Ah the sacred words used against homosexuals. So if the bible said it is okay to kill, **** and plunder harmless villagers, would it automatically mean that's what you support and think should be done? I doubt it.
Can you show me where it does? Just because the jews had slaves does not make it right.
Use your Wiki-Fu. For example: "The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders." Source
Well, that's catholosism. Not baptism, christianity, etc.
Isn't that a No True Scotsman fallacy? Catholicism is a part of christianity, and not the only ones using images and statues, although they're probably the most proeminent christians doing so. That would also mean you agree that the pope goes against the bible.
Anyway, yes, the bible has something against homosexuality, but it also has something against women wearing trousers and says you should let your child be stoned by the elders if it doesn't obey you; all in the same part. If not the whole bible, then at least this part (Leviticus I think) is obviously outdated, so I don't see how you can support homophoby with the bible unless you admit that you're cherry-picking what you like and ignore the rest.
are waffle unicorns wrong? i think the moon is right but jelly spewing green squids are wrong.
Except for when pancake jelly-muffins arise and take control of the situation, then the spotted bagle-eagles can once again rise to dominance
Anyway, yes, the bible has something against homosexuality, but it also has something against women wearing trousers and says you should let your child be stoned by the elders if it doesn't obey you; all in the same part. If not the whole bible, then at least this part (Leviticus I think) is obviously outdated, so I don't see how you can support homophoby with the bible unless you admit that you're cherry-picking what you like and ignore the rest.
Now, I may not be pro-homo like these guys, but they do have a point. You can't have a valid argument by picking things you like, and hushing things that don't concern you. However, in their defense, we're talking about homosexuality, not stoning disobedient toddlers, or trouser-wearing females. Those would make interesting threads....for a couple posts.
My thought is...who cares? In the very least, the bible says that being homosexual is a sin, not having a positive opinion on it. I don't plan on goin' gay anytime soon or supporting their rallies, but if they wanna be gay, go for it. It doesn't hurt me in any way, plus I'd rather them be happy then miserable. What happened to 'love thy neighbor'? And aren't christians supposed to be the most tolerable?
Anyway, yes, the bible has something against homosexuality, but it also has something against women wearing trousers and says you should let your child be stoned by the elders if it doesn't obey you; all in the same part. If not the whole bible, then at least this part (Leviticus I think) is obviously outdated, so I don't see how you can support homophoby with the bible unless you admit that you're cherry-picking what you like and ignore the rest.
Again, that's jewish law. As a Bible believing christian, I am part of what is called the church age. The age after christs ministry on earth. The law of the new testament is what I am supposed to follow. The law of the old testament is what the jews were supposed to follow before christ came to earth. So, in short, the old testament rules are not relavent to me. (I am merely explaining the way baptists treat the bible doctrinally. I am not in any way trying to disprove anything.)
Again, that's jewish law. As a Bible believing christian, I am part of what is called the church age. The age after christs ministry on earth. The law of the new testament is what I am supposed to follow.
Then I suppose you would accept passages in the New Testament about homosexuality and slavery. Just to point out an example of each from the NT.
homosexuality Romans 1:26-27 (KJV) 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.
slavery Colossians 3:22 (KJV) Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
So, in short, the old testament rules are not relavent to me.
And just to completely blow your argument out of the water what Jesus had to say on this point.
Matthew 5:17 (KJV) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
It would seem to me your Bible is saying that those laws are still relevant.
It would seem to me your Bible is saying that those laws are still relevant.
Just to clear up, here's the factual stuff.
Just pretend we all believe in Jesus for the next few moments.
When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, he quickly discovered they all had the attention of goldfish, so God gave him a set of super strict commandments, along with the 'ten', to enforce. Thats where we get the 'X number of steps on the sabbath' and other ridiculous laws. Now, when Jesus came to earth (remember, we're all theists still), he 'fulfilled' the law of moses, or nullified it. Now, the ten commandments aren't part of the law of moses, so they're 'still in effect'. It was replaced by new commandments.
Recap: -Children of Israel retarded. -Tough law given; 'Law of Moses' -Jesus comes -'Law of Moses' fulfilled
You all may now continue your atheistic beliefs.
I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to explain how 'it worked' according to the bible and blah.
homosexuality Romans 1:26-27 (KJV) 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.
Read the verses beforehand... 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. This is an example, not a point. They were not a showcase of what God wanted, they were going against god. Be careful not to take it out of context.
slavery Colossians 3:22 (KJV) Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
Hmmm, I got nothin'. you got me there. I might have to do some more studying.
Just to clear up, here's the factual stuff. Just pretend we all believe in Jesus for the next few moments. When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, he quickly discovered they all had the attention of goldfish, so God gave him a set of super strict commandments, along with the 'ten', to enforce. Thats where we get the 'X number of steps on the sabbath' and other ridiculous laws. Now, when Jesus came to earth (remember, we're all theists still), he 'fulfilled' the law of moses, or nullified it. Now, the ten commandments aren't part of the law of moses, so they're 'still in effect'. It was replaced by new commandments. Recap: -Children of Israel retarded. -Tough law given; 'Law of Moses' -Jesus comes -'Law of Moses' fulfilled You all may now continue your atheistic beliefs. I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to explain how 'it worked' according to the bible and blah.
What he said. The law was also strictly for the jews. And, when the law was fufilled, (when Jesus rose again, according to the bible.) The jews and anyone for that matter no longer needed the law.
You don't listen to the parts of the Christian bible that goes against your beliefs. That is ignoring what you don't like.
What he said. The law was also strictly for the jews. And, when the law was fufilled, (when Jesus rose again, according to the bible.) The jews and anyone for that matter no longer needed the law.
Then why did Jesus say
Matthew 5:17 (KJV) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Believing in the NT means you have to believe in the OT, since the NT says the OT is still valid.
