Maybe they were asked to leave because those in charge felt that they were in danger and causing a disturbance in that ballpark which could of turned into a harmful situation for everyone invovled. Imagine if it were a KKK based group with their outfits on in a ballgame and they had signs that said "Sex With awesome people Is A Sin." don't you think ballpark officials would react to that to prevent any violence by ask/telling that group to leave ?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
HOMOSEXUALITY IS SIN, CHRIST CAN SET YOU FREE
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Leviticus also refers to menstruating women as an "abomination". And of course, Leviticus prohibits all sorts of seemingly innocuous activities, such as eating shell-fish, the wearing of mixed fibre clothes, and so on. Have YOU, Mo Funk, ever eaten shell-fish? Dined at Lobster Bill's? Are your clothes made of PURE cotton, or are they a cotton-nylon blend? Do you cast your mother out of the house every month when she is menstruating??? If you don't adhere to all of these Levitical laws, then why are you still clinging to Levitical notions of homosexuality as an abomination? Please explain why you are CHERRY-PICKING the laws out of Leviticus which you would like to see held up, and ignoring the rest.
Please also explain why laws and regulations written by pre-modern Semites living in the desert thousands of years ago and intended to maintain the purity of the Jewish nation are relevant to Americans citizens in 2004.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
are you a bold-face liar, or just sadly misinformed? Follow the context of the passage... do you even know what your talking about?
ever read the bible? food-restrictions are lifted both by Jesus and reiterated in Romans to Paul.
sorry buddy, try again.
God doesn't kill people, he judges our evil at the end of existence, but until then:
God lets us fall into our own depravity and create a death of our own choosing.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
Always amazed at how atheists think they can make some sort of biblical point.
Romans chapter 1 talks about the problems of both gay and lesbian sex.
Bahh!
Always amazed how christians believe it is up to god to judge yet always seem willing to do so themselves.
Romans, as well as the other chapters of the New Testament are books to LIVE by, not to JUDGE by.
99% of all christians never gets that though, they are so damn full of themselves it isn't even funny. They do their mistakes but are trying, that is ok, no one is judging them, they say, except their god, but they are SO quick to judge others.
It's ok to believe whatever you want, i won't hold it against you, i have great respect for people with strong beliefs who manage to live by them, just don't expect me or anyone else to live by your beliefs or my respect might turn into disrespect or even pity.
In your case, as i have already said, i pity you for your backwards approach, not as bad as others but still bad enough, you think you can judge others, you think you have that right, well, you do not.
jackschmittusa
Diamond Member
LordMagnusKain
If New Testament rules trump Old Testament rules, why don't bibles have the repealed rules Xed out or highlighted? Do you have to read the bible backwards from the end to find the most up-to-date rules? Last reference to a topic is the final word?
If New Testament rules trump Old Testament rules, why don't bibles have the repealed rules Xed out or highlighted? Do you have to read the bible backwards from the end to find the most up-to-date rules? Last reference to a topic is the final word?
Bitek
Lifer
That is my point. If God doesn't see fit to actively intervene in the lives of those seen as "immoral" but rather serve ultimate judgement later, why do these Xian groups take it upon themselves to judge them in His stead? Who are they to be judging the behavior of others, and imposing their religously-derived moral values on those who may not believe in them? If the morality of their position was so obvious, why the need to force it on others?
Jews don't force gentiles to not eat pork, why not let the gays have their sausauge? 😛
LordMagnusKain wrote:
|| Leviticus also refers to menstruating women as an
|| "abomination".
| are you a bold-face liar, or just sadly misinformed?
| Follow the context of the passage... do you even
| know what your talking about?
According to Leviticus menstruating women are
"unclean" (i.e., an "abomination" -- or "impurity",
"uncleanliness", or "dirtiness"). Menstruating women
are to be denied normal social contact for seven
days of the month:
15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and the issue in
her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days:
and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the
even.
15:20 And every thing she lieth upon in her separation
shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth
upon shall be unclean.
15:21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his
clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean
until the even.
15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing she sat upon
shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water,
and be unclean until the even.
15:23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon
she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean
until the evening.
15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her
flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days;
and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
15:25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many
days out of the time of her separation, or if it run
beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the
issue of her uncleanness shall be the days of her
separation: she shall be unclean.
15:26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her
issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation:
and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as
the uncleanness of her separation.
15:27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be
unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself
in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she
shall number to herself seven days, and after that she
shall be clean.
