Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Jesus was a Democrat.

BUMP...

 

[Bustem' Down]

BUMP...

You're still dumb.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Oh my. I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you because it's a waste of my time.

I am glad you came over to the fun side and start wasting your time with the rest of us. No need to save time.

Do you realize what you're saying? Christians have something that Satan doesn't need and that is "Faith". Satan doesn't need faith because he knows God exists. Can you figure out the rest?

That is so very true, but we know that God exist too and yet we need faith big time.

Satan does not need faith to live but we do.

 

[2ndAmendment]

BTW, I just realized that you are saying that you understand scripture, but Satan (fallen angel...there when it all happened) doesn't know scripture. That takes some serious balls and/or stupidity.

I have determined that it is best not to respond in any way to JPC sr. He always gets it wrong, never understands, and proves his stupidity with every post. Best to let him wither on the vine with no one to post with. If JPC starts a thread, don't read it; don't post in it; just let it die. If we can all do this, JPC will have no audience or affect.

 

[ylexot]

I have determined that it is best not to respond in any way to JPC sr. He always gets it wrong, never understands, and proves his stupidity with every post. Best to let him wither on the vine with no one to post with. If JPC starts a thread, don't read it; don't post in it; just let it die. If we can all do this, JPC will have no audience or affect.

Yup. I already put him on iggy.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Actually with all of his helping the poor and downtrodden, his social reforms, it was more of a leftist stance. The Ultra right wing would have been the Pharisees, the Temple Priests, with all of thier Temple law and such. Jesus was a Democrat.

Jesus and the disciples were actually communists to a degree. They held their money, food, and pretty much everything in common. Of course even their commune had its faulty member, Judas, who, besides betraying Jesus, also stole money since he was the keeper of the common money. But, they also had their own holdings and families, so, while they traveled together, they practiced communism. When they returned to their families, they became capitalist/consumer/producers. After Jesus' resurrection, the early church also held much in common to be shared (early chapters of Acts).

 

[2ndAmendment]

Especially when he thinks Satan wanted to be God's Ryker

I have determined that it is best to ignore much of what you post, too.
But for different reasons.

 

[JPC sr]

JPC sr "EXTRODIANIRE".

Especially when he thinks Satan wanted to be God's Ryker

I do not think 2A knows who Will Ryker is and that is why he says he will ignore you.

Or he might think that you are a demon too.

 

[ItalianScallion]

My responses in red:

You forgot Sig Heil Sig Heil, you fundamentalist lunatic.

You point out issues with DemocRATs, yet ignore that the RepuTARDs can and do have some of the same issues. No I don't. In my post #58 you'll see I'm not a big republican fan either Einstein! I even call them the lesser of 2 evils because of the lack of good candidates there.

Its not a Us (Rep) vs Them (Dem) confrontation, we are all Americans. Its realizing that they have a different Mindset, can be very fanatic about their ideals, and have an agenda. BUT SO DO Republicans. You're so confused genius! That "different mindset" will cost us our freedoms someday. Right now, your "dem" party is trying to pass a "fairness bill" to silence conservative talk shows on TV & radio! They don't just want to be heard, they want to silence anything they don't agree with (free speech?) and, if you have 1/8 if a brain, you should see that this will take away more of our (YOUR) free speech rights. "We're all Americans"?!! They don't have America's best interests at heart. Wake up!

You are blinded by your fundamentalism, if not you'd see (outside of the War on Terror) there really isnt alot of big picture difference between Republicans and Democrats. Then vote republican in 2008 if there isn't much difference.

I'm against late term abortions (i'm on the fence about early abortions), but not because some made up mythical being, talked about in a fictional book. its because i've seen the results of what is removed after the procedure, and feel anything with 2 legs, 2 arms, a recognizable head and eyes is a person.
That would be fine if our "made up mythical being talked about in a fictional book" hadn't said otherwise! For the record, I'm against ALL abortions!

I dont believe in MAN MADE global warming, although i do believe we are in a period of natural warming. but with that said, i dont have a problem with conservation, and moving away from fossil fuels, if a viable, and less intrusive (not cutting down the rain forests so we can grow more corn ) alternative comes around. OMG Nucklesack, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

One of the arguments that used to be made is Homosexuality is not natural. Unfortunately for those making that argument, there are documented cases in Nature of it occuring (more).
The other "argument" is from the Fundamentalists (an argument you share with the Muslims ). But why do you pick this one, homosexuality, to follow? why arent you consistent? repressing much? Again, if our "made up mythical being talked about in a fictional book" hadn't said otherwise, you'd be OK with your opinion. That study is apples & oranges. Dogs eat their poop & vomit, SHOULD WE?

