It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why don't christians follow the laws of Leviticus and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc.?

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
You won't have a hard time finding Jews or Christians who would cite the Leviticus laws to condemn homosexuality as per se, but it doesn't really hold water, since as a law, Leviticus 18 is confined to the priesthood


Excellent point, one of the several I was trying to make. That christians use a bible verse to justify their hate of homosexuals not realizing it either was not written for them or that they don't follow the entire verse.




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I don't think it is surprising that people bash Paul.

He was, after all and no matter how many sheep love him, the prototypical Wolf in sheep's clothing and a reject (despite what one measly pseudepigraphal epistle says) of the true Way of the Nazarene and a traitor to every team he ever joined because of his massive ego.

So he styles himself an " 'apostle' of Christ" and deems the real 12 "Apostles of men" who "added nothing to me"(his words in quotes).

He brags how he "withstood Peter to his face" and in true lowlife fashion doesn't even record what Peter said just Paul's version of events.

Which is beyond suspect as we all know how he lies about the results of the Jerusalem council saying "remember the poor" (Ebionim) was all James said. What was really said is nothing of the sort and recorded in Acts (4 guidelines for living right).

He goes on to denounce as weak the prohibition of eating meat sacrificed to idols even though James consulted the Spirit to get that ruling. Essentially he spoke against the Holy Spirit by saying that anyone who follows the rule not to eat the meat sacrificed to idols is "spiritually weak."

Essentially saying that the Holy Spirit is weak. Now tell me again how great Paul is, the blasphemer of the Spirit, his true name Shaul/Sheol.

He curses anyone who teaches another gospel besides the one "Christ" "revealed" to him even though it is the opposite of what Christ taught his true Apostles and disciples and opposite of what James, Peter and John teach. And his Damascus road story is foretold as a prophetic warning in Matthew 24:23 to a T. He is the false prophet who says the time is at hand. His teachings are his alone and false teachings (not of Christ).

James finds out about all these false teachings and summons Paul to Jerusalem and his flunkies urge him not to go because they know he is in trouble for false teachings.

He is forced to undergo a purification ritual to prove he is really walking in the Way. Before he can do it he is rescued by Roman soldiers and whisked away.

Obviously he was protected by Rome and the men of Judea including James men vow not to eat until the traitor is dead.

Is it my fault that Christians talk about how great this scumbag is because they don't read the book and just skim through it never getting the whole story which is essentially the story of James and the Apostles vs the murderer turned double agent turned cult leader Saul/Paul.

How are you unaware of the obvious adversarial situation with Paul the Roman spy vs James the Righteous One brother of the lord?

Paul doesn't deny it but fundies sure do. I will give him one thing, he is honest about his hatred for the Apostles and covetousness of Peter's role as representative to the nations.

Too bad Christianity brushes it under the rug.
edit on 24-8-2016 by enterthestage because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2016 by enterthestage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: craig732
Because I am confused as to why people would follow ANY part of a book with such evil stuff in it allegedly put forth by a "loving" god.

Because they may be capable of distinguishing between what is good and not good and selecting the first, as they are encouraged to do by the statement in Romans which I quoted in the beginning.

Your original position seemed to be that Christians had a moral obligation to obey all these "evil" commands. I have met this before, the belief that Christians would be in the wrong for stoning adulterers and simultaneously in the wrong for not stoning adulterers. I have never understood that logic; I always thought it masked a sense of annoyance that religion should refuse to be associated with the evils that made it a convenient sitting target.

I gather that you have now modified the original position, and your argument is that Christians should reject even injunctions like "Love your neighbour as yourself" because they are contained within a book which appears to say other things.
I don't understand that logic either.

Let's make it easy.
Just tell me whether you think stoning adulterers is a good thing or a bad thing, and I will agree with you either way.


edit on 24-8-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Just tell me whether you think stoning adulterers is a good thing or a bad thing, and I will agree with you either way.


That was slightly painful to read brother


I have met this before, the belief that Christians would be in the wrong for stoning adulterers and simultaneously in the wrong for not stoning adulterers. I have never understood that logic;


quite simply... both are stated as "you should" in between the covers of said book...

Gods word...

As i've stated earlier in this thread...

there are those would gladly stone an adulterer or a gay person IF it was legal...

Love "god" is the first commandment... ya?




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
That was slightly painful to read brother

Obviously I was trying to force him out of the contradictory position that they were both wrong at the same time.

quite simply... both are stated as "you should" in between the covers of said book...

But the New Testament is not binding us to do "everything that is between the covers".
As I quoted at the beginning, "Now we are discharged from that law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" -Romans ch7 v6
Leviticus is part of "the old written code". We are discharged from it.

