jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
It's only a few pages away from the part where it says the United States shall move the embassy to Jerusalem with an McDonalds on the lot adjacent. I can't believe how hard it is for some to miss the obvious and then argue about it.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,411
72 yr old eyeing presidential run says we need a fresh voice.....
The AP Interview: Hutchinson says Trump worst choice for GOP
By ANDREW DeMILLO
11 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who is considering running for president, on Tuesday called a third Donald Trump White House bid the “worst scenario" for Republicans and said his call for terminating parts of the Constitution hurts the country.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Hutchinson said he planned to make a decision early next year on whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Hutchinson, 72, leaves office in January after serving eight years as Arkansas' governor.
He's part of a growing cohort of Republicans eyeing a White House run at a challenging moment for the party, which fell short of its hopes for sweeping victories in last month's midterm elections. Trump, who has already announced another run for the presidency, has faced blame from some Republicans for contributing to the GOP's lackluster performance by elevating candidates and issues that didn't resonate with voters during the general election.
Hutchinson has previously said he wouldn't support Trump's candidacy in 2024, but on Tuesday, he didn't rule out backing Trump if he becomes the Republican nominee.
“That's really the worst scenario," Hutchinson said of another matchup between Trump and Biden. “That’s almost the scenario that Biden wishes for. And that’s probably how he got elected the first time. It became, you know, a binary choice for the American people between the challenges that we saw in the Trump presidency, particularly the closing days, versus Biden, who he made it that choice."
Hutchinson also derided Trump’s recent statement calling for terminating parts of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election as “so out of line and out of step with America that it almost does not deserve a response.”
“It hurts our country,” he said. “I mean, any leader, former president that says suspend the Constitution is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. And so we want to make sure that the people know that it’s Republicans that support the rule of law.”
Hutchinson said he's measuring how much financial support he'd have for mounting a presidential bid, but said he's also testing to see what kind of response his message is getting as he weighs a run. Hutchinson, who's been a regular presence on Sunday news talk shows, said he's been reaching out to other governors, members of Congress and evangelical leaders for advice on a possible run.
“The midterm elections made it clear to me that the GOP needs a bold agenda, but also new voices that’s articulating what our party stands for, the direction we want to take our country," Hutchinson said.
Hutchinson said he didn't view the midterms as a rejection of Republicans overall as much as of specific candidates.
“We're very disappointed that because of poor candidates, poor messaging, looking back instead of looking forward, we didn’t do as well as we should have in the midterm election," he said.
Despite the potentially crowded field, Hutchinson said he doesn't expect a repeat of 2016 when GOP rivals hoping to block Trump's candidacy instead split the vote. Hutchinson said he thinks the early primary and caucus states will winnow the number of rivals to Trump very quickly.
“I think it will be much more methodical this cycle than what we’ve seen in previous years," he said. “And I think that competition is good and it’s healthy."
Though he's offering himself up as a new voice, Hutchinson has been a fixture in Arkansas politics going back to the 1980s when the state was predominantly Democratic. Hutchinson is a former congressman who served in former President George W. Bush's administration as the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration and an undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Hutchinson has ramped up his criticism of Trump in recent months, including a speech at the Reagan Library where he recounted his experience as a U.S. attorney who prosecuted white supremacists in Arkansas in the 1980s. Hutchinson contrasted that background with Trump having dinner with a Holocaust-denying white nationalist and a rapper who has spewed antisemitic conspiracies.
Hutchinson said that contrast is one of the reasons he thinks his voice may be needed in the presidential race. Republicans need figures who speak the truth and are not worried "whether you’re satisfying somebody down in Mar-a-Lago or not," he said.
Hutchinson earned the ire of Trump last year when the governor vetoed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. GOP lawmakers overrode Hutchinson's veto and enacted the ban, which has been blocked by a federal judge.
Trump called Hutchinson a RINO — Republican in Name Only — for vetoing the ban. The governor's successor, former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has said she would have signed the ban into law.
Hutchinson, who has said he would have signed the measure if it was limited to gender-affirming surgery, called Arkansas' legislation “one of the most extreme in the country."
A vocal opponent of abortion who has signed other restrictions on transgender youth into law, Hutchinson said Republicans need to tread carefully on culture wars issues.
“The key thing is for Republicans and conservatives is to think about let’s not instinctively say, well, let’s use the power of government to accomplish our social agenda or our cultural agenda," he said. “You know, our first response is a strength in the home, the strength and the families and the communities and our churches and synagogues strengthen those because that’s the greatest impact on our culture."
Nearing the end of his eight years as governor, Hutchinson is touting his work on tax cuts and on expanding computer science courses as his top accomplishments. Hutchinson, who wrapped up his one-year term as National Governors Association chairman in July, is term limited and could not seek reelection. He said he thinks it's important to have a governor running for the office.
