If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of churches out there that go with the teachings of Jesus to love one another.

Exactly. This is the vast majority of churches, two teeny southern fundamentalist churches notwithstanding.

And Catholic Churches except a few liberal ones

Yeah right, my nieces catholic middle school will not even acknowledge that some of the students may be LGBTQ, they like to keep their students in the closet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

No. You’re still missing the point.

TBH your obsession with dietary laws is baffling. Jesus didn’t just eliminate the dietary laws, he eliminated all Levitical laws. It’s been explained to you by others and myself that Jesus eliminated all of Leviticus through multiple sayings, including but not limited to “on these two laws (love god and neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets.” And as we’ve also explained to you multiple times, Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules, for example Christians don’t follow Levitical rules about ritual purification or fabrics or offerings (Jesus is the offering). For someone with a Christian mother, you really know very little about it.

You and the homophobes therefore seem to be on the same page about one thing: none of you thinks Leviticus needs to be followed. For different reasons: the homophobes think Jesus replaced it (“fulfilled” it) and you’re an atheist. And there’s where you can find the hypocrisy—they don’t think Leviticus is still God’s law except for that single passage on homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

No. You’re still missing the point.

TBH your obsession with dietary laws is baffling. Jesus didn’t just eliminate the dietary laws, he eliminated all Levitical laws. It’s been explained to you by others and myself that Jesus eliminated all of Leviticus through multiple sayings, including but not limited to “on these two laws (love god and neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets.” And as we’ve also explained to you multiple times, Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules, for example Christians don’t follow Levitical rules about ritual purification or fabrics or offerings (Jesus is the offering). For someone with a Christian mother, you really know very little about it.

You and the homophobes therefore seem to be on the same page about one thing: none of you thinks Leviticus needs to be followed. For different reasons: the homophobes think Jesus replaced it (“fulfilled” it) and you’re an atheist. And there’s where you can find the hypocrisy—they don’t think Leviticus is still God’s law except for that single passage on homosexuality.

Wrong. No interlocutor of mine implied that Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely. If Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely, why would he tell lepers to go to a priest as commanded in Leviticus chapter 13? Luke 17:14. Why would Jesus tell a recently healed leper to go to a priest and make the sacrifice commanded by Leviticus chapter 14? Mark 1:44. Luke 5:14. Matthew 8:4.

[Anonymous]

IMHO you don’t have to pick between your church and your child. You can love him AND practice your religion. Your child and your church community should accept that you’ll process your inner struggle in your own way and in your own time. You aren’t answerable to anyone. Your child has every right to pick his own path, no matter if it’s about choosing a church or sexual orientation. He can keep following yours, it’s all between him and his God, he isn’t answerable to the church folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMHO you don’t have to pick between your church and your child. You can love him AND practice your religion. Your child and your church community should accept that you’ll process your inner struggle in your own way and in your own time. You aren’t answerable to anyone. Your child has every right to pick his own path, no matter if it’s about choosing a church or sexual orientation. He can keep following yours, it’s all between him and his God, he isn’t answerable to the church folks.

That depends upon the attitude of your particular church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

No. You’re still missing the point.

TBH your obsession with dietary laws is baffling. Jesus didn’t just eliminate the dietary laws, he eliminated all Levitical laws. It’s been explained to you by others and myself that Jesus eliminated all of Leviticus through multiple sayings, including but not limited to “on these two laws (love god and neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets.” And as we’ve also explained to you multiple times, Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules, for example Christians don’t follow Levitical rules about ritual purification or fabrics or offerings (Jesus is the offering). For someone with a Christian mother, you really know very little about it.

You and the homophobes therefore seem to be on the same page about one thing: none of you thinks Leviticus needs to be followed. For different reasons: the homophobes think Jesus replaced it (“fulfilled” it) and you’re an atheist. And there’s where you can find the hypocrisy—they don’t think Leviticus is still God’s law except for that single passage on homosexuality.

