Christianity, homosexuality and pig meat.

originally posted by: squarehead666

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: sk0rpi0n
Christian scholarship.

The decision to be a good person, or not, is purely your own, don't base it on a book, base it on what feels right.....Then accept the consequences of your actions.

Simple.

What may feel right might not be right.

Sure, it might feel right to get road rage over someone who didn't use their turn signal so you chase them down just to smash bricks into their windshield and then take a baseball bat to the hood. Yes, for some people, road rage feels alright. But is it right?

a reply to: sk0rpi0n
Christians can be somewhat hypocritical and all differently depending on their dispensation.. which sect of church they belong to be it Catholic, any one of the Protestant religions or the more fundamental like the assemblies of god or other charismatic sects. Christianity is vastly different among all 3 of these top slots so none of these can have it all 100% correct.

Many of the times those who pick and choose are breaking other laws that are against this yet they don't keep their eyes open enough to know better. They are still sheep.

As for the Bacon.. I'll quote my Jewish friend Keith. " If you don't like Bacon - You're WRONG! "
LOL

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
its true that the Pharisees had an ocd-ish way of keeping the law. However, Jesus never explicitly said its okay to eat pork, as christians have misconstrued Jesus' speech. The pharisees found fault with Jesus' disciples eating with unwashed hands. Jesus rebuttal that food doesn't defile a person had to do with unwashed hands...NOT food prohibited by levitical law...which Jesus said would remain till ''heaven and earth pass away''. Those at the scene described in mark 7 didnt even bring up pork. Jesus would have never allowed pork consumption.

Leviticus is a book full of archaic hygiene laws. Here is one such example

43 "If the defiling mold reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, 44 the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mold has spread in the house, it is a persistent defiling mold; the house is unclean. 45 It must be torn down--its stones, timbers and all the plaster--and taken out of the town to an unclean place. 46 "Anyone who goes into the house while it is closed up will be unclean till evening. 47 Anyone who sleeps or eats in the house must wash their clothes. 48 "But if the priest comes to examine it and the mold has not spread after the house has been plastered, he shall pronounce the house clean, because the defiling mold is gone. 49 To purify the house he is to take two birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop. 50 He shall kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot. 51 Then he is to take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet yarn and the live bird, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle the house seven times. 52 He shall purify the house with the bird's blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn. 53 Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields outside the town. In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean."

Knock an entire house down and use coloured string and birds blood to cleanse a mouldy house? Like really?

Nowadays we use mould killer for that, animal sacrifices stopped with with the crucifixion and red string sounds more like witchcraft than christian practice. Nobody bats an eye lid at the fact this part of leviticus is ignored, but people go all crazy because we eat pork?

Jesus changed the law pure and simple. Stopping all the animal sacrifices is one shining example of this.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: squarehead666

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: sk0rpi0n
Christian scholarship.

The decision to be a good person, or not, is purely your own, don't base it on a book, base it on what feels right.....Then accept the consequences of your actions.

Simple.

What may feel right might not be right.

Sure, it might feel right to get road rage over someone who didn't use their turn signal so you chase them down just to smash bricks into their windshield and then take a baseball bat to the hood. Yes, for some people, road rage feels alright. But is it right?

This Bit:

".....Then accept the consequences of your actions."

Seems to have escaped you.

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
@TheRegal..... The speech in mark 7 was in context to the eating of bread with unwashed hands, not the eating of unclean meats. But christians love to misquote that speech it as if Jesus and co. were sitting around eating pork...so they can go ''see, Jesus allowed pork''. Jesus also said that the entire law is to remain and that includes the prohibitions on pork.

I'm going to save you the time of reading too much by being very basic.

The context does not matter. Period. It's simple.

He said that nothing which enters the body can defile it.

You're obviously having trouble with the meaning of the word "nothing".

Unless you're seriously going to argue that Pig Meat doesn't fall under the category of "something", your argument is paramount idiocy and nothing more.

P.S. I am a vegan, so your attempt to say that all people just warp this scripture to justify something that they like is as fallacious as it is infantile.

originally posted by: squarehead666

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: squarehead666

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: sk0rpi0n
Christian scholarship.

