Good Riddance Fred Phelps

[haasd0gg]

getting tattoos isn't "wrong" nowadays, but it certainly does physical damage and can be detrimental later.

Please explain

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

There are two types of Laws given in Leviticus: the first kind is permanent laws, not to be violated under any circumstances. Example: "do not sleep with a man as you would a woman", "do not sleep with an animal as you would a woman", "do not sleep with your daughter or mother or relative as you would your wife". The other kind is laws that are for specifically the Israelites, and are for their health (most of the laws that you mentioned, were made to prevent disease, misconduct, and bodily harm). For example: getting tattoos isn't "wrong" nowadays, but it certainly does physical damage and can be detrimental later. Other laws include "Whoever touches a human corpse will be unclean for 7 days" [Numbers 19:11]. Now, with modern science, we kno that touching a dead corpse and eating pre-dead animals are detrimental to one's health.

Okay, and under what guidelines do you differentiate between which laws are permanent and which are specific to the Israelis? Where did you get this idea? And who's to say that the "men cannot sleep with other men" law wasn't specific to the Israelis? Again, please look at the context. It was viewed to be a waste of reproductive potential to be gay. It meant you weren't continuing your tribe's population. Nowadays that type of pressure for couples to provide the world with children does not exist.

[Col. Hstar]

Leviticus 18:22
“‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.

But look at other things banned in Leviticus:
(snip)
I am willing to bet anything that you and many other Christians do not adhere to all of these demands of the Old Testament. If we are going to focus so hard of condemning gay marriage, why not condemn just as heavily those who eat pork or shave their beard? All sin is equal in the eyes of God, so it seems hypocritical for Christian society to judge so harshly and make illegal the act of two men or women entering into a romantic relationship.

Ok so did you read my post or just select the parts you want to respond to?

As I said

Also while in the Mosaic Law the punishment was to be put to death, this is no longer the case since we are not bound by the law. The Law was in place for the ancient nation of Israel who wanted the special position of being God's chosen nation. Hence the strict laws meant to keep the nation clean spiritually. While the Law does not apply to us today, it still offers insight into what is acceptable to God and what is not.

Look up Hebrews 10:1

Please read the entire posting before criticizing it.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Attempting to argue this issue using theological material is impossible. There are hundreds of interpretations, possible flaws in composition (omitted/deliberately altered texts), and the persistent underlying problem: the United States is not governed according to Judeo-Christian Law. What is moral is subjective, of course, but it is not the responsibility of the law to legislate morality - rather to ensure that society itself does not crumble. In pursuit of this goal - in addition to the pursuit of the establishment of a lasting, healthy nation - all law is designed to a) protect the innocent (anti-discrimination laws, anti-corruption laws, business regulation, Civil Rights Voting laws, etc.), b) create opportunity for the disenfranchised, or c) provide for the betterment of the country (allocate monies to research departments, subsidize farm crops, etc.). Preventing the practice of/prohibiting the legal recognition of homosexuality does not fall into ANY of the above categories. Case in point.

[11_Panama_]

Attempting to argue this issue using theological material is impossible. There are hundreds of interpretations, possible flaws in composition (omitted/deliberately altered texts), and the persistent underlying problem: the United States is not governed according to Judeo-Christian Law. What is moral is subjective, of course, but it is not the responsibility of the law to legislate morality - rather to ensure that society itself does not crumble. In pursuit of this goal - in addition to the pursuit of the establishment of a lasting, healthy nation - all law is designed to a) protect the innocent (anti-discrimination laws, anti-corruption laws, business regulation, Civil Rights Voting laws, etc.), b) create opportunity for the disenfranchised, or c) provide for the betterment of the country (allocate monies to research departments, subsidize farm crops, etc.). Preventing the practice of/prohibiting the legal recognition of homosexuality does not fall into ANY of the above categories. Case in point.

As I read your explanations of the basis of why we have government, it made me realize (more) on the failures of the system.

[Col. Hstar]

Attempting to argue this issue using theological material is impossible. There are hundreds of interpretations, possible flaws in composition (omitted/deliberately altered texts), and the persistent underlying problem: the United States is not governed according to Judeo-Christian Law. What is moral is subjective, of course, but it is not the responsibility of the law to legislate morality - rather to ensure that society itself does not crumble. In pursuit of this goal - in addition to the pursuit of the establishment of a lasting, healthy nation - all law is designed to a) protect the innocent (anti-discrimination laws, anti-corruption laws, business regulation, Civil Rights Voting laws, etc.), b) create opportunity for the disenfranchised, or c) provide for the betterment of the country (allocate monies to research departments, subsidize farm crops, etc.). Preventing the practice of/prohibiting the legal recognition of homosexuality does not fall into ANY of the above categories. Case in point.

Sorry Pepsi not everything has to be a political debate. Neither of us are offering arguments for or against gay marriage. Samunoh Is making the argument that the act of homosexuality is not mentioned in the bible.

In your haste to bring up your own issues you have with the bible, you are the one bringing up political issues.

This is one point though however that you and I agree on. Religion, especially Christianity has no place in government affairs.
John 15:19 - Jesus Christ taught his followers that they should remain no part of this world.
Mark 12:13-17 - Jesus taught that we should be in subject to the government authorities.

[haasd0gg]

Guys, seriously...

[(=DK=)Samonuh]

Leviticus 18:22
“‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.

