NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a little something to think and debate about.

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

What?

Already been done. You should use the Search function more often.

Searching these forums? Heh...that's a bit pointless... :p

"Old testement says X the Bible is stupid". How original

"Old testement says X the Bible is stupid". How original

And yet people will continue to quote Leviticus as justification for discrimination, while ignoring the other passages in Leviticus and elsewhere. How hypocritical.

What?
Ha ha! You're a bible!

Ha ha! You're a bible!
Yeah. I'm the Bible. I'm the single most used thing in the world. I feel such a slut

Gun likes to do a lot of pointless things....use the search, argue his point, killing without reason, etc....

"Old testement says X the Bible is stupid". How original
Does it say original thread anywhere in the title? Didn't think so. How about adding some original thought in your replies. By the way, it’s spelled TESTAMENT.

NEXT......

This "list" is ancient. Also, what scripture here that isn't misinterpreted has been abolished by the New Testament.

Yes, use the Search function, which they provide so people won't copy, paste, and repost the same stuff over and over again...

Try here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379250&highlight=uncle+farm

Cut him some slack, he's new.
This has been posted a million times probably, but who cares? It's for the n00bz:

Dear Reverend:

I am writing to thank you and congratulate you for your diligent work against Gay Rights. People who, like gay men, break laws casually mentioned somewhere in The Bible should not be given civil rights protections. More Christians should be as dedicated as you to fighting basic civil rights and human dignity. Good work, Reverend. However, I am concerned that many people break other laws mentioned in The Bible and yet do not suffer just discrimination for their mere existence. I am specifically concerned about people who break the law outlined in Leviticus Chapter 19, Verse 19: "Neither shall a garment mingled of different fabrics come upon thee." Yet you can see people out on the streets every day shamelessly wearing flannel shirts with wool sweaters, acrylic blended with cotton, and all manner of other sinful combinations one could imagine in a nightmare. This sort of disrespect for the Laws of God is leading to the moral decay of our society. And what's even worse: they flaunt their perverse mixed fabrics in front of children. (I've even heard that some of them like to dress children in mixed fabrics, but this sin is just too perverse for further elaboration ... and of course, ALL people who wear mixed fabrics have a secret or overt desire to dress children the same way.)

If a mixed-fabric wearer wanted to become a foster parent, the Commonwealth would allow it. There are no questions on the application referring to this sin. No one asks if the child will be exposed to mixed fabrics or might even be forced to wear them. We should spend some tax dollars to study the effects of mixed fabrics on children, though I am sure it has a negative impact. Furthermore are people who eat bacon for breakfast, which is outlawed in Leviticus 11:17, and Deuteronomy 14:8; rare steak for supper, which is outlawed in Leviticus 17:10-14, and cheeseburgers for lunch, which is outlawed in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21 (this must mean that cheeseburgers are three times as sinful as gay sex since the former is mentioned thrice). Now there are so-called Christians who want to liberally "interpret" the Word of God or leave out certain parts of it.

They say that Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:18) and that His message of love is far more important (Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27, and I Corinthians 13:13) than mixed fabrics or cheeseburgers. I point out that there is a curse on anyone who completely leaves out any part of it (Revelations 22:18). Besides, it's all right to call yourself Christian, just don't try to be TOO MUCH like Jesus. After all, look where it got Him. For the sake of Christianity and the children, Reverend, I want you to join me in restoring some morality to government. Together we can take away the civil rights of homosexuals, mixed-fabric wearers, and unclean meat- eaters. Next we can persecute barbers (haircuts are outlawed in Leviticus 19:27) and veterinarians (outlawed in Leviticus 22:24). Then we can enforce all the Biblical laws and directives! I can't wait until we will be able to apply the death penalty for adultery as Leviticus 20:10 mandates. Because you have never committed adultery, Reverend, and lived without sin among us, you should be the one to cast the first stone (John 8:7).

Sister Polly Ester
Christian Coalition
Against Mixed Fabrics



Alright, now I'll stop the reposting.

Alot of these are more Jewish law then they are Christian.

Never stops them from digging 'em up when they need something to support their prejudices!
They just like to forget them when they're breaking them. Convenient, huh?
And by them, I mean FUNDIES.

Jankonia, I love your post, no matter what everybody else says. I could care less if you copied and pasted it from somewhere else or whatever. That post has a very good point. *claps* good stuff. good stuff.
:eek: :mp5: :p :sniper: :cool: :gundge:

Alot of these are more Jewish law then they are Christian.