The decision to be a good person, or not, is purely your own, don't base it on a book, base it on what feels right.....Then accept the consequences of your actions.

Simple.

Yeah, we all know that everyone accepts the actions of their consequences.

What may feel right might not be right.

Sure, it might feel right to get road rage over someone who didn't use their turn signal so you chase them down just to smash bricks into their windshield and then take a baseball bat to the hood. Yes, for some people, road rage feels alright. But is it right?

This Bit:

".....Then accept the consequences of your actions."

Seems to have escaped you.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Pharisees and all jews had turned basic hygiene into a solemn ritual. They were horrified to see Jesus eat without having followed this ritual and Jesus pointed out in his unique way that eating with dirty hands OR eating whatever does not defile a person.

its true that the Pharisees had an ocd-ish way of keeping the law. However, Jesus never explicitly said its okay to eat pork, as christians have misconstrued Jesus' speech. The pharisees found fault with Jesus' disciples eating with unwashed hands. Jesus rebuttal that food doesn't defile a person had to do with unwashed hands...NOT food prohibited by levitical law...which Jesus said would remain till ''heaven and earth pass away''. Those at the scene described in mark 7 didnt even bring up pork. Jesus would have never allowed pork consumption.

Jesus also never talked about ice cream, pizza, Coca Cola, Soyburgers, mashed potatoes. But we all eat those.

Yeah. And Jesus also said NOTHING against homosexuality and yet christians oppose homosexuality. You said you wouldnt listen to a gay preacher... Either that stems from levitical law or your own prejudice, so which is it? Also, its cute how you keep bringing up Mohammad because even a Jew or an atheist could point out that christians pick and choose from levitical law.

originally posted by: TheRegal

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
@TheRegal..... The speech in mark 7 was in context to the eating of bread with unwashed hands, not the eating of unclean meats. But christians love to misquote that speech it as if Jesus and co. were sitting around eating pork...so they can go ''see, Jesus allowed pork''. Jesus also said that the entire law is to remain and that includes the prohibitions on pork.

The context does not matter. Period. It's simple.

heh. Seriously? you have just demonstrated the single biggest problem plaguing theological studies. Youre wrong, context means EVERYTHING.

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

Ya know skorp, if you were in India, a Hindu would raise the same argument with you as a child of Islam over eating beef. Neither Jew, Christian nor Muslim has a problem with eating cow, but to a Hindu person a cow is sacred.

Different religions teach different things. You won't get a Christian to agree that certain foods are unclean because you have been shown several times in several ways that our interpretation of holy scripture says its fine to eat pork. We are at peace with this teaching and its one of the basic teachings of Christianity that transcends denominational
in fighting. i.e. its a teaching that all Christians agree upon.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: sk0rpi0n

a Hindu would raise the same argument with you as a child of Islam over eating beef. Neither Jew, Christian nor Muslim has a problem with eating cow, but to a Hindu person a cow is sacred.

Different religions teach different things.

This thread wasnt exactly meant to tell christians what to eat (though dietary matters became the issue). I was raising a question here...if the law banning pork was done away with then on what basis do christians oppose homosexuality, something also based within the same levitical law that prohibits pork. They might say the new testament also opposes it...but the question remains... on what basis does the new testament oppose it?

a reply to: sk0rpi0n

That question has also been answered. For an answer a Christian must consult the new testament first. When the answer is not there the old testament will have it.

Just as Islam has its different sects that interpret the teachings of your great prophet differently, Christianity has different denominations that interpret the bible differently. We argue among ourselves about who's interpretation is correct on things like the Eunuch teaching from Jesus, vs Leviticus but we all agree that Jesus replaced a lot of Levitical law at the same time.