15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her
two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto
the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin
offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the
priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD
for the issue of her uncleanness.
|| Have YOU, Mo Funk, ever eaten shell-fish?
| ever read the bible? food-restrictions are lifted
| both by Jesus and reiterated in Romans to Paul.
Please provide the relevant Biblical passages.
|| Leviticus also refers to menstruating women as an
|| "abomination".
| are you a bold-face liar, or just sadly misinformed?
| Follow the context of the passage... do you even
| know what your talking about?
According to Leviticus menstruating women are
"unclean" (i.e., an "abomination" -- or "impurity",
"uncleanliness", or "dirtiness"). Menstruating women
are to be denied normal social contact for seven
days of the month:
15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and the issue in
her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days:
and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the
even.
15:20 And every thing she lieth upon in her separation
shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth
upon shall be unclean.
15:21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his
clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean
until the even.
15:22 And whosoever toucheth any thing she sat upon
shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water,
and be unclean until the even.
15:23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon
she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean
until the evening.
15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her
flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days;
and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
15:25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many
days out of the time of her separation, or if it run
beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the
issue of her uncleanness shall be the days of her
separation: she shall be unclean.
15:26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her
issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation:
and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as
the uncleanness of her separation.
15:27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be
unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself
in water, and be unclean until the even.
15:28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she
shall number to herself seven days, and after that she
shall be clean.
15:29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her
two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto
the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation.
15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin
offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the
priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD
for the issue of her uncleanness.
|| Have YOU, Mo Funk, ever eaten shell-fish?
| ever read the bible? food-restrictions are lifted
| both by Jesus and reiterated in Romans to Paul.
Please provide the relevant Biblical passages.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
good idea, but if you read romans 2 you'd better understand the situation.
Jesus came to complete the law, take us from a time of killing our fellow man for wronging us to giving to our fellow man though he wrongs us...
Politics and religion are at odds with each other and the idea that any political party is Christian is as much an insult to the member's intellect as it to Christ himself.
We aren?t looking to make sure that others believe in our Dogma, that would be simply antithetical to American freedom. But once again, you fail to see the difference between digression and hurtful discrimination.
forcing someone not to eat pork, and some Jews protesting in front of the local deli are two different things.
I think we can all agree, even if some think it misinformed or even backwards, that Jews do have a right to protest said deli, but that deli also has right not to allow them admission.
They are trying to ?protect society? just as the gay-rights activists warring chaps and not much more in a parade are trying to ?progress society?. These extremist groups are on equal footing, as a private ball-club has every right to discriminate for homosexuals just as this group has every right to protest against that discrimination.
Think about the judgment of judging other?s who express their judgment. Judging that exact judgment is the express intent of this thread.
a general inability to distinguish between personal discernment and an judgmental attitude is something that just as damaging and mindless on the liberal end as self important hypocrisy on the conservative end.
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself."
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."
"... David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most."
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
"In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm
LordMagnusKain
Banned
so you provide, in your own passages, that you are equivocating, and that, in fact, a different term is used.
Unclean, in this context, is that illness is more likely to spread. Remember, no maxi pads? No soap, rare bathing, the functionality of avoiding someone else?s blood from a medical perspective shouldn?t be to hard for your mind to wrap itself around. Don?t confuse unclean and abomination intentionally any more, please.
as for people making fun of Jesus because of the old law:
Romans 2:
But as it turns out that doesn?t much matter, if you have faith:
Rromans 3:
And the point of that faith is to fight against sinning:
Romans 7:
All while following the law of the land
Romans 13:
but if you just need some text talking about how you can eat what you like:
Jesus in Matthew 15 Peter?s vision in Acts Chapter 10
And:
being tempted by homosexual feelings isn't a sin.
actually engaging in homosexual sex is the sin.
I take it that you have not read Leviticus? Go do so then discuss this.
You couldn't let your wife or any mensturating woman out of the house if you were to follow it, and during that time you could not possibly expect to open a door without washing your hands afterwards.
This "uncleanliness" has NOTHING to do with the spread of bacteria, it is meant to keep women in their place, they have blood coming from their "unholy" parts and that is downright dirty, what do you expect from MALE writers who don't have any clue?
Go read Leviticus and then we'll talk. Or do you dismiss that too, the pick and choose idiocy remains?
LordMagnusKain
Banned
I think if you look at the situation in the regon you'll find that the historical and social contexts that the jews would dealwith in the torra are very loving fof their fellow human; unlike how their neighbors dealt with them.
but like i said, Jesus came to complete the law, but still under that we have strong warnings against the death-nature of giving into homosexual passions.
