Sorry, but if your a Christian, you simply cannot do this. The Bible says something quite different than this:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." If the anti-gay marriage lobby wants to use the Bible as an excuse, they should also promote the killing of homosexuals too.

uhm even if Xians took it literally only the act of buggery would incur the death penalty.

The passage also implies that sodomy with women is OK :)

Sorry, but if your a Christian, you simply cannot do this. The Bible says something quite different than this:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." If the anti-gay marriage lobby wants to use the Bible as an excuse, they should also promote the killing of homosexuals too.


I agree. The bible CANNOT be wrong. It cleary states that gays should be put to death. It is up to the faithful to carry out god's word.

If you dont kill pole smokers will you not go to heaven?

The passage also implies that sodomy with women is OK :)

Nice catch.

And true enough about it describing the law......but christians should want gays to be put to death then, right? They should be screaming for it to be a crime in the highest degree.

It would be disingeniune and non-christian to feel that homosexuals should live.

So how many xtians out there think gays should die?

Man alive. Deja-vu!

This topic made me think back to This Thread. (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1987890).

The problem is that what God says magically changes to match what is socially acceptable at a period in time.

So when it was perfectly acceptable to slaughter hundreds of heathens, God commands and the people obey. But when society starts asking questions... tadaa! It magically becomes some archaic commandment that should be ignored.

The problem is that what God says magically changes to match what is socially acceptable at a period in time.


Funny that. Maybe its true we make God in our own image.

The problem is that what God says magically changes to match what is socially acceptable at a period in time.

So when it was perfectly acceptable to slaughter hundreds of heathens, God commands and the people obey. But when society starts asking questions... tadaa! It magically becomes some archaic commandment that should be ignored.

Like kosher?

Like kosher?

Because I said all things must change in society through out history, huh?

Are you going to actually make a point, or just post one liners so you can feel intelligent?

Are you going to actually make a point, or just post one liners so you can feel intelligent?

I have never known you to make a baseless assumption such as that, so why start now? Your previous post makes it seem that there is absolutely no reasoning behind Christians not following the old Law.

I have never known you to make a baseless assumption such as that, so why start now?

I thought I'd return the favor seeing as your little comment was assumption, not to mention incorrectly stated.

Don't want me making harsh comments? Don't waste my time with ignorant one-liners. Put some thought into what you say; if you had, you'd see how your questions made little sense.

Your previous post makes it seem that there is absolutely no reasoning behind Christians not following the old Law.

No, it makes it seem as though Christians are influenced by the society they grew up in, and so is their interpretation of the bible. Interpretations can change, just as society changes.

Any "reasoning" they might have behind their new interpretations is incidental; it obviously did not exist before (or at least was no where near as popular). It would be utterly naive to think they have magically stumbled across the "correct" interpretation now.

No; it's a matter of convenience, whether they do it knowingly or not. Sticking to an interpretation that society vehemently opposes is a sure fire way of reaching religious extinction.

The passage also implies that sodomy with women is OK :)

No, it implies that fucking men with a snatch is wrong, how else does one lie with a man like one lies with a woman?

http://www.freakhole.com/data/gallery/media/fh-50273-0-Nice_Pussy,_Um,_Dude.jpg

I thought I'd return the favor seeing as your little comment was assumption, not to mention incorrectly stated.

An assumption? It is absolutely no assumption to say that the vast majority of Christians dont give a flying fuck about kosher!

No, it makes it seem as though Christians are influenced by the society they grew up in, and so is their interpretation of the bible. Interpretations can change, just as society changes.

Any "reasoning" they might have behind their new interpretations is incidental; it obviously did not exist before (or at least was no where near as popular). It would be utterly naive to think they have magically stumbled across the "correct" interpretation now.

No; it's a matter of convenience, whether they do it knowingly or not. Sticking to an interpretation that society vehemently opposes is a sure fire way of reaching religious extinction.

God said "thou shalt not steal". How many ways can that possibly be interpreted? I dont have to interpret the Bible any differently than you when we read that God said not to eat pigs, shrimp, and catfish.

