Do Unbelievers Know...?

Originally posted by Peach
Well, for starters...Persians are not gone. Nor are Assyrians. They are both ethnic groups that still exist. Iran was known officially as Persia until the 1930s. And Israel is it's own country only because we decided to make it so.

Your 'prophecies' don't hold up to actual history.

Also, as far as god saying homosexuality is a sin...god said a lot of things in the old testament. But here's a fun fact that many Christians forget about - Jesus's sacrifice made it so Christians were freed from Old Testament law. Jesus preached to love and help everyone. So by saying that you believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible said so, what you are really saying is that you are ignoring a core tenet of your own religion and that you think you know better than your own savior. And if you are going to continue to insist it's a sin because of Leviticus, you'd better not be doing all of the other things that book forbids!

Though hypocrisy is common amongst Christians, it seems.

Also, being called out for something blatantly offensive, "word of god" or not, doesn't make you persecuted. Nor does being forced to accept you aren't the only religion around.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

First time I'm going to agree with Peach on something, and that is the freeing of people from the Law. Sure a sin is still a sin, but it should only be applied to Christians themselves. Imposing that upon non believers is pointless and even Jesus himself illustrates that in several parables.

On a side note... I approve of homosexuality much more than I approve of shellfish. Shellfish is just nasty.

My only problem right now is that secular society keeps me from making a whip and driving out the money changers.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
😆 Whoops, my bad. I knew I should have used different examples... Haha, see, I'll admit when I'm wrong 🙂

No, not your mistake. That would be the mistake of whoever wrote the Bible.

As well as all of the people who have translated it over the years. Who knows what's been lost in translation?

And no, Bat Dude, you are definitely incorrect here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Batdude,

Corinthians 6:9 - "effeminate" means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner". So god doesn't want men to be girly, not necessarily homosexual. I've met gay men who were stereotypical "manly men" in dress, manner, speak. All barring their sexual taste.

John 5:46 - If you're going to use this passage to dictate that Leviticus is back on the table, then don't pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are back on. It's all or nothing. Now tell me, do you eat shellfish? Mix materials of clothing? Do you condone slavery of Mexicans and Canadians? Sacrifice and burn bulls?

Matthew 19:5 - Doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong.

Matthew 5:17 - See above, if you're going to use this to support Leviticus, don't pick and choose. Accept all of Leviticus.

I didn't really want to have to go into a big Bible study on this issue, but that's ok, I have no problem doing that if you want me to.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, you're forgetting the second thing I bolded, "Abusers of themselves with mankind".

In Romans 1:27, we read:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

John 5:46 - You conveniently skipped Romans 7:7, which says we did not know sin but by the law. But we also see here, in the previous passage, Romans 7:6, we see this:

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Now if we put the two together...

"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

Putting all of that together, we see that the apostles were saying that we are delivered from the law, but that we know what sin is BY the law. What was sin under the law is still sin today. That has not changed. But we are not bound by the CEREMONY of the law.

We can eat pork and shellfish and etc. See here in 1 Timothy 4:4...

"For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:"

And here in Acts 10:12-15...

"Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

Matthew 19:5 - It sets the Biblical definition of a marriage, and is a direct quote from Genesis 2:24, where God says this:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

God the Father makes it abundantly clear what marriage is, proclaiming it at the creation of the human race. And Jesus (God the Son) re-iterates it during His ministry. If God had intended for there to be "same-sex marriage", He would have outlined it in His Word. But He didn't. Actually, He makes many mentions of how it is an abomination in His sight, a lot of which I've already posted.

Matthew 5:17 - Prohibition was legal a while back, but now it isn't. Since we've been freed of Prohibition, I guess we have to just throw out the whole Constitution then, right? I mean, according to you, it's all or nothing!

And no, Bat Dude, you are definitely incorrect here.

Then give me Bible for it. Not your opinion.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is still vague and could or could not be interpreted as "ewww, man-man buttsex."