The argument against homosexuality is a hot potato because most people will not accept that a born eunuch could be a homosexual person. Therefore the belief is that Jesus never spoke on it and Leviticus writings still stand. But the argument of pork is not relevant to leviticus because we are all in agreement that Jesus spoke of it, albeit indirectly.

i'm going to continue on with my last point.

you have to ask yourself, your authentic self, do you use religion to justify your beliefs, or do you justify your beliefs with religion.

are you against let's say Homosexuality because religion told you so, or because you already are and religions backs your belief?

we are not born religious it's taught and learned

originally posted by: Darth_Prime

are you against let's say Homosexuality because religion told you so, or because you already are and religions backs your belief?

we are not born religious it's taught and learned

More importantly Darth, hatred is something that is taught and learned. People flock to certain churches i.e. Westboro and cling to certain bible passages because they like what they hear / see / read. Doesn't mean that what they like is right or even what religion actually teaches though....

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
i'm going to continue on with my last point.

you have to ask yourself, your authentic self, do you use religion to justify your beliefs, or do you justify your beliefs with religion.

are you against let's say Homosexuality because religion told you so, or because you already are and religions backs your belief?

we are not born religious it's taught and learned

Let me ask this, since homosexuality is about sex (sexual attraction to same gender), and the idea that we are all born sexual, then as children, should the idea of sexual attraction in children even be considered? Call me old fashioned but homosexuality is garnered by the physical act of sex.

Why is it that when we mention the same arguments that pedophiles use (if two people really love each other, I was born to be sexually attracted to children, etc. ) those arguments are quickly dismissed as non-valid?

But then we mention people sexually attracted to cars, park benches, blow up dolls, outdoor grills, etc, suddenly that doesn't exist.

Pedophiles do use the same arguments, so why is it allowed for gays to use them but not pedophiles? Is it because it is illegal, but what happens when there is a day again when it is not illegal? Would gay people then say the argument is non-valid?

People are sexually attracted to dogs, sheep, goats, horses, and a variety of other animals, but it is illegal. However, if it were not illegal, what would your feelings be about it then?

Homosexuality is about sex. Why is it ok for children to even be sexual in the first place? People say "I was born gay", how can they be born with a sexual desire? That's just something I don't understand.

BTW, my grandfather was gay, so it's not like I don't know.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh dear, back to this again

How is it a person becomes straight? Are they born that way or not?

How do we define acceptable sexual conduct. What's wrong with two consciously contenting adults? That covers off hetero and homosexual activity exclusively and acknowledges sexual activity is an adults only thing.

You say your Grandad was gay, so you know. But do you really? Do you know what its like to grow up feeling a little weird because you don't quite feel the same as other boys? Do you know what it's like for your first crush, holding hands etc to be a boy? Of course you don't because you are not gay. I am and that's how it was for me and other gay folk i know too.

To speak without personal experience on being gay is to speak without authority because you are operating on rumours and hearsay.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
we are not born religious it's taught and learned

This is not correct.All of mankind were born with a religious nature.Their experiences form their faith in THEIR Belief System which is their religion.However many peoples core Belief System is based on their belief of a "herd" religion like Christianity which they learned.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
i'm going to continue on with my last point.

you have to ask yourself, your authentic self, do you use religion to justify your beliefs, or do you justify your beliefs with religion.

are you against let's say Homosexuality because religion told you so, or because you already are and religions backs your belief?

That is what is going on.ALL people can ONLY believe what they have faith in through THEIR Belief System .It is not limited to people who have a "herd" religion as part of their Belief System it is true of ALL people .

The evidence is all over this thread. People that believe eating pigs or homosexuality is incorrect is based solely on their Belief System.They will argue they have the documents to prove it however the majority(all) are arguing from the doctrines of men of their Belief System.They will question everything that is in conflict with their Belief System no matter how much it contradicts reality.

Yahoshua clearly stated their condition as ….because they think they can see, they are blind.It is summed up in the old saying …..a man convinced against his will is unconvinced still.Reason and logic don't play a part in what they believe only faith in their Belief System.

Mankinds nature is religious.They cannot cure themselves of their religion especially when they don't know they are sick and believe their religion is what makes them well.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
you have to ask yourself, your authentic self, do you use religion to justify your beliefs, or do you justify your beliefs with religion

Thats like asking ''do you use a spoon to eat your rice or do you eat your rice with a spoon''. Its the same question repeated twice.