It is no matter of convenience. Christianity does not dole out punishments any more than Christ would consent to the stoning of an adulteress. The Law set out what was right and wrong in God's eyes. The same God the Jews worship and praise when they stone murderers and rapists is the exact same person Christians pray to. What changed between the two?

Christ told the angry mob to GTFO because he wanted some "alone time" with the adulteress? Convenience indeed!

I dont have to interpret the Bible any differently than you when we read that God said not to eat pigs, shrimp, and catfish.


Confirmed. God hates Cajuns.

An assumption? It is absolutely no assumption to say that the vast majority of Christians dont give a flying fuck about kosher!

Actually, that is an assumption. However, that's not what I was referring to. The assumption is the implication that I was somehow saying that everything that changes must be because society didn't approve. I never said that, hence your example here is meaningless.

Yes, lets assume that Christians don't give a flying fuck about kosher foods ("kosher" is not a thing by the way, it's an adjective - it means "fit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws"). So what? Did I say otherwise? No, I did not.


I dont have to interpret the Bible any differently than you when we read that God said not to eat pigs, shrimp, and catfish.

You don't have to, but you can. Hence, why many Jews have gone from believing the dietary laws are absolute necessary commandments to believing they are nothing but archaic laws that don't apply in modern times.

What the Christian god (or any other god for that matter) said, changes from time to time, and society to society. It is interpreted differently to fit to what society deems acceptable or convenient. Modern non-compliance with Jewish dietary laws just help my point!

Christianity does not dole out punishments any more than Christ would consent to the stoning of an adulteress. The Law set out what was right and wrong in God's eyes. The same God the Jews worship and praise when they stone murderers and rapists is the exact same person Christians pray to. What changed between the two?

Christ told the angry mob to GTFO because he wanted some "alone time" with the adulteress? Convenience indeed!

What the fuck are you talking about? Make some sense please, because I'm not talking about "doling out punishments" or that other nonsense you're saying.

Was King David really gay? It'd be kind of weird if he really was gay and still made it into the bible, but his relationship with that guy was kind of nice.

You don't have to, but you can. Hence, why many Jews have gone from believing the dietary laws are absolute necessary commandments to believing they are nothing but archaic laws that don't apply in modern times.

Which has nothing to do with Christianity....

What the Christian god (or any other god for that matter) said, changes from time to time, and society to society. It is interpreted differently to fit to what society deems acceptable or convenient. Modern non-compliance with Jewish dietary laws just help my point!

What the fuck are you talking about? Make some sense please, because I'm not talking about "doling out punishments" or that other nonsense you're saying.

The point is that there is no interpretational from a time standpoint. The difference in interpretation is the same God speaking to two completely separate religions.

Which has nothing to do with Christianity....


Who the fuck said it did? You mentioned it, not me. Don't bring it up and then point out how it has nothing to do with Christianity....

I'm following your disastrous example to completion because my statements apply to other religions as well. Many modern Jews not following the dietary laws show how convenience and changing social standards have produced different "interpretations" of the bible.


The point is that there is no interpretational from a time standpoint. The difference in interpretation is the same God speaking to two completely separate religions.1. What does "there is no interpretational from a time standpoint" even mean? Please fix the error because I don't understand that sentence at all.

2. There are differences within those two separate religions (I'm assuming you're talking about Judaism and Christianity). What Jews believed hundreds of years ago is different from what they believe now. What Christians believed hundreds of years ago is different from what they believe now. Those differences are based, in large part, I believe, on changing societal standards.

That Jews and Christians believe different things, has little to do with what I'm saying.

Who the fuck said it did? You mentioned it, not me. Don't bring it up and then point out how it has nothing to do with Christianity....

I'm following your disastrous example to completion because my statements apply to other religions as well. Many modern Jews not following the dietary laws show how convenience and changing social standards have produced different "interpretations" of the bible.

No, I brought up the point that you cant interpret many things differently at all. You cant quite seem to understand that "convenience" is only true when you explain away parts of your religion because society changed and we now know how to cook pork.