“I’m known for having a steady hand in leadership, but also a bold agenda," he said. “And I think that’s a good combination for a leader of the country."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.
also the part about tattoos, and the part about eating shellfish.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.
in fact Christians shouldnt be following the OLD LAW anyway since Christ fulfilled that Law(entire old testament), besides it was specific to the children(12 tribes) of Israel. And gentiles aint that.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
God is a Browns fan. That was already established.
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.
in fact Christians shouldnt be following the OLD LAW anyway since Christ fulfilled that Law(entire old testament), besides it was specific to the children(12 tribes) of Israel. And gentiles aint that.
I suppose, but you are not going to extract Christians from the Old Testament. They believe those fairy tales about Adam and Eve (NOT ADAM AND STEVE!), the Ark, splitting babies in two, etc.
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.
and if he did, it was left out of the new testament of the bible.
The two articles I read mention this too. The word "homosexual" wouldn't be in there because it wasn't a word yet. It doesn't come to be one until the 1800's and invented in Germany!
Hot damn this learning stuff is fun.
I don't recall ever hearing anyone quote the bible about tattoos or shelfish. Fish w scales, yes.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,411
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
God is a Browns fan. That was already established.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
If you're really serious about making this argument, I don't think that saying it wasn't what Leviticus meant is a winning one. While certainly there could be translation issues from Aramaic or what not, it does seem clear. The better argument is that Christians cannot pick and choose which parts of Leviticus they follow. Either you follow it or you don't. And if you don't, tell us all about how women are unclean, and her husband is unclean if he lays with her, and how women cannot speak in church. Force them to defend Leviticus across the board. Either he speaks for God or he doesn't.
in fact Christians shouldnt be following the OLD LAW anyway since Christ fulfilled that Law(entire old testament), besides it was specific to the children(12 tribes) of Israel. And gentiles aint that.
I suppose, but you are not going to extract Christians from the Old Testament. They believe those fairy tales about Adam and Eve (NOT ADAM AND STEVE!), the Ark, splitting babies in two, etc.
oh hell yeah i'd be down with the splitting a baby in two. that's metal!! \m/
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
God is a Browns fan. That was already established.
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
God is a Browns fan. That was already established.
God is a failure then.
kinda puts a dent in that "all knowing, all powerful" reputation, lol
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
God is a Browns fan. That was already established.
God is a failure then.
kinda puts a dent in that "all knowing, all powerful" reputation, lol
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
Wobby is god? Who knew?
lol, I figured that would get a few people riled up.
jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so where are these people getting this "betrayer of christ" stuff?
You have obviously never read the Bible.
Those aren’t references to homosexuality.
Lectivus again.
If a man lays with another man as if he were a woman they have both committed an abomination.
I'm no scholar but I think I know what they were getting at.
And I’m not a Hebrew scholar either, along with all the conservative Christians who aren’t, so the original text gets lost in translation and historical context gets left out. Scholars will talk about the original Leviticus text being a holiness code for Israel’s priests and more specifically the above was a rule against incest. Homosexual relationships wasn’t a part of the dialogue back then.
I would disagree with that as those points were definitely made in Lectivus too as well as other places.
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
The other often used references can also be debunked. What you find is there is no support for the anti-gay interpretation of the Bible and a lot of support against that interpretation.
I got curious because I have never even heard of someone challenging this, not on my radar, so I used the google. It's not as easy to find people debunking it as you'd think. I would think scholars have been over this for hundreds of years now?
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
Wobby is god? Who knew?
lol, I figured that would get a few people riled up.
Well, he's old enough and he rests a lot. Plus, I heard god made PBR $9.99 for an 18 pack.
Comments
As far as anything new with translations there most likely won't be. So it was written and now it's done? That was my attempt at a pun...
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
WASHINGTON (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who is considering running for president, on Tuesday called a third Donald Trump White House bid the “worst scenario" for Republicans and said his call for terminating parts of the Constitution hurts the country.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Hutchinson said he planned to make a decision early next year on whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Hutchinson, 72, leaves office in January after serving eight years as Arkansas' governor.
He's part of a growing cohort of Republicans eyeing a White House run at a challenging moment for the party, which fell short of its hopes for sweeping victories in last month's midterm elections. Trump, who has already announced another run for the presidency, has faced blame from some Republicans for contributing to the GOP's lackluster performance by elevating candidates and issues that didn't resonate with voters during the general election.
Hutchinson has previously said he wouldn't support Trump's candidacy in 2024, but on Tuesday, he didn't rule out backing Trump if he becomes the Republican nominee.
“That's really the worst scenario," Hutchinson said of another matchup between Trump and Biden. “That’s almost the scenario that Biden wishes for. And that’s probably how he got elected the first time. It became, you know, a binary choice for the American people between the challenges that we saw in the Trump presidency, particularly the closing days, versus Biden, who he made it that choice."
