pajarito 0 #126 December 1, 2005 QuoteFunny that - because the passage the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists rely upon when they say that the bible condemns homosexuals is also from Leviticus. The same book which states that people must not eat pork because it is unclean, nor shellfish because they'll go to hell or even shave the sides of their beard. I never understood why one passage in the book is of vital importance and others are to be ignored. Who decides which bits of the Bible we should all throw out? Or are you now saying that all of the book of Leviticus should be ignored... because then there's nothing really stopping the Vatican from letting in gay priests is there? Homosexuality is forbidden in both the Old & New Testaments. Try Romans & Corinthians. Homosexuality Quote1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." QuoteRomans 1:24-32: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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 recompense of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Also, here's my explanation of the differences in Old & New Testament law....AGAIN: The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, eating shellfish, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #127 December 1, 2005 you rock! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #128 December 1, 2005 QuoteThe commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, eating shellfish, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation. That should be made a sticky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #129 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, eating shellfish, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation. That should be made a sticky. I've got something you should make a sticky... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #130 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat should be made a sticky. I've got something you should make a sticky... Sweetcheeks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #131 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat should be made a sticky. I've got something you should make a sticky... Sweetcheeks? how'd you guess? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #132 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat should be made a sticky. I've got something you should make a sticky... Sweetcheeks? how'd you guess? Whoa boys. That's what we're arguing against. Keep it straight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #133 December 1, 2005 Unfortunately, there was no such word for homosexuality when the bible was first written. That word was added after the fact. http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#ICorinthians6:9 And I am done with the fighting over whether gays are evil or not. Back to the silliness!!!Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #134 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat should be made a sticky. I've got something you should make a sticky... Sweetcheeks? how'd you guess? Whoa boys. That's what we're arguing against. Keep it straight. but sudsy and I aren't priests. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #135 December 1, 2005 QuoteUnfortunately, there was no such word for homosexuality when the bible was first written. That word was added after the fact. Maybe so... But it's described ever so nicely in Romans 1:24-32 without even having to use the word homosexuality. Makes it pretty clear, doesn't it? I'm fairly sure that's what they meant in the other passages too. Don't you? I mean, Paul was from that age and spoke that language and everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #136 December 1, 2005 So you guys can be gay then? Ahh, I see now. Well, good for you. Hey! Where is your foil hat?!?!? Ithought you were making one?Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #137 December 1, 2005 Quotebut sudsy and I aren't priests. Well....alrighty then. Carry on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #138 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteUnfortunately, there was no such word for homosexuality when the bible was first written. That word was added after the fact. Maybe so... But it's described ever so nicely in Romans 1:24-32 without even having to use the word homosexuality. Makes it pretty clear, doesn't it? I'm fairly sure that's what they meant in the other passages too. Don't you? I mean, Paul was from that age and spoke that language and everything. Read the whole page.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #139 December 1, 2005 QuoteUnfortunately, there was no such word for homosexuality when the bible was first written. That word was added after the fact. http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#ICorinthians6:9 That should be made a sticky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #140 December 1, 2005 QuoteRead the whole page. Sorry.... A.D.D. kicked in. Didn't read your link at all. I will now. I hate it when that happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #141 December 1, 2005 Man.... I can't go through that whole page. It will take me the next 30min. I still don't see (at a glance) where it attempts to refute Romans 1:24-32 anywhere. Don't you think he was talking about homosexuality in that passage. I think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #142 December 1, 2005 QuoteSo you guys can be gay then? Ahh, I see now. Well, good for you. Hey! Where is your foil hat?!?!? Ithought you were making one? haven't had time... busy at work today... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #143 December 2, 2005 QuoteHey! Where is your foil hat?!?!? Ithought you were making one? I made my foil hat and it is better than yours because God told me how to make it. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #144 December 2, 2005 QuoteI made my foil hat and it is better than yours because God told me how to make it. That's because he doesn't want you to hear him talking to Bush Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #145 December 3, 2005 QuoteI made my foil hat and it is better than yours because God told me how to make it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's because he doesn't want you to hear him talking to Bush Now that was funny. Justin, we may not agree on some things, but I cannot discount your sense of humor. Thanks for the laugh. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