There are examples a plenty of the Bible on how to deal with :

• Blasphemers (Stone them to Death and kill their babies)
• Women wearing pants
• Women who wear gold or pearls
• Women with short hair and Men with long hair
• Its ok to Divorce (Deuteronomy 22:13 and 24:1-2)
• Its ok to sleep with your Daughters (Genesis 19:30-36)
• Bastard children should not go to church (Deuteronomy 23:2)
• Men can have multiple wives (Exodus 21:10, Judges 8:30, 2 Samuel 12:7-8, 1 Chronicles 4:5)
• Mentrating women, they are unclean (Leviticus 15:19-30)
• Women that are Raped, if they dont cry loud enough they should be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
• Witches (Exodus 22:18)
• Slavery is ok (there are lots of examples)
• Womens Rights (Link)

The last 2 were probably used during the Civil Rights debates... hmm similiarity? Please don't attempt use Bible teachings until you know how to understand them and why they were written. To you they look like mass chaos, but to Christians they show God's patience with mankind's sinfullness. And, when explained, you'll see that there is a very clear and definite teaching in each of those Scriptures that you obviously don't see now. Rock on dude!

 

[Bustem' Down]

My responses in red:

I found a candidate for you to vote for.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm#archangel

 

[2ndAmendment]

You can post in quotes and still be quoted.

Ahh i see, only the mistaken and/or misguided can understand the book? So i dont understand the book? i got ya, so this is similiar to Jesus's mustard seed mistake? the book states it, the book is divinly inspired, so the book cant be wrong. if mistakes are pointed out....... The reader must be reading it incorrectly

Your fictional book states

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters - Genesis 19:30

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth (this was after the destruction of S&G, it could be the Daughters thought there were no men left) - Genesis 19:31

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father (sparky, what did they mean when they stated they will lie with him? and what was his seed they wanted preserved?) - Genesis 19:32

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; (I guess they meant she having nappy time with her father?) and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. - Genesis 19:33

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. (its now the younger daughters turn for nappy time) - Genesis 19:34

And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. - Genesis 19:35

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father (must be one of those translations that were mistranslated yet the book is divine so its ok). - Genesis 19:36

And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. - Genesis 19:37

And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day. - Genesis 19:38

You let me know what i misunderstood sparky.

While your at it, let us know how i misrepresented any of the points

And it is this kind of stuff that I usually ignore, but because of your quote comment, I just had to do this. The most of the rest of your post is pure humanistic delusion.

The Bible verses you quote are after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the death of Lots wife when she looked back as was turned into a pillar of salt. The daughters of Lot thought that Lot and themselves were the last three people alive. So, they chose to preserve the species. It was a bad decision. It was sin. Incest is sin; happens all the time, even today, but it is sin. Many sins are committed with good intentions. Hence the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Even if the daughters of Lot committed sin and were not stoned to death does not bring to light any contradictions in the Bible. It shows that sometimes people sin with the best of intentions and that sin is forgiven. That people sin and God forgives sin is the central message of the Bible.

 

[Bustem' Down]

You can post in quotes and still be quoted.
And it is this kind of stuff that I usually ignore, but because of your quote comment, I just had to do this. The most of the rest of your post is pure humanistic delusion.

The Bible verses you quote are after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the death of Lots wife when she looked back as was turned into a pillar of salt. The daughters of Lot thought that Lot and themselves were the last three people alive. So, they chose to preserve the species. It was a bad decision. It was sin. Incest is sin; happens all the time, even today, but it is sin. Many sins are committed with good intentions. Hence the saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Even if the daughters of Lot committed sin and were not stoned to death does not bring to light any contradictions in the Bible. It shows that sometimes people sin with the best of intentions and that sin is forgiven. That people sin and God forgives sin is the central message of the Bible.

Still, have much booze did they have!!??

 

[2ndAmendment]

Still, have much booze did they have!!??

Would that be "how?"

Apparently quite a lot for Lot. Zoar is where Lot fled to. It was a town, apparently of reasonable size, so I guess it had a tavern or two or more. Lot and his daughters actually slept in a cave in the mountains above Zoar.

Safi, Jordan is believed to be the Zoar of Genesis.

 

[ItalianScallion]

you post in quotes so you cant be quoted dont you?

