What happened to the animal sacrifices?
By the way - topical right now - here's an example of gay rights activism and shout down bigotry against opposing opinion hurting gay people terribly.
This is real; it's not an Onion article. This law is going to devastate many gay lives. And for what?
These people are as mad as religious conservatives, and more harmful to gay people. If you care about people rather than politics and isms, you'd agree with my views.
People like batair with their hateful bigotry toward anything but the extremist gay lobby view do tremendous harm to gay people, far more than religious people.
This is real; it's not an Onion article. This law is going to devastate many gay lives. And for what?
These people are as mad as religious conservatives, and more harmful to gay people. If you care about people rather than politics and isms, you'd agree with my views.
People like batair with their hateful bigotry toward anything but the extremist gay lobby view do tremendous harm to gay people, far more than religious people.
Do you have any good new lynching apologetic arguments? Sure you and Roy can work gays into it.
But who am i to stop your entertainment, right? So let's take it a step further. What is your final solution? You must realize that discouraging gay behavior has never worked in our society. Even tossing them off buildings doesn't seem to work. Gays are still here and aren't going anywhere. How will you prevent the gay behavior that you claim to detest?
More importantly, how will you do it without punishing any non-gays? How will the effeminate heteros not get caught in your net? How will the high school kid who wants to wait until he's married not be called a "******" until he plows the next girl he sees? That type of "discouragement" doesn't just target gays... it targets everyone near them.
Please don't get him started on blacks.
I'm also not applyiing persuasive rhetoric; I'm pretty sure I could convert even batair to some of my view if I was willing to be sly about it. I'm trying to have an honest conversation, that's all.
I'm fully convinced that you are just taking this position because you enjoy arguing. In fact, it is the difficulty of the position that appeals to you. If you can win an argument like this, then you have demonstrated (in your mind) your unparalleled debating skills.
But who am i to stop your entertainment, right? So let's take it a step further. What is your final solution? You must realize that discouraging gay behavior has never worked in our society.
Even tossing them off buildings doesn't seem to work.
Gays are still here and aren't going anywhere. How will you prevent the gay behavior that you claim to detest?
The imputations are all yours. My position is very simple - live and let live, on a social level, gently discourage rather than encourage personally and socially unhealthy behavior. To you that makes me Hitler; so be it.
More importantly, how will you do it without punishing any non-gays? How will the effeminate heteros not get caught in your net? How will the high school kid who wants to wait until he's married not be called a "******" until he plows the next girl he sees? That type of "discouragement" doesn't just target gays... it targets everyone near them.
Do you have any good new lynching apologetic arguments? Sure you and Roy can work gays into it.
To point out that lynching was actually a social practice against criminals, and that it was done to thousands of whites also, does not make me a "lynching apologist". Lyching is a horrible thing, but it was mostly not a racist thing. That's just a fact; if facts disagree with your feelings, I choose facts.
Someone who holds the mainstream view of a good portion of politicians a mere 20 years ago is not an extremist, sorry.
Now I'm a lynching apologist? Why have such a dark view of your fellow man? I don't get it; it's not real and doesn't help make you more happy.
To point out that lynching was actually a social practice against criminals, and that it was done to thousands of whites also, does not make me a "lynching apologist". Lyching is a horrible thing, but it was mostly not a racist thing. That's just a fact; if facts disagree with your feelings, I choose facts.
Now I'm a lynching apologist? Why have such a dark view of your fellow man? I don't get it; it's not real and doesn't help make you more happy.
To point out that lynching was actually a social practice against criminals, and that it was done to thousands of whites also, does not make me a "lynching apologist". Lyching is a horrible thing, but it was mostly not a racist thing. That's just a fact; if facts disagree with your feelings, I choose facts.
The reason why you are failing to win any converts here is precisely because you don't actually believe in this bigotry. I'm fully convinced that you are just taking this position because you enjoy arguing. In fact, it is the difficulty of the position that appeals to you. If you can win an argument like this, then you have demonstrated (in your mind) your unparalleled debating skills.
But who am i to stop your entertainment, right? So let's take it a step further. What is your final solution? You must realize that discouraging gay behavior has never worked in our society. Even tossing them off buildings doesn't seem to work. Gays are still here and aren't going anywhere. How will you prevent the gay behavior that you claim to detest?
More importantly, how will you do it without punishing any non-gays? How will the effeminate heteros not get caught in your net? How will the high school kid who wants to wait until he's married not be called a "******" until he plows the next girl he sees? That type of "discouragement" doesn't just target gays... it targets everyone near them.
