Where's my context on the handicapped and the crippled, cunt?

 

It's odd that in one post you say that it was translated by men, and therefore it's original content has been corrupted, and then in another say that you believe in it's "laws" and agree with them as they are written.

So the command that the faithful shall not wear clothes made from two different materials? You said you agreed with that. Why is that, exactly? Why are people who wear polyester sinning against god?

 

Didn't like getting schooled d
id ya? Your resort to cussing proves you're a sore loser who can't take losing a debate. I already explained about what the reference to the cripples was.

The clothing made from two different types of materials made the spread of leprosy easier. If you don't believe in God, fine! Who cares, we're all entitled to our beliefs. Don't come in and try to sound smart when you do not have the compacity to understand that in which you so desperately try to state.

Just because a word is translated wrong, doesn't make the general understanding of the passage impossible.. anything else?

 

Hilarious.

You wax and wane poetically about civility, after you call me boy? In case you'd forgotten, I only said I was glad to cause offense if you truly believed that passage as was written, which I doubted because you seem normal, and not very similar to the fundamentalists I've met who do say they believe it as written.

 

To be fair it is belittling him to refer to him as 'boy'. :?

So the name calling is becoming a two way street a bit.

 

No wonder I missed it, it's only a few sentences from that post.

But you just said that God saw anybody with a physical deformity, even a pimple on the face, as members of the unclean who would defile his temple, and were unworthy to be within the center of His power on earth. How is that right, exactly? And why does it make it better that they weren't the only ones?

And perhaps more importantly, why would God care if somebody had a boil?

As far the leprosy goes, is there a source for that? I've only been able to find rationales which say that it was commanded so that Jews could be 'pure', whatever that means.

 

Eh, holding my stick in the sand isn't that important.

Jerry, I apologize for the scathing amounts of sarcasm I have been leveling against your posts. In that, I did fire the first salvo, and I'm sorry, because it wasn't provoked. I will try to be more respectful and less hostile.

 

I apologize for calling you boy. it was rude and uncalled for. From what I have heard and read, leprosy is highly conatagious. It rapidly spreads through clothing. I'm not sue how it is handled nowadays, but back then, all clothing and cloth material would have to be burned. I don;t think people with pimples were banned from entering the tabernackle. There are passages in the bible that describe the priests checking the people fro marks and boils with puss with white or green tips. From the sound of it, it sounds like they were checking for leprosy. I will find some sources to post on leprsoy an other questions you had. I will find some reliable sources, so it might take a bit. If you agree, our little argument is water under the bridge.

 

Why get married..?

I don't care if you are a married Gay couple or straight ( married enough times Why get married) live togther.. for life.. it a peice of paper..unless you belive in GOD then you wouldn't due the gay part) I am not bashing you.. live and let live.. get the piece of paper.. love one another....

Signed

Headed fro a second.. EX wife over a MOTHER IN LAW,,

 

Where in my post am I talking about pedophiles?? That is a way different subject.

I have my beliefs why is that so hard for you??? If you want to be with a woman go ahead I object to using the word marriage

Like I give a shit who sucked him off. Again where in my post is that????.

 

I would accept him as he or she is. I would still accept and I would hope my kid would understand my feeling just like I would I understand theirs. I would not disown or abandon them if that is what you are trying to get to here.

The education I would handle at that point, The point I was making is the schools are telling kids to be gay. BUT they cannot teach anything else like the bible or absorbance.

 

Ok. For the linen and wool being a sin to weave together. I was wrong, it has nothing to do with leprosy. It has to due with an event that happened much earlier in the bible: Cain and Abel. When these two brothers brought their offerings to God, Cain brought Flax(source of linen) and Abel brought a sheep (wool). Since God was unpleased with Cain's offering because it was fresh and Cain basically skimped on the offering. God was pleased with Abel's offering. Fast forward to the end. Cain kills Abel. God declares that wool and linen shall from there on out never be mixed together. This was actually a neat find for me. I never put two and two together before. This information is from a person of Judaism faith. When you study Judaism, Muslim, and Christianity, they come from the same root. Same laws, same basics.

http://www.aish.com/jl/m/mm/48948976.html

 

I must have skipped the day they told me to be gay.

 

If you've studied all three of these religions... I'm quite impressed. That's something missing from most religious people, and it's very refreshing.

