Sorry, no forgiveness for you heathen.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry, no forgiveness for you heathen.
Throw three hail mary's, take two aspirin, and call me in the morning.I can ask for forgiveness, right?
Could they have PIITB of the women to avoid pregnancies rather than get with eunuchs? I didn't word this well, but it's a real question.
The purpose of this infographic is to say 'the bible is obviously stupid, because it supports all this but not homosexual marriage.' I was a bit curious about the language in the new testament (post Jesus) regarding homosexuality in general, and found two things (pasted below).
Romans 1:26-27 New International Version (NIV)Now, everyone can interpret this differently, but here's my conclusion. It's OK for men to love men. It might even be OK for men to marry men (I didn't look up marriage specifically), but it is NOT OK for men to PIITB of other men. I think handies and BJ's are also off limits based on the first passage.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
On the plus side, the new testament is very clear that all sin is forgivable.
For the "homosexuality isn't a sin" lobby, the argument that 'the bible is stupid' is probably the best one, because arguing the the bible supports homosexuality doesn't have basis. On the other hand, how many homosexuals are going to the bible for validation? I don't think many, so therefore even arguing about it to begin with probably has very little merit.
It doesn't approve of anything but sex between a husband and his wife. Premarital sex is a sin just as much as homosexual sex as both are sex outside of marriage.That’s a lot of words to simply agree with the OP that the Bible approves of some nasty scenarios but somehow doesn’t approve of gay marriages.
It doesn't approve of anything but sex between a husband and his wife. Premarital sex is a sin just as much as homosexual sex as both are sex outside of marriage.
Jacob had 4 wives who gave him a total of 12 sons.
He was the father of the 12 tribes of Israel. God
never punished Jacob for his polygamy.
My bad. I missed the part in your post about the OP talking about "nasty stuff"and thought you were referring to his citation.How is this a response to my post? Did you read the OP?
That's not what I said. But don't beat yourself up too much.That’s a lot of words to simply agree with the OP that the Bible approves of some nasty scenarios but somehow doesn’t approve of gay marriages.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That's not what I said. But don't beat yourself up too much.
The purpose of this infographic is to say 'the bible is obviously stupid, because it supports all this but not homosexual marriage.' I was a bit curious about the language in the new testament (post Jesus) regarding homosexuality in general, and found two things (pasted below).
Romans 1:26-27 New International Version (NIV)Now, everyone can interpret this differently, but here's my conclusion. It's OK for men to love men. It might even be OK for men to marry men (I didn't look up marriage specifically), but it is NOT OK for men to PIITB of other men. I think handies and BJ's are also off limits based on the first passage.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
On the plus side, the new testament is very clear that all sin is forgivable.
For the "homosexuality isn't a sin" lobby, the argument that 'the bible is stupid' is probably the best one, because arguing the the bible supports homosexuality doesn't have basis. On the other hand, how many homosexuals are going to the bible for validation? I don't think many, so therefore even arguing about it to begin with probably has very little merit.
It doesn't approve of anything but sex between a husband and his wife. Premarital sex is a sin just as much as homosexual sex as both are sex outside of marriage.
Has anyone ever said that they were NOT sinners? I think you missed the point of the Garden of Eden story.Adam and Eve: Never Married.
Sinners.
And had sex with their own children. But that's "OK", cuz.............BIBLE!!!
It's because the gospels are about saving, and not condemning. The Epistles are about reaffirming God's law as he wants it kept and showing how the Law and Gospel work together for salvation.Funny, that in all the parables Jesus told, this came up in exactly 0 of them....
Link something about this in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and you'll convince me.
Has anyone ever said that they were NOT sinners? I think you missed the point of the Garden of Eden story.
It's because the gospels are about saving, and not condemning.
You can drink with me. I don’t know why people don’t want to go to hell, that’s where all the fun is to be had.damn it! i was so close
No. We don't know God's plan to populate the earth, nor can we predict. There was no sin in the world. He did not God's fallen angel tempted them into sin. He told them they could eat the fruit of any tree except for the Tree of Life. They were tempted by Satan and fell into sin.God literally set them up to be sinners.
Only way for them to procreate was to bang their own children, or have their children bang each other.
No forbidden tree fruit necessary.
Let me rephrase that. The gospels are about the life of Jesus. Jesus came to save us, not condemn us. So there are lots of sins he didn't talk about, because they were already written (for those people of the time) and about to be reaffirmed for us. You are clearly cherry-picking when it comes to the Bible and do not understand why it was written or how it was to be applied then and now.Yet, Christians have to condemn those that Jesus said nothing negative about....
....odd.
Really?We don't know God's plan to populate the earth, nor can we predict.
That sure sounds like a prediction to me.There was no sin in the world. He did not God's fallen angel tempted them into sin. He told them they could eat the fruit of any tree except for the Tree of Life. They were tempted by Satan and fell into sin.