That is nowhere close to the "convenience" of not stoning homosexuals because Christianity is not Judaeism and it can be explained away by its own religious texts.

By the way, "kosher" is also defined as the set of dietary laws of Judaeism. So, yes, it is also a noun.

1. What does "there is no interpretational from a time standpoint" even mean? Please fix the error because I don't understand that sentence at all.

It should be fairly obvious that the missing word is "difference" judging by what the other sentence is talking about.

2. There are differences within those two separate religions (I'm assuming you're talking about Judaism and Christianity). What Jews believed hundreds of years ago is different from what they believe now. What Christians believed hundreds of years ago is different from what they believe now. Those differences are based, in large part, I believe, on changing societal standards.

What the Christian god (or any other god for that matter) said, changes from time to time, and society to society.

Your posts suggests that what God says differs from time to time when it doesnt. God told the Jews one thing and Christians another. Where is a discrepency?

Confirmed. God hates Cajuns.

*covers monitor in snot and coffee* et toi?

No, I brought up the point that you cant interpret many things differently at all.

Then your point fails. The vast number of different Christian and Judaic sects is proof enough that one can. There are many different interpretations to a text. Even when you think it's impossible you cannot rule out other points of views.

You cant quite seem to understand that "convenience" is only true when you explain away parts of your religion because society changed and we now know how to cook pork.

That is nowhere close to the "convenience" of not stoning homosexuals because Christianity is not Judaeism and it can be explained away by its own religious texts.Again, you're making absolutely no fucking sense.

Convenience is when your religion can remain as socially acceptable, when social standards have changed. Burning heathens at the stake was no longer socially acceptable, and thus Christian sects changed their interpretation to meet the changing social standards. Had they not, they would likely not exist today. That's convenience.


By the way, "kosher" is also defined as the set of dietary laws of Judaeism. So, yes, it is also a noun.Care to provide a citation?

" Kashrut is the body of Jewish law dealing with what foods we can and cannot eat and how those foods must be prepared and eaten. Kashrut" comes from the Hebrew root Kaf-Shin-Reish, meaning fit, proper or correct. It is the same root as the more commonly known word "kosher," which describes food that meets these standards. The word "kosher" can also be used, and often is used, to describe ritual objects that are made in accordance with Jewish law and are fit for ritual use."

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm



It should be fairly obvious that the missing word is "difference" judging by what the other sentence is talking about.It should, but it wasn't given the numerous other mistakes riddling your posts.


Your posts suggests that what God says differs from time to time when it doesnt. God told the Jews one thing and Christians another. Where is a discrepency?1. I'm saying that what the Jews and the Christians believe their god said changes. That is, that their interpretations of the texts change. The text might have remained constant, but what they believe the text says has changed.

2. Historically many Christians have followed the laws in the old testament, or have used them to support their religious desires. They no longer do so in most cases, at least not where it would conflict with current social standards. That's my point.

Historically many Christians have followed the laws in the old testament, or have used them to support their religious desires. They no longer do so in most cases, at least not where it would conflict with current social standards. That's my point.

Well then most of what I'm saying should have been directed at the OP.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Usage #3 of "kosher".

However, "differences in interpretation" and "tyrannical dictatorship by the administration" are hardly consistent. It WAS socially acceptable by the church to burn people, however you wont find anything in the Bible about burning someone as a punishment. You would not hear such a think from the mouth of God, but instead from the mouth of a self righteous dictator at the helm of a religion who didnt read well enough in his copy of the scriptures.

Perhaps we are discussing two completely connotations of the word "christian"?

Well then most of what I'm saying should have been directed at the OP.

Great idea stating them directly after you quote me as if you were replying to me then, huh?


It WAS socially acceptable by the church to burn people, however you wont find anything in the Bible about burning someone as a punishment. You would not hear such a think from the mouth of God, but instead from the mouth of a self righteous dictator at the helm of a religion who didnt read well enough in his copy of the scriptures.

Perhaps we are discussing two completely connotations of the word "christian"?