The point of life on earth, for a Christian, is to live with Christ in the center of self and deny the passions of the flesh in favor of food for the spirit. So, of course, wanton giving into fleshly desires, as David was known for, is against the Christian path. Are you following that the biblical argument against homosexual sex isn?t based on the teachings of the torra but that of the new testament? And that casual sex of any kind, or multiple sex partners over time because of passion, also falls into this.
You are a very ignorant person. They mean essentially the same thing in the Hebrew:
"ABOMINATION - (Hebrew: toevah) - This can also be translated as "uncleanness", "impurity", or "dirtiness". "Taboo", what is culturally or ritually forbidden, would be another accurate translation. The significance of the term toevah becomes clear when you realize another Hebrew term, zimah, could have been used. Zimah means not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin."
"Furthermore, in the Septuagint the Hebrew word toevah in Leviticus 18:22 is translated with the Greek word bdelygma. Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity, an uncleanness. Once again, there were other Greek words available, like anomia, meaning a violation of law, a wrong or a sin. That word could have been used to translate toevah. In fact, in some cases anomia was used to translate toevah - when the offense in question was not just ritual impurity but also a real wrong or an injustice, like offering child sacrifice or having sex with another man's wife. The Greek translators could have used anomia to translate toevah in the case of "man lying with man" but they used bdelygma instead."
"Evidently, the Jews of that pre-Christian era simply did not understand Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it was wrong in itself. They understood Leviticus to forbid male-male sex because it offended ancient Jewish sensitivities: it was dirty and Canaanite-like. It was unJewish. And that is exactly how they translated the Hebrew text into Greek centuries before Christ."
http://hometown.aol.com/spiritandflesh/leviticus.html
Note that "uncleanliness" or "ritual impurity" has NOTHING AT ALL to do with bacteria. It pertains to the failure to follow the laws and codes that SEPARATE THE JEWS FROM THE GENTILES.
Prohibitions agianst male-male sex and menstruation are both considered violations of the cultural "purity rules" (or taboos) that governed early Jewish society (as outlined in Leviticus). This has nothing to do with sexual morality (homosexuality is not a moral wrong, per se, according to Leviticus) nor has it ANYTHING AT ALL to do with germs. It is about the following of Jewish cultural tradition, which is what gives the Jews their unique identity and separates them from the gentiles:
"The Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits male same-sex practices because of religious considerations, not because of sexual ones. The concern is to keep Israel from taking part in Gentile practices. Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with pagan activities (i.e. cultic prostitution), with idolatry, and with Gentile identity. The argument in Leviticus is religious, not ethical or moral. That is to say, no thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong."
"Therefore, it is a misuse of the Bible to quote Leviticus as an answer to today's ethical question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Leviticus was not addressing this question. The concern in Leviticus, the cultural context of that text, and the meaning of male-male sex in ancient Israel are all very foreign to the present situation. Today's question and that in Leviticus are simply two different things."
"To further underscore the point, the word "abomination" is simply another word for "unclean." An "abomination" is a violation of the purity rules that governed Israelite society and kept the Israelites different from the other peoples. Early Israelites thought male homogential sex was dirty. It was prohibited not because it was wrong in itself but because it offended religious sensitivities. Homogenitality made a Jewish man look like a Canaanite. And to the Israelites, God's chosen people, that was unacceptable."
http://hometown.aol.com/spiritandflesh/leviticus.html
Being well versed in the scripture of both the Torah and the New Testament makes me somewhat understand how people adhering to either faith (or in most cases, actually bits and pieces of both) think, my heritage makes me of Jewish descent, i was baptised as a christian and has grown up in a christian home though, to follow the learnings of Leviticus is impossible, to follow the teachings of christ is a noble goal but as mankind has progressed so must the beliefs, right now this is out of sync, we have problems that we cannot readily deal with and we need to dig deeper into what makes religion works if it is to survive at all (i am not all that sure it SHOULD survive) one of those things is to look into the teachings of christ.
THE most important message, the message above all, you know what it is, is it right to deny ANYONE love?
And most important of all, you are not the one to judge, we can live our lives according to our laws here on earth, that is for US humans to decide, the judgement comes in our afterlife, in other words, YOU have no right to judge and if you try to do so you WILL be judged yourself.
A true christian will live his life as he wishes and not bother himself with how other lives theirs.
This is simply not correct.
It is not possible to justify the assertion that homosexuality is a sin, using the Old or New Testament.
