Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

reply to post by otherpotato


Don't get hung up on the terms "old" and "new", you can refer to them as "former" and "current" covenants if you want to.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter

 

I however was commanded to preach the gospel. I was pointing out that Jesus said 2000 years ago that most would reject what you call "Sunday School" teaching. So when you make the comment that most people don't agree with it, that's just confirming Christ's prophecy.

where did you rip that off from?

goes without saying 3.0

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter

 

I however was commanded to preach the gospel. I was pointing out that Jesus said 2000 years ago that most would reject what you call "Sunday School" teaching. So when you make the comment that most people don't agree with it, that's just confirming Christ's prophecy.

where did you rip that off from?

goes without saying 3.0

If it truly "goes without saying" why are you commenting? And what are you claiming I "ripped off"? I made three statements you need to be more specific please.

Originally posted by Dennislp3

"Sickness" Is you pulling a poor argument using selective translations to suit your needs. This is the way it translates in ONE version (the kings James version).

now if you want to pull a reference about menstruation being this vile horrid thing from the new testament then by all means we can argue over something new. But it seems you are not aware that the laws from the old testament are all the same laws and they apply to all jews.

Using selected translations is what everyone does when reading the Bible, because there is no agreed upon translation. Also, the KJV is probably the most popular translation, so I am hardly selecting translations in a cunning fashion to strengthen my own arguments, it's the common translation I use when finding passages online.

Now, if you want to pull a reference about HOMOSEXUALITY being this vile and horrid thing from the New Testament then by all means consider my argument refuted, but beware, I am allowed to pull the translation argument for anything you bring up, just as you have done to me.

I think this has been mentioned already, but this article sums up the NT's stance on homosexuality quite nicely:

"Mainline Christian denominations in this country are bitterly divided over the question of homosexuality. For this reason it is important to ask what light, if any, the New Testament sheds on this controversial issue. Most people apparently assume that the New Testament expresses strong opposition to homosexuality, but this simply is not the case. The six propositions that follow, considered cumulatively, lead to the conclusion that the New Testament does not provide any direct guidance for understanding and making judgments about homosexuality in the modern world."

www.westarinstitute.org...

You see, each argument you make criticizing my comments on menstruation, can ALSO be made regards the Bible's stance on homosexuality, but still, homosexuality is made a big deal of in modern times. I will reiterate something I have said many times already, at no point does Jesus ever think to mention or condemn Christianity. This is quite telling.

Originally posted by Dennislp3

Where does God say he hates menstruation? And child birth as a whole is the price of the original sin. God says its unclean to come into his temple while you are bleeding out your crotch.

You're being disingenuous now. He says men who have sex with a menstruating women should be put to death, that hardly speaks highly of it, does it. Menstruation is spoken of in negative fashion multiple times in the Bible.

He doesn't simply say its unclean to come into his temple, he says anything the woman touches is unclean, and men aren't even supposed to come near to a menstruating woman. Yeah, I'd say he thinks fondly of it for sure.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Homosexuality is not discussed in the Gospel. Please cite where you find it within the commonly acknowledged books of the Gospel.

I don't deny your right to preach the Gospel, but if an anti-homosexual stance is what you include in that preaching you are not in fact preaching the Gospel. A technicality, but true nonetheless. I believe Christ is not on your side on this one. But feel free to prove me wrong. I am, after all, open minded.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by otherpotato

 

OK... That doesn't make it any less old though. That's your only counterpoint? Telling.

Telling indeed.. Telling you that the terms are irrelevant. The current covenant is the last covenant. It will still be the same covenant 10,000 years from now. There will be no other covenants. Testament just means covenant.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm sure Moses thought his covenant would be the only one too. Isn't that interesting?

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Homosexuality is not discussed in the Gospel. Please cite where you find it within the commonly acknowledged books of the Gospel.

I don't deny your right to preach the Gospel, but if an anti-homosexual stance is what you include in that preaching you are not in fact preaching the Gospel. A technicality, but true nonetheless. I believe Christ is not on your side on this one. But feel free to prove me wrong. I am, after all, open minded.

