but see.....those are all references to the Old Testament.....the "old covenant". When Jesus came, shed his blood, and died, rose again and ascended to heaven, he made the New Testament...the "new covenant"..... Oh here we go again...'the NT cancels out Leviticus' argument. I'm happy doing what I'm doing, P's happy doing what he's doing, and you Christians are happy doing what you're doing. Where's the problem? (that was a rhetorical question, I know that the BAC's among us will say that P and I are going to hell because we either don't believe in their god or we're doing things that are sinful...my point is simply that if people left each other alone and minded their own spiritual beeswax everyone might be better off)

I just don't get this at all. If you don't believe in the bible, do you believe in Jesus and God? If not why do you even care that someone thinks your going to hell? Accordingly if you don't believe in the bible, then you obviously don't believe in hell either.

He never said we will be gods ....he said Ye are gods! John chapter 10 go read. Lets see if you understand why he said it.. and what he was doing when he said it. He was trying to point out to the Jews how this was first said in Psalms, and that it is their scripture that he was pointing out to them and they wanted to stone him for doing what the scripture was telling, they called him blasphemus for saying he was God.

Yes. I found a few sites concerning that. One I found is: utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithpluralityofgodssermon.htm

Since I shoudl go to the gym now, I'll research it more later.

Do people still do the things mentioned in the article? If not then why not?

So, you've pretty much ignored anything I said concerning the law in the OT?

I never said that ..it was said by you remember?

Didn't Dharma first talk about people should mind their own business? If so, did you already forget?

Oh he "might" have said something but it was lost.. well im sure that if he did say something about it .. Im really sure that the church would have made it a clear point in putting it in there.

That's assuming that the church was able to get their hands on it before it was lost. Even if he never did say that, it's not necessarily true that he said anything he supposedly said if the Bible isn't inspired scripture. In which case, why follow anything he says? Love my neighbor? Don't even think adultery? Hate my enemy? Why? And remember not to use the Bible (or any other book for that matter) as justification, because it's just a book written by humans just like Lord of the Rings.

Remember when you point one finger four fingers are pointing back out at you.

What's this supposed to mean?

If all Christians were assholes then this world would be a really messy place.. well messier than it is right now.. fortunately there are alot of Christians who arent assholes and who do live by the true meanings of Jesus' words and example. Without judgements and condemnations.

That's why people should differentiate as Bakerstreet suggested.

Sure so do I .. plenty of them. Where here have I stated that Christians are assholes? Im asking for clarification on the original issue of the words in the old testament and why people dont follow it anymore yet still want to spout off the homosexual thing in Leviticus. You offer the words of Paul, yet you fail to understand the times in which those words were written and what they meant for the people and classes back then.

Take what I say in context. Besides, when did I ever accuse anybody of calling anybody an asshole here? I was speaking to Dharma. However, you have said things such as: "Are christians ever gonna mind their own business???" If you don't see what's wrong what that, then I'll provide an example: "When are homosexuals going to stop demanding special rights?"

Messy.....Matthew 7:6......Matthew 7:6

Yeah, but it's a great learning experience though! Although, I'm starting to wonder what's the point about debating sin and the Bible with somebody who doesn't even believe the Bible to be anything special.

Has the bible been kept word for word exactly as it was first written? Hasnt it been chopped and changed over the centuries in order to fit in with the rule of the day Link_books.htm Link

Hate to clue you in...but there is no proof that what we consider the bible to be today is what was "actually" written so many years ago. What we read today is someones interpretation of what was written. It wasn't originaly written in latin you know.

*boggle*

Dammit I was planning on bludging out of writing an article by using this in a few weeks myself. Last time you get a fwd from me PB :>

I think people are arguing at a few cross purposes here.

PB I have to agree with messy and drmiler etc (stop the presses), that it shouldn't really matter to you what certain people who use the label Christian believe about you. For instance, your good online friends trina and Teegstar also happen to believe that the Bible outlaws homosexuality. Yet they love you, they love other gay friends that we have.

On the other hand, religious Right groups have been set up here and in the US who are extending their personal religious persuasions to being also their political views. And that's why PB is likely to get pissed off about this Christian belief. When they want to stop homosexuals from getting certain rights, and this is basically because they believe God doesn't see it as part of an idyllic society, then PB is quite understandably going to get pissed off not simply at the political view, but also at the religious view.

messy, I was very impressed by your citing of the NT. The argument of this letter is directed at Christians who don't know these quotes (and btw you are the first I've ever heard quote those quotes). Most Christians, particularly on JU can only quote Levitticus. And their interpretation of Leviticus is somehwat hypocritical as this letter points out.

So as with abortion, the main problem is people confusing their religious convictions with their political convictions, and then others assume that everyone who is religious does the same thing. That's how we get cross purposes. If Christians are prepared to accept that we believe differently to them and that they shouldn't get to make laws based on their religion, then I'm prepared to accept that they won't ever indulge in homosexuality themselves because they think it's a sin.

Oh and more groundbreaking news, I think BakerStreet's dot point advice on how to deal with fanatics is excellent. Funny even. Shit, when did John Howard take over my body?

Last time I checked, the letters to the Corinthians and the Roman epistle were written by Paul, a man who's only alleged contact with Jesus was in a flash of light. (Wait, isn't Lucifer described as a being of light? Hmm.)

That's because he fulfilled the law.

Yeah, but he didn't come to abolish the law. SO you're sinning if you aren't living by Levitical standards. So sorry.

Except when jesus came the covenant was fulfilled and thus not everything applies in the old testament anymore

Did Jesus tell us which parts were OK and which were out? There's an attempt in Hebrews to sew it all up nicely, so I guess you might be talking about that one. The reality is that it's just too darn hard for you to live by all of God's rules, so you rationalize your way out having to do so.

Hasnt it been chopped and changed over the centuries in order to fit in with the rule of the day?

Yes, it has.

Instead of trying to pick apart Christian theology, why not just pick apart their behavior?

Well, when people try to rationalize their way out of the rules they say that want to live by, I like to point it out. It amuses me. Does this make an asshole? Oh, most likely!

So, you've pretty much ignored anything I said concerning the law in the OT?

Well, you've pretty much ignored everything else.

It wasn't originaly written in latin you know.

Yay drmiler! Insightful to you, friend.

Myrrander.....you have one clear advantage: while we use the entire scope of the Bible, you are allowed to pick & choose what you want to use. But, there is a flaw in that advantage....you are doing the exact thing that this article accuses Christians of doing, not following "everything" written.

As far as Jesus not abolishing the Old Covenant....then what is the purpose of the New Covenent, which Jesus DID speak of? What good is a new contract, if a person is still held by the old contract?

Even in the Old Testament, the prophets themselves speak of God making a new covenant.....

Myrrander, for someone who doesn't believe in God, or believes the Bible, or even cares about what Christians think, you sure do get involved

while we use the entire scope of the Bible, you are allowed to pick & choose what you want to use

Wrong, buddy, I use the whole Bible. Including the OT and NT apocrypha.

Myrrander, for someone who doesn't believe in God, or believes the Bible, or even cares about what Christians think, you sure do get involved

Well, I do have a degree in theology, it interests me.

actually, you don't....you disregard everything that Paul wrote

oh....and you also even hint that Paul was commissioned by satan.....

if you are taking the entire Bible, I am really not sure where you are coming from with that.

We were talking about Jesus. Paul didn't know Jesus in real life, even if you believe the conversion story. So in that instance, I disregarded what Paul said. Now, in another instance, Pauline writings might have some relevance.

Lucifer means "light bringer" and Paul was approached by a being of light. I'm not the first person to promote that idea.