What age do you explain homosexuality to your kids?

[Blue-Lightning]

The dietary laws were anulled in the Bible in the New Testament for Christians. Still, they do provide an extremely healthy guideline - note that fish with scales are normally very, very healthy whilst shellfish are generally very high in cholesterol.

Must admit though that I enjoy a good cholesterol-filled shrimpy from time to time.

Seems though that people who make silly comparisons between gay and shrimp abominations need to read the whole book instead of just clipping snippets.

Later,

BL

 

[Quath]

a Christian perent will bring up their child under the guidelines and the intruction of the Bible.

There are many Christian parents that abuse and molest their children.

You are also ignoring that the commandment should not be upheld all the time unless you think that children should respect and obey their abusers.

Seems though that people who make silly comparisons between gay and shrimp abominations need to read the whole book instead of just clipping snippets.

God still thought it was an abomination to eat shrimp at one time. If God no longer thinks it is an abomination to eat shrimp, maybe it also means that God no longer thinks it is an abomination for gay people to be together.

You can try to justify it by assuming what God wants or wanted. But it is just an assumption. God rarely gives any reasons, just commands. So if you are allowed to make up a reason and stop doing something He commanded, then you can do the same for any commandment.

Quath

 

[Blue-Lightning]

God still thought it was an abomination to eat shrimp at one time. If God no longer thinks it is an abomination to eat shrimp, maybe it also means that God no longer thinks it is an abomination for gay people to be together.

That's an interesting thought but really has no foundation since God expressly anulled the laws concerning food. Moreover, the Bible discusses the sinful nature of homosexual acts in other places, not just in the Levitical laws. In addition to this, homosexuality is a harmful practise which goes against God's desire that all people seek uplifting and healthy choices (I know you will disagree with this, but I'm more than willing to discuss it in a different forum).

God rarely gives any reasons, just commands. So if you are allowed to make up a reason and stop doing something He commanded, then you can do the same for any commandment.

I would say that it isn't wise to disobey or discard any divine commands. That said, the laws about kosher foods were anulled, and beyond that the Levitical laws were for the Hebrew people - not the Gentiles. However, homosexuality is condemned in several places in the Bible, not just within Leviticus.

Hope that helps,

BL

 

[willow the wip]

quote name these christian perents today were is your evidence.

for one the Levitical laws are not the laws that we follow they have nothing to do with the commandments of God.

and the forbidding of eating shrimp was before the new covernunt.

the Bible also says dont call what is unclean that God has made clean

this was refaring to food.

not a homosexual practice.

 

[willow the wip]

by the way if your refaring to roman catholism they do not follow the bible the vactican dose not.

so that would exclude catholosism to be Christian.

so then i ask you again with protestent Christian bible bassed perent is abusing their children.

 

[Quath]

quote name these christian perents today were is your evidence.

I would hope you realize that Christians are just as likely to abuse their children as anyone else. This stuff is in the news all the time. If you just want an example story, look at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/570158/posts:

The parents accused of beating their 12-year-old daughter to death have told police they were meting out the biblical punishment of "40 lashes minus one, three times," detectives said Monday.

Constance Slack, a registered nurse at a children's hospital, gagged her daughter, Laree, while she was strapped down to a futon, police said. Her father, Larry Slack, then repeatedly hit the child with an inch-thick section of rubberized electrical cable filled with strands of wire, police said. She died of internal bleeding.

I can find many much more stuff like this.

But that is beside the point. God does not say "Honor your Christian parents". So presumably all children should honor their parents without exception. This would mean that abused children should honor their parents as the Bible says.

for one the Levitical laws are not the laws that we follow they have nothing to do with the commandments of God.

They were commands given by God, so they are also commandments. Now if God called eating shrimp an abomination, doesn't that sound pretty bad? After all, He could have just said it was unhealthy. But an abomination. Wow. That shows a strong dislike for the people that chose the lifestyle of eating shrimp. ;)

not a homosexual practice.

So maybe back then "homosexuality" was considered unclean. And now, it could be considered "clean" ... just like shrimp.

Quath

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I would hope you realize that Christians are just as likely to abuse their children as anyone else.

I think Willow is making a distinction between those who say they are Christians and those who match the definition of a Christian, that is a person following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This would mean that abused children should honor their parents as the Bible says.