But who am i to stop your entertainment, right? So let's take it a step further. What is your final solution? You must realize that discouraging gay behavior has never worked in our society. Even tossing them off buildings doesn't seem to work. Gays are still here and aren't going anywhere. How will you prevent the gay behavior that you claim to detest?
More importantly, how will you do it without punishing any non-gays? How will the effeminate heteros not get caught in your net? How will the high school kid who wants to wait until he's married not be called a "******" until he plows the next girl he sees? That type of "discouragement" doesn't just target gays... it targets everyone near them.
Think he just needs to have some girl stimulate his prostate. It would help him get over his anal phobias.
Thousands of posts?? lol.
And yes I mean it. Nothing I have said is unreasonable or hateful or bigoted. That you think it is shows a shocking lack of perspective and philosophical breadth.
You seem far more miserable and negative toward your fellow human than me. I'm here for debate and to explore ideas; to you this is deeply personal; for someone not to accept your incredibly narrow views of morality and homosexuality means they are a bigot, a homophobe, a nazi, a terrible person who must be thwarted. It's a weird view to have of your fellow man. It's almost like the worst of religious fundamentalism or far right fascism, ironically.
And yes I mean it. Nothing I have said is unreasonable or hateful or bigoted. That you think it is shows a shocking lack of perspective and philosophical breadth.
Think he just needs to have some girl stimulate his prostate. It would help him get over his anal phobias.
You seem far more miserable and negative toward your fellow human than me.
I'm here for debate and to explore ideas; to you this is deeply personal;
for someone not to accept your incredibly narrow views of morality and homosexuality means they are a bigot,
Ive already said people who say homosexuality is sinful are not necessarily bigots. There needs to be more. Like if they spent thousands of posts degrading them.
a homophobe, a nazi, a terrible person who must be thwarted. It's a weird view to have of your fellow man. It's almost like the worst of religious fundamentalism or far right fascism, ironically.
I seem to live in your head. You seem to genuinely believe I've posted thousands of posts on homosexuality (an obviously false statement that you keep doubling down on). I'm just going to assume you're mentally not too well and here to troll someone you feel hate for - it's pretty obvious given your lack of interest in actual topical discussion - and leave it at that. I'll stop responding to you.
(an obviously false statement that you keep doubling down on). I'm just going to assume you're mentally not too well and here to troll someone you feel hate for - it's pretty obvious given your lack of interest in actual topical discussion - and leave it at that. I'll stop responding to you.
Pederasty had a social purpose in Greece: there were few if any schools, so the father in a well-to-do family would give permission that an adult citizen male have a relationship with the teenage pubescent son, to teach him the virtues of citizenship and guide him to adulthood. It included sex (usually the older male masturbating their penis between the younger's clenched thighs) but was not primarily for that purpose.
NAMBLA opposes all age of consent laws, because they're a group of pedophiles attracted to children incapable of giving informed consent. They can rightly be opposed because there is ~0 upside in current society to allowing their behavior, but considerable downside; we now use schools to teach teenagers to become adults.
This [PDF] has more info.
No, he doesn't believe it. Yes, he spends a LOT of energy trying to convince people that he does, but that's just part of the fun for him. It's all fake. The bigotry, the pretend outrage, everything. He's just in it for the argument.
Idk maybe. Seems very personal with Muslims you can smell the hate. If it is a put on...meh, same difference for me.
And actually, discouraging and helping can be exclusive. Widely spread Christian dogma has had a devastating effect on the rate of HIV/AIDS cases and other STD's, by declaring condom use as immoral. There is no secular reason to ban safe sex practices, this is purely a religious problem, and an enormous one.
I'm not advocating discouraging the group, but rather not encouraging the behavior, when the behavior is sometimes a choice and sometimes encouraged by social norms. The widely varying prevalence of say pederasty throughout history shows the large contribution of social norms to said behavior.
If there were no (or few, or net zero - good and bad) mental, physical, sexual, emotional, spiritual, or social negative outcomes, then sure. We're dealing with reality though, not pony world. And in reality, homosexuality is one of the worst things you can catch. Encouraging and calling it normal isn't healthy or helpful - most of all to gay people.
Devout religious people believe that homosexuality is spiritual suicide, hence their attempt to help. They may or may not be wrong, but to smear and ostracize them for it is kind of weird, imo. Particularly when their spiritual views line up with other categories of suffering and harm.
