Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

d-usa wrote:And I think this thread may be done.

Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)

There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone.

And GeneralGrog still has been unable to respond to my question of how someone can call themselves a Christian and quote Leviticus when it comes to gay rights, but yet ignore Leviticus when they shave, get a haircut or wear a poly-cotton blend shirt. I will assume that he has chosen to pretend this simple question doesn't exist, as all Creationists do when faced with something that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.

Come on Matty, I'm having a good conversation with Bringer here. No need to take Grog's flamebait.

The Bringer wrote:Fair enough. Personally I've always been bad at summarizing the Bible with few words.

It's a large and extremely varied book.

The Bringer wrote:But God doesn't love us just the way we are. He loves us just the way we are minus sin

I don't know. After all, God did send Her only son to die to forgive our sins. She doesn't LOVE our sins, but She also doesn't detest them quite so strongly as you seem to suggest.

A sort of "I don't hate you, but I am disappointed" sort of thing, like many parents feel about their wayward children. Which seems appropriate, for She is a parent to us-- both the Mother and the Father. And She asks us: "Will you be my child?" ~ John 1:12-13

The Bringer wrote:Are you trying to bait me by saying her?

No. But I figure it doesn't matter which gender is used. God is everything that both genders are; at the same time, She is also everything that they are not. Male, and not, female, and not. It doesn't really matter which gender is used to represent Her, because both are accurate and yet neither is really accurate.

The Bringer wrote:For now I will say you are correct, though I don't like it when people say the core theme of the Bible is this or that because it leaves so much out of the picture that is absolutely vital. I'd say mercy and justice are two other themes that are both incredibly prominent. Though really, mercy could be considered as one facet of love.

Mercy is indeed an aspect of love, applied love if you will.

Justice, however... there is justice, and yet, the justice that She advocates is not a harsh, hateful, unforgiving justice. It is that of a parent that wants to see us grow in to something great.

The Bringer wrote:What happened to the homosexuality debate?

It never really stopped, it just moved on to a related tangent. The bible doesn't really talk about homosexuality, despite what many modern translations think.

Although I know that some people on this forum will be annoyed, I'll bring up Matthew and the "Eunouchos" argument again, if you want.

KJV wrote:“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

The term "eunuchs" in the KJV is not a bad translation, but it has lost a lot of its context from the time it was written. Eunouchos-- the original term-- was not a very precise term back in BIblical times. The average person in those times used half the vocabulary the average person in modern times used, and the language was nowhere near as scientifically precise as the one we have-- so because of tha and cultural reasons, Eunouchos (the term translated in to Eunuch) included those who did not breed for non-biological reasons as well.

Thus, this quote. Those who are born "eunouchos" from their mother's womb (those born homosexual; eunouchos were often looked down upon in Roman culture because they, were, well... bottom partners in gay sex, with a lot of stereotypical homosexual traits associated with them); those who are made "eunouchos" of man; those physically or psychologically scarred so that they cannot breed and don't want to marry; and those who make themselves "eunouchos" for the kingdom of heaven (scholars, nuns, monks, and those who decide to follow a life of self-denial in the name of faith). All of them, according to Jesus, should accept who they are, not deny it, and receive Her love and Her blessings in Heaven.

Keep in mind that back then, the idea of not participating in a heterosexual marriage as fast as possible was a rather radical one. The concept of an afterlife was, relatively speaking, fairly new, and most people still wanted to carry on the bloodline as the only way to live beyond death. The very concept of gay marriage did not exist back then because marriage was only barely recognizable with marriage today, even modern heterosexual marriage.

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Some of the things you have said about people in the past have made me want to vomit. You say things like "It isn't his fault he is a disgusting pervert" and then cringe behind your Religious claptrap to avoid bans and warnings. Its truly hypocritical and absolutely disgusting, and the only possible reason you get away with it is because you play the perennial victim with consummate expertise and cower behind your faith.

Ergo, you are out of line for all of the above.

Case in point.

But I guess I provoked him right?

GG

Yes.

Take this for example.

generalgrog wrote:You(mannahnin) have a personal axe to grind against me for my stance on homosexuality and that has colored your viewpoint of me.

