Did you know?

tosca1 · Aug 21, 2014

tosca1 said:
Speaking of homosexuals - which is the subject -

what is offensive and very much insensitive, and downright hypocritically disgusting is the way Anti-Christians actually make homosexuals feel unloved by their false claim that they (homosexuals) are hated by Christians, which is not true.

Have you noticed, no matter how Christians explain that that's a lie (and they actually support their claims).....anti-Christians will never let go of that powerful tool to exploit homosexuals.

Anyone who'd feel unloved and hated is bound to feel alone, and have a very low self-worth,
and some do commit suicide because of that.

If you analyze it, the anti-Christians actually label and denigrate homosexuals in a "nice" way by making it look like they (anti-Christians) are on their side. Quite deceptive, really.

The real false message of anti-Christians to homosexuals:

you are hated for who, and what you are. Even your God hates you.

You really think anti-Christians would want homosexuals to realize and understand that Christians don't hate them?

You really think anti-Christians will want homosexuals to understand and realize the real message in the Bible, and not to feel personally persecuted and un-worthy?

Some don't believe in Christianity. Some lose faith. They simply walk away.
Some however, bear so much hatred and grudges in their hearts, and have axes to grind.

I don't know why some become RABID ANTI-CHRISTIANS. They each have their own story.
Some have been abused, or terribly disillusioned.

If you peel the layers and look deeper.....rabid anti-Christians all have chips on their shoulders. They carry their own burdens. Varying sizes.

Since they don't believe, they understandably don't understand the redeeming value of forgiveness. Not only spiritually.....but actually, literally.

Of course, when you carry such a heavy load as that, some will need therapy.

To rabid anti-Christians, the only advice I can give is to free yourselves......by forgiving those who did you wrong or harm.

tosca1 · Aug 21, 2014

Luftwaffe said:
Some of the things were obvious but other ones you probably never knew. What do you think? If people use Leviticus 18:22 as an evidential panacea for anti-homosexuality arguments wouldn't they have to use the other parts of the bible as well? If you use one you use all and be proud (sucks to be proud in that), you cant be a quasi christian :shrug:

Well...anti-Christians love to use Westboro Baptist Church for their anti-Christian argument, or to disparage Christianity. Go figure. :shrug:

Cable · Aug 21, 2014

PeteEU said:
God did not make anything.

The problem with your statement is that nobody on earth can make it with any authority. You could make it accurate if you use "In my opinion..." or "My best guess is ..." Or "My faith informs me that..."

Cable · Aug 21, 2014

Nilly said:
I let Christians educate me on scripture, and what you quoted me on is the conclusion that I have come to based on what they tell me...

Why? There's far too much scripture out there for me to read. The bible, the qur'an, the bhagavad gita, the shinto kojiki, the book of mormon, the book of shadows, dianetics, the torah, the tripitaka, the avesta. Why should I give precedence to the bible? They all claim the same thing, that they are the one true divine work.

Your argument isn't accurate. How many claim that God sent his Son to die for our sins, that if we believe on Him we will be saved? I can only think of one.
They can't all be right, but one of them can be.

tosca1 · Aug 21, 2014

Nilly said:
I let Christians educate me on scripture, and what you quoted me on is the conclusion that I have come to based on what they tell me...

Why? There's far too much scripture out there for me to read. The bible, the qur'an, the bhagavad gita, the shinto kojiki, the book of mormon, the book of shadows, dianetics, the torah, the tripitaka, the avesta. Why should I give precedence to the bible? They all claim the same thing, that they are the one true divine work.

If you're to buy something that's quite expensive - like a house as an example - surely you take the trouble to "shop around?" You take time to know all you can about what you're interested in?

If one is seriously looking for the true religion, one has to be willing to do his "homework."

Logicman · Aug 21, 2014

Nilly said:
Psshhh, don't you know that the bible is down to personal interpretation and you can pick and choose which parts specifically apply to you depending on how you feel???