And actually, discouraging and helping can be exclusive. Widely spread Christian dogma has had a devastating effect on the rate of HIV/AIDS cases and other STD's, by declaring condom use as immoral. There is no secular reason to ban safe sex practices, this is purely a religious problem, and an enormous one.
Your language has been really slippery, if you don't mind me saying. When you refer to 'behaviour', what are you actually talking about? In context, it just sounded a lot like 'whatever homosexuals do'.
In the West, same sex couples generally live completely normal and healthy lives.
Can you be clear - these individuals are not immoral
should not be discouraged etc
If it's about 'outcomes' then this should be your consistent position.
I'll point out the obvious disconnect: you have been championing religious people that stigmatise homosexuals (or is it homosexual behaviour?), but their position has nothing to do with outcome in the way you claim your position is.
What you described as a 'pony world' where homosexuality has no 'negative outcomes', that you admit you'd then find no moral issue
would continue to be a world in which your religious champions continuing to stigmatise them.
You think their spiritual views line up, that in itself is highly questionable, but regardless of that, it would be entirely coincidental.
But if was then sure. Life is full of coincidence and serendipity.
Nope. You have been using them as a tool.
Lots of Gays end up killing themselves because family and friends don't accept them. But hell if they would just change their life choices they would be happy and healthy. Why didn't they think of that?
But hell if they would just change their life choices they would be happy and healthy. Why didn't they think of that?
Again, it is settled science that homosexuality is less physically, mentally and sexually healthy.
He knows this is bunk but it's not going to stop him.
Was reading the Old Testament in the doc's office this a.m. Leviticus has very specific and extensive instructions about the right ways to offer animal sacrifices unto me (the lord).
As far as I know, Christians have not been doing this for a long time. Jews and Muslims neither.
What would be the theological justification for dropping this practice?
As far as I know, Christians have not been doing this for a long time. Jews and Muslims neither.
What would be the theological justification for dropping this practice?
But according to Romans 10:4 Jesus Christ was the end of the law.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..
Animal sacrifices were done for a specific reason, and were required to be done under the old testaments law.
But according to Romans 10:4 Jesus Christ was the end of the law.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..
But according to Romans 10:4 Jesus Christ was the end of the law.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
Heb 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..
The answer to this question can be found here:
https://outreachjudaism.org/outreach...ews-for-jesus/
It will take a few minutes to read, but I think the most important sentence is:
"Contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish Scriptures: The Sin Sacrifice, repentance, and charity."
and this one is also important:
"Refutation IV: Hosea foretold that the Jewish people would be without a sacrificial system, and instructed us to replace animal offerings with prayer"
So with this being the case, from a Jewish perspective, there's no reason to read what the New Testament says on this subject.
Mason
Again:
The answer to this question can be found here:
https://outreachjudaism.org/outreach...ews-for-jesus/
It will take a few minutes to read, but I think the most important sentence is:
"Contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish Scriptures: The Sin Sacrifice, repentance, and charity."
and this one is also important:
"Refutation IV: Hosea foretold that the Jewish people would be without a sacrificial system, and instructed us to replace animal offerings with prayer"
So with this being the case, from a Jewish perspective, there's no reason to read what the New Testament says on this subject.
Mason
The answer to this question can be found here:
https://outreachjudaism.org/outreach...ews-for-jesus/
It will take a few minutes to read, but I think the most important sentence is:
"Contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish Scriptures: The Sin Sacrifice, repentance, and charity."
and this one is also important:
"Refutation IV: Hosea foretold that the Jewish people would be without a sacrificial system, and instructed us to replace animal offerings with prayer"
So with this being the case, from a Jewish perspective, there's no reason to read what the New Testament says on this subject.
Mason
Always reading around the scriptures instead of the actual scriptures - never a good idea. And to top that off, the jews rejected the Christ. Jewish perspective from the time they denied the Christ until now, is not a good basis for truth. They completely ignored the truth then and they are doing it now also....
So, believe what you want and read want you want, but if you want the truth about it, you need to read the scriptures that actually refer to it, that are relevant... Hebrews as I suggested above...
You can read commentary about the word and rely upon that for truth, that's all hearsay. Search the scriptures and prove what you say. I am showing you where to look, to give you a good start. You can't read the old testament either because that was written for the Christians learning, not directly to them, The 7 Church Epistles were written to the Christians. And Hebrews was written to the Hebrew/Christians at that time who refused to stop living according to the law.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE