GOP

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

gimmesometruth27 said:

and if he did, it was left out of the new testament of the bible.

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

gimmesometruth27 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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. 

So you haven't read the Bible either?

Go Beavers said:

static111 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

and if he did, it was left out of the new testament of the bible.

He didn't.  He did talk about border crossings though and building walls. 

I feel like these guys aren't reading the same bible as us.

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

and if he did, it was left out of the new testament of the bible.

He didn't.  He did talk about border crossings though and building walls. 

I feel like these guys aren't reading the same bible as us.

Maybe it came as a vision like it did to Reverend Maynard that harvest day is the holocaust...