At least, that's what Christians tell me...

Sounds more like what the anti-Christian crowd would say. And they can use that worn out argument to discredit ANYTHING the Bible says is wrong or sinful.

Logicman · Aug 21, 2014

RAMOSS said:
The issue that I have with levitucus 18:22 is that it is being used out of context. The word 'abomination' is actually the word 'Toe'vah' which means 'Ritualistically unclean'. It deals with 'things you have to cleans yourself of before going into the temple. It specifically is about talking about anal sex. Many people view it as a restriction that is talking about 'male temple prostitution'.

Nuts. Leviticus 20:13 says men who lie with each should be put to death, so men laying with other men is definitely a heinous sin.

RAMOSS · Aug 21, 2014

Logicman said:
Nuts. Leviticus 20:13 says men who lie with each should be put to death, so men laying with other men is definitely a heinous sin.

Yes.. and that is taking things out of context, because it is not looking at the cultural context. First of all, even by the second temple ,the death penalty declaration was a magnification of the issue. Second of all, it STILL is talking about temple prostitution. in specifically , male to male anal sex in temple prostitution.

Logicman · Aug 21, 2014

RAMOSS said:
Yes.. and that is taking things out of context, because it is not looking at the cultural context. First of all, even by the second temple ,the death penalty declaration was a magnification of the issue. Second of all, it STILL is talking about temple prostitution. in specifically , male to male anal sex in temple prostitution.

Nope. Here's why:

Leviticus 18 and Homosexuality

RAMOSS · Aug 21, 2014

Logicman said:
Nope. Here's why:

Leviticus 18 and Homosexuality

I do not accept anything from J.P Holding as being accurate, honest or rational.

I will also point out that Robert Turek, aka 'J.P. Holding is actually just repeating the claim that has been refuted.

You really should work on becoming a bit more spiritually discerning.

tosca1 · Aug 21, 2014

RAMOSS said:
Yes.. and that is taking things out of context, because it is not looking at the cultural context.

How is it taking out of context.....men lying with each other?

Care to review Genesis?

Genesis 2
“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’

And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.’

For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

suitable: right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation.

That's the NORMAL UNION - the "CULTURAL" context of marriage - since the beginning of man!

Logicman · Aug 21, 2014

RAMOSS said:
I do not accept anything from J.P Holding as being accurate, honest or rational.

I will also point out that Robert Turek, aka 'J.P. Holding is actually just repeating the claim that has been refuted.

You really should work on becoming a bit more spiritually discerning.

Sorry, you're on the wrong track.

There's no gay marriages anywhere in the Bible, nor are there any gay sex relationships anywhere in the Bible that are approved by God. And that's a fact.

tosca1 · Aug 21, 2014

RAMOSS said:
Second of all, it STILL is talking about temple prostitution. in specifically , male to male anal sex in temple prostitution.

Is there any penalty attached to female prostitutes in Leviticus? As far as I know....NONE!

Why is that?

Well....that's the whole point, isn't it? ANAL SEX. Sodomy! Between two men.
The unnaturalness of the act is what makes it more a serious offense.

Obviously, you're cherry-picking.

RAMOSS · Aug 21, 2014

tosca1 said:
How is it taking out of context.....men lying with each other?

Care to review Genesis?

Genesis 2
“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’

And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.’

For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

suitable: right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation.

That's the NORMAL UNION - the "CULTURAL" context of marriage - since the beginning of man!

Did you know I don't give a good gahoot.. since that is only talking about one thing that is preferred. It is not a restriction. it is a story.

It is a creation story, a just so story. It is not about law.

RAMOSS · Aug 21, 2014

tosca1 said:
Well....that's the whole point, isn't it? ANAL SEX. Sodomy!
Obviously, you're cherry-picking.

No, it is talking about anal sex in the context of temple prostitution. That's the point.. it has to do with temple worship,and worshiping Gods other than the god of Israel.