Its one of the most laughable things I have ever read. Its like saying "Just because of my stance on those disgusting black people.. you have a coloured viewpoint of me"

Calling people perverts (you have said it NUMEROUS times) by definition IS slanderous, and you ARE a bigot. You are one. A fully fledged member of the bigot brigade.

I however, am not bigoted, I don't have an axe to grind against Christians, because the overwhelming majority of them aren't like you. Most people on dakka identify themselves as Christians, I don't give them any gak. I give you gak, because you are a bigot.

Isn't that a fair way to behave? Hitler was a bigot, would you demand I be polite to him if he was on dakka?

As I said, you are a master at playing the hurt feelings card and manipulating the mods thanks to your faith. Just like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart, you can get away with the most odious, hate filled and disgusting statements in a public forum as long as you can get yourself taken seriously as a man of faith.

It would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn't so tragic for the rest of America that you and your ilk get given such a free reign while everyone else has to watch what they say.

azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:And I think this thread may be done.

Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)

There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone.

And GeneralGrog still has been unable to respond to my question of how someone can call themselves a Christian and quote Leviticus when it comes to gay rights, but yet ignore Leviticus when they shave, get a haircut or wear a poly-cotton blend shirt. I will assume that he has chosen to pretend this simple question doesn't exist, as all Creationists do when faced with something that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.

Azazel..I thought I had responded. I thought I had pointed out that the Hebraic Law as laid out in Leviticus is not a requirement for being a Christian. That was an old covenant between God and the Hebrews, which later became the nation of Israel. We have a new covenant, through Jesus Christ (the Messiah) which is between God and all men to include Jews and Gentiles.

GG

azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:And I think this thread may be done.

Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)

There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone

Good thing is that none of these rules apply to Christians.

Old Covenant rules for Jews do not equal New Covenant rules for Christians, but of course I already explained that a few times in this thread.

But doesn't God rules trump Jesus rules? If God laid down the rules for the Hebrews then would that mean they are the chosen race of God.............ugh nevermind. I stick to being a warrior for Zues

generalgrog wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:And I think this thread may be done.

Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)

There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone.

And GeneralGrog still has been unable to respond to my question of how someone can call themselves a Christian and quote Leviticus when it comes to gay rights, but yet ignore Leviticus when they shave, get a haircut or wear a poly-cotton blend shirt. I will assume that he has chosen to pretend this simple question doesn't exist, as all Creationists do when faced with something that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.

Azazel..I thought I had responded. I thought I had pointed out that the Hebraic Law as laid out in Leviticus is not a requirement for being a Christian. That was an old covenant between God and the Hebrews, which later became the nation of Israel. We have a new covenant, through Jesus Christ (the Messiah) which is between God and all men to include Jews and Gentiles.

GG

So then you're acknowledging that Leviticus s not a valid cause for you to deny equal rights to homosexuals? Does that mean you've been hit by a blinding light (from a glitter ball?) and you now agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry?

Aaaaaaand /thread.

Squigsquasher wrote:Aaaaaaand /thread.

They've been saying this for 2-3 pages now, but it hasn't happened yet. Things generally seem pretty civil still.

The following posters are asked to no longer participate in the thread:

mattryrm
generalgrog
dogma

Any further posts by them in this thread will be deleted, and result in suspensions.

Jihadin wrote:But doesn't God rules trump Jesus rules? If God laid down the rules for the Hebrews then would that mean they are the chosen race of God.............ugh nevermind. I stick to being a warrior for Zues

Jesus officially was retconned to be one and the same as God after a conference held by the Catholics in the 5th C.

World's first Retcon?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:World's first Retcon?

I'd imagine that there are several ancient retcons that predate Nicea.

Mannahnin wrote:The following posters are asked to no longer participate in the thread:

mattryrm
generalgrog
dogma

Any further posts by them in this thread will be deleted, and result in suspensions.

NOW I'm following this thread with great interest.

Being "anti-gay" is not the point as far as an Evangelical is concerned. If gay is considered a sin, then acting on it is wrong. Period.

Where the evangelical fails - and the media puts them into this corner - is when it considers this as something worse than another sin. God pleasing activity is what every Christian should be striving for. Man puts degrees on sin saying one is worse than the other. In God's eyes, all sin is abhorrent. Whether it is skipping church, bad-mouthing another, lustful thoughts, murder, stealing, etc.