But look at other things banned in Leviticus:
(snip)
I am willing to bet anything that you and many other Christians do not adhere to all of these demands of the Old Testament. If we are going to focus so hard of condemning gay marriage, why not condemn just as heavily those who eat pork or shave their beard? All sin is equal in the eyes of God, so it seems hypocritical for Christian society to judge so harshly and make illegal the act of two men or women entering into a romantic relationship.

Ok so did you read my post or just select the parts you want to respond to?

As I said

Also while in the Mosaic Law the punishment was to be put to death, this is no longer the case since we are not bound by the law. The Law was in place for the ancient nation of Israel who wanted the special position of being God's chosen nation. Hence the strict laws meant to keep the nation clean spiritually. While the Law does not apply to us today, it still offers insight into what is acceptable to God and what is not.

Look up Hebrews 10:1

Please read the entire posting before criticizing it.

You still didn't answer my question. You claim there is a distinction between olds laws that still define "what is acceptable to God and what is not" and laws that are only applicable to ancient Israeli life. How do you determine the difference?

[Col. Hstar]

You still didn't answer my question. You claim there is a distinction between olds laws that still define "what is acceptable to God and what is not" and laws that are only applicable to ancient Israeli life. How do you determine the difference?

Thank-you for clarifing. I understand what you were asking . When reading the mosaic law you need to use common sense along with asking why the law was put in place for the isrealites at that time. Read the context of the scriptures not just one scripture by itself.

I'll use your quoted scripture to explain what I mean:

-Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
-Tearing your clothes (10:6)
Both are the same scripture. This is in fact not a law that was past down. Read the entire passage and you see that 2 of Aaron's sons had just been put to death for committing gross sin at the alter. Aaron and is faithful sons were given these instructions because back then the common practice of mourning or grieving for someones death was to shave your head and rip your garments. They were being told not to grieve for someone who had rebelled against God.

-Eating an animal which doesn't both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
As many scientists and medical experts can attest. Meat from animals like the pig, hare etc are ones that must be prepared very carefully and thoroughly. They contain parasites and bacteria that can be deadly. At a time when more modern methods of cooking were not developed then it was actually safer and more healthy to simply avoid such foods. this served as a protection for the people back then much the way health and safety codes protect us today.

-Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
-Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
The reproductive organs were made to pass on perfect human life. However, because of the inherited effects of sin, imperfect and sinful life was passed on to the offspring. The temporary periods of ‘uncleanness’ associated with childbirth, as well as other issues, such as menstruation and seminal emissions, called this hereditary sinfulness to mind. The required purification regulations would help the Israelites to appreciate the need for a ransom sacrifice to cover mankind’s sinfulness and restore human perfection. Thus the Law became their “tutor leading to Christ.” Today since Christ has died and offered his life in ransom for us then this reminder is no longer needed.
Also I should be noted that it was a period of cleansing. She wasn't as you say not allowed to "go to church"

-Lying (19:11)
-Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
Common sense. It's still unacceptable in today's society.

-Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
This law was given because only those who were acting as priests would wear mixed fabrics. Today of course there is no need for priests since Christ died for us all.

-Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
This was to show thanks and respect to God. A way of sacrifice giving him the first-fruits. Again as said before we are no longer bound by it because we can show thankfulness though prayer.

-Trimming your beard (19:27)
-Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
-Getting tattoos (19:28)
Back then one of the practices of ancient pagan nations was to cut their hair in certain ways and put tattoos on their bodies. For a nation who was supposed to serve the one and only true God such ritual practices were unacceptable. Today God does require people to be clean hygienically and of neat appearance, but the main thought behind this law was to refrain from other religious defilement.

-Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
Common sense. Showing respect for your elders. I think even today younger ones should respect the elderly

-Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
Again common sense. Isn't it good moral practice to not mistreat someone simply because they are from a different nationality?

-Selling land permanently (25:23)
When Jehovah God brought the people to the land of Israel he portion out land to all the people so that all may enjoy their own land. The land ultimately belonged to God and thus the ancient Israelites were not to sell it permanently. They could loan it mortgage it but after a set amount of time or when someone died the land would return to the former owners or heirs. If you own land today that was personally given to you by God then I would not sell it....(That was a bit of sarcasm) :)


Like I said. You cannot take things a face value and say that the law makes no sense or is of little use for us today. We are not bound by it but it gives us great insight as to who God is and what he expects of us. He is loving, caring, and demands exclusive devotion.

BTW I would also like to add the disclaimer that I am not in anyway defending the beliefs of Fred Phelps or his church. They are everything that is wrong with religion

[THEWULFMAN]

We are not bound by it

Yeah, Paul would agree. He was appalled when the teachings of Moses and Abraham was being added to the "Christian" faith in the people of Galatia. That's why he wrote them, telling them to stop it. We are free from the curse of the old laws thanks to Jesus' sacrifice. All that mat.ters is our faith, not the laws we used to be bound by. That combined with the fact that Matthew taught us not to judge, as it is not our place, is why I'm so firm in my beliefs about homosexuality.

You're certainly not wrong in any way about one thing, the WBC is everything wrong with religion rolled into one nice package. They couldn't have been farther from Christians had they tried. And they did try, as far as I'm concerned they didn't believe what they spouted. At least not all of them do. It's just a [m'kay] scam. Which is even worse at the end of the day.