The tale of Sodom & Gomorra is a parable on the failure to follow cultural traditions of hospitality. The crime committed by the citizens of Sodom is NOT homosexuality; rather, the men of Sodom refused to welcome the visitors (angels) and offer them hospitality (as was the custom of the day). Instead, the men of Sodom demand to RAPE the visitors -- which in the ancient Middle East was the ultimate way of DISSING another man. (Forcing a man into the so-called female role in the sex act was considered the ultimate way of humiliating another man in ancient Middle East). Lot offers up his daughters to be raped in place of the visitors/ angels; later, his daughters can't find husbands, so they get their father Lot drunk, screw him, and have babies to their father...
Also, if you read Paul's comments carefully, you will see that he regards homosexuality as PUNISHMENT for sin; he does NOT regard homosexuality as the sin ITSELF. The real sin, to Paul;'s mind, is the worshipping of idols even after one has been exposed to Christianity. (The Roman's did this; and as a consequence, Paul reckons, they lose all sense of what's up and what's down -- hence the men are fvcking men, the women are screwing women. Note that this is the CONSEQUENCE of the failure to recognise Christianity. The homosexuality is not the sin itself.)
LordMagnusKain
Banned
Actually you'll see that he says that the homosexuals would see physical punishment quickly, not from God, but as a matter of how that sort of thing works out.
But why would i argue the personal path of denying the lusts of the flesh in order to feed the spirit with someone trying to justify this or that fleshly desire?
I saw someone, representing the church of England in the US, and saying that we should ignore the writings of Paul because we didn't know then about the 'human sexual animal'
In fact the point of Christianity is to move past the animal within and feed the spiritual being within.
The problem isn?t that people engage in whatever sexual behavior they see fit, the problem is that your trying to over-step the bounds of personal freedom and demand that I accept homosexual sex as moral.
let's not let you re-write the bible as you see fit, we've already seen that you're more than willing to replace one word with another in order to try to make a highly un-important point. Of course i agree that the reason these people chose to fall into such sin was that they chose to ignore God.
Romans CH1:
Contemporary English Version:
"own evil desires"
that show that the desires, to be spoken of, are evil.
"women.. did things with each other that where not natural"
This lesbian sex is one of the evil desires that they gave into.
"had strong desires for sex with other men"
This gay sex is the another of the evil desires that they gave into.
KingJames:
Now i can say "pigs don't fly" and you can try to argue that I?m talking about the quality of pig-flight, but the plane-as day facts stand by themselves no matter how distorted your point of view.
You are welcome to have your point of view of what is moral, but don't try to get me to accept something as biblical because it's politically correct. I'm all for historical context, but this is one that no one has ever made a good case for, just desperate reaches to excuse others... which makes no sense, because what others do is non of my bloody business.
The question here isn't is "is what they did Christian" because that's no more for me to judge as it is for them to tell others they are unclean.
gay sex and love are two different things.
If you are going to quote Biblical passages, then I am interested in contesting your simplistic or inaccurate interpretation of said Biblical passages.
My POINT was that menstruation is no less a Levitical "impurity" than male-male sex. They are both regarded as violations of conditions for purity established by Jewish religious tradition. Homosexuality is NOT considered immoral per se in Leviticus. It is simply considered inconsistent with Jewish religious tradition. That is NOT an "unimportanrt point". It is actually a highly pertinent point given that you are running round like a headless chicken quoting Leviticus as "proof" of the sinful nature of butt fvcking. I notice you didn't bother responding to my follow-ups to your last post. Your approach to debate seems to be to ignore anything you don't have an answer for.
LordMagnusKain
Banned
already did:
see, just above the part you quoted to disagree with me on?
purity and an abominable act vs. an unclean act are very different topics, trying to role them into one is as intellectually dishonest as any of the rest of your 'interpretations' of the mater-of-fact statements you try to bend around your own need to encourage others to disbelieve the word of God.
Your argument?s, nor mine, won?t change what is written either in the heart of man nor in the spirit of the Lord. So why do you make such vane attempts?
You don?t honestly read something different from the blatant calling said acts ?evil? do you and i'm sure you don't think that attacking, even with vitriol, the facts will change them.
profanity to prove your point, I?m humbled.
Seriously, when did I quote Leviticus? I quoted Romans which is in the New Testament and the basis of the Christian faith.
ah, some psychological projection going on eh? I post a full response to you and you ignore every statement that blatantly points out how you are wrong?
for the audience at home, please look over this segment of my pervious post:
which was a direct reply to this:
Not that many of you think this much matters, but I?ll not have my integrity impugned by anyone but me!
ps, i fall apart easaly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
