Brick Stone v. Westboro

[TurboSinceBirth]

oh really?

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

For starters, that was a law to Israel and figuratively white linen represents righteousness so he was trying to keep them clean during the 40 years of exile. It has no modern day application now.

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

This was also a law for the Israelites in order to keep them from imitating pagan practices namely the idolatrous things neighboring nations were doing. Being groomed was acceptable.

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

This was in relation to the law covenant of honoring your father and mother. A child that was rebellious against his parents to an extreme was going against the family arrangement God put in place. Furthermore, when Jesus gave his life it freed mankind from being held under the Mosaic Law because that had been fulfilled.

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

Again, this was also under the Mosaic Law at the time to keep God's people clean. Multiple areas in the Bible still condemn adultery so they ultimately have to answer to God when they're judged one final time.

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

This dealt with the cleanliness of the Israelites. Both the husband and wife would be unclean for 7 days plus they had to offer up sacrifices since it was a sin against God's law at the time. Same thing with child birth.

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

This was a command for the Levitical priests because they were to be representing the Great High Priest Jesus so of course they had to be free from defects. It's like similar reasoning of offering up blemish free sacrifices the best animals up to God. That was also no longer necessary after Jesus gave his life.

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Part of the law covenant. God's name wasn't to be reproached.

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

Moses gave Israel the law to love God with everything. Deuteronomy 6:4. Worshipping false Gods or images wasn't tolerated.

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Cities of apostasy were to be destroyed. They made that decision on their own and it was a provision to protect God's holy nation.

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

Babylonians were practicing astrology and worshipping the stars idolizing them. The Mosaic Law was clear on what kind of worship was acceptable.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

Laws against homosexuality and prostitution were a protection for the Israelites both spiritually and physically.



Now, you went a completely opposite direction of what I meant to imply but I guess I didn't state it plain enough since it seems you like to bring out things in the Mosaic Law. A good portion of the information was irrelevant. What I merely meant was the direct references to homosexuality. You mentioned one I did not realize.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Men who lie with men will not inherit the kingdom of God. The NIV renders it men who have sex with men. ESV renders it men who practice homosexuality. NLT, NAS, IS, and many other translations render it similarly. Even if you were going to say well a father and son may sleep in the same bed say if they're traveling or whatever that doesn't apply here as a man laying down with a man. Romans 1:26,27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Verse 32 states death was the punishment. It isn't any clearer about what is implied about how God feels about the homosexual actions. He doesn't hate the person but he hates the act. People can change too. Ultimately God is the only one that can judge though.

[IPD]

ok then, well if god is the only one who can judge, then how about you let HIM do HIS job & leave the human-created dogma out of it?

for the record, i don't differentiate between "mosaic" and "new-testament" law. nor do i buy into your explanations for why said "mosaic" laws were written. "priests without defects"? give me a break! it's talking about genetic differences that manifest between races.

i can dredge up 50 more "mosaic" laws that are silly at best...and i'm sure you could concoct some self-rationalizing reason for them to exist as well. it doesn't change the fact that the bible is as fucked up as the koran. and i haven't even mentioned canonization of the bible itself. or of the dubious factuality behind it--like how almost none of it (if any) was actually penned during the time the events depicted actually transpired. and i don't really draw the line against "christianity" either.

all i do know is that mass murder has never been committed in the name of atheism. in the name of power-mad despots, certainly...but not under the guidance of atheism. don't confuse godlessness with atheism. that's a whole different lecture.

[TurboSinceBirth]

To each their own. I'm a Christian and thus recognize the role Jesus had in coming to the earth in the outworking of his father's purpose which is fundamental to Christianity. I don't come from personal opinion because the Bible supports itself as a whole. Everyone has their own beliefs whether or not it's in a higher being and I respect that.

[wingnut]

NO one should listen to me.

...that is all

[onebadmollafolla]

To each their own. I'm a Christian and thus recognize the role Jesus had in coming to the earth in the outworking of his father's purpose which is fundamental to Christianity. I don't come from personal opinion because the Bible supports itself as a whole. Everyone has their own beliefs whether or not it's in a higher being and I respect that.

I am too. I hope you keep your dick in your pants and go straight arrow until due time or you undergo the wrath of burning for eternity. Fair is fair. If you hold one part of the good book higher than the other you are fucking joke. There is no pick and choose to what holds your interests in mind. If you live by the book you fucking better damn well actually live by it. Keep your wick dry till marriage, crusader. If you can't hold to the book and insist on judging others after breaking your own Biblical merit you deserve the same consequences, you sinner. Live and die by it. I have zero tolerance for what you see as fit as far as breaking Biblical rule. God will be the judgement, remember? Continue to love one and other and let the judgement be to the Lord. Is that really that hard to remember? You can arrive at the gates of (we'll be kind) heaven, and they'll say, "fantastic, you were an asshole to those you didn't see fit even though everyone is welcome at the table." Granted, that is what I was taught. It still blows my mind how passing judgement gets so overlooked in a religion that preaches so much of it. Granted, you speak for the bat-shit crazy folk and that is what it is. Always has been. Craziness.

[TurboSinceBirth]

I'm not a hypocrite though so no problems there. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

[IPD]

I'm not a hypocrite though so no problems there. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

then you should have ZERO problems with homosexual marriage--nor with the union of 2 such people being labeled as "marriage".

[TurboSinceBirth]

then you should have ZERO problems with homosexual marriage--nor with the union of 2 such people being labeled as "marriage".

Fact is fact. There's no dancing around it. I can't go around a moral truth 7000 years old.

[IPD]

Fact is fact. There's no dancing around it. I can't go around a moral truth 7000 years old.

RELIGIOUS truth. moral truth is violently clashing with your religious "truths". you're just too indoctrinated to see it. too dogmatic to see how your beliefs are inflicting suffering upon others.

[TurboSinceBirth]

RELIGIOUS truth. moral truth is violently clashing with your religious "truths". you're just too indoctrinated to see it. too dogmatic to see how your beliefs are inflicting suffering upon others.

It's not religious truth. This was before there was religion. It has been cultural belief for centuries before the Bible or anything came around. It doesn't take an idiot or caveman to figure out procreation is male/female based not male/male or female/female. People that don't even have religion or believe in anything related to it still have morals as simple as not killing someone. We're born with it. If this were suffering it would not have taken this many centuries to become an issue of acceptance today. It would have happened a long time ago. I'm not causing anyone personal pain. I will voice my feelings but I do absolutely nothing to change a person's free will. They can do as they please. I will have to answer someday whether I'm right or wrong. No problem. We can go on and on for days talking about it but it's not going to get anywhere nor is it worth the time.