Then why are we concerned with gay relationships if that's just "Jewish Law"? And why should non-Christians be concerned with Christian law anyway?

Then why are we concerned with gay relationships if that's just "Jewish Law"? And why should non-Christians be concerned with Christian law anyway?

Because everyone, everywhere, wants to either bash gays with religious law (it's bad in more religions than just Christian and Jewish), or to bash religious people with laws that may appear in their books, but they don't necessarily follow.

It would certainly be possible to bash any Christian, Jew, or Muslim with portions of their religious books (I might have to resort to the Hadith for something really juicy on Keru). But just because you see it in a religious text doesn't mean that they all believe it (or have even read it).

So if the NT renders the OT obselete, can't we just do like a NT 2.0 and fix all the stupid stuff? The precedent's been set. I've been talking to Microsoft and Apple about this. They've suggested the titles "NTXP" and "NT: El Tigre" for the online editions.

should I get NTXP home or pro? Is pro just for priests or can anyone get it?

should I get NTXP home or pro? Is pro just for priests or can anyone get it?
Only certified clerics get pro. The Pope even gets his own special vesion that no-one else has ever seen.

It's just for priests, but it's buggy. And I hear they burn you for owning the open-source versions.

From a Biblical standpoint, here's why Christians believe that homosexual intercourse is a sin, and some other things, say, wearing cloth woven from different kinds of fiber, are not:

(Acts 15:22-29)

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul – men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. (emphasis added)

The letter that's described in this passage resulted from a council held by the church of Jerusalem, whose members were unsure of whether Gentiles who converted to Christianity should be required to obey Mosaic law (remember, all of the first Christians were Jews).

That said, since the overall question seems to be why homosexuality is a sin, I feel it's worth pointing out two things: first, if you're gay, somehow "deciding" not to be gay (if that's actually possible) isn't enough to get you into heaven; we're all sinners, and homosexuality is no worse, in God's eyes, than any other sin. So in effect, without Christ, we're all done for, gay, straight, bi, whatever. Which leads me to my second point...

Even though we've all sinned, God does love us and always will. And that's why He sent Jesus, both to teach us how to live (love God and love your neighbor) and to pay the penalty for our sin (that is, to die). Jesus Christ died in our place, so that each one of us could be a part, so to speak, of God's eternal family. We are all God's children -- at least, He wants us to be. But would it make much sense for a parent to adopt a kid who doesn't want to be adopted? Usually that's called "kidnapping," and God's not into that. In a nutshell, if you want in, all you have to do is ask, since Jesus already paid the price. But if you don't ask, God's not going to force you to join. So think about it :)

That's all I got for you fine folks today. God bless! :D

Then why are we concerned with gay relationships if that's just "Jewish Law"? And why should non-Christians be concerned with Christian law anyway?

Actually it was nothing more then a ploy to misdirect the voter from the real issues, to keep our attention diverted from the real issues..

It is as meaningless an issue as making English the 'official' language of the Untied States. Why not Huron or Abanaki or original English (1492 here), they were spoken first. American English will be what it becomes.

or

Over turning Roe -v- Wade, as if! I'm the father of two young girls-while I think thought should be involved I don't want my daughters forced into a back alley abortion.

or

Writing an Amendement to make burning the flag illegal as a protest. I served 6 years in the Navy during VietNam and 6 years in the Army at the height of the cold war. I was prepared to sacrafice myself, so that we have the right to freely express ourselves. It's what the Constitution is about BTW!

So what are the real issues?

The budget deficit is outrageous, every American now owes $55,000 dollars in National debt. This is going to bankrupt us eventually.

The war in Afganistan, Iraq, Syria?, Iran? while the real culprites-fundamentalism known as the Wahabist movement with a "Convert or die!" ideology remains protected in Saudi Arabia.

The continued loss of jobs at home to ensure larger paychecks for Corporate COE's that already make 100's of million's of dollars a year.

Was Kerry the answer?

No- he was corporately owned also! Follow the money-PAC's run the nation-PAC's determine our foriegn policy-we don't export the Constitution and basic human diginity-we export McDonalds, Exxon and Sears and they could careless about the American/World people.

What? You aren't supposed to eat a sacrifice? I guess this means last weekend's ham fry probably did more to piss off the Big Kahuna than persuade him to tell Santa to send a new pair of Nikes my way.