The paradox is that the anti-Christians are more eager than anyone else that Christianity should hold to the Old Testament literally, because that would make Chrsitianity more of a sitting target.
I am exposing the disingenuousness of those who don't believe that adulterers should be stoned, but want Christians to believe that adulterers should be stoned.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Obviously I was trying to force him out of the contradictory position that they were both wrong at the same time.


I suppose that would depend on ones position on the bible...


But the New Testament is not binding us to do "everything that is between the covers".
As I quoted at the beginning, "Now we are discharged from that law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" -Romans ch7 v6
Leviticus is part of "the old written code". We are discharged from it.


All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;





I am exposing the disingenuousness of those who don't believe that adulterers should be stoned, but want Christians to believe that adulterers should be stoned.


Well hypocrisy reigns in the world man...

especially in religious circles... or government...




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

But he does not say that it is to be followed as a legal code. As I have just quoted, he says the opposite of that.
Unless one thinks that Leviticus SHOULD be followed as a legal code, it is positively absurd to criticise others for NOT making it a legal code.
Why are you arguing for a position you don't actually believe in yourself?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

devils advocate style...

I do like to question you because i know you from your writing



Can't help it my friend



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   
itsa book of stories, why should anyone take it seriously to begin with



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: craig732

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
You won't have a hard time finding Jews or Christians who would cite the Leviticus laws to condemn homosexuality as per se, but it doesn't really hold water, since as a law, Leviticus 18 is confined to the priesthood


Excellent point, one of the several I was trying to make. That christians use a bible verse to justify their hate of homosexuals not realizing it either was not written for them or that they don't follow the entire verse.


Yes, Christians using Leviticus to outlaw homosexual preference is like Eskimos using modern traffic laws to restrict castration of African monkeys before 300 BC. New term; legal anachronism.
edit on 24-8-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: craig732

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps




The fact is, the Council of Nicaea pretty much picked and chose what books would be included, and which VERSION of those books would be included.


That's not a fact at all, not even close. The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It was specifically convened to address the Arian heresy in Alexandria, also to settle on a date for Easter, and to appoint bishops. Dan Brown said that the Council of Nicaea got together to determine what books would be allowed in the NT canon, but it was simply sensationalism and his book was fiction.


The point though, is that a bunch of MEN decided what books would be included and which wouldn't. It continued on throughout the ages.
Here's the kicker for me...Christians believe God would micromanage and protect "His Word" down to the tiniest detail...causing men (or basically violating that free will we're all supposed to have) to write everything down, word for word, just as He said....yet, He can't take time out to 'micromanage" this planet. Like, a little girl who is being raped and brutalized, or a child being blown to pieces in a war he or she has no control over, or that little kid in Africa, dying from starvation and lack of clean water (with flies buzzing all around it while it dies), or the zillions of other things that are so f'ed up on this planet, it boggles the mind.
But YEA...that ole "Holy Word of God" is going to come through unscathed, dang it...because it's the only thing humanity has to tell it how to behave. God doesn't have to do anything else to help us...just give us "HIS WORD" so we know we are all going to be damned if we don't follow it.
Sorry, but something is truly rotten about that whole picture.


This is a pure genius explanation as to why the bible is most likely BS. I hope you don't mind if I copy this and use it talking with others. I will credit you.


Umm...thanks. I don't see myself as "genius", but I appreciate it. Mostly, I'm sick to death of religiosity and how it perpetuates the dualism we see on this planet.

Your compliment was kind, though. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage


Whether or not they were chosen is not eva big deal.


Acts 1:15 Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty), 16Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.
...
23And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen, 25to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place. 26And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


Deut18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD:


Divination (from Latin divinare "to foresee, to be inspired by a god", related to divinus, divine) is the attempt to gain insight into a question or situation by way of an occultic, standardized process or ritual. Used in various forms throughout history, diviners ascertain their interpretations of how a querent should proceed by reading signs, events, or omens, or through alleged contact with a supernatural agency.

Some Torah zealot should have killed Peter on the spot I suppose.

But no! Peter will be sitting on a throne right next to Judas judging one of the tribes of Israel? Hope he remembered to bring his dice.


Matt 19:27Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have? 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Paraclete comes from the Koine Greek word παράκλητος (paráklētos, that can signify "one who consoles or comforts, one who encourages or uplifts; hence refreshes, and/or one who intercedes on our behalf as an advocate in court"). The word for paraclete is passive in form, and etymologically (originally) signified "called to one's side".


John 14:16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter(paraclete), that he may be with you for ever, 17even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.


Lev. 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

It's interesting here that the words "cut him off from among is people" is not restricted to Israelites, so it would apply to any person with a familiar spirit of any tribe or people in the World.

