You know the Bible, do you? What does this verse mean:
Matthew 27:51 "Behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent. The curtain separated the second room called the Holy of Holies from the first room, the Holy Place.
The veil was the barrier separating the Holy of Holies from the more publicly accessible areas. Few were able to enter beyond the veil, and when the priests did, they wore garments with bells on them so people could know if they were still alive or not. Temple offerings and sacrifices were brought into this area, and priests were killed if they were not sufficiently prepared before entering.
The death of Jesus signified the end of this need, as the blood of Christ was shed to cover our sins, and sacrifice was no longer necessary.
Romans 3:23 does say that we all have sinned. Romans does not say it is acceptable to sin, or support others who engage openly in a sinful lifestyle. This includes lying, stealing, drunkenness, fornication, or sodomy.
Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say [to all this]? Should we continue in sin and practice sin as a habit so that [God’s gift of] grace may increase and overflow? 2 Certainly not! How can we, the very ones who died to sin, continue to live in it any longer?
Where did our 'Bible' come from? Did they have it? No, they read from the Talmud. What this rending of the veil truly signifies is that ALL of the traditional Old Testament pronouncements are null and void. Matthew then records that the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. The symbolism is unmistakable: a new era in salvation history had begun.
We are right to oppose the collisi that is the globohomo agenda. But any gay ordeal gay pedes that might come to us looking for answers and guidance and fellowship? They are welcome here. Period.
This is some shamefully twisted exegesis, hopefully not intentional... God is not mocked.
You forget the distinctions between the Hebrew Civil and Ceremonial laws, and the Natural and Revealed Moral Law. Only the former were made "null and void" as you've termed it. The latter remained and continues to remain.
Sin, including homosexual acts, is still sin. The difference between ante-Atonement and post-Atonement, is not that the sin is no longer sin, but rather that the ultimate Sacrifice had been made, eliminating the need for the aforementioned Civil and Ceremonial laws dictating the rituals required for atonement.
This OP title was an attack on our deeply held religious views, not whether or not people are allowed to be here.
It's not okay for someone to assert that our views are "pathetic, ignorant and sad". It was a bad decision to sticky this post because the OP title openly attacks a large portion of the community, and it has stirred up a lot of animosity against gays who are here because of it.
I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also don't see this as a place to debate religious issues, it is broader than this.
But it is stupid to engage in lefty tactics trying to bully people into accepting homosexual activists on the forum.
People are going to disagree about this topic. It's foolish to stir the pot on this. Then again, some can't help themselves.
I don't agree with this interpretation. But I respect your right to have and believe how you choose.
I have discovered a correlation between the food laws in the Torah and creatures that intentionally consume human flesh. I would like to offer this for your consideration pertaining specifically to pork:
You know the Bible, do you? What does this verse mean:
Eagerly awaiting your reply.
The veil was the barrier separating the Holy of Holies from the more publicly accessible areas. Few were able to enter beyond the veil, and when the priests did, they wore garments with bells on them so people could know if they were still alive or not. Temple offerings and sacrifices were brought into this area, and priests were killed if they were not sufficiently prepared before entering.
The death of Jesus signified the end of this need, as the blood of Christ was shed to cover our sins, and sacrifice was no longer necessary.
Romans 3:23 does say that we all have sinned. Romans does not say it is acceptable to sin, or support others who engage openly in a sinful lifestyle. This includes lying, stealing, drunkenness, fornication, or sodomy.
Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say [to all this]? Should we continue in sin and practice sin as a habit so that [God’s gift of] grace may increase and overflow? 2 Certainly not! How can we, the very ones who died to sin, continue to live in it any longer?
Bingo.
Where did our 'Bible' come from? Did they have it? No, they read from the Talmud. What this rending of the veil truly signifies is that ALL of the traditional Old Testament pronouncements are null and void. Matthew then records that the curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. The symbolism is unmistakable: a new era in salvation history had begun.
We are right to oppose the collisi that is the globohomo agenda. But any gay ordeal gay pedes that might come to us looking for answers and guidance and fellowship? They are welcome here. Period.
This is some shamefully twisted exegesis, hopefully not intentional... God is not mocked.
You forget the distinctions between the Hebrew Civil and Ceremonial laws, and the Natural and Revealed Moral Law. Only the former were made "null and void" as you've termed it. The latter remained and continues to remain.
Sin, including homosexual acts, is still sin. The difference between ante-Atonement and post-Atonement, is not that the sin is no longer sin, but rather that the ultimate Sacrifice had been made, eliminating the need for the aforementioned Civil and Ceremonial laws dictating the rituals required for atonement.
This OP title was an attack on our deeply held religious views, not whether or not people are allowed to be here.
It's not okay for someone to assert that our views are "pathetic, ignorant and sad". It was a bad decision to sticky this post because the OP title openly attacks a large portion of the community, and it has stirred up a lot of animosity against gays who are here because of it.
I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also don't see this as a place to debate religious issues, it is broader than this.
But it is stupid to engage in lefty tactics trying to bully people into accepting homosexual activists on the forum.
People are going to disagree about this topic. It's foolish to stir the pot on this. Then again, some can't help themselves.
I don't agree with this interpretation. But I respect your right to have and believe how you choose.
I have discovered a correlation between the food laws in the Torah and creatures that intentionally consume human flesh. I would like to offer this for your consideration pertaining specifically to pork:
https://drjockers.com/pig-meat/
And I'm no saint. I enjoy shrimp and lobster from time to time. I think bacon is worse anyway.
What do you think it means?
When did it happen?
Youre talking Bible with me... Answer these questions. They go somewhere VERY important.
If you are implying that the Law is no longer applicable because of the Atonement, you have some major issues in the exegesis department.
You seriously don't know exactly where I'm going with this?