It's a two-way street. The Bible also tells parents to not cause their children anger.

Now if God called eating shrimp an abomination, doesn't that sound pretty bad? After all, He could have just said it was unhealthy. But an abomination. Wow. That shows a strong dislike for the people that chose the lifestyle of eating shrimp.

Breaking any of the levitical laws was an abomination. BTW, those laws were only given to the Hebrew people.

So maybe back then "homosexuality" was considered unclean. And now, it could be considered "clean" ... just like shrimp.

I've already debunked that, but I suppose you think if you repeat stupidity it will begin to sound smarter.

BL

 

[Quath]

I think Willow is making a distinction between those who say they are Christians and those who match the definition of a Christian, that is a person following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That sounds loke the "No True Scottsman" fallacy. These people that killed their daughter were trying to follow the Bible. If they were not Christian, then you are just redefining Christians as those that never abuse their children. But to those people and others, they are Christians.

It's a two-way street. The Bible also tells parents to not cause their children anger.

True. But the Bible does not give a way out for children of parents that do not follow the Bible. It would make sense if God had said "Honor your parents that honor God and the Bible." But God does not give such a way out for abused children.

Breaking any of the levitical laws was an abomination. BTW, those laws were only given to the Hebrew people.

Well, so were the OT laws on homosexuality. So if you throw out all laws given to the Hebrews you should get rid of them all, not just pick and chose.

I've already debunked that, but I suppose you think if you repeat stupidity it will begin to sound smarter.

Well, I was not trying to turn this into another "does the Bible against homosexuals" thread. But basically, you say that homosexuality is also rejected inother parts of the Bible. Those can have other "interpretations." Basically, Paul is the other part of the Bible. And the criticisms I have heard against this are

1. Paul is not talking about committed homosexual relationships and in instead talking about worship, pedophilia or heterosexuals acting homosexual.
2. Paul also supports slavery so we should not take what Paul thinks as good as something that is good.

What you are ignoring is that God said eating shrimp was an abomination. In other words, He was disgusted with people that engaged in such activity. Yet, now He is not. So it appears that something disgusting to God once is not always disgusting to God.

Quath

 

[willow the wip]

Blue-Lightning thats exaclty what i was saying your right

Quath your of the world how can you understand the ways of God ?????

 

[Blue-Lightning]

If they were not Christian, then you are just redefining Christians as those that never abuse their children. But to those people and others, they are Christians.

In all fairness, it really doesn't matter about who thinks they are Christians except Jesus. Take a look at Jesus' teachings and see if child abusers might fit into that scope. Do you think someone abusing their child can be following what Jesus taught?

But the Bible does not give a way out for children of parents that do not follow the Bible. It would make sense if God had said "Honor your parents that honor God and the Bible." But God does not give such a way out for abused children.

It doesn't matter if your parents have got it right or not... they are your parents and you should honor them. Yes, even if they are murderers you should still honor your parents.

Well, so were the OT laws on homosexuality. So if you throw out all laws given to the Hebrews you should get rid of them all, not just pick and chose.

Okay, let's throw out the OT laws about homosexual acts for the time being. Now, what do you want to do with Paul's condemnation of homosexual acts or Jesus' teachings to only have sexual relations within marriage (and remember that the Bible defines marriage as one man, one woman)?

What you are ignoring is that God said eating shrimp was an abomination. In other words, He was disgusted with people that engaged in such activity. Yet, now He is not. So it appears that something disgusting to God once is not always disgusting to God.

Here's where you are confused. 1) God only gave those laws to a single group of people during a single period of time. 2) Many, many things were said to be an abomination but many of these were also contextual such as the shrimp (applied only to hebrew people)... this would signal to me that eating shrimp wasn't so much the abomination as breaking God's commandment was an abomination. 3) The Hebrews were quite frankly a primitive people as far as technology goes and if you'll look into much of the foods that were against the rules, they had a very good reason for not eating them.

Now I could go into more detail such as telling you that they probably didn't see shrimp and lobster like you and I do every day and so it was probably much safer to tell them, "If it swims and doesn't have fins or scales, don't eat it," than to tell them specific animals that they had never seen before that were off limits. It would be like saying, "Okay, there is this big bug thing that's red and has long antenneas - that's okay to eat. But there's this other thing you've never seen before either and its sort of smaller and more pinkish than red and you can eat it - oh, but you want to take the head off and peel the shell off of the things before you eat them... and don't eat the tail." Am I going to remember that, or am I going to remember "Don't eat things that don't have fins and scales?"

