments for breaking the rules related to general practice, and to the rules regarding cleanliness.
I've basically copied Headlines from the Application study. PS. This was the first time I had used this as I prefer to make up my own mind about the text and avoid any bias. In this case, it confirmed my beliefs.
Chapters in summary.
Section A : Worshipping a Holy God
Lev 1-5: Offerings: Burnt, Grain, Fellowship, Sin, Guilt offerings.
Lev 08: Instructions for the Priests
Lev 09: THe Priests begin their ministry
Lev 10: Death of Nadab and Abihu
Lev 11: Instructions for the people (clean/unclean foods)
Lev 12: Purification after childbirth:
Lev 13: Regulations about infectious Skin Diseases.
Lev 14: Cleansing from infectious Skin Diseases
Lev 15: Discharge leading to uncleanliness
Lev 16: Instructions for the Altar
Lev 17: Eating Blood Forbidden
Section B: Living a Holy life
Standards for the people
Lev 18: unlawfull sexual standards
Lev 19: various Laws
Lev 20 Punishments for sin
Lev 21 - 22 Rules for the Priests
Lev 23 : Seasons and festivals
Lev 25 : Sabbath Year
Lev 26 : Receiving Gods Blessing
Lev 27 : Redeeming what is the Lords
The first 17 chapters basically deal with sacrifices (first 5 chapters deals with various types of sacrifices.) Once we are aware of the types of sacrifices, and what constitutes clean/unclean in a ritual sense (note these usually mean you will be clean after a certain period of time OR by sacrifice), we are told about more grave sins and how the people should behave regarding certain sins.
Chapters 18-20 deal with actual sins of the population and punishments for sin. Note, most of there are not something which can be ritually cleansed.
Indeed after all the sexual offenses in CH 18, we hear God mention about ALL the offenses (sexual)
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
If you look at the difference between the first 17 chapters and chapters 18-20, you will notice that the latter offenses are much more grave, indeed the reason that God 'got rid' of the people in that land.
These are not sins because they are acts performed in a ritual sense, they are plain olf fashioned sexual sins. Indeed God is very specific to point out a ritual sexual deed.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD (PS: This refers to child sacrifise)
None of the other offenses mention any ritual acts. God is very specific when referring to such an act.
You will note that it is in a pretty early chapter that Lev discusses proper rites for having broken commandments (sins).
Not really. There are 5 different types of sacrifices. This first 5 chapters discuss every type of sacrifice, does very little in defining what is a sin, merely the rite of sacrificing.
As you can see there are 5 different types of sacrifising.
lev1 : Burnt Offering (make payment for sins in general)
lev2: Grain Offering (Show honour and respect to God in worship)
lev3: Fellowship Offering (Gratitude to God)
lev4: SIn Offering (Payment for unintentional sins of uncleanness)
lev5: Guilt offering (Payment for sins against God and others.)
As you might see, they are very specific as to how the sacrifise should be made.
I think you will agree with me that up until Lev 18, the point of discussion are as I have mentioned: ritual practices, rules of cleanliness, punishments for breaking them in practice.
Not rules of cleanliness. Shall we call it spiritually clean , or clean enough to worship ? Notice every thing so far that makes you unclean you can rectify either by sacrifice or by waiting x amount of time. Not necessarily punishment for sin, more along the lines of not being clean for worship.
Yes there are specifics regarding ritual practises. EG: Aaron’s sons, and specifically, how the priests were suppose to worship. Consequences of committing sins and how they were unclean (how long) and that they couldn’t worship while being unclean.
In Lev 18, God starts by laying out that the rules which follow are about practices that were allowed in other nations (pretty specific nations at that). He thinks these practices are unclean, and have defiled the nations he is talking about.
Not really ‘allowed’ in other nations, more like sins that they have committed. Things God considered disgusting and didn’t want his people to associate with. So yeah, these actions have defiled other nations.
18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Now we can either assume he has suddenly shifted gears to talk about practices in daily life, or he is talking about ritual practices.
No Shifting of gears. You make it sound as if you are not allowed to discuss more than one concept per book in the Bible.
As you can see he already discussed various types of sin offerings from the people, priestly duties, various types of uncleanlynesses. All take a different approach to how they had to live. Remember they were at the base of Mount Sinai for 2 years. They were not just going to have to be taught how to worship, they would also need to know what is right or wrong in daily life.
The Chapter is pretty specific about what ritual practises are. As you would have read, it tells specifically how to make sacrifices, the precise order. What you need to sacrifice for each TYPE of sacrifice. EG: sacrifices you need to make if you sinned without your knowledge or just sacrifices of fellowship. However, other than the 10 commandments, the Israelites didn’t know what else was sinful.
It is known that competing religions at the time allowed and involved the sexual practices Lev 18 goes on to outline. Incest was a pretty huge one in Egypt. Male prostitution in a religion of... I think that was Canaan.
Lev 18 is not about ritual sexual sins, its about sexual sins. NO DOUBDT other cultures including Canaans had sexual rituals ( as most religions were based on fertility ) , but this chapter is just about sex. When ritual, mention is made, as in verse 21.
Chapter 8-10 is very specific about what the the rituals of priests. So specific that Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu were killed by the Lord for not worshipping correctly. Only Aarons relatives were allowed to become priests. They were, as you know, instructed to the n’th degree on how to perform their duty, what to do, what not to do. The notion of any not having any sexual sacrifice would have been mentioned here, had God thought it was necessary, however his instructions were pretty clear.
Now that God has discussed what to do about certain things that made them unclean however and how to atone for those sins, He starts telling us about what is simply not allowed, sins that they were never allowed to commit, which would result in them having to leave Israel or be killed. This is where 18 - 20 comes in.
Note the punishment for most of these sins. Death or banishment.
Then we return in Lev 19 to religious cleanliness? Or is it a continuation?
Neither Lev 18, 19 or 20 is specific to ‘Ritual’ cleanliness. As you can see, these are just listing sins.
Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. 14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
All this is still about various Laws. These again do not pertain to any rituals, except where explicitly specified.
Then in Lev 20, God restates most of what he said in Lev 20, but with an added emphasis on punishment. It should be noted he emphasizes that these strong proscriptions are for those living within Israel as well as for the "children of Israel".
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel
Children of Israel, simply means those from Israel, who were saved from Egypt. ie not ‘Aliens’ hence. It’s also specific to include the fact that those that are not Jews that chose to live in Israel, would also have to live by the same rules as the Israelites.
Either way, you may note that Lev 18 talks about doing these things outside the borders of Israel as unclean. There is no idea that such people (who do not believe) must be killed for doing such things, nor perhaps those Jews who do them (or did them) while in those lands. The main thing is to shun those practices and shun those who practice them.
18: 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
Its the same as in Lev 20.
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel
Point is not that it would be OK outside of Israel, as you see God Despises those that commit those deeds. I will address this issue later though.