I don't have the burden of proof to prove you wrong, you first need to prove you are right. Site the passage please where Christ affirmed homosexual unions. I can show from the gospels where He said from the beginning God made them male and female and marriage is to be one man and one woman. You claim Christ is on the side of homosexual unions so please site that statement from the gospels.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm sure Moses thought his covenant would be the only one too. Isn't that interesting?

Not really. The prophecy of the new covenant came through Jeremiah at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter

 

I however was commanded to preach the gospel. I was pointing out that Jesus said 2000 years ago that most would reject what you call "Sunday School" teaching. So when you make the comment that most people don't agree with it, that's just confirming Christ's prophecy.

where did you rip that off from?

goes without saying 3.0

If it truly "goes without saying" why are you commenting? And what are you claiming I "ripped off"? I made three statements you need to be more specific please.

reply to post by krossfyter


Dude, I just asked you to specify. You made the comment.

reply to post by humphreysjim


That article you showed me is dancing around with semantics a bit much to really convince me of anything leaning towards it not being a problem.

He straight up says that passages include words that mean

are the two Greek words translated in the New Revised Standard Version as “male prostitutes” (that is, homosexual male prostitutes) and “sodomites.” But no special emphasis is placed on these people; they are simply listed along with the others.

And he plays the "but they are not called out specifically" card multiple times.

At the end he also notes:

To the extent that it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality

And honestly to me this passage sounds a LOT like homosexuality (when talking about idolatry)...

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

aomin.org...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Dude, I just asked you to specify. You made the comment.

reply to post by krossfyter

LOL!!!
Perfect. Hope you don't mind I hijacked your pic and may very well use it one day in another thread.


Yeah. We are there. Big woop.

reply to post by wildtimes



by all means go for it. community property

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Homosexuality is not discussed in the Gospel. Please cite where you find it within the commonly acknowledged books of the Gospel.

I don't deny your right to preach the Gospel, but if an anti-homosexual stance is what you include in that preaching you are not in fact preaching the Gospel. A technicality, but true nonetheless. I believe Christ is not on your side on this one. But feel free to prove me wrong. I am, after all, open minded.

I don't have the burden of proof to prove you wrong, you first need to prove you are right. Site the passage please where Christ affirmed homosexual unions. I can show from the gospels where He said from the beginning God made them male and female and marriage is to be one man and one woman. You claim Christ is on the side of homosexual unions so please site that statement from the gospels.

I did not realize the conversation changed to trying to prove that Christ affirmed homosexuality. I thought we were discussing whether or not Christ stated that homosexual unions, or same sex unions for that matter, are immoral. I believe there are a lot of things one could point to that Christ never specifically affirmed in the Gospel - does that then mean we are to assume he was against them?

However I see you want to approach the discussion from a different angle so I'm happy to discuss the reference you've cited:

"And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

In this passage Christ was never asked about homosexual or same sex unions, only divorce. Using his statements concerning divorce as proof of his position on another matter that he did not in fact comment on is a fallacy. But I can see how people arrive there when taking the conversation out of context. But let's look at what he really said because it is interesting....

One could easily argue that Jesus' statement of "one flesh" refers to the production of children as the reason a marriage cannot be undone. Creating a child requires the genetic material - "the flesh" - of two members of the opposite sex merging into a new single person - "the two made one." You are not truly "one" until a child is created between you because the oneness of sex is only temporary, not permanent. Once children are involved you have, in fact, now become "one" in a very literal sense and that state of "oneness" cannot be undone once it is created. So here we have a clear statement from Jesus on divorce when children are involved, therefore I support your right to preach on it because you have a clear reference point. But that's not what we were talking about.

This passage cannot be used to claim that Jesus believes marriage is between a man and a woman, first because Jesus was never asked the question, and second because Jesus is talking about the production of children, which in those days required a man and a woman to join up sexually, and also required that that man and woman be married to do so. These days neither of those of those conditions are necessary to produce children, but it does explain why it's permissible to get an annulment for your marriage if it did not produce children.

Originally posted by Dennislp3

That article you showed me is dancing around with semantics a bit much to really convince me of anything leaning towards it not being a problem.

Are you confident enough in your own personal interpretations to support denying rights for homosexuals?

the mo's have to stop their sexual orientation from becoming thier sole purpose in life god, move on !!!!