That's not what I said. I said that a prohibition of murder is a religious issue. Some religions (including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, most pre-Christian European religions) prohibited it. Hence the western custom of prohibiting murder.

Either way, whether one supports laws that prohibit murder or not is a question of one's religion.

It's not a recommendation. It's a law. It is indeed FORBIDDEN for Jews to eat certain animals by Jewish law. If you read your Bible you will see that the "abominations" in question are listed on stone tablets given to the Israelites as their law. It has nothing to do with other peoples and I don't see why a Jewish book of law should mention specifically that Jewish law does not apply to non-Jews.

In general peoples in history didn't have a major problem with it. Romans followed Roman law, Carthaginians followed Carthaginian law, and Jews followed Jewish law.

If you want to determine who is to follow which law you can start by not reading another people's law to find out what you are supposed to do. That would help.

As I said, the Bible specifically says that the law about sexual immorality (which I take is where the Christians take their stand against homosexuality from) is one that is binding for all people.

You ask that G-d please make it clear which law is for whom. Well, according to the Bible He did. There is Jewish law and Noahide law. The second is supposed to be binding for all, whether for all descendants of Noah or for everybody else or whether the two are the same group I cannot tell you as the Bible does not tell us that either.

How often do you want me to give you the answer?

Some things in the Bible are binding for Jews, others are binding for all.

Again, the belief that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is a religious belief just like the belief that they are different. Which one of the two do you want to be law?

The law about marriage (in Common Law) is older than the law (in the American Constitution) that says that religious beliefs must not be forced on people. The constitution speaks about laws made, not about laws existing.

While you cannot (legally) create a law that established a religion in the US now, this article of the constitution simply doesn't apply to English Common Law which was and remains valid in the US (except in Louisiana) unless changed by US law.

which is not what our founders wanted at all and I've got lots and lots of their writings to show for it.  That's what we're being told today so we can push these types of agendas ahead. Why now?  Why are we having these discussions now if the founding fathers were all cozy about this?   Allowing homosexuality as an ethical and alternative lifestyle will be the downfall of our culture.  It's always the last step before a culture goes down. 

Yes.  Our faith is based on facts and logic.  God never said we were just to have faith without revelation.  He gives us what we need.  Peter many remember walked on water because of his faith.  He didn't do that by himself.  Jesus showed him how by walking before him and showing him.  Abraham wasn't asked to sacrifice his son until he was quite old and had seen the hand of God in his life all up until that point.  In the beginning he wasn't so sure about trusting God.  So much so that we see that Abraham lied twice to protect his and his wife's life earlier in their lives.  Gideon tested God because he was so unsure he asked for proof and God supplied it. 

yes and like he did in the NT and still does today. 

I actually brought that up as well (in Chap 18) when God said there wickedness was crying out to him.  There was more going on there than just gross inhospitality. 

The angels in scripture have all come across as male.  Kind of funny considering we depict them in a femine way isn't it?  It's clear they are male angels and the "men" of the town wanted them outside so they could have at em....so it's some sort of homosexual tendency going on here.  Usually men rape women not other men unless you're talking prison. 

 Now you're saying Josephus had a dirty mind?  Why?  Because I gave him as proof?  You didn't say that before when you quoted him first.  Remember you brought up Josephus before I did. 

I don't compromise scripture Leauki and that's not really a compromise anyhow.  That's a given.  I'm just reading it plainly and with scripture interpreting scripture like you pointed out in Ezek and my pointing out Jude we can see it is a compound of sins with the last straw being sexual devient behavior. 

exactly Leauki.  We're in agreement totally. 

good job El-D.  I knew you could find them and it's nice to see you interested in scripture ....but did you know that God also released them from being an abomination later?  So it's ok to eat these things now?  Do you know there's a reason behind all of this concerning the Jews and the Gentiles?  I won't get into all that here but  Leauki actually backs me up here with his comment.....

Now those Jews who acknowledge the NT they do not have such a prohibition put on them. 

Sexual Perversion, Lack of hospitality... those are both just details.  Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed for 1 reason and 1 reason alone...

It wasn't any specific sin, it was the fact that there were no righteous to be found in those cesspools.

Christians HAVE NOT ignored anything.  The dietary laws that were given to the Jews in the OT were NOT given to the Gentiles.  Never were given to the Gentiles in fact.