No, I just thought it would be easier for others to follow since you were soooo long. I'll make this one short, no need to answer everything again.
I was not ignoring what the republicans do, this issue was about the democrats so I addressed it. Pay attention son!
The Bible verse actually reads women are not to wear men's clothing and vice-versa (not just pants). This was written to prohibit what transvestites do. God made them man & woman and that's how they are to stay.
Divorce; Yes, there are 2 Biblical reasons for divorce that God allows. What about it?
Yes, Lot's daughters DID sin by doing what they did. What point are you making about this issue?
The Bible speaks of many things that God doesn't approve of. They are in there to teach us about them. The Bible, in places, is a history book and says things that people did long ago and, in some cases, still do today. What's wrong with that?
Finally, you can say anything about me that you want and it rolls off of me. Speaking against God's Word will be your condemnation. Not my words but His, as 2A quoted earlier. Not being sure of what it says or wanting more answers is fine, but what will you do when you see that the judge is NOT mythical and YOUR words convict you in His court? Just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't exist. A word to the wise. Did I miss anything?

 

[ItalianScallion]

We're going to have to meet in person, your comments are too many to write but I'll try to deal with them briefly.
Women & men were not to dress in each others clothes because God wanted them to be separate and distinct and not look like each other so as not to "disrespect" His creation. Even a man's long hair is spoken against in the New Testament. God is speaking against men wearing clothing specifically for women. They didn't have "jeans" back then and I doubt if God would get mad at your wife for wearing your flannel shirt or jeans, but if you put on her dresses, bra, heels, lipstick, etc., He would. Think of the clothing back then (mostly long gowns & veils) and this is what God said for men not to wear. Women also were to dress "modestly" so as to prevent "lusting" by men, competition by other women and possible sexual assaults. Moses would roll over in his grave if he saw the way some girls dress today.
Women were to be silent in church because they were more talkative and "disruptive" than the men were. That practice was for the people back then. Today, this is not a problem in church.
The women were to be submissive to the men because God said: Christ is the Head of man, man the head of the woman and the women over the kids. This is just so that there is order in the family and not a dictatorship. Women in the OT were looked down upon and they still are in the Muslim world. Men are told to love, respect & honor their wives, not be a slave driver to them nor to treat them as lesser beings. There are just some things that only men should do and some things that only women should do. Everything else is OK for either to do.
Divorce. This is why we read the entire Bible. Mark 10v11 says that women can divorce men also but for only the same 2 reasons. Adultery & desertion.
And for Sodom & Gomorrah, it may have been for the sins you mentioned also, but it was definitely for homosexual sins too. This is where they get the name sodomy from. Read Genesis 13v13 and 19v5 to see this.
You need to realize that the OT was written in a very legalistic (many laws) way because God is a God of law & order. He established this in the OT but then (Jesus) came in the NT to tell people that they were getting TOO legalistic and they made "law keeping" ridiculously impossible for people to follow. I think there was over 600 laws that man & God had made and there was no way anyone could keep them all. Nucklesack, it seems to me that you won't accept the Bible no matter what I say so I don't want to make this a forever thing but if you'd like to meet somewhere and talk this out all at once I'd be ok with it. I am a man by the way so put your mind at ease. If you just want to air it out on the forum, that's fine but this is a very slow way to do it. It's easier to talk than type. You're up dude!

 

[2ndAmendment]

...

Do you really feel God wants lemmings?

He wants sheep. He is the Good Shepherd.

As to the Jewish Laws, they are all there to show us that we sin. People are sinners, plain and simple. God forgives sinners; He manifested Himself as the Son of Man, Y'shua, Jesus, as the only sacrifice needed. The Bible has one central theme, the continual failings of man when not obeying God and God's continual forgiveness and love. The history, census, Psalms, Proverbs, and prophesy are there to reinforce and provide guidance and example.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Here is what the Bible states:

• The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5

So what would be mens garments? When my wife wears my jeans or T-shirts she's an abomination? If they make dresses for men, is that ok? Were the Scottish Sinners? and did they all go to hell for their abomination?
Since we are on the subject of women, the Bible is very telling on how it feels they should be treated.