When viewed in this light, it should be obvious that we all need help whether it is being a lazy fart who doesn't go to church, a foul-mouthed person, a person who lusts after another person, being resentful of someone else's station in life, or - yes - being gay.

And all that still assumes that being gay is a sin in the eyes of God, which isn't actually a proven thing, it's just a baseline assumption.

Being gay is a reason to need help?

Nice.

Im Christian. And i seriously dont give a frak whenever someone is gay, lesbian, black, white or whatever else.

Daemonhammer wrote:Im Christian. And i seriously dont give a frak whenever someone is gay, lesbian, black, white or whatever else.

I just want America to agree as a Christian nation to outlaw the intermarriage between gays and straights.

AustonT wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:Im Christian. And i seriously dont give a frak whenever someone is gay, lesbian, black, white or whatever else.

I just want America to agree as a Christian nation to outlaw the intermarriage between gays and straights.

MrDwhitey wrote:Being gay is a reason to need help?

Nice.

As expected, my statement is sliced and reduced to one facet. If it is wrong to have sex out of marriage, indeed to view another person with lust. Explain to me how gay activity is God-pleasing? I am not demonizing someone for being Gay anymore than some other fault or limitation that someone may be dealing with. Talk about allowing gay marriage and perhaps we have a cause. As far as sex outside of marriage, it is pretty much not considered God-pleasing. So if you want me to expand, the gay lifestyle is no more wrong than any guy shacking up with a girl. THAT is my point.

The other point is that we all have failings. My problem with the evangelicals is not their anti-gay stance per se. It is that they add degrees to one or another sin/fault of another. As if this is number 1 whereas this is number 555 on the list of bad things to do. They are all wrong, equally. So don't go pointing fingers at one person or another for their failings... You have your own failings. Stop worrying about what other people do and start thinking about how you can make yourself right with God. Don't care about making yourself right with some other humans perception of you.

As expected, my statement is sliced and reduced to one facet. If it is wrong to have sex out of marriage, indeed to view another person with lust. Explain to me how gay activity is God-pleasing?'

Explain to me how straight activity is God-pleasing?

He's saying that any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered sinful, and that as presently constituted most Christian definitions of marriage don't include gay folks.

Thankfully this is changing.

I saw taht ,but still, that question rather bugged me.

Jihadin wrote:But doesn't God rules trump Jesus rules? If God laid down the rules for the Hebrews then would that mean they are the chosen race of God.............ugh nevermind. I stick to being a warrior for Zues

Gods rules only apply to Jews, we are chosen to do more for god not to do less. According to Judaic belief it is easier for a gentile to be better person in the eyes of God then a jew

So Judaism/hebrew was before Chistianity? Bookwise?

Jihadin wrote:So Judaism/hebrew was before Chistianity? Bookwise?

Yes. Jesus was an iternerant Rabbi and all of the Apostles were Jews. Jesus is seen by Christianity as the fulfillment of Mosiac(Jewish) prophesy.

I'm going to stop there.

Why you mother....
/troll

MrDwhitey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:Im Christian. And i seriously dont give a frak whenever someone is gay, lesbian, black, white or whatever else.

I just want America to agree as a Christian nation to outlaw the intermarriage between gays and straights.

What movie are the clapping dudes from?

Mannahnin wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:We are best able to expand our own minds and those of others if we keep the idea exchange friendly and don't dismiss or look down on one another.

So we can't look down on someone who uses there personal beliefs as an excuse for there discrimination towards others?

A) That's not what I said.
B) Dakka rules don't permit you to be nasty to someone on here, even if they engage in behavior or speech you find immoral and objectionable.

If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse.

Now, that I think about it, it was kind of a stupid question with an obvious answer, sorry about putting words in your mouth too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

blood reaper wrote:

Melissia wrote:When directed towards a goal, pride can be useful as a motivating tool. Thus the old phrase, "have some pride in your work".

But it shouldn't allowed to take control of yourself.

Indeed.

However emotion should not be surpressed.

So you're saying that I shouldn't suppress the emotional desire to rip someone's throat out with a pencil whenever I feel it next?

What you described is not an emotion but how you want to act when you react to a certain emotion.