In fact if you read the book of Acts you would find that Peter (a Jew) was given a vision from God saying that all things were now safe to eat and that the wall that separated Jew and Gentile was now torn down.  Peter had a hard time with this at first especially.  Paul talks a good deal about this as well calling it a mystery know revealed.  The dietary law was for sanitary reasons and also separated the two groups.  Now Jew and Gentile were to dwell together, as well as eat together as prophesied way back after the flood that Shem (Jews) and Japeth (Gentiles) would dwell together under one tent. 

yes as you know Leauki it was very clear in the OT and also repeated more than once for good measure in the NT.  That never changed.  Any type of sexual sin, be it adultery, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, beastility etc...is a direct sin against God.  David recognized this and fell on his knees in repentance after his sin with Bathsheba and that's the reason he was called a man after God's own heart.  He recognized his grievious sin that was against God and repented.  You can read about this in Psalm 51.  The homosexuals are blatant about their sin even trying to have it legalized and for that we are going down.  It's like a fist in God's face.    You wait and see.  It won't take long. 

my husband explained to me the other day the difference between having morality and being ethical.  Morality is based on a standard of right and wrong that is outside of ourselves.  God would be that standard.  It's like that's the never changing plumbline.  How we choose to act according to his standard is evidence of where our morality lies.  Being ethical is dependant on the changing culture.  What is ethical today might not have been 20 years ago.  Morality never changes.  Ethics do.  Our culture, for instance, is continuing to move away from morality so for Christians we are to stand out more and more as the gap widens between morality and ethics.  Sorry to say, many Christians are falling into the gap; some trying to jump on the ever widening hole that separates the world from those who don't claim the world as their home. 

no we don't.  You're going in a direction you know nothing about.  You're not putting down that the abominations were done away with....hint........ check the book of Acts while you're reading scripture.  If you're going to tell a story at least tell the end of the story.  You may also want to check out a few NT books that repeats that men with men and women with women is still an abomination....start with Romans 1.  That never changed. 

It's the same with many Christian groups.  There are reasons that have to do with traditions and manner of doing services.  Some like modern, some like traditional.  Some like plain and simple and some like an organized liturgy.  It's like different flavors of ice cream.  Some like plain vanilla and some like nuts and goo in theirs.  The only thing to watch out for is that it's really ice cream.  Some are artificial only resembling the real thing and you'll only understand and recognize it if you're familiar with what real ice cream tastes like. 

Just because a group calls themselves Christian they are not.  The Christians are all united by the essentials.  They may be divided by traditions and what we call non-essentials but the essentials is what ties us all together into one family regardless of denomination. 

and that's exactly true Ted.  It was more like a progression of sin the last straw being the sin of homosexuality.  There is a downslide or progression and from what we read here and in Ezek, there was no hope or turning back since they were so dirty and steeped in their sin. 

I brought him up as proof for my assertion that Sodom was destroyed for inhospitality, not homosexuality.

And yes, he had a dirty mind.

That is exactly right.

As I said, there is no (Biblical) reason for an Eskimo not to eat whale flesh.

Yes, I don't believe that. But I did quote the part about Peter having a hard time with it to be fair to Peter.

I think the forbidden things became safe to eat when refrigeration and antibiotics were invented. But I still won't eat the forbidden foods if I can avoid it.

I disagree but we can just agree to disagree on this point.

I'm not saying that it should, necessarily, what I am saying is that if the Christians are going to use the Jewish book of laws as the basis for their religion they shouldn't be picking and choosing which aspects to listen to, especially when such a strong word like "abomination" is being used.

Which is why I have been arguing for civil unions.  That way marriages can remain religious in nature and civil unions can simply be a way for two people who make a life-long contract with one another to file taxes together, transfer estates easier, be present when your significant other is on their deathbed (or vice versa), etc.

If they didn't want a secular government then why is there only one reference to a creator of any kind in either the declaration of independence or the US Constitution?  They took great pains to keep religion out of those documents for a reason.  As for your last statement there, I just disagree and I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on that one.

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

Yes, at least in part and that's why I explained it:

EL-DUDERINO POSTS #151

leauki posts #153

Leauki,

Your answer is somewhat misleading. Judaism strictly speaking is the religion while the Jews are a race of people.

While there is only one race of Jewish people, there are different forms of Judaism. Hebraic, sacerdotal or priestly Judaism (Biblical Judaism) was revealed by Our Lord God Himself. The modern forms of Judaism were all developed by man after the Jewish dispersion and the only point of unity with Hebraic Judaism is in reciting the "prayer" called the Shema.

Judaism today is divided synagogically into Orthodox, Reform and Conservative congregations. These are a unit in denying Christian concepts of Mosaic teachings and unbelief that Jesus the Christ is the Messias, the Redeemer of mankind come to restore man to the inheritance lost by the sin of our first parents.

I'd say that Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism not only vary in traditions, but believe different things.

no he didn't anymore than I do.  What about Jude?  You never commented on his explanation after I mentioned it.  Open your eyes Leauki and read it again without your being swayed by that Rabbi.  Homosexuality was and is still a grievious sin in God's eyes.  That was the last sin in a progression of many.  I believe that's why God said he was going down to check on the wickedness that was crying out to him.  It's like being at the end of their rope.  Their sin had reached the top and God heard and took action. 

It's going to be the same in the end times (which is increasingly growing nearer).  It's put that God will allow us to fill up our cup with wickedness before he pours out his cup of wrath on the whole world.   The acceptance of homosexuality is a big part of this. 

you keep hanging onto this El-D but they don't.  How many times do Leauki and I have to say this.  We don't even have to use the OT or Jewish law.  I can gladly take you to the NT to show this as well.  It's clear in both the OT and NT that this is quite the abomination to God and as far as I know, hasn't been revoked.