I did not "conveniently ignore" anything, you tried using John 5:46 (and Matthew 5:17) as a means to support that Leviticus 18:22 is still in effect. I pointed out why just 18:22, when there's a laundry list in that book. Would you condone slavery under the guise of Leviticus?

And Matthew 19:5 still doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong. Your view of Matthew 19:5 as "biblical definition of marriage" is pointless. A marriage is a marriage because of human law (state law in the US), not because a religion (which there is more than just Christianity in the US) acknowledges it. If you don't believe, look it up. Just getting married in a church doesn't mean you're legally married, you have to file paperwork.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is still vague and could or could not be interpreted as "ewww, man-man buttsex."

I did not "conveniently ignore" anything, you tried using John 5:46 (and Matthew 5:17) as a means to support that Leviticus 18:22 is still in effect. I pointed out why just 18:22, when there's a laundry list in that book. Would you condone slavery under the guise of Leviticus?

And Matthew 19:5 still doesn't tell us homosexuality is wrong. Your view of Matthew 19:5 as "biblical definition of marriage" is pointless. A marriage is a marriage because of human law (state law in the US), not because a religion (which there is more than just Christianity in the US) acknowledges it. If you don't believe, look it up. Just getting married in a church doesn't mean you're legally married, you have to file paperwork.

And I pointed out that if we repealed Prohibition from our laws in the US, we obviously are no longer held to the other amendments since, according to you, its all or nothing.

What was a sin then is a sin now. Period.

Tell me, did you read the whole post before you replied, or just what you wanted to read?

I've made my points. If you want to read them, you can read my previous posts.

Either you didn't read them, or you ignored them.

According to the Bible, and according to Jesus, homosexuality is a sin. Whether someone believes it or not is another matter, but based on everything I posted, according to the Bible and according to Jesus Christ, it is a sin.

And that's all I have to say regarding the matter.

What now? The US Constitution was written to allow Amendments. Even amending Amendments.

Can you point me where in the bible it says something like 'ignore the parts of OT/Leviticus that are inconvenient for you, but not the parts that support your intolerant views'?

And what was condoned then, is condoned now.

Tell me, do you condone slavery? Leviticus 25:44 says it's okay. Blaming rape victims(might be a Deut, iirc)? Do you shave? Death penalty for adultery?

You'd think if Jesus was against something so much, he'd have outright said "homosexuality is wrong". He's a chill "live and let live" kind of guy though.

Originally posted by Robtard
What now? The US Constitution was written to allow amendments . Even amending amendments. Can you point me where in the bible it says something like "ignore these parts of Leviticus".

And what was condoned then, is condoned now.

Tell me, do you condone slavery? Leviticus 25:44 says it's okay. Blaming rape victims?

You'd think if Jesus was against something so much, he'd have outright said "homosexuality is wrong". He's a chill "live and let live" kind of guy though.

If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

Because they are flawed human beings.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they are flawed human beings.

So they're all just liars, then?

All 12? 🙄

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?

I didn't say Jesus was "pro-homosexual", just because you don't condemn something doesn't mean you're for it. eg homosexuality doesn't bother me and it's not my concern what two or more consenting adults do sexually, but do I go around trying to spread it or speak of its benefits? No.

Your statement also implies that the twelve apostles were without free-thought, that they by knowing Jesus didn't have their own individual hang-ups and such. They were men and as pointed out, man is flawed. So Paul was a gay-basher, it happens. Don't try and lay his intolerance on the big J.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
So they're all just liars, then?

All 12? 🙄

Originally posted by Bat Dude
What can I say? I'm not a big fan of "F*** f*** f***, look at me, I'm saying f***" type of comedians. Those three are some of the cleanest comedians I know of. And I don't know what you're talking about, but Pinette's pretty funny.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't care.

Prophecy isn't magic if it's of God. Yes, when fortune tellers and psychics and all these people try to prophesy, it's witchcraft and they're usually wrong with their prophecy anyway.

That's why the Bible talks about the test of a true prophet of God: if they are hitting on their prophecies 100% of the time.

But anyway, there's the problem. You wouldn't believe no matter what. It didn't matter what I said or did, you weren't going to believe anyway.