RAMOSS · Aug 21, 2014

Logicman said:
Sorry, you're on the wrong track.

There's no gay marriages anywhere in the Bible, nor are there any gay sex relationships anywhere in the Bible that are approved by God. And that's a fact.

You keep saying that... yet, so what? There are some ambiguous relationships. .., such as David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and Ashpenaz

Logicman · Aug 21, 2014

RAMOSS said:
You keep saying that... yet, so what? There are some ambiguous relationships. .., such as David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and Ashpenaz

Now you're grasping at straws. And even if David and Jonathan 'got it on', there's no evidence God approves of it. Lots of sinful acts in the Bible.

Nilly · Aug 21, 2014

Cable said:
Your argument isn't accurate. How many claim that God sent his Son to die for our sins, that if we believe on Him we will be saved? I can only think of one.
They can't all be right, but one of them can be.

Well hinduism does. Krishna was a son of god that was sent down from heaven to cleanse humanity of our sin, was born of a virgin, was considered the second part of a trinity and died before being resurrected.

But that is beside the point, I don't really understand why that matters???? Why does the claim that god sent down his son to die make any religion better than a different one??? All of them claim salvation in one form or another.

RAMOSS · Aug 21, 2014

Logicman said:
Now you're grasping at straws. And even if David and Jonathan 'got it on', there's no evidence God approves of it. Lots of sinful acts in the Bible.

And you are grasping at straws yourself. You do seem to like to tell God what he should approve, disapprove or totally not care about though. You don't speak for God.

tosca1 · Aug 22, 2014

RAMOSS said:
Did you know I don't give a good gahoot.. since that is only talking about one thing that is preferred. It is not a restriction. it is a story.

It is a creation story, a just so story. It is not about law.

You're babbling.

Hello? Genesis involves the Number 1 LAW! OBEDIENCE to God.

See the consequence of disobedience?

tosca1 · Aug 22, 2014

RAMOSS said:
No, it is talking about anal sex in the context of temple prostitution. That's the point.. it has to do with temple worship,and worshiping Gods other than the god of Israel.

Women participated in temple prostitution as well!

So yes indeed, it is the ANAL SEX BETWEEN MEN that makes it a very serious offense. PERIOD.

tosca1 · Aug 22, 2014

Nilly said:
Well hinduism does. Krishna was a son of god that was sent down from heaven to cleanse humanity of our sin, was born of a virgin, was considered the second part of a trinity and died before being resurrected.

But that is beside the point, I don't really understand why that matters???? Why does the claim that god sent down his son to die make any religion better than a different one??? All of them claim salvation in one form or another.

Are there any evidences of the existence of Krishna?

Cable · Aug 22, 2014

Nilly said:
Well hinduism does. Krishna was a son of god that was sent down from heaven to cleanse humanity of our sin, was born of a virgin, was considered the second part of a trinity and died before being resurrected.

But that is beside the point, I don't really understand why that matters???? Why does the claim that god sent down his son to die make any religion better than a different one??? All of them claim salvation in one form or another.

The stories are vaguely similar, but the Christ and Krishna are not. One sows confusion to suggest such a thing.

“God made him, who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”

Logicman · Aug 22, 2014

RAMOSS said:
And you are grasping at straws yourself. You do seem to like to tell God what he should approve, disapprove or totally not care about though. You don't speak for God.

Then show me where God approves of gay sex / marriage? That's you injecting that into the scriptures, not me.

Logicman · Aug 22, 2014

Nilly said:
Krishna was a son of god that was sent down from heaven to cleanse humanity of our sin, was born of a virgin, was considered the second part of a trinity and died before being resurrected.

Tsk tsk. Here's the reality:

The Parallels Between Jesus and Krishna — A Refutation of Acharya S | Debunking Atheism

Excerpt:

(according to the MYTH)

"it is not true that she was a virgin when Krishna was born. Devaki had a total of eight children. It so happens that Krishna was the youngest which proves she had her fun at least eight times before he was born."