Whoa, what the fuck happened to the language here?
ang communism man gud maayo ra sha pag theoritical basis pero pag huna hunaon njud ninyo sa realidad imposible kaayo sha oy. gna pa stay man gud na mediocre ang tao. kanang "pwede na" "choks ra". every person bya naay needs and wants based on study and maski unsa pa inyong ingnon naa juy chance na mangita jug way ang tao para makuha iyang wants pero unsaon mana nmo pagkuha kung limited ang gnahatag? mura ranang "ayy di nlng ko magstudy, mapasa rmn diay ghapon ko" murag sa communism ayy di nlng ko maningkamot ke mao rman ghapon nonsense ke dili ma suklian equally the same sa effort na akong gi exert. There's no such thing as equality bya. Nature jud bya sa tao na mu compete against other people unya sa communism ma deprive sha ana na nature ke mahulog na nonsense ghapon.
...I'm sorry I just got here. What's going on!?
This question was a bit tough tbh. I will NEVER say "I am wrong and you are right", but all the same, I will never say "I am right and you are wrong".
At least in subjective arguments. If it were something objective, such as Pedophilia being wrong, then I'd most assuredly flip shit if somebody said it should be acceptable.
And so a book is completely immune to being edited? I'd like to note that there are multiple, very harsh warnings of MAAAASSIIIVE punishment for adding to, subtracting from, or changing parts of the Bible.
If it were the sacrosanct, infallible, perfect word of a perfect being, it'd be impossible to corrupt to begin with, and such warnings would never need to be put in there. It's also a great trolling tool to use if you DID pollute a holy book and don't want anyone to fix it.
Also, Apocrypha? We're not going to count it's subtraction by the Roman Catholics? There are a lot of cool stories there.
((Also, I digress, Ragnarok in Norse Mythology. I just wanna say that... for the record, I think that a bunch of Grumpy Teenagers likely vandalized the Norse Scripture to say that all the gods were going to get their asses handed to them by the demons/giants that they had been wrecking for the past few millenia. xD))
Well, I can judge them because I am capable of judging something, just because an entity has the power to enforce it's own rules doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
...
Fine, I'll give you that. You've got your own free will, feel free to be judgmental, though it would back up the idea that you may use the Bible to justify your own prejudice. Let's not go there because that would be digressing from the original topic.
I would be interested to read how you concluded that this is likely.
Flip through the Bible and count how many times, before and after Leviticus/Deuteronomy he has tested somebody or allowed someone to be tested. For the latter, Job would rack up so many points in that area...
It's at the least plausible to conclude that God tested us with a few of these (IMO, ludicrously detailed) laws. He didn't give a reason for Homosexuality = STONE THE BASTARDS or Fabric Blending = NOT COOL.
---
Althought, I admit, for some of these rules like the No Pork Rule, it is very easy to say that God didn't give an explicit reason for banning the consumption of pork because he wasn't entirely sure how to explain bacteria to Hebrews who had no knowledge of how to cook pork properly and what caused you to get sick when you didn't cook it right. So he just said, "Don't eat pork" and the mortals listened.
Please support your assertion with Biblical Scripture.
I suppose I have to use bible verses to make sense... so here. c:
Hebrews 8:13: "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."
Hebrews 8:6: "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises."
Hebrews 10:9: "Then he said, 'Here I am, I have come to do your will.' He sets aside the first to establish the second."
Hebrews 10:1-3: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins."
Alright, my apologies for the "Jesus Said That" claim. But it is mentioned :p
Jesus as God incarnate despised all things sinful. Jesus identified himself as the God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush in John 8:57-59 ("before Abraham was I AM") referring to himself with the name of that God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:13-15 ("I AM has sent me to you"). The same God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush was the same God that gave Moses the Law was the Jesus that identified himself as such. Jesus is I AM WHO I AM
>The same God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush was the same God that gave Moses the Law was the Jesus that identified himself as such.
But then we're forgetting that Jesus nullified the Mosaic Laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Also within that paragraph, you didn't actually respond to the bolded text. The Gospels do not say, neither does Jesus EXPLICITLY even mention Homosexuality. And don't even give me that explanation of divorce. That's cherry-picking, manipulated bullsht at its finest. At the time, Man x Female marriage was the norm and most people were living in Mosaic Law that stated that you can stone people to death. Jesus may have had a "rebellious streak" with the Jews at the time but he had the common sense to mention male and female when it came to a divorce in the time period.
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
>speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
But... that's basically the premise of my argument right there... untaught and unstable people twisting scripture to their own destruction... that's what Paul did and Peter let him slip right through. Paul eagerly agrees to stone a guy to death then en route to Damascus, goes blind, gets healed, and suddenly becomes a Christian Expert? Not to mention he used an ARMY for his protection instead of God (as Jesus had let God protect him), and relied on Money instead of God for several things with the new churches. That seems a bit unstable to me, having an army take care of you instead of, at the least, one or two armed disciples in case some dick tried something funny with some stones.
Then of course, he's the one taking shots at Homosexuality, making it the first explicit mention of homosexuality in the New Testament, and I don't even think he used Scripture to cover his ass for that one.
Face it. Paul was a discriminatory man, and habits die hard. One does not simply target a group of people with malicious intent and then join them later without retaining some old character traits. Paul likely hated Homosexuals before he converted to Christianity and because the Gospels made no reference, he saw it as fair game for a wild potshot or two given that he had the power to say these things and not get looked at funny.
So if God's the only one with the rulebook and the reasons for rules being in said book, why is it your guys' place to judge them? God can do that perfectly well on his own. If he hasn't given a reason, it's likely that he just pulled the rule out of nowhere to test you guys in the Old Testament. Jesus said that the OT laws don't apply anymore...
>Bible says though, homosexuality is not natural.
Homosexuality is indeed natural. Animals exhibit homosexual traits just the same as humans do. And we can compare humans with animals because we are mammals, more specifically primates, and we are living beings in the animal kingdom.
>Bible says
More like "Paul says". The four Gospels do not explicitly mention homosexuality, let alone call it out as unnatural or an abomination. Paul/Saul is a false prophet.
You're not saved when you give to charity or when you go to church. It's when you believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord. You follow Him tell the day you die and obey His commands.
The very next thing you say...
Everyone is going to be judge by God. Based on their actions, words, and thoughts. And everyone is going to be judged for what they all did as they were on this earth.
>judged for what they all did as they were on this earth.
That's the very reason why I'm arguing that he's not going to hell. Thank's for making my point for me.
