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.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee
I believe he was trying to make the case that God told people not to eat shellfish out of concern for their well-being. He is very concerned about well-being
“We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).” ― Sam Harris
Originally posted by yuppa
The shellfish rule was stricly for the Israelites/hebrews under mosaic law. So unless he is a jew or hebrew it does not apply. From what I have read on the subject.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee
What's amazing to me is the idea that if it only applies to certain people, or that it only applies to a certain period of time, somehow that reconciles the fact it's horribly immoral to begin with. Just because a New Covenant supposedly "fulfills" some of the passages doesn't negate that an 'all-loving god' decided it was ethically sound to stone virgins to death before that 'New Covenant'.
This just escapes people. Or they intentionally confuse it in their minds because then they would be forced to re-evaluate God of Abraham as a perfect loving entity.
Originally posted by Annee
I'm allergic to shellfish too.
So what. It has nothing to do with the point being made.
Originally posted by Annee
Well I get culture. If it was just a book explaining the culture - - then it would make more sense.
The only way the stories in the bible would make sense - - - is if there was an "Off planet being" intervention.
I'd like for the ancient texts to be translated by an atheist cultural historian.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Originally posted by Annee
I'd like for the ancient texts to be translated by an atheist cultural historian.
There isn't I am sure there has to be some highly regarded ones...i'll look into that. I would like to see that for the gnostic and dead sea scrolls as well.
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Hooray !
Anderson Cooper finally getting on to the right track.
Kelly Ripa comforts Anderson Cooper in Croatia amid cheating rumours
SOURCE: ca.omg.yahoo.com...
Yesterday morning Cooper posted a photo to his Twitter account of a fresh-faced Ripa snuggling up to him. The "Live!" host is a big fan of Cooper's and recently told Us Weekly she would like him as her new co-host.
"We have a connection like nobody else," she said. "I worship him!"
Maybe Anderson will finally see the light.
No more unfaithful gay partners, time for partners that can make a real commitment.
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
Originally posted by Annee
But… Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! Yet most Christians probably eat shrimp,
I have a relative that can't eat any shellfish. He has very severe allergic reactions, and could die from eating. We have to keep all shellfish away from him. Even slight contamination causes a biological reaction.
So, most probably that shellfish rule had a very good reason for being there, not all body types can tolerate it. Personally, I have no adverse biological reaction to shrimp. I don't know about other types of shellfish, since I just don't like the taste of whole species. For me, it's not religious, or allergy, just preference. But, I can understand why a loving God would create such a rule to save his people some unnecessary suffering.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
So basically, you're ok with you breaking the shellfish rule...but when it comes to gays you're stubbornly following the rules. Makes perfect sense to cherry pick stuff, right?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Yes...because only gay people cheat on their partners
How about applying some logic to your posts, just once?
Straight men don't have any place like that, to just go "pick up" a woman for a few minutes sex.
Sins of Sodom
by Inge Anderson ©1999
Unfortunately people have a long-standing habit to read into Scriptures what is not there, thus justifying their own sins and their spirit of judgmentalism.
Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels. And we have examined the complete Bible record of Sodom's sins above.
Fundamentalists who like to see issues in black-and-white terms generally like to see Sodom's destruction as a judgment on homosexuality. I believe that this does not accord with the Bible record. Gay theologians, on the other hand, commit the same error of over-simplification by seeing Sodom's destruction as a judgment on inhospitality. And the Bible record does not support that conclusion either. Real life is usually more complex, and the great "Judge of all the earth" sees all there is to our lives.
I believe that if we examine the Bible record with an open mind, we are forced to conclude that Sodom was destroyed for sins that are not uncommon in today's affluent society -- sins that are rooted in self-sufficiency and flaunted in rebellion. Sexual sins were part of the problem, no doubt, but it is unworthy of Christians and misrepresentative of the Lord to wrest Scriptures in order to make someone else's sins appear as greater than our own more common sins of pride, hypocrisy, gossip, and a judgmental spirit.
glow.cc...
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agoyahtah
No...what you do is called "cherry picking" the parts you agree with and ignoring the others. That's has nothing to do with understanding
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Either way, you trying to force your belief on others, and even worse, judging them...
I'm not the judge. I'm just a "poster" who is "texting" ideas.
It's an evil thing to disobey God's laws. All who do so are evil to the core. They have no heart. They don't know what love is. They just imagine they do. But, their kind of love is hate. They are really selfish, thinking only of themselves. They don't embrace the good things.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
You're not judging....riiiiiiiight
You might wanna look up the definition of "judging"
And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
KJV Matthew 8:28-33
Originally posted by Agoyahtah
. . . . , suppose a demonic spirit had taken possession of your body, and made you do all these bad things, could I blame you for the actions? When Jesus came, he cast out the demons. He didn't judge the possessed person. He never punished the "victim."