BL

 

[Quath]

Quath your of the world how can you understand the ways of God ?????

You are of this world with me. So how can you claim to understand God either?

Do you think someone abusing their child can be following what Jesus taught?

That is a tough one. At face value, I would say no. However, if you believe Jesus is God, then I would say yes (since God gave laws that said to beat your children).

It doesn't matter if your parents have got it right or not... they are your parents and you should honor them. Yes, even if they are murderers you should still honor your parents.

I guess we have reached our area of disagreement. To me it is more personal since I dated 3 women that were abused as children. My last girlfriend was once gang raped by her father and several other men. He had gathered friends up and raped her and an 18 month old baby. They ended up cuttting slits in her mouth so they could force her to perform oral sex on more than one man at a time. She almost died that weekend and was left hanging from a rope for several hours before her father let her go. And this was just one incident. Now I can't see how anyone could expect her to honor this man.

Okay, let's throw out the OT laws about homosexual acts for the time being. Now, what do you want to do with Paul's condemnation of homosexual acts or Jesus' teachings to only have sexual relations within marriage (and remember that the Bible defines marriage as one man, one woman)?

Well, for one, the Bible defines marriage as one man and 1 or more women. There are plenty of rules in the Bible for this.

At the time of Jesus, there were legal gay marriage such as in Sparta and Dorian Island. Jesus tended to support the secular law in many cases.

In addition, Paul could have been speaking out against pedophilia by some translations or ritual homosexuality.

From http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.html:

The role of the church in condoning homosexual marriages is also evident, according to Boswell. The Catholic Church, in particular, legitimized same-gender unions for over 1,500 years. This tradition was halted only in the 1800s. There were over 100 liturgies specifically for same-gender marriages. Since childbearing parts of marriage did not fit the same-gender unions, they were removed. As a replacement, the liturgies praised the companionable parts of marriage. For instance, a gay couple was cited as celebrating "brotherhood.†(Dorrell, 1994)

So seeing gay marriage as anti-Biblical seems to be a more modern interpretation.

Here's where you are confused. 1) God only gave those laws to a single group of people during a single period of time. 2) Many, many things were said to be an abomination but many of these were also contextual such as the shrimp (applied only to hebrew people)... this would signal to me that eating shrimp wasn't so much the abomination as breaking God's commandment was an abomination. 3) The Hebrews were quite frankly a primitive people as far as technology goes and if you'll look into much of the foods that were against the rules, they had a very good reason for not eating them.

Some good points.

1. It seems odd that God would have a lot of nasty food, but only warn a few people. But this goes back to the tribal god idea which is a diversion from this.

2. That is a good point. It makes mor sense that disobeying God is an abomination. However, that seems to be interpretation based on what we think is reasonable. It could just as well be that God is disgusted by seafood. (I remember reading that He is disgusted with people not covering their dung during war time, so it could be a revulsion at watching people eat certain things.)

3. I agree that the rule makes sense if you think in terms of health and caution. But that is an assumption. Without God justifying wht He made rules, people just guess when the rules apply and when they no longer apply.

But I could justify getting rid of rules against homosexuality the same way. I could say that God wanted people to act heterosexual so they could reproduce and spread out. Once there was no longer a need, God no longer cares.

So we guess as to why God made rules for shrimp. Why did God make that rule against homosexuals? If we can assume why, we can work out when it would be ok as well.

Quath

 

[Blue-Lightning]

since God gave laws that said to beat your children

This is a common misunderstanding due to the fact that when the King James Version of the bible was written, the word spank wasn't around. Obviously with the connotation of "beat" that we have nowadays, people who read the KJV are sometimes thrown off a bit.

Now I can't see how anyone could expect her to honor this man.

Wow. I would say that there's no way she could honor an honorless man.

Well, for one, the Bible defines marriage as one man and 1 or more women.

No, polygamy was started very early according to the Bible, and although it never condemns polygamy outright, I can't think of a single example of polygamy in the Bible that worked out. And of course, the Bible defines marriage as one man one woman - God makes that very clear in the first chapters of Genesis.

