What? This is why people in this forum go crazy on you.
This thread is a bunch of opinions. No gays were harmed in the making of this thread lol.
Is women wearing pants a sin?
Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a womanâs garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Do you touch or speak to your wife during her period?
Leviticus 20:18 - If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 15:19-30 - âWhen a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening. âŚ
Saturday is the Sabbath. That said, Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
No, the sabbath IS NOT MADE FOR MAN. You donât get to change the fact that the Sabbath is on Saturday and in your 10 commandments it demands you keep the sabbath day holy, yet Christians changed it arbitrarily. So, ipso facto - every Christian nearly is violating the Sabbath and the 10 commandments every single week of their lives.
SoâŚwe can do this forever, of course. There was a citing if âsinâ and homosexuality being a sin. As weâve seen right here, I can spend all day citing sins you violate, probably.
Also, Jesus was never his name.
Correct GSC. But you bellyache like theyâre harming you.
Ah, so youâre not the party of big government?
I see your party banning books all over the country, telling teachers they cannot teach basic history, telling businesses they cannot enforce their own safety rules, trying to force private companies to change their terms of service or violate their own rules to allow your ilk on their platform by threat of force, telling private business to stay out of politics when they donât agree with them, state officials curtailing the authority of local election officials and elected secretaries of state.
What the fuck do you mean people who want to be left alone? Yaâll arenât leaving anyone alone. Small government? My ass.
Nobody is forcing pronoun usage. Nobody is forcing critical race theory, which isnât even being taught in schools and is a legal theory that is as true as humanly possible. Instead, you conservatives cite Critical Race Theory when you just donât want your little bastards being taught simple history. Hell, we have examples even to the point of conservative school boards telling teachers they have to teach âall sides of the holocaust.â
Youâre full of shit
Someone doesnât understand that certain laws were laxed.
I suggest you brush up on your Christian studies.
Take dietary laws for instance, Christians are not bound by Jewish dietary laws because Jesus said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him that does (paraphrase).
And regarding Deuteronomy 22:5 - itâs clear youâve been gas lit on this.
Ancient Jews (remember, Deuteronomy was written thousands of years before Christ) didnât wear pants you shit head.
They wore animal skins and basically âskirtsââŚ. That applies to both genders.
The verse is really dealing with who is dominant in a relationship. And the Bible is clear that the man is the head and the women is the submissive.
You donât like that? Take it up with God. But I doubt youâre a believer anyway. You only use the Bible (errantly) to further your stupid ideology.
They harm themselves in a thousand ways. If you truly loved them- youâd side with me.
Interesting you point out this verse when pants didnât exist in biblical days. So are bagpipers wearing kilts sinning?The answer is no. There are pants designed for men, and there are pants designed for women. Context is so important when reading scripture.
Still no mention of not speaking to your wife during her period. The first verse you quoted here is talking about having sex with your wife during her period, which most people do not do, or at least I hope not.
Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, âThe sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.â The words of our Savior Himself.
Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament. The Old Testament holds great weight and value. We are living in the New Testament now. You have to be able to discern which laws apply still verbatim, or the spirit behind the law which is more important. The Why, not so much the What.
You mean like how true Godâs name is Yahweh and Christâs true name is Yeshua? You do realize that peopleâs name will look different in other languages once translated, no?
This is the kind of the stuff that Satan uses to keep us divided. We engage in discussions that lead to arguments over things that donât have an impact on the kingdom. When I attended seminary, I was taught to use exegesis and not eisegesis when reading the Bible.
Exegesis: Legitimate interpretation which âreads out ofâ the text what the original author or authors meant to convey.
Eisegesis: âReads intoâ the text what the interpreter wishes to find or thinks he/she finds there. In other words, what the reader believes and not what the text meant.
How so?
Ah, so then tell me where Jesus discusses homosexuality if you abide by the idea that Yshwh provided another covenant that superseded the Mosaic covenant, then your 10 commandments are null and void along with the previous laws, right? So, only the New Testament appliesâŚokay, so tell me where he talks about gays being sinners.
Also, they didnât wear just animal skins. This wasnât 10,000 years BC. They made fabric from wool and linen. But, it doesnât say what clothes they can and canât wear. It says they canât dress like a man. Hence, the fight against women wearing pants in the US for years.
We can go through Leviticus and Deut for days and just start listing the laws outlinedâŚnot cutting beards, etc. Paul wrote of it, but Paul was also the only apostle never to meet Jesus (outside of a âvisionâ). One could definitely say the version of Christianity we have is from Paul not the guy you keep calling Jesus. The thing is, there is quite a bit in the Bible everyone fails onâŚadmittedly so. So, why single out homosexuality and not dudes who cut their beards? Why homosexuality and not changing the sabbath day?
The Bible is clear the man is the head of the household. Itâs also clear that it endorses slavery, child rape, selling your daughter into child sex slavery, bashing babies against rocks, child abuse, and an array of abhorrent things. Yes, I am not a believer. In fact, I believe it to be one of the worst moral guides on the planet and history has shown as much
The Bible is one of the worst books as a teacher of
Warden clearly has no idea about Christianity.
No shit.