• In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; - Timothy 2:9
• Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. - Timothy 2:11
• But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence - Timothy 2:12

• Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives - Peter 3:1
• Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel - Peter 3:3
• For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands - Peter 3:5

• But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. - 1 Corinthians 11:3
• For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. - 1 Corinthians 11:8
• Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. - 1 Corinthians 11:9

• Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law - 1 Corinthians 14:34
• And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church - 1 Corinthians 14:35

• Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. - Ephesians 5:22
• For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body - Ephesians 5:23
• Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing - Ephesians 5:24

• Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. - Colossians 3:18
• Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them - Colossians 3:19

There are a host of verses about Wives having to submit and be in subjucation to their husbands. To be fair usually its followed with telling Husbands to Love their Wives. But there is a huge difference between telling a wife to submit and a husband to love.
Must be one of them pesky translational errors again?​

• When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. - Deuteronomy 24:1
• And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. - Deuteronomy 24:2
• And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife - Deuteronomy 24:3
• Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.- Deuteronomy 24:4

I couldnt find where a women could initiate the divorce, but based on the Bibles stances towards women submitting to their husbands, there probably isnt a way.
According to the book, the only thing that has to happen is a women has to lose favor with her Husband, so the next time you hear how Divorce is causing the decline of morals in our country, maybe you should ask why the Bible has a "War on Marriage"? ​

Because the parable about Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a larger story in Genesis. The moral of S&G is about how God destroyed the towns, as punishment because of the violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons. To think Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual sex is as valid an analysis as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a story about fishing

God saved the "Just and Rightous", Lot and his family.

After Lot and his family flee Sodom, Lot disobeys God (Genesis 19:22) and instead flees to the mountains (Genesis 19:30). Where he and his daughters dwell, and the daughter then proceed to save his seed.

Should bring up questions Gods decision on who is and is not "Just and Rightous"​

But you miss the instructions to the husbands. Context is everything.

Ephesians 5:22-33

22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

30because we are members of His body.

31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

If a husband loves his wife as Jesus loves the Church, then the husband will suffer and even die to protect and care for his wife.

I know it is not in the womens liberation handbook, but children are better raised when the mother is there to care for and correct them all the time. In todays world, many women are in the work force and have careers. That is largely the result of the World Wars, especially WWII. Women went to work in the factories because there were no men to fill the jobs. That is not to say that women were not in the work force prior to that time, but it was not the general case.

When the war ended, the men came home and the economy boomed. Consumer goods were being produced at a fantastic rate and couples realized they could have more "things" if they both worked. We have become addicted to "things" that we just have to have that wind up in the basement and when that gets full, we build storage sheds, and when we can build any more storage sheds, we go rent a storage locker. We have becomes slaves to our "things" and many of them we don't even use. I confess; I am guilty of being a slave to my "things."

I personally think that a woman that stays home to take care of the household and the children are very honorable and that the jobs they do are invaluable. My wife is not in the work force; I like that, but it is her choice. She certainly works and works hard in the home. Thank you sweetheart.

 

[ItalianScallion]

...if your argument (about the clothing thing) is "times have changed", what pertained back then doesnt neccesarily pertain now, why do you get stuck on homosexuality? Why is it you follow the scriptures about Homosexuality but not about mens long hair (and Jesus is typically pictured with long hair lol).

Homosexuality hasn't changed as far as being a serious evil in God's eyes. As I said earlier, there were so many laws in the OT that Jesus had to "save" us from some of them. You can't equate homosexuality with the OT sin of a man having long hair or a woman talking in church. It's like the Maryland law saying that you must have your headlights on when your wipers are on. A stupid law, but nonetheless a law. (BUT you'll never see a cop getting out of his cruiser in the pouring rain to enforce that one). It's like comparing bank robbery, sexual assault, shots fired, etc., with J walking. Jesus even said:"if you are going to live by the OT laws, you must keep them ALL" but He knew that NO ONE could so He came to teach us about GRACE.

It says in the book Women are to not speak in church (paraphrasing) and to have their questions answered by their husbands. it specifically states that. Why then do you ignore that, or say "Today, this is not a problem" yet still go after the homosexuals? why is there a difference?

Paul wrote about the women speaking in church because it was a problem in the Corinthian church. This needs to be understood IN CONTEXT. That is, whom it was written to and what it was written about. As I said in an earlier post, the Bible is also a book of history, so some of the stories are just that and do not apply to today. (unless talking in church becomes a problem again).

You are downplaying the verses, and trying to use 1 Corinthians 11:3 to excuse it. It wasnt all about "order in the family". I'll admit Colossians 3:18-21 was about family, but the first verse of it is Wives submit to your husbands. giving women a subservient role in the family.

Order in the family is a top priority with God. If there isn't order, there is disorder & divorce. God's original intent was FAR different than we see today in the family. He wanted the man to work and the woman could work until the kids came along but, even then, the woman sometimes worked harder than the man did. (Proverbs 31). Ask any GOOD woman: do you think childraising is a "subservient job or role"? Most of this submission of women and hard work for man was from the garden of Eden curse in Genesis 3. And, lastly, men were supposed to be more knowledgeable and better decision makers so to protect, guide & teach their wives in SOME areas. A far cry from some men today.