No. We don't know God's plan to populate the earth, nor can we predict.
Let me rephrase that. The gospels are about the life of Jesus. Jesus came to save us, not condemn us.
Glistening sweaty bodies. Like.You can drink with me. I don’t know why people don’t want to go to hell, that’s where all the fun is to be had.
If people are going to be skeptics, they should at least do their due diligence with regard to proper translation, context and Old Covenant vs New Covenant. Cherry picking to prove a point is Intellectually dishonest...oh, and Christians do the same shit.This is kind of interesting. I wonder how many of these options would be OK with a fella like Steve King?
Wall Street is more sinful than gays. Megachurches are more sinful than gays.
So if you have consensual sex with a virgin you have to pay the father and marry her? Uh oh... how many wives can I have again?If people are going to be skeptics, they should at least do their due diligence with regard to proper translation, context and Old Covenant vs New Covenant. Cherry picking to prove a point is Intellectually dishonest...oh, and Christians do the same shit.
p.s.
Here's a little secret. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isn't talking about rape.
I'm sure you're capable of doing the same research on the topic as I am. You can also chose to live under the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, your Own Covenant, or whatever the heck you choose.So if you have consensual sex with a virgin you have to pay the father and marry her? Uh oh... how many wives can I have again?
Several forms of marriage I've never tried. I'd better get busy.This is kind of interesting. I wonder how many of these options would be OK with a fella like Steve King?
So the laws changed huh. I've heard that one. Why is anyone still citing the old testament then? That's how they get rid of all the goofy food and cloth rules right? But doesn't that throw out the majority of the gay rules too? You'd think it would, but I don't find that to be the case...I'm sure you're capable of doing the same research on the topic as I am. You can also chose to live under the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, your Own Covenant, or whatever the heck you choose.
So the laws changed huh. I've heard that one. Why is anyone still citing the old testament then? That's how they get rid of all the goofy food and cloth rules right? But doesn't that throw out the majority of the gay rules too? You'd think it would, but I don't find that to be the case...
I've been told many times that Jesus only changed the things He actually changed - stoning adulterers, for example - and specifically stated that He was not changing the rest of the OT.You've got me? It's pretty irritating. Take tithing, for example, Old Testament tithing was to support the Levite Priests who were unable to work...it's old, archaic and irrelevant in today's times, but churches preach it weekly. Sure, it's a good place to start (a gauge, if you will), but if Jesus's teachings are to be followed, we shouldn't be capped at 10% nor held to the standard. What a person gives should be based on personal conviction, not some archaic law that is obsolete...and that is just ONE example.
I've been told many times that Jesus only changed the things He actually changed - stoning adulterers, for example - and specifically stated that He was not changing the rest of the OT.
If so, then anything the OT says that Jesus didn't specifically change remains in force.
Did Jesus specifically change or eliminate any of these marriage forms that were mentioned in the OT? Did Jesus make slavery unacceptable? Did Jesus say homosexuality was no longer an abomination? Did Jesus say to refuse to pay taxes? Did He say to stop respecting the Sabbath?
I've been told many times that Jesus only changed the things He actually changed - stoning adulterers, for example - and specifically stated that He was not changing the rest of the OT.
If so, then anything the OT says that Jesus didn't specifically change remains in force.
Did Jesus specifically change or eliminate any of these marriage forms that were mentioned in the OT? Did Jesus make slavery unacceptable? Did Jesus say homosexuality was no longer an abomination? Did Jesus say to refuse to pay taxes? Did He say to stop respecting the Sabbath?
It's really not even that complicated...much of the Old Testament doesn't even require "nullifying", if people would just take the time to understand the context for which it was written in the first place. When truly studied, the Old Testament is quite interesting...often times, God gave the people what they asked for even when it wasn't in their best interest. Take Kings for example. The people demanded a King (rather than the Judges of the time), because the felt safer being like their neighbors. They persisted and got Saul. ...anyhoot, I could continue to digress, but I won't.
The basic premise is to follow these two commandments and in essence you'll be fulfilling the law (what really matters).
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
I haven't read anywhere that Christians should be holding up signs that read, "God Hates Gays". Besides, the entire foundation of the New Testament rests on a personal relationship with Christ, so I would be doing you a disservice to simply feed you what I believe, sure fellowship is important, but Christians depend too much on the pulpit. I believe a person will get out of a relationship with Christ what he/she puts into it. The best I can do is share snippets of what I believe and it won't always "align" with the mainstream or what other's believe. The good thing is, I'm accountable to God, not man.
That's what people have been doing since it was an oratory tradition. That's what every generation does. It's in a constant state of interpretation. For that matter, ALL of reality is in a constant state of changing interpretation. I had Buddha donuts for breakfast!What you're doing, unfortunately, is creating your own religion based on what you feel the Bible means rather than based on what it actually says.