 

first off im not questioning your perenting in any way shape or form. what i am saying is that an education on homosexuality does not mean that schools are encurraging just help kids who are gay feel less isolated

 

I still am in the process of studying these religions along with others. I'm christian through and through but I like answers. Since these three are linked together, it's only logical to look to all three for unanswered questions.

 

Religion appears to be central to the gay marriage debate, because the media makes it so.

I am an atheist.

Yet I oppose gay marriage.

Then again, I oppose the civil/social implementation of marriage, generally. I.e., the municipal cost of licensing and recordkeeping; the tax implications for married couples, and the other diverse "benefits," which ultimately have a cost impact.

Weird, huh?

Then again, I also believe that breeding, conceptually, should be a privilege and should not be considered an inalienable right.

Hetero marriage I can tolerate, to a point, insofar as the institution (as intended) establishes a stable nest for potential births.

But gay marriage? I see it, from a social and cost standpoint, as nothing more than a financial outlay, which society must bear, merely to indulge hubris, in the weak and dubious defense of parity, and equality, and amity.

I see gay marriage between loving same-sex couples as being no different, from a societal cost standpoint, from the marriage between a mother and son, under a non-conjugal, purely platonic arrangement, solely to secure health and tax benefits. And no different from the non-conjugal, platonic marriage of same-sex cell inmates who wed solely to immunize themselves from having to testify against each other in a trial. Or the marriage between a man and three women, conjugal or not, purely for the tax benefits. Or the marriage of a man to a dog. Or the marriage between a man and his prepubescent daughter, purely because they love each other and believe that their love is no different, and no less worthy of sanctification, than the love between two gay men or the love between two lesbian women.

In all of the above examples, the sociohistorical motive for marriage, viz., the establishment of a safe and secure setting for the birthing and raising of potential children, is nullified. The result is a cost to society, with no benefit. In each case, the "marriage" is societally pointless, and a waste of money.

I think couples should plan to procreate, raise, and nurture children. They should honestly assess their goals for the endeavor, their commitment, and their financial capability to see it through. An objective assessment will inevitably lead them to conclude that marriage helps to facilitate the plan. I believe that marriage should be for the nurturing of children; that committed and able couples should purposefully choose marriage for that purpose; and that society should bear the cost of the institution for that reason and no other.

Wow. Not a single mention of God, Jesus, or Leviticus. (Whoops! I slipped!)

 

Well that's different. I don't think life is about procreation. Our planet is already overpopulated with humans; I'm cool with cutting off that flow just a little.

 

Sorry for hacking down your post so much but I really liked this part ... imagine the potential drain on society that would avoid if it was controlled to a degree from some of these baby factories we have rearing degenerates.

 

Jerry636 you have done a great service in posting the Leviticus text. Because you have completely exposed the utter hypocrisy of the fundamentalist Christian Levites.

No way can you justify forbidding homosexual male gay love and marriage without also forbidding all of the other things listed.
You Levites need to purify your churches - no one with any physical blemish is allowed, that means blindness, deafness, cancer, EDS, sterility (post hysterectomy), etc. Also you can never wear nylon-spandex. So why wasn't wool completely forbidden? not just in combination? Note it does not mention any fabric specifically only "different kinds of fabric" so I question the authenticity of the linen and wool thing, unless that was the ONLY two fabrics available - not true! silk and others existed too.

So if you think the Bible is to be literally used, then you have to take it all, not just the one about male gays. Also remember there is no prohibition against lesbians.

Leviticus was a very vicious tool to control the many for the benefit of the few.

The only place that true communism has been practiced is in communes, by the hippies, and maybe the essenes.

And just like the Texas Baptists, who in dry counties buy their liquor from bootleggers, and only drink in closed rooms; you can bet the "pure" priesthood also engaged in secret activities not sanctioned publicly.

Now look at what today is called paedophilia: The norm in days prior to somewhere in the 1800's was for older men to marry pubescent girls. Even pre-pubescent is sanctioned in Islam. I have no proof, but some sources say Mary was 13 or 14 when she gave birth to Jesus, and father was EONS older if we believe the story. If we don't Joseph was probably in his 30's or 40's.

CHALLENGE: Show me one place in the Bible where marriage is forbidden between people of grossly different ages. It isn't. Therefore all this pedophile crap is a modern invention of the psycho community who seem bent on claiming everyone needs their useless therapy at great profit to them.

Citing RELIGION is just a smokescreen for biased hatred; it has nothing to do with the creative force or GOD.