Wrong. No interlocutor of mine implied that Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely. If Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely, why would he tell lepers to go to a priest as commanded in Leviticus chapter 13? Luke 17:14. Why would Jesus tell a recently healed leper to go to a priest and make the sacrifice commanded by Leviticus chapter 14? Mark 1:44. Luke 5:14. Matthew 8:4.

Shall we state the obvious? Your “interlocutors” weren’t Christian. And I doubt you got into these subtleties with your mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

No. You’re still missing the point.

TBH your obsession with dietary laws is baffling. Jesus didn’t just eliminate the dietary laws, he eliminated all Levitical laws. It’s been explained to you by others and myself that Jesus eliminated all of Leviticus through multiple sayings, including but not limited to “on these two laws (love god and neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets.” And as we’ve also explained to you multiple times, Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules, for example Christians don’t follow Levitical rules about ritual purification or fabrics or offerings (Jesus is the offering). For someone with a Christian mother, you really know very little about it.

You and the homophobes therefore seem to be on the same page about one thing: none of you thinks Leviticus needs to be followed. For different reasons: the homophobes think Jesus replaced it (“fulfilled” it) and you’re an atheist. And there’s where you can find the hypocrisy—they don’t think Leviticus is still God’s law except for that single passage on homosexuality.

Wrong. No interlocutor of mine implied that Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely. If Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely, why would he tell lepers to go to a priest as commanded in Leviticus chapter 13? Luke 17:14. Why would Jesus tell a recently healed leper to go to a priest and make the sacrifice commanded by Leviticus chapter 14? Mark 1:44. Luke 5:14. Matthew 8:4.

Shall we state the obvious? Your “interlocutors” weren’t Christian. And I doubt you got into these subtleties with your mom.

I’m convinced that all my interlocutors on this thread have been Christian. Either way, you have failed to answer my question as to why Jesus would tell people to follow the law of Leviticus if he eliminated Leviticus. Since you can’t answer my question, you go after my interlocutors. For some weird reason, you get personal and bring my mother into it. Obviously you have no answer to my question.

[Anonymous]

Your son must live a chaste life; this is a burden but his suffering is a special offering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your son must live a chaste life; this is a burden but his suffering is a special offering.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Unfortunately, Leviticus 18:22 is alive and well and, unfortunately, many Christians want to close their eyes to this sad fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your son must live a chaste life; this is a burden but his suffering is a special offering.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Unfortunately, Leviticus 18:22 is alive and well and, unfortunately, many Christians want to close their eyes to this sad fact.

The teaching of the Holy Roman Church is not “sad.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

No. You’re still missing the point.

TBH your obsession with dietary laws is baffling. Jesus didn’t just eliminate the dietary laws, he eliminated all Levitical laws. It’s been explained to you by others and myself that Jesus eliminated all of Leviticus through multiple sayings, including but not limited to “on these two laws (love god and neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets.” And as we’ve also explained to you multiple times, Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules, for example Christians don’t follow Levitical rules about ritual purification or fabrics or offerings (Jesus is the offering). For someone with a Christian mother, you really know very little about it.

You and the homophobes therefore seem to be on the same page about one thing: none of you thinks Leviticus needs to be followed. For different reasons: the homophobes think Jesus replaced it (“fulfilled” it) and you’re an atheist. And there’s where you can find the hypocrisy—they don’t think Leviticus is still God’s law except for that single passage on homosexuality.

Wrong. No interlocutor of mine implied that Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely. If Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely, why would he tell lepers to go to a priest as commanded in Leviticus chapter 13? Luke 17:14. Why would Jesus tell a recently healed leper to go to a priest and make the sacrifice commanded by Leviticus chapter 14? Mark 1:44. Luke 5:14. Matthew 8:4.

Shall we state the obvious? Your “interlocutors” weren’t Christian. And I doubt you got into these subtleties with your mom.