The main reason ‘children of Israel’ is to specify they were of the generation that was saved from Egypt. It’s specifically there to enforce the idea that Israel belongs to God, and that Israelites were Holy. Notice just how many times the word Holy is used in Lev. That people from other countries sinned was their choice. And no, people outside were not to be killed, only if they chose to live amongst the Israelites. PS: Any Jew that left Israel would still have to abide by the laws to be a Jew.
Keep in mind that these were holy people that lived in a holy community. I cant see any willingly choosing to leave their community and living amongst sinners (sacrifice babies, marrying family, homosexual priests ) Think of a Mormon in Las Vegas if you need.
It makes sense that in the confines of religious practice, the punishment within Israel should be much higher (even for strangers within Israel), than for those outside of Israel (even though they may be Jewish). Israel at that time is God's special place on earth and would want to punish any ritual uncleanliness there with dire force.
I agree that God had to place very hard rules on the people at that time. Particularly because they were litterally surrounded by Pagans, however these rules were not to be discarded. Where do you think most of the Jewish laws came from ?
John 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
Given Lev 18 it seems odd to think it refers to all Jews outside Israel. But maybe it does. I am not making a claim one way or the other.
At the time there were no Jews outside of Israel. God was telling them the law then and there. It passed on down the ages. No Pork for Jews
Following Lev 20, we once again return to proscriptions/cleanliness rules... or is it a continuation?
See summary at the Top. It also discusses the Sabbath, Festivals.
In CONTEXT, it seems odd to say that 18 and 20 defied the rest and dealt with everyday practices. However, I am totally in tune with what this suggests... God is NOT hip to gay sex acts, that goes double within ritual, and goes multiple within the Temples of Israel... or was that everywhere within the borders of Israel?
Aaagh, perhaps you see the entire point of this discussion. Christians... are not to go about killing those that sin. See New Testament. Thus we accept (in general) anyone who hadn't found God. However... when you try in a Christian Church, convince us that God Blesses something He has explicitly degreed as sinfull, we tend to get upset.
I have never said otherwise, and in fact have maintained, that the Judeo-Xtian God is rather hetero to the point of mildly homophobic. But this does not erase the fact that the proscriptions stated outside of Lev use words specific to male prostitution, and those within Lev sure seem to be talking about religious practices.
In Leviticus the only possible link from the clear homosexual text is ‘unclean’. Link this to 'ritual', link it to ritual ceremony, ... and you get male prostitution.
Leviticus makes special mention whenever anything is wrong 'as part of a ceremony'. It also states sins, whether everyday or sexual. Not male prostitution.
Irrespective, the text is clear that it is gay sex is not to be done (as you seem to agree).
As for the new testament, you will find Jesus echoing the Mosaic Law, however specifically telling us which Levitical laws are unclean. When you research the new testament , you should realise that Paul and other apostles, used the Septaguint as their version of the Old Testament (Translated 300 BC) as opposed to the Masoretic Text 1 000 AD.
Again, lets look at
1 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.
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;
1 Timothy 1:10
The word we are looking for here is mankind (Arsenokoites) . We know that Paul used the Septuagint.
The word Arsenos meaning 'male' and Koiten 'intercourse' in the old Septuagint testament.
Ask someone with Greek knowlege to translate 'Arsenokoites.
I might mention that in cutting around Lev you have left out the nonsexual proscriptions, as you have cut around a point in my previous post.
I think I've addressed then all now I hope.
Food/animals are listed as abomination. Does this not suggest what abomination means elsewhere? In particular the sons of Aaron are killed (as an example) when they smoked the wrong meats at temple (or smoked them in the wrong way?).
The word abomination was not used there. Indeed the word Abomination or Tow`ebah is used just 6 times in Leviticus.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abomination. s; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
(For all these abomination. s have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
For whosoever shall commit any of these abomination.s, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable.customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
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.
Do you advocate the methods listed in Lev for burning strange fires, or any of the other rituals?
More importantly though (and getting back to my other post) what of the palm readers? They are also to be killed. DEATH! Do you believe this stance still belongs in the Xtian church?
Furthermore, do you believe the government should pull business licences from palmists and tarot card readers, as Xtians advocate preventing marriage licences from going to Homosexuals? This is certainly the same principle (gov't advocating something against Biblical tradition), and palmists are certainly under the same punishment according to Lev 20.
And along those lines so is swearing at your parents. DEATH to those who swear at there parents! Or does it make MORE sense that Lev was telling people not to do so within the walls of the temple (or worship). If not, do you believe people who swear at their parents should be killed?
Religion has rituals. With the Death of Christ, we set up a new covenant with God. Through Christ we can be with God, without Christ that was not possible. It is not necessary to make any sacrifices, as Christ was the final sacrifice.
Christ was the ‘ultimate teacher ‘ . He would have the last say to God’s law.
It was cursing, not swearing. As in ‘I curse you with the plague’ etc.
LIke the Israelites, we should remain spiritually seperate from the rest of the world's wickedness, even though unlike them, we rub shoulders with unbelievers every day. It is no easy task to be holy in an unholyworld, but God doesn't ask you to accomplish this on your own. Through the death of his Son, he will "present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" (Colosians 1:22)
zealot writes: The least you can do is agree the obvious, that this verse is about homosexuality
Yes, as long as you can agree that the entirety of Lev is obviously in regards to ritual practices. And that puts the proscription against homosexuality in the CONTEXT of religious ritual. This made more obvious by God's description (beginning Lev 18) of other nation's use of these rituals having made them unclean before his eyes.
I’d love to agreement with you , but it’s not. Sleeping with your mother does not have to have anything to do with another nations ritual practises. Nor is putting a stumbling block in front of a blind man. God also specifically states Do not sacrifice your seed to Molech. Now that is specific !
He tells us that other nations did those deeds, and because of those deeds, He despised them. Then goes on to mention those deeds. None of these have to do with ‘rituals’ they performed.
Lev 18:27 For all these abomination s have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;
Unless you are trying to suggest that everything in Lev. Is all ritual ? God was pointing out what sins had been committed by the people before the Israelites, whether part of a ritual or just every day stuff. Would children have to curse their parents as part of a ritual ?
If you want to argue that these proscriptions were eventually practiced in a broader sense, such that when Xtians came along it was easy to view and interpret all words relating to temple prostitutes as gay sex acts, then I think you gain some footing on the issue.
I still fail to see where you read temple prostitutes in the text from Leviticus. Indeed the only time God mentions any ritual sexual act he specifically states it

