why homosexualy and homosexual marriage is so wrong

[truthofscripture]

OK, no. What I was trying to say is "You are giving the impression that after reading the bible having received the holy spirit one comes away intolerant, arrogant, rude, bigoted and quite possibly slightly intoxicated with their own understanding even when it is demonstrably flawed. Are you SURE that is the impression you, as an ambassador for your deity, want to give as to the effects of receiving the holy spirit?" I was just being wordy and a bit polite about it.

No, that is the impression that you take away, not the impression I am giving.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's true understanding is veiled by the ruler of this system of things, Satan. You rely upon your own understanding but do not know what the scriptures really say. Proverbs 3: 5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart,
And do not rely on your own understanding.

How do I not know what they really say when I have read it?
It's utterly foolish to think someone cannot understand a book because they do not believe in it. If this were the case I could not understand Rand, Nozick, Friedman Milton, Aristotle, or Pascal. And how could I understand such wonderful works of art such as The Divine Comedy or Paradise Lost (both of which are much harder to read than the Bible) when they are based on scripture yet I do not accept scripture as fact?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reality is, that there is NO evil autonomous Satan in Tanakh.

And of course there is that, along with the many other inconsistencies between Judaism and Christianity. It's hard to blame the Devil when according to those who had the religion first there is no devil.

 

[truthofscripture]

How do I not know what they really say when I have read it?
It's utterly foolish to think someone cannot understand a book because they do not believe in it. If this were the case I could not understand Rand, Nozick, Milton, Aristotle, or Pascal.

Were those other books authored by Jehovah?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And of course there is that, along with the many other inconsistencies between Judaism and Christianity. It's hard to blame the Devil when according to those who had the religion first there is no devil.

To be fair, they did. The idea of a Devil in Judaism developed during the Second Temple period, but modern Judaism rejects the writings that lay it out. You have to keep in mind that modern Judaism is not the current expression of an unbroken chain of Jewish belief.Christian beliefs are actually very much in line with ancient Jewish thought, it's just that modern Judaism doesn't accept it.

Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vidarsdottir]

No, that is the impression that you take away, not the impression I am giving.

Well, I didn't just pull that impression out of my handbag. I've been lurking here for years now and you are one of several that definitely need to stand back, take a deep breath and ask yourself if your version of "debate" is really the best way to demonstrate the love, mercy and grace of Christ.

I don't care what religion or deity or any other such thing someone says they are, honor, worship, take to the movies and then out to dinner with them twice a month - whatever. I don't care what you say it does or says to you or how it feels about anything. You tell me with your BEHAVIOR and how you treat others exactly what it is you, and whatever it is you claim, is actually all about. That is something you need to keep in mind.

 

[truthofscripture]

To be fair, they did. The idea of a Devil in Judaism developed during the Second Temple period, but modern Judaism rejects the writings that lay it out. You have to keep in mind that modern Judaism is not the current expression of an unbroken chain of Jewish belief.Christian beliefs are actually very much in line with ancient Jewish thought, it's just that modern Judaism doesn't accept it.

Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely correct. They refuse a very large portion of the inspired word of God the Almighty.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Bible does not permit slavery.

Yes it does!

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr. -- In 20:11 it is a bought slave.

I might add that Concubines, which they could possess, are bought SEX SLAVES.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Absolutely correct. They refuse a very large portion of the inspired word of God the Almighty.

It is not in Tanakh.

As he said - it developed later, - again, - after contact with other religions which had such evil characters.

The evil Satan idea is not in the original Hebrew teachings.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It is apparent that honest discourse is beyond your abilities, and that ever drawing close to our God and creator is equally as beyond your desires, so please stop posting to my comments. You have no desire to learn anything about Him, and I have no desire to discuss this with anyone who cannot honestly debate and refrain from denegration. So once again, please stop posting to my comments or I shall be forced to add you to my ignore list.

MY! MY! MY! Do you have a lot to learn!

People are going to be slapping you down right and left after such comments!

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Jehovah is not "my deity", He is my God. Putting someone on the ignore list to stop their bizarre behavior IS scriptural. And I don't get mad. Atheists and pagans have nothing that I want them to "teach" me either, sorry. I have no interest in debating anything with them. Walk away rather than allow the attack to continue. Or are you saying I should allow such attack to continue with no benefit to anyone but the attacker in bolstering their haughtiness?

LOL! This is a DEBATE site! If you just want to proselytize go elsewhere.

Most of us that have been here for awhile, - have learned a lot from our debate interactions.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Were those other books authored by Jehovah?

You have absolutely no proof that the Bible was authored by YHVH.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

No it is not. Christendom is pagan, not Christianity. Christendom is religion, Christianity is not.

LOL! Christianity is a religion. Just one of 270 major religions, and tens of thousands of small ones.

If there is a God, She has no need of divisionary religious dogma.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I think if God were truly loving, merciful, and benevolent, then the very first commandment would have been "Thou shalt not own slaves."

YEP!

 

[Vishvavajra]

marriage is if a man and women decide to bond for the rest of their lives

the bond must be made free of will and in a state off mind capable to understand

Marriage is a very recent invention, then. For the vast majority of human history, right up until very recently, marriage has not required much in the way of consent on the part of the bride. Mostly they were arranged by the two people's families.

And in many cultures, including that of the ancient Hebrews, men might be married to multiple women at once. So the idea that it has always been one man and one woman is obviously false.

Nor has it ever really been for life. Prohibitions against divorce arose in the medieval period, based on Jesus's teaching. Divorce was perfectly fine in Judaism and pretty much every other culture from the beginning of history.

So one man and one woman mating for life is itself a relatively recent innovation. The idea that they do so of their own free will is even more recent. Marriage sure does change a lot over time. But I guess for some reason we have to say that it can't change anymore; it's done all the changing it will ever get to do. Because... reasons, I guess.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Putting someone on the ignore list to stop their bizarre behavior IS scriptural.

Thank you, this is the funniest thing I've seen all day.

Yes, we already know what the Watchtower says. Now what do you personally think?

I don't think they're allowed to. They just absorb the Watchtower party line and repeat it over and over again, as if it were the answer to everything.

 

[Kirran]

And the LORD commanded, if ye shall be irritated by heathens on the internet forums, though shalt press the ignore button and have no mercy.

 

[truthofscripture]

Yes it does!

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr. -- In 20:11 it is a bought slave.

I might add that Concubines, which they could possess, are bought SEX SLAVES.

*

No. You are not getting the sense of what you're reading. And a book cannot allow or disallow anything. It's an inanimate object incapable of doing anything at all.

 

[Kirran]

No. You are not getting the sense of what you're reading. And a book cannot allow or disallow anything. It's an inanimate object incapable of doing anything at all.

And therefore the Bible doesn't disallow homosexuality?

 

[truthofscripture]

And therefore the Bible doesn't disallow homosexuality?

It is Jehovah God who disallows homosexual acts. A book is incapable of doing anything other than just sitting there. The words are God's, so therefore it is God who allows/disallows things. One of the reasons why so many have created false translations of the scriptures, is to trick people into thinking what they want them to think. Change the word ecclesia from people or congregation to church, and it means something completely different. Change stauros from stake or pole to cross, and it takes on a pagan symbol, used to attract pagans to the church. Change hell from common grave of mankind to place of fiery torment, and you've changed the thinking of a planet full of people. Knowing PRECISELY what God intended to say when He authored the scriptures is quite critical if one intends to do His will.