Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Damocles said:
If this is true, then Jesus also endorsed the rules on slavery, the rules on kosher eating (later thrown away because of what Paul wrote in the book of Romans), and the rules on wearing cloth made of two different fabrics.

When was the last time you sent your wife out of the house when she was on her period? That's in there too... Did you make sure she washed herself in the river before she returned? It's in there...
Click to expand...

actually no, the rules you are referring to are part of the Levitical code.....the scriptures refer to homosexual relations in the same manner is it refers to incest, human sacrifice, and idolatry......it is not in the same category as kosher eating, etc.......
 
Damocles said:
If this is true, then Jesus also endorsed the rules on slavery, the rules on kosher eating (later thrown away because of what Paul wrote in the book of Romans), and the rules on wearing cloth made of two different fabrics.

When was the last time you sent your wife out of the house when she was on her period? That's in there too... Did you make sure she washed herself in the river before she returned? It's in there...
Click to expand...

God promised to make a “new covenant,” which would not be like the one given to Israel when the nation left Egypt (Jer. 31:31ff). When that “new covenant” was given, a “change” in laws was made (Heb. 7:12). But the old law, bestowed when Israel came out of Egyptian bondage, contained the ten commandments (1 Kgs. 8:9,21). Thus, the decalogue passed away when the Old Testament was replaced by the New.
Click to expand...
http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&cat=21&itemid=375
 
RStringfield said:
I switched over to IE cause Firefox continues to be a pain in my ass. No spell checker.

Again, you did nothing but make a statement. You offer nothing to establish your assertion.

I understand the teachings of Christ just fine. I don't agree with all of them, but he said nothing about homosexuality and gave no indication that it was a sin of great importance or a sin at all.
Click to expand...
In Firefox:

Tools/ Options/ Advanced/ General/ Browsing/ "check my spelling as I type".

Its important to understand the entire application in context. ;)
 
apple0154 said:
Like Damo you confuse the government "knowing" with the government "prohibiting" something. They are two distinct things.

But it goes further than that as I explained regarding AIDS and spousal abuse and rape and homosexuality and on and on. Those things were kept private and we witnessed the result.

People were discriminated against and ostracized because people believed there was only one homosexual in their village or the woman who was raped must have done something to warrant it.

On a passing note the internet is the most liberating device to come along. Slowly, it will open people's minds to things they thought strange, weird, rare, etc.
Click to expand...

Ive not confused anything. You conflate all issues and confound yourself with your own idiotic tactics.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually no, the rules you are referring to are part of the Levitical code.....the scriptures refer to homosexual relations in the same manner is it refers to incest, human sacrifice, and idolatry......it is not in the same category as kosher eating, etc.......
Click to expand...
And all are part of the Laws of Moses.
 
Damocles said:
You can't have it both ways. Christ said he did not come to change the laws of Moses... but to fulfill them.
Click to expand...

He came to challenge what the laws of Moses had become, the church. The problem is many of his followers created their own church and have established new laws just as bad as the old ones many of which contradict his primary commandments.
 
RStringfield said:
He came to challenge what the laws of Moses had become, the church. The problem is many of his followers created their own church and have established new laws just as bad as the old ones many of which contradict his primary commandments.
Click to expand...
I'm just poking fun. Usually I argue on the other side (of the New Covenant and old Testament laws, not on the other side of secular government having no say in religious ceremonies). The New Covenant dropped all the slavery rules, etc. However, sometimes it is fun to argue a different side of an argument, it helps you to see what the other people are seeing...

The reality is, Christ didn't personally cover homosexuality, but the New Covenant only got rid of the "cleansing" rules (like making your wife leave the house for the duration of her period then wash in the river before returning home), but it didn't change anything that was "an abomination"... Sins were still sins. You can go to Romans Chapter 10 to read how homosexuality was still an "abomination" in the New Testament...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....unless your one of those folks who believes that Jesus is God.....that makes your claim a bit problematic.....
Click to expand...

You guys are great at dropping context. SM has claimed that Christ broke from the old testament ways. He may believe Christ is God. But, apparently he believes that Christ represented a new covenant. That is the what the new testament indicates.

This started with SM arguing that the morality of the bible is objective and without it we would end in slavery, genocide and infanticide. To which I pointed out that the bible is filled with tales of God's chosen engaging in those very things.

He is right, it's pretty much all in the old testament.
 
Dixie said:
Apparently you aren't as familiar with Jesus' teachings as you thought. While he doesn't speak of homosexuality being a "sin," he certainly does speak of it as being a very despicable and lowly behavior, the lowest of the low, as a matter of fact. When he wanted to emphasize how pathetically sorry and immoral someone was, he compared them with 'those men who lie with men'. I can't cite the verses, but I've read it, it's in there. Jesus certainly didn't advocate it or endorse it.
Click to expand...