As the Bible said, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)

I see your problem: The bible was written by humans and not any god. The bible is no more the word of a god then the koran is. Also, I don't see why a god would prophesy in the first place.

Also, why would I believe in a false religion like Christianity? Just think about all the people who have been murdered by Christianity in the past. There is no good reason to believe in a religion with that much blood on its hands.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, why would I believe in a false religion like Roman Catholicism? Just think about all the people who have been murdered by Catholicism in the past. There is no good reason to believe in a religion with that much blood on its hands.

FIFY

Now it's truth.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
FIFY

Now it's truth.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
FIFY

Now it's truth.

Roman Catholicism = Christianity. From my point of view, the difference is small. At least Christians have stopped killing. But I still get nervous when Christians talk about “unbelievers” (code for people who believe in other religions).

Don’t you see how calling someone an unbeliever is disrespectful? Just remember the next time you get disrespected, that you started it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Roman Catholicism = Christianity. From my point of view, the difference is small. At least Christians have stopped killing. But I still get nervous when Christians talk about “unbelievers” (code for people who believe in other religions).

Don’t you see how calling someone an unbeliever is disrespectful? Just remember the next time you get disrespected, that you started it.

Roman Catholics believe:

-Mary is their "co-redeemer"
-Bowing before statues is ok
-You get to heaven by practicing the seven sacraments
-The wafer and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus
-The pope is the "vicar" (substitute) for Jesus on earth

You get the idea...

Christians believe:

-Jesus is the only mediator between God and man
-You should only bow to God and make NO graven image (idol)
-You get to heaven by having faith in Jesus Christ
-The bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross
-The pope is a dictator sitting on a throne in Rome

An unbeliever is not a derogatory term. It is a matter of fact term. You don't believe in Christianity, do you? Hence, you are an unbeliever. Just like I'm an unbeliever in Buddhism. Besides, I'd rather offend you telling you the truth than tickle your ears with lies, anyway.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Roman Catholics believe:

-Mary is their "co-redeemer"
-Bowing before statues is ok
-You get to heaven by practicing the seven sacraments
-The wafer and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus
-The pope is the "vicar" (substitute) for Jesus on earth

You get the idea...

Christians believe:

-Jesus is the only mediator between God and man
-You should only bow to God and make NO graven image (idol)
-You get to heaven by having faith in Jesus Christ
-The bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross
-The pope is a dictator sitting on a throne in Rome

An unbeliever is not a derogatory term. It is a matter of fact term. You don't believe in Christianity, do you? Hence, you are an unbeliever. Just like I'm an unbeliever in Buddhism. Besides, I'd rather offend you telling you the truth than tickle your ears with lies, anyway.

Until Christianity (your religion) is able to face, and except the wrongs that it has done in the past, then Christianity (your religion) is bound to repeat it.

No, unbeliever = less than human.
I am NOT an unbeliever! I believe in BUDDHISM!

Batdude's "Christians" are a minority of Christians.

I love how he thinks the King James Bible is somehow authoritative when all the Biblical Scholars and Religion Professors I've talked to read it to their kids or in the bathroom but laugh when asked about it's accuracy or propinquity to the original Greek/Hebrew.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Roman Catholics believe:

-Mary is their "co-redeemer"
-Bowing before statues is ok
-You get to heaven by practicing the seven sacraments
-The wafer and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus
-The pope is the "vicar" (substitute) for Jesus on earth

You get the idea...

Christians believe:

-Jesus is the only mediator between God and man
-You should only bow to God and make NO graven image (idol)
-You get to heaven by having faith in Jesus Christ
-The bread and wine are symbolic of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross
-The pope is a dictator sitting on a throne in Rome

An unbeliever is not a derogatory term. It is a matter of fact term. You don't believe in Christianity, do you? Hence, you are an unbeliever. Just like I'm an unbeliever in Buddhism. Besides, I'd rather offend you telling you the truth than tickle your ears with lies, anyway.

Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Someone who is Catholic is also Christian. Someone who is Christian may be Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, UCC, and so on and so forth.