Not only are there other forms of punishment discussed, or at least an overall distaste of those heathens expressed, but the whole point is how these things can be interpreted at whim!

There not being anything in the bible about burning people at the stake (according to you), and yet people interpreting the bible as supporting such actions is precisely the whole fucking point! What the bible supposedly says and/or supports changes from time to time, to fit social standards.

Using such logic as that "putting word's in one's mouth" would be considered a "different interpretation", huh?

To deny that Christianity (or any other religion) has remained unchanged over the course of time by the different sects who interpret holy texts, forming the basis of religion ... is asinine.

First, the existence of multiple Christian denominations points to the fact that the Holy word can be interpreted differently.

Secondly, how these denominational sects have evolved over the millennia is proof positive that the practices of such religions are directly impacted by the society we live in.

A perfect example takes us back to the topic at hand: homosexuality.

1,000 years ago, it would have been the societal norm for Christians to stone homosexuals.

Today, it would be considered brutal and unjust.

The Bible's take on homosexuality hasn't changed. It's lodged there in ink for the rest of time, staring us in the face. It's the people's interpretation (which often suits their societal norms) that has changed.

How could you deny that?

Using such logic as that "putting word's in one's mouth" would be considered a "different interpretation", huh?

Please don't talk about "logic" or attempt to extrapolate form what I say, because you wouldn't know logic if it fucked your eyeballs to a pulp.

Are there different interpretations of the bible? Yes. The countless Christian and Jewish sects show this. Great. Can we consult the many authors to clarify what they actually meant? No.

A person who is alive and can clarify what he said/meant would be able to say definitely if "words are being put in his mouth" or not. Dead author's can't. If the author were dead, then one can't truly say whether "words are being put in his mouth" - we would have to accept it as a possible interpretation.

Even if that weren't the case, that still wouldn't refute my point! If "putting word's in one's mouth" would be considered a "different interpretation" does that suddenly make my argument wrong? Of course not! Not only is your argument wrong, it wouldn't refute anything I said it it were right.

Sorry, but if your a Christian, you simply cannot do this. The Bible says something quite different than this:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." If the anti-gay marriage lobby wants to use the Bible as an excuse, they should also promote the killing of homosexuals too.

So what i hear you saying is that all gays should be executed

that's just from the Old Testament.

That God is dead

The God of the new testament is a pot smoking hippie who accepts all and forgives everything.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church attempts to describe how Christians are called to love homosexuals yet deplore the act of homosexuality. Arguably, this creates the potential for hatred of the homosexual person, but is neither implicit nor intended.

2357 [...] tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Catholic natural law teaching holds that every person; regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, or sexual orientation; possesses an inborn right to dignity, fair treatment, and life. So it is not the person but the act that tradition and scripture hold deplorable. That is how the world's largest percentage of Christians explains the apparent paradox.

So what i hear you saying is that all gays should be executed

No you fuck, I'm saying Christians can't think of the Bible as perfect. That the anti-gay stance of the Bible is not legitimate.

Like kosher?

Yup,

Chritians gave that up to make it easyer to convert heathens.

No, it implies that fucking men with a snatch is wrong, how else does one lie with a man like one lies with a woman?

http://www.freakhole.com/data/gallery/media/fh-50273-0-Nice_Pussy,_Um,_Dude.jpg

thanx... I'm scarred for life.

No, it implies that fucking men with a snatch is wrong, how else does one lie with a man like one lies with a woman?

http://www.freakhole.com/data/gallery/media/fh-50273-0-Nice_Pussy,_Um,_Dude.jpg

I think I saw that...guy on Maury Povich.

That same section says that eating shell fish will be the death of you as well. Clams?! BLASPHEMY!

Its always been interesting to me, to see how the modern Christian machine picks and choses what tenets to live by, and shouts these out to it's mindless drones.

Why homosexuality? Why not shell fish?

Sigh.

I think I saw that...guy on Maury Povich.

Buck Angel

Gotta try and find some of uh.. her work. Oughta be amusing


Shame on ketch for twisting the divine message to some sort of anti gay stuff when this is what it really speaks of