Because atleast a few of them don't.
The "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman" line is not in the gospels. It is from the Old Testament. There is nothing in the gospels/Jesus about gays or abortion.
The con who stated it was Jesus who said it, is either confused or making the argument that Jesus = God = Holy Spirit and therefore everything in the Bible came from Jesus.
If that's so, he's saying Jesus supports killing nonbelievers, slavery including selling daughters into slavery, stoning adulterers and disobedient children, cursing those who do not kill, and taking the virgins of your enemies for yourself.
All of that is in the Old Testament also.
2007-05-02 12:40:16 · 13 answers · asked by trovalta_stinks_2 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I repeat my argument.
Isn't it hypocracy for christian conservatives to oppose using the government for what Jesus did speak about (helping the less fortunate) but support using the government to restrict social decisions for things Jesus did not speak about (gay marriage and abortion)?
2007-05-02 12:45:01 · update #1
Ruth,
Jesus said every word of the law is still valid and Paul said the Old Testament is no longer valid. It's up to the christian to pick and choose which part he wants to believe in. If he chooses to believe in the Old Testament then he has to believe in some pretty backward stuff to be consistent.
2007-05-02 12:47:27 · update #2
The part about not lying with a man is really close to some instructions not to eat pork or cheeseburgers.
2007-05-02 12:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tell me where in the New Testament the Old Testament laws were abolished. They weren't.
In fact, they were referred to time and again throughout the gospels.
The only laws that arguably were abolished were some of the dietary and hygienic laws. Of course, the sacrificial laws were also abolished, as Jesus said, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."
Further, the NT says to not let fornication even be discussed among you. I guess homosexuality is by definition fornication.
But why is this question in Politics?
ADDED: Paul never said the law was abolished. Paul said that Christians were saved by grace, and dead to the law. Meaning we are not in bondage to the law, which has only the power to condemn. In fact, that was the case in the OT, as well. God's mercy has always been the saving grace, as man is incapable of keeping the law.
ADDED2: At the risk of over-estimating anyone's intellect, I will suggest that the Good Lord also gave us brains and the ability to reason about why some of the OT rules might no longer be valid (the ability to fully cook pork and running water for showers, for example). But other rules, such as those involving sexual intercourse are for the purpose of preserving society and protecting women and children. Can you show me some reason those rules are out-moded?
2007-05-02 12:45:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He did no longer say it relatively is the known Mexican IQ. He stated it relatively is the known IQ of Mexicans who come to the U. S.. This replaced into researched and peer reviewed by skill of liberals, and is factually suited. IQ isn't strictly a physiological parent in the experience that every physique human beings might have an identical value. it relatively is a subjective gadget with a good number of developmental and environmental factors. it must be so user-friendly as extra useful administration over lead an infection in the water here than in different international places. it might additionally be that Mexican society provides much less probability for the low experienced jointly as the U. S. provides them unfastened welfare. of direction they had be lots extra in all probability to return here. wijgc
2016-10-04 07:06:38 · answer #3 · answered by barksdale 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some can tell you that the Old Testament is the first part of the Bible and the Gospels are the second part but,, that is about it.
This is not true of all cons, just a lot of them.
2007-05-02 12:51:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no point debating whether the people who are of religion follow that one religions teachings. I would not expect anyone to follow the bible or the koran in full. It would be impossible anyways as the bible is full of contradictions.
Even if they did they could just say they interpret it differently.
We should stop basing our actions on such crap and instead debate what is ethical and what is not.
2007-05-02 12:46:30 · answer #5 · answered by gordongecko 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The verse you're quoting is found in Moses' law as well as in some of the epistles, though in differerent words. Check Romans 1.
Liberals distort the Bible far worse than Christians. Whatever con you're trying desperately to criticize at least got the moral value correct--far better than liberals who desire to murder as many babies as possible before dying.
2007-05-02 12:45:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If one is to go by what is posted on YA, most of the people making the most noise, like the person you mention, have not read the Bible or any other holy writ, nor have most of them read the Constitution, thought they certainly don't hesitate to give their expert opinions.
2007-05-02 12:46:55 · answer #7 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is ONE book called the BIBLE and is not to be picked through as you have done
2007-05-02 12:57:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Doesn't burn when an atheist tries to hold the Holy Bible?
2007-05-02 12:47:11 · answer #9 · answered by Bad Samaritan 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Careful NEO_LIB if your friends find out that you know the bible they'll kick you out of the club.
2007-05-02 12:46:05 · answer #10 · answered by LIL_TXN 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