I am sure this was discussed before in a previous religion thread, I just wanted to stick it in here briefly

The old testament contained a set of laws that were meant for the people of that time. When Jesus was "put into service", he became the "new law" and all the "old laws" no longer apply. (reference: Hebrews chapter 8, I think?)

Romans 1:26-27 is a good reference in the "new law" which discusses homosexuality.

So in short, all those witty points about the laws in Lev. don't apply anymore - which is why we do things now - like eat pork (best Homer voice, "hmmm Pork"), and don't do things like "Stone our neighbors".

Yeah, thats what I thought his comments were too. I think thats a perfectly valid comment for him to make. He isn't passing judgement on homosexuals, he is just critisizing the wording of the legislation. Right?!?

Maybe a poll would be in order? (No pun intended)

Who stands with the gays and their rights?

Who thinks gays should and get back in the closet?

heres a poll for NY Madman... since he raised the question...

Who is the most hated member of XOC?

Why did you cross post?
Why did you have it in the 2WD forum

because im not a mod in the clubhouse... so i poste dit off topic in a forum i moderate.. then moved it...

thats not cross posting... it never existed in both forums at one time

You are saying there were no normal family values prior to WWII?

"This statement sounds like it was written by an angry feminist. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

You did say you were back in college. Are you taking any college courses taught by feminists?

A guy your age should be less impressionable."

impressionable? No not really. I was referring to what happened *historically* and is happening right now. The world is changing and there is absolutely nothing your rigid beliefs and closed mind can do about it. Keep spewing though, it is very entertaining

They both did exist on Today's Active Topics... thanks for the clarification on cross moderating.

What's really strange, is while I consider myself to be liberal in the social realm, I've always thought of myself as leaning (not completely) toward the right in the economic area. Go figure.

Thank you. Seriously. I asked Off2 a question, not trying to be a smartass (hence my saying "seriously") but he didn't give me an answer.

That passage says God turned them into gays because they were materialistic. It doesn't really say not to be gay per se. It just says the received the due penalty for their perversion. So if you are materialistic God will turn you gay.

I read a little further along and found that if you disobey your parents you deserve death. How many of us here need to die?

I believe it says that they strayed away from God, and turned to material things instead. It doesn't say that God turned them gay, instead it says that they gave into their lusts.

The term "God gave them over..", is better translated to "God gave up on them..." and let them do it (ie. free will) I don't see where it says that "God turned them into gays".

[Begin short short answer.]
The Bible sometimes talks in metaphors. "Life" refers to heaven (like in John 3:16), and similarly "death" refers to hell.

In this case, "death" means eternity in hell. So in short, that passage means - "bad people deserve to go to hell."

If you are a "bad person" who wants to avoid hell, I recommend studying up on these parts of Romans: 3:10, 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9-10, 10:13.
[end short short answer]

You're Welcome. Seriously.

Seems the whole thing is open to interpretation for whatever needs you want it to serve to me. As far as hell goes, I don't believe in it so I am not to worried.

Are you a laywer? j/k

When it all boils down to it, what philosophies or government legislation aren't subject to personal interpretation. Most things are kinda in grey areas and there are very few things that are truly black and white. That is why we have these discussions - to explore the various interpretations.

Fucking deviants

http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.delgaudio24apr24,0,5369464.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

Another one bites the dust, eh? Good find Trihead.

"Delgaudio, who has no prior record, was arrested in November 2001 with a book of obscene photographs he had taken of 15- and 16-year-old girls, according to court documents. The teen-agers went with him on several occasions to a hotel on Pulaski Highway, where they had sex and he paid them to pose in erotic positions for his camera, records show. The girls told Delgaudio their ages, according to police."

I REALLY loved the response:

"He acknowledges the acute moral shortcomings of his conduct, and he will continue intense self-examination and professional and spiritual counseling," the lawyers wrote in the letter, dated yesterday.

Cardin also said he did not want to speak about the case after yesterday's hearing but described his client as "brilliant and eloquent."

Better to be a "brilliant and eloquent" pedophile, then just a regular old one! Why is this sexual predator not going to jail?

Mobycat, on page of this thread did you pose a question to me? I skimmed over all these and didn't see any more from you after you responded concerning your brother. So, before you go causing hate and discontent, show me the question again. Ensure you quote yourself from the original. I could have missed it.

Off2...page 7. Here's where I asked you.

(Good grief it took a while to find this...so many pages).

Oh, I see....so the chapter about pork is for one people at one time. But the chapter on sex isn't? Pick and chose? Give me a break. If you live by one, you should be living by the other.

Isn't the bible a take it or leave it thing for you? Or do you take the bible a la carte?

So in all seriousness...please explain why one chapter IS for all of us, and one isn't?

---

Oh, good grief. No shit he did. I didn't ask you again. I asked you once. KJ answered it. I don't know if he was responding to me in particular, but it answered my question. And I thanked him for it. Perhaps if you had simply explained WHY?

I can't help it if you think everything that you don't entirely agree with is "liberal" or whatever. You call me a "non-knowing anything about christianity" and then you don't give a reason. Whatever.

*I* wasn't spreading "hate and discontent." Only you view it as such. KJ has been MUCH more helpful than you - you never explain your reasoning. He and I actually had a discussion off-list, and it was quite civil. I have a TON more respect for him, because unlike you, he tries to explain his view. Not simply, "you don't know" and then walk away claiming you don't have time.

Madman and I have a VAST difference in opinion on things. But at least he tries to explain it. I might not agree, even after heated discussions. But he tries to show his reasoning. Have you EVER tried?

I have explained why to you many a times. It is not my fault you choose not to accept any reasoning I may give you. I also don't feel compelled to give a reason behind everything I state. I don't have to impress you. I don't have to persuede you. You are just as hard-headed and set in your ways as I am. You just have more ideals that reflect the vast majority of young 20-somethings that think they have a grip on everything. I was once young and idealistic as they, but experience and wisdom caught up with me, and I matured, unlike them. They too, will someday grow up and see that their opinions of things held today were complete crap.

You can choose to believe me or not. You can choose to accept those things or not. It doesn't matter to me. I am at an age where I know what and who I am.

Well...just to let you in on a little secret...I too was once like that. I'm 35 now. And yes, I grew up and realized my opinions of things when I was in my twenties were complete crap.

Quote:

You can choose to believe me or not. You can choose to accept those things or not. It doesn't matter to me.

I will not accept things that aren't explained to me - and I don't mean things like the mysteries in the bible. I mean it in that if someone wishes to convince me of something, they should give some reasons.

And to prove that some people on here HAVE managed to change my views on things - two years ago if you had asked me whether people should be able to have guns, I would have said no. But some people (I don't remember which people specifically) managed to explain WHY they should be able to have them. They gave a reasoned argument, and I accepted that. I don't have a problem with people owning guns at this point. I still wouldn't own one myself, but if you want one, go for it.

(And at least I don't pretend to have a grip on things. I still don't know whether the whole Iraq thing was the right thing to do. I'm not for it, I'm not against it.)