You can't cite it because it does not exists. There is absolutely no reference in the 4 Gospels to homosexuality.
 
But the real debate in christianity is whether or not jews need to be saved through christ.

Traditional christianity says yes, new age masonic dispensationalist christianity says no.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But the real debate in christianity is whether or not jews need to be saved through christ.

Traditional christianity says yes, new age masonic dispensationalist christianity says no.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, all Christianity says that everybody needs to be "saved" or we'll all burn, that would include the Jews.
 
Damocles said:
The reality is, Christ didn't personally cover homosexuality, but the New Covenant only got rid of the "cleansing" rules (like making your wife leave the house for the duration of her period then wash in the river before returning home), but it didn't change anything that was "an abomination"... Sins were still sins. You can go to Romans Chapter 10 to read how homosexuality was still an "abomination" in the New Testament...
Click to expand...

Nothing in Romans 10. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–11.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ive not confused anything. You conflate all issues and confound yourself with your own idiotic tactics.
Click to expand...

The discussion was of a philosophical nature so, naturally, the issues will be conflated. Generally speaking, on the whole, is having all things out in the open better than privacy?

I believe it is for the reasons I stated; from misdeeds being hidden to the tendency of human beings to be against things they are not familiar with. From gay marriage to gun ownership.....the only time the general population hears about guns is when someone is shot or gay marriage when people are protesting.

When do we hear about fathers and sons/mothers and daughters spending an afternoon on the shooting range as we would about any other family outing or the celebration of a gay couple's anniversary showcased in the "Society Pages" of our local newspaper?
 
RStringfield said:
You guys are great at dropping context. SM has claimed that Christ broke from the old testament ways. He may believe Christ is God. But, apparently he believes that Christ represented a new covenant. That is the what the new testament indicates.

This started with SM arguing that the morality of the bible is objective and without it we would end in slavery, genocide and infanticide. To which I pointed out that the bible is filled with tales of God's chosen engaging in those very things.

He is right, it's pretty much all in the old testament.
Click to expand...

We also have to remember Jesus is not the final arbitrator of ones sins. He makes it clear He is the way to the Father or through Him we get to plead our case with the Father. Sort of like a legal representative, if you will.

For those not familiar with the legal system it's not unusual for ones lawyer will tell a person one thing (boost their confidence before presenting a bill for services) and the Judge having a completely take on the matter.

Just saying. :)
 
apple0154 said:
The discussion was of a philosophical nature so, naturally, the issues will be conflated. Generally speaking, on the whole, is having all things out in the open better than privacy?

I believe it is for the reasons I stated; from misdeeds being hidden to the tendency of human beings to be against things they are not familiar with. From gay marriage to gun ownership.....the only time the general population hears about guns is when someone is shot or gay marriage when people are protesting.

When do we hear about fathers and sons/mothers and daughters spending an afternoon on the shooting range as we would about any other family outing or the celebration of a gay couple's anniversary showcased in the "Society Pages" of our local newspaper?
Click to expand...

Your argument is stupid. You pretend that the masses are always right and all they need is more exposure to the unfamiliar. 60-70 years ago more exposure for a homosexual would have made them more familiar with a noose and that's about it.

Blacks were not in the closet. It was not private information or a secret that they were black. If they had been able to hide as homosexuals can, they would have escaped many abuses, MANY of which come from the government that you trust so much.

You do have a point, that familiarity can breed acceptance. At this point in time, I think all homosexuals coming out would be to their general benefit. But, that is up to the indivdiual and it is stupid to pretend that it is without danger or that it could have been done years ago with the same results. It still comes with considerable repercussions if you want a military career.
 
apple0154 said:
We also have to remember Jesus is not the final arbitrator of ones sins. He makes it clear He is the way to the Father or through Him we get to plead our case with the Father. Sort of like a legal representative, if you will.

For those not familiar with the legal system it's not unusual for ones lawyer will tell a person one thing (boost their confidence before presenting a bill for services) and the Judge having a completely take on the matter.

Just saying. :)
Click to expand...

I am not a Christian. I do have lot of respect for the teachings of Christ. I don't believe he was divine and I doubt he actually claimed to be. IMO, Christ's teachings indicate that the path to God was internal. It did not go through Christ himself, the church or any other man. The only church to Christ was in the human soul.

When he did claim that he was the way, he basically was telling people to be more like him. His primary comandments and the example he set, were to love the lord and to love your neighbor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top