11 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs Jesus said in Matthew 7:
you have been reported again, hopefully the moderators will do something about you this time, do not reply, i have nothing more to say to you.
"1 Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
Hopefully you'll come to understand and embrace the meaning of these words.
11 Apr 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieagain you show your ignorance of theology and the scriptures. Oh sure you can regurgitate verses, but taken out of context, they are meaningless. Romans is divided into 2 parts the first 8 chapters and the last 8 chapters. The book itself is an amazing piece of apologetics. The 1st half deals with sin and the nature of sin, the 2nd half deals with why Christ is the fulfilment of levitical law. Paul says in Romans "who will free mwe from this body of death?" Of course its rhetorical, Paul makes the case that even as Christ's Apostle, that he struggles constantly with sin and the burden of sin; but thankfully Grace is free. All that is neccesary is to believe with your heart and confess with your lips that jesus Christ is Lord to receive salvation and eternal life. You can't pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe; it needs to be looked at as a whole. Why is homosexuality more of a sin than someone who uses credit cards? Why is homosexuality more of a sin than gluttony? why is homosexuality more of sin than paying less than 10% of your income in tithes? why is homosexuality more of a sin than gossiping about your nieghbor? God places no more wieght on one sin than another (with the exception of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).
in a sorry this statement is too incredulous and begs belief, firstly let us look at the scriptures in their immediate context, shall we, what does Paul state, that those PRACTISING SUCH THINGS, what things?, fornication, murder, gluttony, homosexuality, will not inherit gods kingdom, did you read that, did you understand the import of those words? ...[text shortened]... data, for the scriptures are quite clear and explicit and leave no room for ambiguity, no room!
Who placed you in charge of what sin is acceptble and which isn't? I refer to the o.p. judge not lest ye be judged
I will waist no further time on your ignorance.
13 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerIn terms of Old Testament verses about homosexuality, setting aside the specific intepretations of the verses in question, it is important to note the importance of reproduction within the Israelite culture. For example, to be barren was a fate worse than death for women of that time. To not have children was really a question of survival for these people. The edict to reproduce was an important one for the fledgling nation and its importance was a matter of life and death for them. Considering this fact and this fact alone, I doubt highly that homosexuality would have been looked upon favoribly during that time no matter if it was monogomous or not. As far as the New Testament goes, I don't see any historical indications that this had changed during the time of Paul when he wrote about such things. Of course, I suppose you could use the arguement that these stances on homosexuality was influenced more by the culture than by the inspiriation of God, I suppose that is your call.
again you show your ignorance of theology and the scriptures. Oh sure you can regurgitate verses, but taken out of context, they are meaningless. Romans is divided into 2 parts the first 8 chapters and the last 8 chapters. The book itself is an amazing piece of apologetics. The 1st half deals with sin and the nature of sin, the 2nd half deals with why Christ er to the o.p. judge not lest ye be judged
I will waist no further time on your ignorance.
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by whodeyThat was more or less my inference, but with some additions. Its important to remember that the laws given were meant to help the young tribes survive. Capital punishment for example: In a nomadic community it is not feasable to lock someone away for life, so they did what was neccessary. Its important to use the best exegetical research and hermenuetics whenever possible in trying to divine the meaning of the scriptures.
In terms of Old Testament verses about homosexuality, setting aside the specific intepretations of the verses in question, it is important to note the importance of reproduction within the Israelite culture. For example, to be barren was a fate worse than death for women of that time. To not have children was really a question of survival for these people. ...[text shortened]... as influenced more by the culture than by the inspiriation of God, I suppose that is your call.
13 Apr 09
1 edit
Its important to use the best exegetical research and hermenuetics whenever possible in trying to divine the meaning of the scriptures.
do not believe a word of this, many of the scriptures are self explanatory, cased in a simple and unambiguous language, and their meaning can readily be derived from the immediate context and the context of the Bible as a whole, its this type of thinking which has caused the divisions in Christianity that are so evident today. the 'I belong to Apollos, I to Paul', and what happens , the Christ stands divided, once again, do not believe a word of this, Christ himself needed nothing but the scriptures, he never studied at the Rabbinic schools and the apostles were considered, ordinary and unlettered!
Not only that, persons of such an ilk, become 'puffed up', with knowledge, the result, a propensity for condescension which is about as far removed from the Christ as you can get!
yes some linguistic studies coupled with some cultural aspects may aid understanding, get yourself a Hebrew interlinear as well as a Greek, an expository to explain the terms, Vines is good but be careful hes a trinitarian and you cut out the middle man and a plethora of misunderstanding , pretense of knowledge and delusional thinking! once again do not buy this, it should contain a spiritual health warning!
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by duecerAt the same token, however, there is no mention of infertile men and women as being abominations. Why is that?
That was more or less my inference, but with some additions. Its important to remember that the laws given were meant to help the young tribes survive. Capital punishment for example: In a nomadic community it is not feasable to lock someone away for life, so they did what was neccessary. Its important to use the best exegetical research and hermenuetics whenever possible in trying to divine the meaning of the scriptures.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by duecerOne wonders why a woman should be locked away for life for adultery. I think some of the capital punishment laws were too harsh.
That was more or less my inference, but with some additions. Its important to remember that the laws given were meant to help the young tribes survive. Capital punishment for example: In a nomadic community it is not feasable to lock someone away for life, so they did what was neccessary. Its important to use the best exegetical research and hermenuetics whenever possible in trying to divine the meaning of the scriptures.
15 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadToo harsh eh? Put yourself in the shoes of those who lived back then when these laws were put into place. The implications of infidelity were a matter of life and death because the survival of the family unit/tribe unit was a matter of life or death. In addition, women were basically powerless. They depended on men to marry to have a certain measure of security. In addition, if you had your wife having children from another man you have issues regarding inheritance etc. Then again, has much changed? Most families that live in poverty seem to be single family homes.
One wonders why a woman should be locked away for life for adultery. I think some of the capital punishment laws were too harsh.
BTW: They did not lock away those who committed adultery, they stoned them.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by whodeyWhat nonsense. Infidelity has been pretty much the normal state of man throughout history. We haven't died out as a result.
Too harsh eh? Put yourself in the shoes of those who lived back then when these laws were put into place. The implications of infidelity were a matter of life and death because the survival of the family unit/tribe unit was a matter of life or death.
In addition, women were basically powerless. They depended on men to marry to have a certain measure of security.
And your point is?
In addition, if you had your wife having children from another man you have issues regarding inheritance etc.
OK, so lets kill any women that have sex outside marriage because somebody else's child just might inherit our money. Are you for real?
Then again, has much changed? Most families that live in poverty seem to be single family homes.
Are the rich any different? My impression was that wealthy nations like the US had far higher divorce rates than poor nations like Zambia.
BTW: They did not lock away those who committed adultery, they stoned them.
I knew that. I was responding to the claim that stoning was only necessary because locking them away was impractical.
Just for the record, do you seriously believe that it was ever reasonable (an morally acceptable) in any tribe in human history to stone to death a woman for adultery?