Ok you found a reason women can divorce a man.
BUT its a far cry to say a man can divorce because the women fell out of favor, is the same, as a women can divorce because of Adultry and desertion. Once again this plays back to the stance of Womens rights and submission.

Yes it was "a far cry" and that's why Jesus addressed this in the book of Matthew 19 v 8, 9. He even spoke against what Moses said because the Jews got seriously carried away with the laws, which led to legalism. Jesus overrode this "craziness" and clarified one of the 2 reasons for divorce for BOTH men & women today and Paul stated the other.

It doesn't say what the Sodomites did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though because many equate "Sodomite" with homosexual the current thought is homosexuality. The "current" thinking for years was Mary Magdalene was a whore, thats changed too.
Genesis 19:5 states: The thought is "that we may know them" means in a homosexual manner, but Ezekial 16:49 belies that. Most likely the thought about Genesis 19 v 5 is a translational error, probably meant nothing more than get to know them (in a non sexual sense)

First, you need to use the King James version A LOT LESS because of it's many translation errors and it's use of language that we don't use today. To "know someone" meant to have sex with them. Matthew 1 v 25 said that Joseph "knew Mary not" after Jesus was conceived in her. It doesn't mean he forgot who she was or disowned her. The NIV Bible says of Genesis 19 v 5, "where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them". No room for misinterpretation here. And yes, Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and demon possessed until Jesus saved her. The Ezekiel 16 verse was talking about Jerusalem not a literal (sister). The Bible sometimes compares a city or people to Sodom as the epitome of evil & degradation.

And the Old Testament violence and absurdities are always excused, to distance from the heartless brutality of the killing of women and children at the hands of Moses, Joshua, David, and the crazy laws about Women, Men's hair and slavery.
Yet you are sure quick to whip out Old Testament laws when it is convenient to do so. Jesus approves of the law and the prophets. He came to FULLFILL the laws of the Old Testament (Prequel). In the New Testament Jesus makes constant references to "scripture". What were these scriptures that Jesus was making reference to? The New Testament (Sequel)? At the time there was no such thing as a New Testament! There were only the scriptures of Moses and David (Old Testament - Prequel). How about this. Jesus gives an absolute endorsement of the teachings and laws of Moses : You are doing it with your arguments against homosexuality. which is it the Prequel or Sequel? If your using the Prequel to justify condemnation of Homosexuals, then where is your condemnation for the other items i pointed out?
Either you use the Old Testament or not.

You are going to find yourself caught in "circular reasoning", which means that, if you fail to understand how this book was written and what Jesus REALLY meant, you will end up contradicting your original point. Paul used 13 NT books to tell the Jews & some new Christians to LET GO of the LEGALISM of the OT. Jesus and Paul clearly said that if you hang onto every OT legality (law), grace will never work and is useless to you. Think about it. Jesus said in Matthew 5v18 "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED. When He says until everything is accomplished, He is talking about when His purpose for coming to earth is finished. Once Jesus died on the cross, the NT was ushered in and THEN some things in the OT were done away with. Mainly the OT sacrifices but also things like the silly hair regulations and some others. So, we don't "excuse" or pick & choose anything. God reveals to us what is relevant today and what isn't. Jesus would not destroy someone today for working on the Sabbath or a man who has long hair. The same as we today won't arrest someone who uses an 8 track tape instead of a digital IPOD. Silly comparison? Not in light of the point being made. Finally, Nucklesack, (although your quote from John 5v46 didn't show up here?) here are 5 of the places that Jesus was spoken about by Moses for you. Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 OT books. Genesis 49v10, Exodus 12v21, Leviticus 16v5, Numbers 24v17 & Deuteronomy 18v15. Although Jesus NAME was never used in the OT, He was spoken about hundreds of times in various OT books. FYI, I'll try to respond to all of your comments asap, but my Mom is about to meet Jesus so my days are very busy right now. See ya!

 

[czygvtwkr]

One of the arguments that used to be made is Homosexuality is not natural. Unfortunately for those making that argument, there are documented cases in Nature of it occuring (more).
The other "argument" is from the Fundamentalists (an argument you share with the Muslims ). But why do you pick this one, homosexuality, to follow? why arent you consistent? repressing much?

Monkeys also fling feces at each other and masturbate all the time out in the open. Does this make it ok for people to do?

 

[RadioPatrol]

So you will be fighting to preserve the perverted nation against the new revolution. I know that is what you swear to do; not quite in those words. You and ol' King George all the way. Right? Or am I miss reading you?