Well, I thought I'd take a crack at answering the questions:

1. Leviticus 25:44 -- You can own Canadians in a technical sense, but in a practical sense you will end up having to work too much to maintain them at the level to which they are accustomed -- so, basically, they would end up owning you. I think that's probably what your friend was talking about.

2. Now, this is your daughter, right? Well, you'll probably have to pay someone to take her...

3. If your day-to-day relationship with a woman is not sincere and respectful, then you probalby aren't interested in her over-all well-being enough to be sexually active with her. Sounds like you're basically a selfish man just looking to score. Wait until you are mature enough to value a woman before you try to be so physically intimate with her.

4. If you truly are being obediant to God, then there will be folks who will be unpleased by your acts of obediance -- that just happens. Now, since Jesus clearly was the perfect High Priest and the perfect and permanent sacrifice for sin, I don't think your practice of going through the useless ritual of burning bulls (in addition to slinging bull) is not appropriate. And, anway, it's God's business to smite people, not yours. So, can the bull-burning and let God be God.

5. Is he cutting the grass at like 7:00 am on Sunday morning? If so, I'd kill him myself.

6. The laws of the Old Testament regarding which foods are unclean clearly was set aside with Jesus fulfilling the laws. In fact, God directly addressed this with Peter. Even so, the New Testament teachings against homososexuality are very clear. Interesting question and glad you asked, but a tiny bit of research on your own could have answered the question.

7. Lev.21:20: Again, it appears that you're missing the context of the Old Testament issue. The person approaching the altar of the Lord needed to be without defect. This was a special person who represented all the people. Not every ordinary Hebrew would be approaching the altar. When our sin is cleanesed by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, we can approach God, not because of our cleanliness, but because Jesus' blood blots away the uncleanliness.

8. Except in a few circumstances, I don't see where God prescribed death for those who broke a law. In fact, no one was perfect, so each one would violate some law -- that theme pretty mush is covered in the New Testament book of Hebrews. Surely, there were consequences for sin, but on-the-spot smiting was pretty much reserved for those that were blasphemous or committed adultary or some deviant behavior. But, to answer your question, your friends pretty much die like the rest of us -- either forgiven or condemned.

9. I don't think that wearing gloves will turn you into a good football player if you're bad at it without gloves. After all, miracles generally weren't used merely for recreational purposes.

10. I think you're mis-reading Lev. 20:14 -- you don't have to get the whole town out, just the congregation. And, you can burn them, but I'm not so sure you can have a private barbeque..generally, private killings were not condoned, and executions were by some authority. But, maybe you could kill them and then ask for forgiveness...

I hope this helps.

God is adopting again!!!
*Janki spruces himself up in hopes he is not neglected yet again.*

What it comes down to is basicly that fundies are scared that gay marriage is going to change the nation in some horrible way and that the government will arrest them for not letting gays have marriages at their churches. Then there's that lame excuse that it will hurt taxes because gays won't have to pay as much and the idea that marriage will be devalued.

In actuality, marriage will make couples more stabile, which means they will be more likely to invest in the economy, and churches would still be able to deny weddings. Also, Mass has a lower divorce rate than any of the states that passed anti-marriage laws.

People in general are just scared of what is different and will make up any excuse not to change.

Yeah. I'm the Bible. I'm the single most used thing in the world. I feel such a slut
That is because you are a slut

"This is my world, my world, and those ancient people are dead."

*sigh*
how many times do I have to explain this,

The old Mosaic law from which the subject matter of the first post is taken, was fulfilled at the time of Christ, and a higher law was given, superceding the lower, or Mosaic law. However, direct comandments from God (such as the ten commandments, and the condemnation of homosexuallity) were not part of the law, and therefore still apply. the person who wrote that originally obviously had lack of understanding of the bible. he simply took several parts of the secular (not spiritual) law out of context to make his point.

Simplicitydom
"This is my world, my world, and those ancient people are dead


*Reality check* We all die, and become ancient... get used to it... and then it aint your world no more... bleh

I'm going to like this

1. Leviticus 25:44 -- You can own Canadians in a technical sense, but in a practical sense you will end up having to work too much to maintain them at the level to which they are accustomed -- so, basically, they would end up owning you. I think that's probably what your friend was talking about.
I personally don't like owning slaves (the post was taken from an email I got today, thought it was funny so I shared) but just the thought that it is mentioned in this "holy" of books makes me glad I have grown beyond such fairy tale text and live my life with a bit more civility. Plus you know not of what economic structure I am currently at but I doubt any Canadian would end up owning me (seeing as they are all non confrontational passive people it would just mean beating them to submission anyway).

2. Now, this is your daughter, right? Well, you'll probably have to pay someone to take her...
Very funny, bring my daughter into this. That's good for a few yucks. But seriously may you burn in some 7th level of hell for this statement. lol, jk...or maybe not....

3. If your day-to-day relationship with a woman is not sincere and respectful, then you probably aren't interested in her over-all well-being enough to be sexually active with her. Sounds like you're basically a selfish man just looking to score. Wait until you are mature enough to value a woman before you try to be so physically intimate with her.
Why should I wait to mature when there are plenty of women that just give it away. Respect...HA, Sincerity...Blah. You have to be a female cause they all say they want to be respected but in the end they just want a guy who will treat them like trash so they can teach their parents a lesson. And I may consider your suggestion when the quality and quantity of women that like being mistreated goes down. lol FAT CHANCE (this should really be a warning to all you dads, teach your girls well and give them some attention so you may not have to deal with someone like me later).

4. If you truly are being obediant to God, then there will be folks who will be unpleased by your acts of obediance -- that just happens. Now, since Jesus clearly was the perfect High Priest and the perfect and permanent sacrifice for sin, I don't think your practice of going through the useless ritual of burning bulls (in addition to slinging bull) is not appropriate. And, anway, it's God's business to smite people, not yours. So, can the bull-burning and let God be God.
It seems to be our countries job to smite people to so I guess this nation is in for a big wake-up call. And I think many other religions would have contradictory ideas about Jesus being the perfect high priest as well as sacrifice (who's slinging bull now?). Not all of us believe such a fantasy. And you would live a lot better if you weren't so apt to believe such guilt ridden stories. Can't you live your life morally without being scared to death? I guess not.

5. Is he cutting the grass at like 7:00 am on Sunday morning? If so, I'd kill him myself.
You just finished saying smiting was wrong...let God be God.. and all that. I actually like my neighbor so to smite him may get you smited.

6. The laws of the Old Testament regarding which foods are unclean clearly was set aside with Jesus fulfilling the laws. In fact, God directly addressed this with Peter. Even so, the New Testament teachings against homososexuality are very clear. Interesting question and glad you asked, but a tiny bit of research on your own could have answered the question.
Show us this research YOU have done. Give us a verse oh great one. I would like to see this verse in the New Testament about homosexuality since many scholars concede to there being no mention of it in these books. Give us a verse or concede to slinging even more bull.

7. Lev.21:20: Again, it appears that you're missing the context of the Old Testament issue. The person approaching the altar of the Lord needed to be without defect. This was a special person who represented all the people. Not every ordinary Hebrew would be approaching the altar. When our sin is cleanesed by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, we can approach God, not because of our cleanliness, but because Jesus' blood blots away the uncleanliness.
Exact wording-Lev 21:17 Say to Aaron, A man of thy tribe throughout your generations, who shall have a blemish on him, shall not draw nigh to offer the gifts of his God. Lev 21:18 No man who has a blemish on him shall draw nigh; a man lame, blind, with his nose disfigured, or his ears cut, Lev 21:19 a man who has a broken hand or a broken foot, Lev 21:20 or hump-backed, or blear-eyed, or that has lost his eye-lashes, or a man who has a malignant ulcer, or tetter, or one that has lost a testicle. Lev 21:21 Whoever of the seed of Aaron the priest has a blemish on him, shall not draw nigh to offer sacrifices to thy God, because he has a blemish on him; he shall not draw nigh to offer the gifts of God.And since the blood of God (Wine) is only taken in by the pastor or priest these days then we are all out of luck anyway, RIGHT?

8. Except in a few circumstances, I don't see where God prescribed death for those who broke a law. In fact, no one was perfect, so each one would violate some law -- that theme pretty mush is covered in the New Testament book of Hebrews. Surely, there were consequences for sin, but on-the-spot smiting was pretty much reserved for those that were blasphemous or committed adultary or some deviant behavior. But, to answer your question, your friends pretty much die like the rest of us -- either forgiven or condemned.
Not sure what statement you make with your first sentence but to sum it up for you it's a contradiction so, I'll just ignore it. I think you were too busy trying to make the "Eventually they will die funny" that you just should have mentioned the Jesus Fulfillment of the Laws argument again. But I guess you forgot it as well as the correct spelling of a few words.

