Originally posted by Zahlanzi Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination
This typifies the muddled thinking of the Old Testament.
On the one hand Leviticus 20:13 says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man. But Genesis 19: 5 - "Where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we may know them." The word "know" of course has the Authorised Version's euphemistic meaning!
Again in Judges 19 an unnamed Levite was traveling with his concubine in Gibeah. They spent the night in the house of an hospitable old man. While they were eating supper, the men of the city came and beat on the door, demanding that the old man should hand over his male guest "so that we may know him."
Originally posted by Suzianne Gotta love them "well done only" barbecues, huh?
have you tried chess for girls? there is a queen whose hair you can braid and a king whose head comes off so that you can blow bubbles and the pieces smell like strawberries, and get this, the knights are unicorns! yay!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie how could it if the law has been nullified, what part of, 'the law is no longer binding on Christians', are you having difficulty with?
The part where what is or is not an abomination is codified into law.
What I am asking is whether or not something is an abomination because its in law, or whether the law not being binding implies that its still an abomination, but you may go ahead and do it without any worries.
Originally posted by twhitehead The part where what is or is not an abomination is codified into law.
What I am asking is whether or not something is an abomination because its in law, or whether the law not being binding implies that its still an abomination, but you may go ahead and do it without any worries.
no because later the principle was reiterated that although the Law was nullified, for the Christian, homosexuality was still wrong, Paul makes it quite clear.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie have you tried chess for girls? there is a queen whose hair you can braid and a king whose head comes off so that you can blow bubbles and the pieces smell like strawberries, and get this, the knights are unicorns! yay!
Originally posted by Pianoman1 On the one hand Leviticus 20:13 says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man. But Genesis 19: 5 - "Where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we may know them." The word "know" of course has the Authorised Version's euphemistic meaning!
>snip<
And we all know what went on in Sodom.
Abomination?
Yes, we know about Sodom because Gen 19:5 is talking about Sodom. Yes, it is the 'biblical' "know"ing. I don't see how you can do this "on one hand, but" thing with this. Sodom was destroyed because the people there were sinning up a storm, and yes, it was this "abomination" thing. I think instead of "But", you meant "and" or "because".
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no why would it be, the Law with its ordinances was never binding on Christians in practice, it was specifically for the nation of Israel, why this should be hard to comprehend, i cannot say. Eating Lobster is not morally wrong for as Paul mentions, the Kingdom of God does not mean eating or drinking, homosexuality is morally wrong because as Paul states, its unnatural.
the clothes you are wearing now are mostly unnatural. most medicines today are unnatural. airplanes are unnatural. man made structures are unnatural. meanwhile, cobra venom is quite natural. a tsunami killing thousands is natural.
you whined about something being unnatural and thus morally wrong on a computer while being connected to the internet.
and just as a side note. homosexuality is quite natural. it happens in nature all the time.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie no because later the principle was reiterated that although the Law was nullified, for the Christian, homosexuality was still wrong, Paul makes it quite clear.
I was asking whether something is an abomination based on whether it is in the law. If the law says eating seafood is an abomination and then the law is nullified, is eating seafood no longer an abomination? If so, then why don't we just use a word like 'crime' or 'illegal'?
Abomination
31 Oct '13 18:40
YouTube
Back to Top