![]() |
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Welcome to the forums..... have fun, and remember: charity above all else! Scott |
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Ok I`ve been re-reading Leviticus the past couple of days and overall it sounds like a pretty educational rule book for Biblical times. Like how to deal with leprosy and how to make sure fruit trees are properly fertilized and things like that. I cannot agree with chapter 18 however, I just like nakedness too much. ![]() Now please speak to me like I`m a 5 year old (I`m sure nobody will have trouble with that) The way Mr.Emu defines it is that those rules which have punishment involved or "Moral" codes and those that have no punishment involved are "Ceremonial" codes. Is this right? Yes..No? Am I waaaaay off base again? |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
No, there are morals and laws
A moral is stealing is wrong, or man lieing with man is wrong. Laws are you goto jail for stealing, or you die for lieing with another man. If there were no law against stealing, it would still be wrong. The biblical law for killing homosexuals is gone, the moral remains. |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
However since you mention it if the Biblical law against homosexuals is gone what is the justification for making a national law against homosexuals? Anyway, to the point... I`m still not understanding how a Christian determines which laws in Leviticus he/she must abide by and which he/she no longer needs to abide by. Here`s an example.... Quote:
Why is it acceptable for a believer to eat shellfish but not copulate with the same sex? By what standard do you deem one still applicable and the other not applicable? |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
moral: positive and promtes good welfare of all.
immoral: negative, harms. amoral: no sense of right or wrong Nonmoral: neither moral or immoral. i would classify all sexuality under nonmoral. adultry should never be confused with homosexuality. not all laws or moral. no matter how much the nazis made laws and justified that jews were inhuman and should be killed, does not make it moral. "Why is it acceptable for a believer to eat shellfish but not copulate with the same sex?" because the church (through what some believe divine inspiration) got rid of all diatary and other simple laws. but homosexuality remains...why? catholics are dogmatic, instead of listening to jesus, they listen to the church. only until vatican two were they actual able to read the bible. does jesus say anything against homosexuality? no.
__________________
"Pies para qué los quiero, Si tengo alas pa´ volar" ~Frida Kahlo. |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That`s what I believe as well Gerani but there are Christians who claim their is a standard as to which laws they follow and which they don`t. With the explaination that some are "Moral" and some are "Ceremonial" I`m assuming that there is some standard by which to measure which is which otherwise it is just picking and choosing and dogma. It doesn`t seem like many Christians can answer my question though. Quote:
By what standard do you deem one still applicable and the other not applicable? Again I do see that you`re trying to show me why there is a distinction made but I`m still not seeing any standard for seperating the two types of laws. Help please? |
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
I just re-read this whole thread paying close to Emus and scotts explainations.
If I am understanding correctly then all they laws still apply as a moral standard yet Christians no longer punish people for committing them. yes..no? |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
I can't explain it any better than I have already:
While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures. |
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
"Pederasty? Insest?"
live giving? love bonding? sex can be both bad and good, its all up to the practicioners. homosexuality in itself aint bad. its a thing. it cant be bad nor good. its an expression of love, sex that is. sex can also be used for money. "God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures" you are aware that homosexulity exists in all cultures rite? and you are aware that because of fear and homophobia, many people despised it and began saying that God is against it. this is completly untrue, God is beyond sexuality, God is a form of love, and homosexuality is an expression of it, just as heterosexuality is. about leviticus, i think the dude who wrote it must have been in error. i dunno. |