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
The text was not intended to ‘fool’ the people or that only those with great insight could understand the simple commands, these are straight forward commands they could follow.
If you want to argue this is why gay marriages were not allowed in Jewish Temples... heheheh, I think you would have a VERY VALID ARGUMENT.
I think it has less to do with ritually unclean and more with abomination. As you can see God is very vivid about what constitutes an abomination as opposed to something that prohibits you from just going to worship for a few days.
Lev 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
* In conclusion, please feel free to reply in 1 or 2 lines if you like. I dont expect you to spend an entire day composing and doing research. If you disagree, feel free to just say so and we can leave it at that and move on with the discussion.
sheesh this is my longest post yet
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Silent H, posted 10-23-2003 1:06 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 8:04 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 196 by Silent H, posted 10-29-2003 1:02 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 206 by Silent H, posted 10-29-2003 3:37 PM Zealot has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 190 of 234 (63172)
10-28-2003 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Zealot
10-28-2003 7:54 PM


we set up a new covenant with God
So this removes all the OT rules? and that is way we don't stone ppl anymore or kill for swearing?
So all the OT rules are now null and void?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Zealot, posted 10-28-2003 7:54 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Zealot, posted 10-28-2003 8:25 PM NosyNed has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 234 (63173)
10-28-2003 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Rei
10-28-2003 12:40 PM


But the thing is, they did write a whole chapter about what types of sexual acts are sins. And it does include things such as adultery, beastiality, etc. And much of the chapter is in the context of pagan rituals.
Yes, they devote and entire chapter to what types of Heterosexual deeds are sinfull, yet only 1 or 2 lines about homosexual intercourse. Those 1 or 2 lines said 'Its wrong, penalty death'. Its clear cut. Some types of heterosexual sex was sinfull, others not, however any form of homosexual intercourse is sinfull. If they had devoted an entire page to specific what types of homosexual deeds were sinfull, WOuld you not think that perhaps some deeds were ok... ? Did they spend pages discussing what types of Beastuality were sinfull ? No.
Anything that was 'unsure' they discussed in detail. Read up on a woman's period.. the duration for which she was unclean. Very specific when there is any doubdt.
The text describes homosexual sex, so they knew what it was.
And once again, since you've refused to answer, I'll pose it again: Are Christians bound by Levitical law? I.e., are you going to hell because you wear a shirt that's 50 cotton/50 poly?
I havent actually. see
http://EvC Forum: Does the bible condemn homosexuality? -->EvC Forum: Does the bible condemn homosexuality? , indeed it was my response to your question
Just incase you missed it..
Mat 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander . 20 These are what make a man 'unclean' ; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
Any better ? Any Levitical sin 'murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander' would still be sins.
Why the Jews dont follow it, I dont know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Rei, posted 10-28-2003 12:40 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 8:32 PM Zealot has not replied
 Message 197 by Rei, posted 10-29-2003 1:06 AM Zealot has replied
 Message 207 by Silent H, posted 10-29-2003 3:48 PM Zealot has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 234 (63174)
10-28-2003 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by NosyNed
10-28-2003 8:04 PM


So this removes all the OT rules? and that is way we don't stone ppl anymore or kill for swearing?
So all the OT rules are now null and void?
Nope. See my post to Rei. Having sex with a women during while she's menstruating would still be an grave sin, (counts as sexual immorality).
Oh yeah, and no need for animal sacrifised. Christ is the final sacrifise.
cheers
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 8:04 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2003 1:39 AM Zealot has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 193 of 234 (63177)
10-28-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Zealot
10-28-2003 8:13 PM


This passage (Mat 15:19 ) is all that is left to determine which are laws which must be followed and which not? Are there any other hints of what is now a "sin" and not? What are the prescribed punishments?
Who says these are levitical laws and not a new list of rules. Additionally, in this context, what is "sexual imorality"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Zealot, posted 10-28-2003 8:13 PM Zealot has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 194 of 234 (63220)
10-28-2003 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by NosyNed
10-28-2003 12:31 AM


NosyNed writes:
quote:
I think that echinacea is corn flower.
No, Bachelor's Buttons (Centaurea cyanus) are cornflowers...at least, with regard to the idea of "cornflower blue."
Corn Cockles (Agrostemma githago) are the other definition of cornflowers, but they're purple-red.
Ironically, the "corn cockle" version of cornflowers are variants of the flowers known as pinks.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 12:31 AM NosyNed has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 195 of 234 (63221)
10-28-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Zealot
10-28-2003 8:06 AM


Zealot writes:
quote:
You describe homosexuality. Shall we try with 'Man inserting his penis into another man's anus'.
Nope. No good. Most gay men don't do that.
And just because one does that does not mean one is gay.
Try again.
quote:
Eventually we can write an entire chapter in the Bible about what type of homosexual acts are sin, but is that really neccesary ?
Yes, it is. If you think that homosexuality is nothing more than physics, then you need to be very specific about what physical machinations must be carried out in order to justify a claim of homosexuality.
But what if homosexuality isn't the way you describe it?
quote:
They knew about all those.. but not homosexuality
Not the way we understand it, no.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Zealot, posted 10-28-2003 8:06 AM Zealot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024