.

are you against let's say Homosexuality because religion told you so, or because you already are and religions backs your belief?

what if I told you I was ''born'' that way...naturally wired to oppose certain things. Will you accept me...the way you expect others to accept someone who was ''born'' a certain way?

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: TheRegal

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
@TheRegal..... The speech in mark 7 was in context to the eating of bread with unwashed hands, not the eating of unclean meats. But christians love to misquote that speech it as if Jesus and co. were sitting around eating pork...so they can go ''see, Jesus allowed pork''. Jesus also said that the entire law is to remain and that includes the prohibitions on pork.

The context does not matter. Period. It's simple.

heh. Seriously? you have just demonstrated the single biggest problem plaguing theological studies. Youre wrong, context means EVERYTHING.

I just demonstrated a human being who knwos how to use his brain.

It's unfortunate that that's such a foreign concept to some.

Context doesn't matter when the speaker says something that is a complete and unmistakable absolute.

If I said "Purple people are a plague on the Earth and should be culled and thrown in a furnace. They're consistently the most idiotic people in the world." would it make a difference if I was commenting on a thread about halal, women's rights, or a sporting event?

No, it doesn't. You would actually have to be stupid not to realize that, and stupid is a choice.

"OH, THIS GUY DOESN'T REALLY HATE PURPLE PEOPLE, HE WAS AT A LAKERS GAME; DOESN'T COUNT."

Please stop acting like there is any logic in your argument; it's fundamentally retarded. When someone uses a word like "nothing", it's an absolute; the context doesn't matter. NOTHING that goes into your body deflies you. NOTHING MEANS NOTHING, not "oh a little nothing over here and maybe a little something over here and possibly a little bit of nothing, but not fully nothing, in this area". Nothing means nothing.

Like I said:

B-A-S-I-C.

Some people need to stay in school.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you know what its like to grow up feeling a little weird because you don't quite feel the same as other boys? Do you know what it's like for your first crush, holding hands etc to be a boy?

.

If it is normal, why did you feel weird?

And no, I don't know what that is like, however, if it was normal, why did you feel weird? Were you basing normalcy on what you perceived as normal? So to you, normalcy was being straight, but instead you felt weird. Do you now have the feeling it is normal to be gay and are you basing that on what others have told you, or that you have discovered on your own?

But we all know that sexual attraction is based on other things, such as eye color, hair color, symmetry and angular features. Just listen to how straight men talk about women, generally it is a superficial, but subconscious attraction, they are animals and as animals will seek those who are capable of reproducing.

But if it were simply about same sex, then why are so many gays attracted to those who look like the opposite sex? Butch and Lipstick lesbians...Twinks and Bears. People are not attracted solely because of male or female, but those features that are attractive to them.

Why are there so many Transexuals who look like women, that men do have sex with? Why does a man have to look like a woman to attract a man? That means the man they want to have sex with is attracted to feminine features. So there is still a compatibility of feminine vs. masculine.

But then there are those who are attracted to same features as them, but is it really? There are actions of feminine and masculine that are attractable. It is about more than the same gender, it is about those features that one finds attractive. When you look for a man, what attracts you first? His personality or superficial features?

originally posted by: TheRegal

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n

originally posted by: TheRegal

originally posted by: sk0rpi0n
@TheRegal..... The speech in mark 7 was in context to the eating of bread with unwashed hands, not the eating of unclean meats. But christians love to misquote that speech it as if Jesus and co. were sitting around eating pork...so they can go ''see, Jesus allowed pork''. Jesus also said that the entire law is to remain and that includes the prohibitions on pork.

The context does not matter. Period. It's simple.

heh. Seriously? you have just demonstrated the single biggest problem plaguing theological studies. Youre wrong, context means EVERYTHING.

Context doesn't always matter.

If I say 'everybody stand still till I find my contact lens' does it mean absolutely everybody on the planet or just everybody in the room Im in? Similarly the 'nothing' in mark 7 referred to kosher food being eaten with unwashed hands. Not pork. Jesus would have been crucified much earlier if he had endorsed pork.but jesus never even brought up pork. If you dont understand context in theology then don't hurt your brain by dabbling in it. Just stay out of it and leave it to the adults. Class dismissed.