|
DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/14/2017 11:23:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
You know i don't ...
I do? Then, who typed:
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub (emphasis by DaddySatyr)
... If that damn baker wants to discriminate because of his religion then by God he should also be protesting to have the death penalty for queers.
Butch
? It wasn't me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
...but justifying discrimination by verse and not follow the word of the Lord is hypocrisy.
I "justified" nothing. Leviticus "laid out" Hebrew law. Jesus never changed Leviticus' statement that homosexuality was sin. He did change Leviticus' proscribed "punishment"
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
And I would like to know why you believe the old Testament when it provides no proof of validity. You said you only believed certain parts of the old Testament because history provided a reasonable alternative of proof...
Actually, I didn't say that I only believed in certain parts of the OT, based upon history propping them up. I said that I tended to look at the Bible (all of it) with a critical eye and that, even after all that, I still relied on faith because I choose to believe the things said in the Bible.
What's going on here, is you're conflating two things, really. I said words to the effect that you're claiming, when I responded:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
that sort of insight, I think, is an interesting and worthwhile consideration for reading all of the bible.
I agree, though. I tend to look at all of the Bible with a critical eye. If it withstands my scrutiny, even if it still requires some faith, I'm okay with that. As an example: there's a military explanation for why Jericho's wall fell. So, I still believe it fell.
There's a theory about how Moses evaded the Egyptians which doesn't embody hundreds (or thousands) of Egyptian soldiers and charioteers dying. So, I still believe Moses got away.
... to:
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
im not in disagreement with anything you said, except for id clarify your paul meeting jesus thoughts with the road to Damascus interaction, in which paul met jesus not in the flesh, but in some spiritual form which proves all the more meaningful.
I was trying to keep it more "fact-based" for the dissenters. Believing Paul "met" Jesus requires not only faith in scripture, but faith in Paul who was human and the only one to make the claim. It couldn't be verified.
that sort of insight, I think, is an interesting and worthwhile consideration for reading all of the bible.
When talking about homosexuality and the OT and NT, I said:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
This discussion is (sort of) why I brought Leviticus into the argument (since the OT was invoked by someone else), but I really meant it in a more general way.
For years, the argument from Christians was: "The Bible forbids/condemns homosexuality".
The response from the Left/Pro-homosexual forces was: "Look, you ignorant 'christian', even Jesus said he came to 'perfect' the OT and He never condemned homosexuality".
It was upon that premise that I based my argument.
Jesus did indeed say that he came to "perfect" the law and I believe he did just that. The only mention of homosexuality in the NT was Paul (who never met Jesus), regurgitating Leviticus (I believe it was in I Corinthians, but I could be wrong).
Since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he never countermanded it, per se. I'll go further: I believe "silence lends assent" is an axiom. So, I believe Jesus "backed up" part of Leviticus' claim/teaching.
However, in a very broad and general way, Jesus changed Leviticus, when he stated: "Let he among you who is without sin ...".
So, He did (in my view) "perfect" Leviticus, when he acknowledged (by way of silence) that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean homosexuals should be put to death, as Leviticus clearly called for.
I would remind you (as I reminded someone earlier in the thread), Butch: Christians are called Christians because (presumably) they follow the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ can only be found in the NT, but that doesn't mean that Christians are supposed to ignore the OT, because Jesus didn't.
By His own statements, Jesus implied - with some exceptions, which He specifically taught/preached about - that the OT laws were not wrong. On a few occasions, He specifically said that the "perfect" Abrahamic Law was what He was teaching. So, the NT teaches that the OT is not "wrong", but that men had "done some damage" to God's original intent.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
well where is there proof about homosexuals and the old Testament.
I just answered that.
|
|
|
|
