And yes, IMO, the Bible is a giant contradiction. Numerous times where something from the OT and NT are complete opposites of one another. That's a contradiction.

Please forgive me Stang. I'll admit that I have yet to read this entire thread from the beginning. I just dipped in and caught your statement above. I will attempt to read the thread as time permits, but I am extremely interested in any concrete examples you might provide that would affirm your contention that the OT and NT are 180 degrees out-of-phase on certain topics.

 

I'm not challenging you or attempting to call you out here, but you seem so convinced, I assume there are several examples that leap to mind for you, and I am interested in reading them.

 

Thanks... :thumb:

I assume, then, that you are against all forms of birth control and any other sexual activity that could not result in the conception of a child? If not, then what is your point with this post?

 

Only and only to comment on this post here, that our bodies were designed to reproduce, which requires both a make and female, so that is enough to answer the hetero gene question, IMO.

 

More importantly, is there a hetero gene, if not then . . .

 

Not saying everyone needs to reproduce. And no way trying to thread-jack into a contraception/pro-life/pro-choice thing. That is another thread for another day.

Please forgive me Stang. I'll admit that I have yet to read this entire thread from the beginning. I just dipped in and caught your statement above. I will attempt to read the thread as time permits, but I am extremely interested in any concrete examples you might provide that would affirm your contention that the OT and NT are 180 degrees out-of-phase on certain topics.

 

I'm not challenging you or attempting to call you out here, but you seem so convinced, I assume there are several examples that leap to mind for you, and I am interested in reading them.

 

Thanks... :thumb:

 

The whole "eye for an eye" bit doesn't jive well with the "turn the other cheek" bit, does it?

 

Along those same lines, "Thou Shall Not Kill" & the "eye for an eye" bit seem to be a contradiction, no?

 

God says to pray in private, then Jesus is preaching to large crowds every chance he gets. AL says preaching is not prayer, but doesn't God say something along the lines of "whenever two are gathered in my name"?

 

Those are some of the top of my head...I'm sure I can think of more later.

Let me ask this to those that feel it's a choice, did you make a choice to be straight?

Absolutely, right after I saw Raquel Welch's poster for 1 Million Years BC.

The whole "eye for an eye" bit doesn't jive well with the "turn the other cheek" bit, does it?

 

Along those same lines, "Thou Shall Not Kill" & the "eye for an eye" bit seem to be a contradiction, no?

 

God says to pray in private, then Jesus is preaching to large crowds every chance he gets. AL says preaching is not prayer, but doesn't God say something along the lines of "whenever two are gathered in my name"?

 

Those are some of the top of my head...I'm sure I can think of more later.

5Wide said the preaching and prayer comment and I will not say anything else in this post, it wasn't meant for me. But I agree with 5wide.

^My mistake, and my apologies. :thumb:

^^^^I could see how you would think it was me, and don't forget this, ever, My wife has a twin brother, he is a preacher and we differ on a lot of Bibical issues. He has even come at me, angry & upset smacking his Bible against his hand. And I still love him, its OK to be different as you still respect each other as I do you. :ylsuper:

The whole "eye for an eye" bit doesn't jive well with the "turn the other cheek" bit, does it?

 

Along those same lines, "Thou Shall Not Kill" & the "eye for an eye" bit seem to be a contradiction, no?

 

God says to pray in private, then Jesus is preaching to large crowds every chance he gets. AL says preaching is not prayer, but doesn't God say something along the lines of "whenever two are gathered in my name"?

 

Those are some of the top of my head...I'm sure I can think of more later.

 

The actual interpretation of the Hebrew writings is "shou not murder", not "thou shall not kill". There is a difference.

Only and only to comment on this post here, that our bodies were designed to reproduce, which requires both a make and female, so that is enough to answer the hetero gene question, IMO.

 

 

 

Not saying everyone needs to reproduce. And no way trying to thread-jack into a contraception/pro-life/pro-choice thing. That is another thread for another day.

 

You did not answer my questions. It is not thread jacking, as your premise is that homosexuality cannot be right because of reproductive anatomy. It follows that what you mean is that sex was meant for reproduction, which must mean that you are against any sex or sexual activity that is not for the purpose of reproduction. If that it true, fine, I have no problem with that interpretation. If not, well then...either you haven't thought it through or you are a hypocrite.

You did not answer my questions. It is not thread jacking, as your premise is that homosexuality cannot be right because of reproductive anatomy. It follows that what you mean is that sex was meant for reproduction, which must mean that you are against any sex or sexual activity that is not for the purpose of reproduction. If that it true, fine, I have no problem with that interpretation. If not, well then...either you haven't thought it through or you are a hypocrite.

I am both. I have not thought it through as much as you think I should AND I am a hypocrite. The bolded items above are your words of what you are assuming that I think, not mine. I was trying to answer acemona's post about questioning the presence of a hetero gene. My answer is that the evidence of a hetero gene is the sexual and reproductive organs that we were born with. Yes--I do believe that the original intent for sex was for the purpose of reproduction. That DOES NOT follow that I am therefore AGAINST any sex or sexual activity that is not for the purpose of reproduction. Again that was your Logic 101/geometry proof.

Yes--I clearly have not thought it through the way you think I should. And once again, I am an admitted hypocrite.

Is there a 12-step program for that?

The actual interpretation of the Hebrew writings is "shou not murder", not "thou shall not kill". There is a difference.

 

Yeah, go ahead and go "kill" someone, and see how that works out for ya. :lol:

Yeah, go ahead and go "kill" someone, and see how that works out for ya. :lol:

 

So you don't see the difference between killing and murdering? If someone breaks in your house and is going to harm your family it would not be a sin to kill them. However, if you get angry at someone and murder them, well that's a differnt story. If you don't see the difference then there is no need to continue this discussion.

 

Then again maybe it doesn't fit your agenda.

^^^^I could see how you would think it was me, and don't forget this, ever, My wife has a twin brother, he is a preacher and we differ on a lot of Bibical issues. He has even come at me, angry & upset smacking his Bible against his hand. And I still love him, its OK to be different as you still respect each other as I do you. :ylsuper:

 

Reminds me of my wife's grandfather. He used to talk about men from two different churches getting together (when he was a young man) and having debates. He said they'd get pretty heated, but then after it was over, everyone was fine. Kinda funny. Good that they can keep their personal relationships intact despite disagreeing on something so near and dear to our hearts. Obviously, that isn't always the case.

So you don't see the difference between killing and murdering? If someone breaks in your house and is going to harm your family it would not be a sin to kill them. However, if you get angry at someone and murder them, well that's a differnt story. If you don't see the difference then there is no need to continue this discussion.

 

Then again maybe it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

Of course I see the distinction in that, but that's in no way, shape, or form the context it's used in the Bible, which is the discussion at hand.

Of course I see the distinction in that, but that's in no way, shape, or form the context it's used in the Bible, which is the discussion at hand.

 

Actually, if you read the entire law it does make some distinction between different kinds of killing. I know it makes some distinction between pre-meditated murder and accidental death.

 

That may or may not be applicable to the point you're trying to make.