So the Torah followers should seek out and destroy those who have the promised familiar spirit. Quite logical, and lawful. But then, those who follow the Torah and claim to have the familiar spirit should stand in a circle stoning each other. It would look something like this:

Ex. 32:26then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Whoso is on Jehovah's side, let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 27And he said unto them, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Put ye every man his sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. 28And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. 29And Moses said, Consecrate yourselves to-day to Jehovah, yea, every man against his son, and against his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.


edit on 24-8-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage


He was, after all and no matter how many sheep love him, the prototypical Wolf in sheep's clothing and a reject (despite what one measly pseudepigraphal epistle says) of the true Way of the Nazarene and a traitor to every team he ever joined because of his massive ego.

“Coming of the Saints – John Taylor
Quote
"In this way St.Peter is said to have become (for a time) the first bishop
of Antioch, St. Barnabas was appointed bishop of Cyprus,
St. Titus first bishop of Crete, while St. Peter and St.
Paul are both remembered as bishops of the see of Rome."
--------------------------------
"The " Recognitions of Clement," purporting to have
been originally written by him in the first century ; the
" Acts of Barnabas," which has strong claims to be con-
sidered both genuine and reliable ; the Life of St. Mary
Magdalene and St. Martha, purporting to have been com-
piled from then existing documents, by Rabanus in the
eighth century ; and several traditions, Sicilian, Venetian,
Provencal, Spanish, Cornish, British, or Welsh, English,
and even Greek, contain references to the origin of early
Western Christianity, which are at all events worthy of
consideration, and have this one great feature in
common : the reputed coming of Hebrew disciples
of our Lord into the farthest regions of the West in
the very earliest years of Christendom."
Unquote

I would suggest that you try to listen to truth instead of the vile hatred you harbor in your soul but knowing your present state of insanity it would be useless to discuss theological literature at this time. There are many sources of literature and not simply one man called John Taylor who can enlighten your intelligence. In the NT alone there are many references to Paul which Paul did not write including his helpmate called Peter. Peter speaks of Paul as a brother who embraces him as a brother. Luke historically writes of Paul without Paul’s influence. In the traditions of the first synagogue it is Jesus’ brother James who accepts Paul after trying the spirits. The entire first congregation accepts Paul as a brother and including all of the Apostles.

Your hatred of others blinds your own sin of hate. Jesus forgave the sins of Saul/Paul just as He will forgive your sins if you would repent of your consuming unjustified sin of hate towards others.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


Let's make it easy. Just tell me whether you think stoning adulterers is a good thing or a bad thing, and I will agree with you either way.

Interesting question. Was it not said that with your eyes one can commit adultery? If true how many have seen and not touched and yet are in sin? Should we all, including me, start gathering our stones? But then does not grace take the place of a stone?
Thank you DISRAELI - You are a good teacher.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede
To be honest, I agree with Jesus on that one.
I was trying to get the other user to make a definite choice, instead of getting the best of both worlds.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

A "familiar spirit" is a demon that follows a family and torments them from generation to generation, it's not the Holy Spirit. That's for example how you have a person going to a seance and the think the medium is channeling their dead grandma. In reality, the familiar spirit is telling details of that dead person to the demon controlling the medium.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: enterthestage




He curses anyone who teaches another gospel besides the one "Christ" "revealed" to him even though it is the opposite of what Christ taught his true Apostles and disciples and opposite of what James, Peter and John teach


Source the other gospel that you say John, Peter, and James taught. Book, chapters and verses.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
You know how good the Bible is? The first person to addition to it criticized the # out of it and hated most of it's internal concepts calling the entire thing a hypocrisy. If they weren't Jewish writers and that # isn't entertaining, there wouldn't even be a Bible phenomenon. It was the dopest meme of 70AD.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor


Well, look back on what he accused the Pharisee's of....their father was the DEVIL. Who did they follow and obey? That would be Yahweh. So, Jesus called them out on their god being the devil himself. Interesting.

Are you saying that the Devil is Yahweh? That is the way I interpreted your above statement. Maybe I misunderstood you but is that what you believe?

The Pharisees who Jesus debated were of the Devil but that does not mean all Pharisees were of the same mindset. Now if you had said Sadducee's then I would agree but Pharisees who accepted Jesus as the Christ have the same Father as Jesus had. Jesus as flesh was not God but Jesus as the "Word" was the Creator of all both visible and invisible as is understood in the 1st chapter of John. The "Word" was not "The Most High EL" but "The Most High El" did not create this universe. So who is this Yahweh that you call the Devil?



I'm saying that Yahweh is NOT good...pretty evil, actually. The God I've encountered is NOTHING like Yahweh...nothing.
Though, I believe I've encountered Yahweh, as well. I've also encountered the Spirit (wisdom) and Jesus (though that's not His real name).



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



A "familiar spirit" is a demon that follows a family and torments them from generation to generation

Where did you find that definition?



new topics




 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join