First, Christ is a title, not a name. Yeshua/Yâshua is translated into Joshua or Isa, not Jesus. Thereâs a whole move from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, but it doesnât change the fact his name translates into Joshua and early church fathers chose Jesus to sound more masculine. The NT was written in Greek with, thought to be, Aramaic source text. That would make the original name Yeshua which translates into Joshua in Aramaic.
As far as the pants questionâŚdude, you Christians need to read your history. Up until the late 70s, you Christian conservatives were fighting women wearing anything other than dresses. Some still are, actually.
As for the period, correct. You can talk to her. My mistake. Ever touch her or lay in the same bed while sheâs on her period? Ever touch anything sheâs ever touched while on her period?
With regards to the OT - cool, then why do you want the 10 commandments up everywhere if that covenant is null and void? In fact, why do you conservatives ignore things like Acts where they served the needs of the poor, sold their property and provided to each according to his need?
As far as the rest, thereâs not been a human alive who hasnât âread intoâ the Bible. I donât believe the book in general but hey, itâs your book. Also, âLegitimate interpretationâ is in itself subjective. What your church apparently tried to teach you was that THEIR interpretation was right and nothing more.
As far as Satan, doesnât exist. Never did. Your words even prove your interpretation is Eisegesis. You probably still think Satan tempted Adam and Eve and his name was Lucifer, huh?
This argument again. The âSlave obey your masterâ verse? Slavery is not endorsed. I keep saying context matters. If the Bible endorsed slavery, then the book of Exodus would not have been written and the Jews would still be enslaved in Egypt. Most slaves during that time were indentured servants. What is an indentured servant? Indentured servitude was a way for people to work off debt. Freedom was gained after 7 years or the debt was satisfied, whichever came first.
What in the fuck are you talking about?
But you bellyache like theyâre harming you.
You didnât say thatâŚYou said he wonât leave them alone.
Youâre pathetic manâŚYou simply blurt any old thing out for dramatic effect.
Those Christians were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
First, there is no archeological nor historical record outside of the Bible itself that shows the Jews were enslaved in Egypt or that Moses ever existed.
(Exodus 21:1-11) - 2 âIf you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 âBut if the servant declares, âI love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,â 6 then his master must take him before the judges.He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 âIf a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Notice how they get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. Family values? I guess, not considering the child sex trafficking endorsed
What does it say about beating slave?
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
hristians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
In fact, Jesus clearly endorse beating slaves
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. âBut people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.â (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Want to keep going? How about we talk about bashing babies against rocks or taking child concubines next. Shall we?
Viable response
Wrong- Jesus was clear that he did not come to absolve the law, but to fulfill it. Not one âjot nor tittleâ will be changed. So the obvious question is, what you asked above IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND that Jesus WAS AND AWAYS HAS BEEN THE LAW.
He, himself, and faith in Him is the entirety of the law.
So whoever believes in Him must indie by the first 2 and superseding laws:
- Love thy God with all your heart, mind and soul.
- Love your neighbor as you love yourself, as all the other laws rely on this.
The Mosaic law was a designed to act as a mirror. God told the Jews they would never be able to fulfill the law. It was designed to make people understand that the way to God isnât through rituals or laws you couldnât keep, but by faith.
I didnât say this.
Again- you are wrong. Jesus appeared to physically to Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus. He blinded him and sent him to Ananias.
And again, Paul, in 1 Cor 15:3-8 describes Jesus APPEARED to him.
Itâs also implied when Paul debates Peter and the twelve on the law that Paul has gotten his teachings directly from Jesus which is why he wins the debate!
Iâm going to say this to you again- go and get your shine box. Because I donât know how many times I have to own you.
You think youâre smart. Youâre not.
Word salad fantasies.
As far as Paul seeing Jesus, total horseshit. Sounds like the 700 club or Jim Bakker saying he talks to God nightly and he wants you to buy this package of tapes.
The irony is that you even cite Paul debating the other 11 apostles (not 12 at that point, btw). Why would he need to debate the guys who literally served by the side of Jesus? That doesnât indicate some shit to you? I know lots of people who can debate total bullshit and win. Also, Paul and Barnabas were debating circumcision, not the range of the teachings of Jesus. Again, youâre telling me from an objective perspective that the 11 dudes who hung out and were directly chosen BY JESUS didnât know shit but the guy who claimed he saw him for 5 minutes on a road after he died and now knows more than all of them put together was the guy to follow?
Seriously, objectively, thatâs your line of reasoning? Face itâŚyou worship Paul, not JesusâŚor Joshua. Letâs see, Paulâs version evolved into the first councils and which evolved into a church that slaughtered the followers of Jesusâ own brotherâs flock. Wouldnât you think, with all your conspiracy beliefs, that Jamesâ direct group would have a better idea of Jesusâ teachings than Paul? Or, can you not think outside of your indoctrination?
As far as owning, dude, youâre citing the Bible as the source to debate itself. Thereâs literally more than two thousand years of this happening and weâre STILL where we are. But, I have no doubt, just as they did in every other time, you believe you have a firm grasp on this thing, huh? No questions for you. Every believer thinks their Sunday school class has all the answers. Itâs adorable. Now go buy Jim Bakkerâs silver supplementsâŚbecause, Jesus
I still think this is adorable! Paul says the dead guy appeared to him and he now knows more than all the actual apostles put together.
Proof from GSC - he said so!