FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2001, 09:28 PM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Specific sins that are Abominations

Leviticus 18:27 Referring to sex...Homosexuality, and having sex with your wife while she is on here Period (not a married man alive can prevent that, because most of the time we start the period by the shock of sex to her system.) The writer of Lev. must have been a single man... no doubt about it. The only way to prevent that from happening is not to have sex with your wife every 2 weeks out of the month to insure you don't start it and thereby sin against God in the most horrible way. Since Moses was married, and a God would know men can't prevent that, only and single man could have written it.

(Lev 11:9) Eating Tuna Fish, shrimp, lobster, clams, Catfish, and any other creature from the water that do not have both Fins AND Scales. These sins are called an ABOMINATION.

Watch how the Christians use the Abomination Statement in today's time... you only hear it used to refer to Homosexuality, like that is exclusively the worst sin possible.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:53 PM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Leviticus 18:27 Referring to sex...Homosexuality, and having sex with your wife while she is on here Period (not a married man alive can prevent that, because most of the time we start the period by the shock of sex to her system.) The writer of Lev. must have been a single man... no doubt about it. The only way to prevent that from happening is not to have sex with your wife every 2 weeks out of the month to insure you don't start it and thereby sin against God in the most horrible way. Since Moses was married, and a God would know men can't prevent that, only and single man could have written it.

(Lev 11:9) Eating Tuna Fish, shrimp, lobster, clams, Catfish, and any other creature from the water that do not have both Fins AND Scales. These sins are called an ABOMINATION.

Watch how the Christians use the Abomination Statement in today's time... you only hear it used to refer to Homosexuality, like that is exclusively the worst sin possible.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
</font>
Does it proscribe punishments and if so what are they?
 
Old 04-18-2001, 07:15 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So I take it Layman you are a single man and don't "get" the importance of what I just wrote.

Or are you again trying to steer the off topic so the ignorance in the Bible isn't seen?
 
Old 04-18-2001, 10:16 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Goodness, you seem to have a hair-trigger this morning. All Layman asked was what was the penalty for these ceremonial sins. I see the relevance to his question to framing his/her response. I fail to see the relevance of (or reason for) your hostility to his question.

I fail to see how Layman asking a follow up question prior to making a reply could be seen as anything other than he is taking your question with much more seriousness than you did his. What did you want, a knee-jerk reaction? The man (or woman) asked a good question to develop the thought. If you don't know, or can't find the answer, a simple statement that you don't know is probably sufficient. I'm sure from reading some of his other posts that Layman could provide the answer, Chapter and Verse.

Are you always this antagonistic?

[This message has been edited by RugbyJJ (edited April 18, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by RugbyJJ (edited April 18, 2001).]
 
Old 04-18-2001, 12:11 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Leviticus 18:27 Referring to sex...Homosexuality, and having sex with your wife while she is on here Period (not a married man alive can prevent that, because most of the time we start the period by the shock of sex to her system.) </font>
Not possible. The most you could do is 'shake' a little extra out at the beginning or the end of her period. Sex isn't a 'shock' and it doesn't 'cause' it.

Just to clarify.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 12:47 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

See Rugby, now jess worked the questions the right way, not using a red herring tactic like Layman. Layman knows better than to do that but does it so often on this board, he can't stop now. I'm not antagonistic, just correcting his mistake with a swat on his red herring butt. See how well layman's tactics work, you fell for them. (Layman 1 point)

************

jess, when you talk honestly with your wife you will find that having sex with her will often start the bleeding if done on that day of her cycle starting. Your wife may not have wanted to gross you out and make up a little white lie that some blood shook out (whatever that means). But, dispite that, At that point you have sex with her and she is still in that cycle, you are unclean and have violated the law as stated in Lev. and shall be cut off from the rest of the people (God's chosen) forever.





[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 18, 2001).]
 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:04 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

For those new to debating, Layman and some of the other Christians who get into trouble in the middle of an argument or even at the start of one... use the Red Herring Tactic.

The RH tactic is designed to take the debate into a different and usually irrelevant direction.

In this post I introduced an argument which had no relevance with "punishment" just as it wouldn't have anything to do with what color are the eye of a woman on her cycle... usually the misdirection is aimed at something related to the subject matter but avoids the real argument issues.

This tactic is used by people losing a point or needing more time to put a good response together... since time isn't an issue here, Layman has no real answer to the argument.

I and most others get upset with him when he does and we slap him a good one for doing it. He doesn't really mind because it makes us look mean and him look innocent, so it seems he is winning to a new person to debating, but the real people who understands a win from a loss knows he is really losing the argument.


 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:18 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

As long as we are learning about debating here, and have a perfect Red Herring going, let me now prove my point that his post was irrelevant, thus a Red Herring.

1. Punishment would have been a fact found in the Bible that doesn’t require argument in connection to my initial argument.

Therefore if punishment was a real issue of fact here, Layman would have started his next post with something like this… Being that the punishment for that type of sin is X, then make the connection to his argument, if I disagreed with the punishment being X, which he knows would be unlikely (as I was quoting scripture and the punishment is in the same line of scripture as we both know) I would address it in my rebuttal.
Therefore he had no real argument to make and used a “red herring” defense.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:19 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Critical, perhaps a more constructive and less antagonistic response on your part could steer it back in the right direction.

Instead of:
So I take it Layman you are a single man and don't "get" the importance of what I just wrote.
Or are you again trying to steer the off topic so the ignorance in the Bible isn't seen?


You could say:
The punishment proscribed isn't relevant to my argument. I was pointing out that some of what the bible refers to as "abominable" are things that our culture no longer even considers sinful.

I conclude therefore, that the fact that the bible refers to any single act, such as homosexual sex, as "abominiable" is meaningful to people living in the modern world.

Layman, your response was a bit of a non-sequitur; I would be pleased if you would respond to the argument that I was actually making. Thanks!


See how easy that is?
 
Old 04-18-2001, 01:25 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bookman:
Critical, perhaps a more constructive and less antagonistic response on your part could steer it back in the right direction.

Instead of:
So I take it Layman you are a single man and don't "get" the importance of what I just wrote.
Or are you again trying to steer the off topic so the ignorance in the Bible isn't seen?


You could say:
The punishment proscribed isn't relevant to my argument. I was pointing out that some of what the bible refers to as "abominable" are things that our culture no longer even considers sinful.

I conclude therefore, that the fact that the bible refers to any single act, such as homosexual sex, as "abominiable" is meaningful to people living in the modern world.

Layman, your response was a bit of a non-sequitur; I would be pleased if you would respond to the argument that I was actually making. Thanks!


See how easy that is?
</font>
Keep trying.

Koy... I mean CTMEZ's point is not just the label Christians use, but the seriousness with which they take the sin.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Watch how the Christians use the Abomination Statement in today's time... you only hear it used to refer to Homosexuality, like that is exclusively the worst sin possible. </font>
The punishment imposed by the old law on this "sin," compared with those that CTMEZ attempts to compare it to, is relevant to this point.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.