At the time of Jesus, there were legal gay marriage such as in Sparta and Dorian Island. Jesus tended to support the secular law in many cases.

Sparta and Dorian Island were very secular places (Sparta being one of the most disgusting places you could have visited). Jesus is never recorded to have spoken concerning Sparta nor Dorian Island, and while He supported some secular law, it was when that law was in congruence with God's commandments.

So seeing gay marriage as anti-Biblical seems to be a more modern interpretation.

The fact that the Bible condemns all extra-marital sexual relations and defines marriage as between a man and a women would seem to indicate that its not such a modern interpretation.

It could just as well be that God is disgusted by seafood. (I remember reading that He is disgusted with people not covering their dung during war time, so it could be a revulsion at watching people eat certain things.)

I'm enjoying the results of hebrew-to-greek-to-english translating. Seems the OT uses some strong words in describing God's dislike for the mundane. But I think we can figure out why God wouldn't want soldiers to leave their doodoo on the fields uncovered... I don't suppose that might be a giveaway to your opposition.

I could say that God wanted people to act heterosexual so they could reproduce and spread out. Once there was no longer a need, God no longer cares.

Of course, then I might give you reasons why homosexuality is harmful and explain that God commands us not to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage (man and woman).

BL

 

[willow the wip]

willow the wip wrote:
Quath your of the world how can you understand the ways of God ?????

Quath wrote:

You are of this world with me. So how can you claim to understand God either?

simple A child of God is not carnal and dose not have the same reasoning the world dose.

here is what the Bible says.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

1Cr 9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

You see if you think like the world you cannot comprehend the things of God.

You see you think you know better then God thats your mistake.

See what the Bible has to say about the Carnal Mind

(Romans 8:6-8 KJV)
(6) For to be carnally minded {is} death; but to be spiritually minded {is} life and peace. (7) Because the carnal mind {is} enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

(Galatians 6:8 KJV)
(8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

(James 4:4 KJV)
(4) Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

(Proverbs 14:12 KJV)
(12) There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof {are} the ways of death.

(Philippians 3:18-19 KJV)
(18) (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, {that they are} the enemies of the cross of Christ: (19) Whose end {is} destruction, whose God {is their} belly, and {whose} glory {is} in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

(1 Timothy 5:6 KJV)
(6) But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

(2 Timothy 2:4,22 KJV)
(4) No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of {this} life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. (22) Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

(2 Timothy 3:2-7 KJV)
(2) For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, (3) Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, (4) Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; (5) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (6) For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, (7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(1 Peter 2:11 KJV)
(11) Dearly beloved, I beseech {you} as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

(1 John 2:15-17 KJV)
(15) Love not the world, neither the things {that are} in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that {is} in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (17) And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

(Romans 12:1-2 KJV)
(1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, {which is} your reasonable service. (2) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what {is} that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.



(Colossians 3:2,5 KJV)
(2) Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. (5) Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

 

[Diencephalon]

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with the "spare the rod and spoil the child" philospohy. Tired am I of all the spoiled kindergarteners that run around trying to step to me like they're millenia older than me...

That's always how I interpereted the 'beating' passages anyhow.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

And I think that if we really look into the proverb and think about how it might be stated today, it would be something like this:

"To spoil the child just spare discipline."

BL

 

[Quath]

Yeah, beating your child with a rod is a little barbaric nowadays. You can usually achieve much the same type of punishment with timeouts, groundings and other non-violent punishments. Spankings or beatings are too often the main source of discipline and teaches some children that it is ok to solve problems with violence.

Quath

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Many, many people, like myself, have been spanked as a child and learned from it. Spanking when done correctly is very beneficial. I'm glad my parents spanked me when I needed it.

BL

 

[Sophistress]

Ah yes, spanking. The unrecognised form of domestic violence.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Yeesh. And putting kids in the corner is an unregognized form of mental torture.

BL

 

[Quath]

Yeesh. And putting kids in the corner is an unregognized form of mental torture.

Well, if you follow the guideline of 1 minute per year of life, then it should not be torture.

I was spanked also as a child. I think my father was very fair about it. However, he stopped when I was 8 and never spanked me again. He is a psychologist and saw too many studies of children who were more likely to be violent because they were reared with spankings.

Quath