POLITICS
US poised to approve Patriot missile battery for Ukraine
US-hosted Africa summit opens with focus on youth, security
Biden to sign gay marriage bill at White House ceremony
Fusion breakthrough is a milestone for climate, clean energy
Hutchinson also derided Trump’s recent statement calling for terminating parts of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 election as “so out of line and out of step with America that it almost does not deserve a response.”
“It hurts our country,” he said. “I mean, any leader, former president that says suspend the Constitution is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. And so we want to make sure that the people know that it’s Republicans that support the rule of law.”
Hutchinson said he's measuring how much financial support he'd have for mounting a presidential bid, but said he's also testing to see what kind of response his message is getting as he weighs a run. Hutchinson, who's been a regular presence on Sunday news talk shows, said he's been reaching out to other governors, members of Congress and evangelical leaders for advice on a possible run.
“The midterm elections made it clear to me that the GOP needs a bold agenda, but also new voices that’s articulating what our party stands for, the direction we want to take our country," Hutchinson said.
Hutchinson said he didn't view the midterms as a rejection of Republicans overall as much as of specific candidates.
“We're very disappointed that because of poor candidates, poor messaging, looking back instead of looking forward, we didn’t do as well as we should have in the midterm election," he said.
Hutchinson is among several Republican candidates who are weighing a presidential run. Others include former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Another Arkansan, Sen. Tom Cotton, announced he wasn't seeking the Republican nomination.
Despite the potentially crowded field, Hutchinson said he doesn't expect a repeat of 2016 when GOP rivals hoping to block Trump's candidacy instead split the vote. Hutchinson said he thinks the early primary and caucus states will winnow the number of rivals to Trump very quickly.
“I think it will be much more methodical this cycle than what we’ve seen in previous years," he said. “And I think that competition is good and it’s healthy."
Though he's offering himself up as a new voice, Hutchinson has been a fixture in Arkansas politics going back to the 1980s when the state was predominantly Democratic. Hutchinson is a former congressman who served in former President George W. Bush's administration as the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration and an undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Hutchinson has ramped up his criticism of Trump in recent months, including a speech at the Reagan Library where he recounted his experience as a U.S. attorney who prosecuted white supremacists in Arkansas in the 1980s. Hutchinson contrasted that background with Trump having dinner with a Holocaust-denying white nationalist and a rapper who has spewed antisemitic conspiracies.
Hutchinson said that contrast is one of the reasons he thinks his voice may be needed in the presidential race. Republicans need figures who speak the truth and are not worried "whether you’re satisfying somebody down in Mar-a-Lago or not," he said.
Hutchinson earned the ire of Trump last year when the governor vetoed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. GOP lawmakers overrode Hutchinson's veto and enacted the ban, which has been blocked by a federal judge.
Trump called Hutchinson a RINO — Republican in Name Only — for vetoing the ban. The governor's successor, former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has said she would have signed the ban into law.
Hutchinson, who has said he would have signed the measure if it was limited to gender-affirming surgery, called Arkansas' legislation “one of the most extreme in the country."
A vocal opponent of abortion who has signed other restrictions on transgender youth into law, Hutchinson said Republicans need to tread carefully on culture wars issues.
“The key thing is for Republicans and conservatives is to think about let’s not instinctively say, well, let’s use the power of government to accomplish our social agenda or our cultural agenda," he said. “You know, our first response is a strength in the home, the strength and the families and the communities and our churches and synagogues strengthen those because that’s the greatest impact on our culture."
Nearing the end of his eight years as governor, Hutchinson is touting his work on tax cuts and on expanding computer science courses as his top accomplishments. Hutchinson, who wrapped up his one-year term as National Governors Association chairman in July, is term limited and could not seek reelection. He said he thinks it's important to have a governor running for the office.
“I’m known for having a steady hand in leadership, but also a bold agenda," he said. “And I think that’s a good combination for a leader of the country."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
no?
ok then.
because he didn't.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
in fact Christians shouldnt be following the OLD LAW anyway since Christ fulfilled that Law(entire old testament), besides it was specific to the children(12 tribes) of Israel. And gentiles aint that.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I read two articles and both claimed it is most likely about "pedastry", when an older man lies with a boy.
Never heard this in my life, again, not my wheelhouse. I will tell you I am interested to read more on it and if any bigger news outlets or research groups dove into this.
I've got reading material to delve into so TY!
Nothing found about an embassy in Jerusalem but mention of God being a Cowboys fan is mentioned...
Hot damn this learning stuff is fun.
I don't recall ever hearing anyone quote the bible about tattoos or shelfish. Fish w scales, yes.
God is a failure then.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Who would Jesus bomb
Can I get an Amen?!?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/voter-fraud-crusader-mark-meadows-may-be-charged-with-voter-fraud-after-registering-at-mobile-home/ar-AA15hrJ4
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©