9. I don't think that wearing gloves will turn you into a good football player if you're bad at it without gloves. After all, miracles generally weren't used merely for recreational purposes.
It never asked if it would make someone a better player just if it was deemed unclean. You missed the comprehension portion of this reading exercise again. No miracles for recreational purposes? What was the water to wine at a wedding for? The baskets full of fish and bread to keep his followers from leaving his side (sounds like a party to me)? I think you need to do a little more research.

10. I think you're mis-reading Lev. 20:14 -- you don't have to get the whole town out, just the congregation. And, you can burn them, but I'm not so sure you can have a private barbeque..generally, private killings were not condoned, and executions were by some authority. But, maybe you could kill them and then ask for forgiveness...
Like I mentioned above, smiting is not my thing. But I would think just the smell of human flesh burning would turn me off to this.

Nice try. Please, play again..... :D

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG


http://frogstar.com/aybabtu/images/f-30106206.jpg

*sigh*
how many times do I have to explain this,

The old Mosaic law from which the subject matter of the first post is taken, was fulfilled at the time of Christ, and a higher law was given, superceding the lower, or Mosaic law. However, direct comandments from God (such as the ten commandments, and the condemnation of homosexuallity) were not part of the law, and therefore still apply. the person who wrote that originally obviously had lack of understanding of the bible. he simply took several parts of the secular (not spiritual) law out of context to make his point.
One more time but this time with some scripture to back it up. I say you lack any understanding of the bible to make your point. So Jesus Fulfilled only the parts you didn't like?

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG


http://frogstar.com/aybabtu/images/f-30106206.jpg

Blured Text....Thanks, that clears up a lot.

NEXT!!!

Blured Text....Thanks, that clears up a lot.

NEXT!!!

Uh...you might...hey, what's this?

**shuffles through some papers**

Ah. AH. Intellegence has informed me that you did, in fact, miss the point entirely. Read the upper left corner.

Uh...you might...hey, what's this?

**shuffles through some papers**

Ah. AH. Intellegence has informed me that you did, in fact, miss the point entirely. Read the upper left corner.
Funny, Ha Ha, still blurred(just in case YOU missed the point....I cannot read the upper left corner CAUSE IT'S BLURRED). Please be less lazy and type it out so we can all laugh.

Funny, Ha Ha, still blurred(just in case YOU missed the point....I cannot read the upper left corner CAUSE IT'S BLURRED). Please be less lazy and type it out so we can all laugh.

Dude, no. I am lazy. I admit it. If you can't read it, well, guess you don't find it funny. Sucks, huh?

Dude, no. I am lazy. I admit it. If you can't read it, well, guess you don't find it funny. Sucks, huh?

Not really, I just don't care. Wow, so you are lazy. Pegged you just like that. Cool!

NEXT!!!

Not really, I just don't care. Wow, so you are lazy. Pegged you just like that. Cool!

NEXT!!!

Whoh, what's with the "next" buisness? In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only one posting here. You should be a little grateful, really.

Thanks for posting, I guess....

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEXT!!!

(In case you haven't noticed I don't really care if you post or not. But you are more than welcome to)

Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-20. I don't have enough time to type it all out, but it could clear some things up...
A lot of Christians are close-minded and spiteful. It disgusts me that many Christians cause others to feel that they can not come to the church and feel accepted no matter who they are. Jesus taught love and grace and mercy. But, alas, at the end of the day we are all human and subject to the same human faults. It is really unfortunate that many Christians think themselves above reproach by anyone and think that they can walk around craming the Bible down peoples' throats with condemnation. That really frustrates me. :headbang:
Oh well. Who am I to judge?

Corinthians 6:9-20 actually confuses people more. There is great uncertainty to the word "homosexual" in the text and also a question on the use of the word. "Malakoi", which is the actual Greek word used, translates as "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually". There was more clearer language available that could have been used to complain about homosexuality. The overall jest of Corinthians is to complain about Roman excess. Since emperors themselves had sex with boys as well as women, these acts were socially accepted at the time. To combat this mortal excess, Paul goes on to say "you would not enter the kingdom of God for such acts" in hopes of putting an end to such behavior. This is compounded by Paul's desperation to gather more followers since his numbers were dwindling do to there being so many other activities (mainly sex and greed) that took away from his version of spiritual growth. Let's face it, Christianity is a hard sell. Just look at the life Paul lead and you will see.

Corinthians 6:9-20 actually confuses people more. There is great uncertainty to the word "homosexual" in the text and also a question on the use of the word. "Malakoi", which is the actual Greek word used, translates as "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually". There was more clearer language available that could have been used to complain about homosexuality. The overall jest of Corinthians is to complain about Roman excess. Since emperors themselves had sex with boys as well as women, these acts were socially accepted at the time. To combat this mortal excess, Paul goes on to say "you would not enter the kingdom of God for such acts" in hopes of putting an end to such behavior. This is compounded by Paul's desperation to gather more followers since his numbers were dwindling do to there being so many other activities (mainly sex and greed) that took away from his version of spiritual growth. Let's face it, Christianity is a hard sell. Just look at the life Paul lead and you will see.


You completely missed my points. INstead, you criticized me for spelling (when, in fact, I just can't type). How do you explain the fact that you use grammatically incorrect phrases as well as completely incorrect words?:

"more clearer" v. "more clear"? "jest" v. "gist"? "do" v. "due"

The bottom line is you really don't want to have an intelligent conversation about Biblical matters with people you disagree with. You just want to criticize. Adios, jerko.

Uh...you might...hey, what's this?

**shuffles through some papers**

Ah. AH. Intellegence has informed me that you did, in fact, miss the point entirely. Read the upper left corner.

I'm with Jankonia here. This is what I managed to translate in the upper left corner:

Move Zig

And Jesus said to him "How are you Gentelmen!! Alt your hase are belong to us. "You are un the way to destruction.
Then another of His disciples said to Him "What you say!!"
But Jesus said to him "You have no chance to survive make your time."

And that makes no sense at all. o.O

I think the Bible and all related texts are hypocritical and useless. It seems odd that Christians tend to pick and choose what parts to follow and what to ignore. Not only that, but the book itself is so incredibly badly written. I struggled through Genisis, then gave up.

If God truely wants us to follow the text in the Bible, he should get a better writer to dictate it for him.

I'm with Jankonia here. This is what I managed to translate in the upper left corner:

Move Zig

And Jesus said to him "How are you Gentelmen!! Alt your hase are belong to us. "You are un the way to destruction.
Then another of His disciples said to Him "What you say!!"
But Jesus said to him "You have no chance to survive make your time."

And that makes no sense at all. o.O


...Holy crap, someone on the internet that doesn't know that joke?

I'll give you a hint. Everyone, say it with me now ;):

All your base are belong to us

...Holy crap, someone on the internet that doesn't know that joke?

I'll give you a hint. Everyone, say it with me now ;):

All your base are belong to us


Still dont get it; heard the phrase, but it has no substantial meaning. Poor me, I must live in a bubble. But my main point was that the image itself it pretty badly pixelized from saving and resaving and resaving. I wouldnt have known that was a 'b' if you hadnt pointed it out. o.o

Do a Google search for the phrase "all your base" and check out engrish.com while you're at it.

I don't beleive in Leviticus.

Do a Google search for the phrase "all your base" and check out engrish.com while you're at it.

Should I feel enlightened now?

An internet craze started by some poorly translated english. Gosh, I dont know why I didnt know it before.

I'll stick to my obscure science fiction, Hitch Hiker, and MST3K references for now. ;)

But really, I never knew that. *stores away in Useless Trivia section of brain* Learn something new everyday, pardon the cliche.

Now please, continue lecturing the Bible. Much more interesting than my ignorance.

...Holy crap, someone on the internet that doesn't know that joke?

I'll give you a hint. Everyone, say it with me now ;):

All your base are belong to us
I know the phrase but I truly couldn't see it due to it being so blurred. It WOULD have been funny if it was better executed. ANYWAY, since more people have posted lets get to the business at hand.
You completely missed my points. INstead, you criticized me for spelling (when, in fact, I just can't type). How do you explain the fact that you use grammatically incorrect phrases as well as completely incorrect words?:

"more clearer" v. "more clear"? "jest" v. "gist"? "do" v. "due"

The bottom line is you really don't want to have an intelligent conversation about Biblical matters with people you disagree with. You just want to criticize. Adios, jerko.
AAHHHHHHH, did I hurt your feelings. Sorry, but I COMPLETELY missed the part were you were being intelligent. Point it out, I promise to listen to your concerns, LOL.
When it comes to the bible I stand by the word “JEST”.
“More Clearer” is acceptable, especially for a forum.
You got me on “do” though but in my defense, it was late.
Oh well, you caught me on the one compared to your abundant spelling, oh sorry, “typing” errors. I just thought if you wanted to sound intelligent you would have started with the basics. I think I did more than just criticize your spelling though. I think your mad cause you got owned. So run off, have your tantrum, then come back and TRY to explain yourself.