I’m convinced that all my interlocutors on this thread have been Christian. Either way, you have failed to answer my question as to why Jesus would tell people to follow the law of Leviticus if he eliminated Leviticus. Since you can’t answer my question, you go after my interlocutors. For some weird reason, you get personal and bring my mother into it. Obviously you have no answer to my question.

I have family visiting, sorry I’m not here 24/7 like you.

It’s very well known that Jesus radicalized as he went on. You didn’t know this? Oh right, you know almost nothing about Christianity besides what you read on atheist, Jewish or fringy sites.

But how like you to try to declare “victory” when people get sick of you—I’ve seen this happen so often on DCUM, as if wearing people out with dumb arguments and repetition somehow constitutes “victory.” You’re s
sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of all, it’s sad that you’re spending all this time trying to undermine the real hypocrisy of homophobes, which lies in adhering to Leviticus on homosexuality, even as they agree with other Christians that Jesus did away with all the other Levitical rules, including dietary rules (certainly for gentiles like them and even if they accept your tangential argument about Jewish converts)?

That’s been my point all along. I don’t believe Jesus eliminated laws against kosher meats when he was arguing with the Pharisees about his disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If that were true, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked at the suggestion that he eat un kosher meat in Acts after Jesus had died. But if Christians want to believe that, fine. For the umpteenth time, what bothers me is Christians (and liberal Jews) cherry picking Leviticus 18:22 and using it to justify hating homosexuals. That doesn’t seem to bother (a small number) of people here.

It’s clear you don’t read others’ posts, so let’s try again.

Look, you can believe what you want about Jesus and dietary laws, and you can believe what you want about Peter (even though the rest of scholarship thinks otherwise on both issues and your arguments are really thin).

But your thoughts on these issues have zero bearing on whether homophobes are hypocrites.

Here’s the hole in your logic about hypocrisy: arguing that some Jewish converts to Christianity might (or might not) have kept kosher has zero bearing on whether homophobic Billy Bob is a hypocrite for not following the rest of Leviticus. Why? Because Billy Bob is probably of Western European origin and even you agree gentiles don’t need to keep kosher.

So what hypocrisy are you pointing out to Billy Bob? There is no hypocrisy using your logic.

You’ve got it upside down, or backwards.

There’s real hypocrisy when the homophobe rejects all of Leviticus (as almost 2,000 years of Christian theologians have done) except for a few passages prohibiting homosexuality. That’s the hypocrisy. But you can’t see it because you’re so intent on dismissing the aforementioned nearly 2,000 years of Christian theology and tradition.

No, I’m not arguing Gentiles don’t have to keep kosher. I’m arguing nobody has to keep kosher. How many times have I got to say it? Leviticus should be regarded as a purely historical document written by men, not God.

The problem is that you keep changing what you say.

As a scholar of the gospels you claimed, and I quote yet again, “Jesus did not eliminate the dietary rules.” This was the basis for your illogical claim that homophobes are hypocrites (and once again, while I agree they’re hypocrites, it’s for a reason that makes much more sense).

In this current post you’re talking as an atheist who thinks Leviticus and all other scripture have no import because they’re written by men.

Can you blame a person for being confused about which hat you’re wearing in a given post, and concluding that you talk out of both sides of your mouth?

That’s right. I said Jesus did not eliminate the law against eating non kosher meat when he argued with the Pharisees about eating bread without washing one’s hands. If he had, Peter wouldn’t have been shocked by the suggestion that he eat non kosher meat in Acts. But my position is that Leviticus was written by man, not God. There’s nothing Holy about it. It never was God’s law.

Look, if we say that the reason that we don’t keep kosher is because Jesus eliminated the kosher law that implies that Leviticus really is God’s law and homosexuality is an abomination because Jesus never abrogated Leviticus 18:22. My argument is that none of it was ever God’s Law so there never was any Godly prohibition against homosexuality.

No. You’re still missing the point.

TBH your obsession with dietary laws is baffling. Jesus didn’t just eliminate the dietary laws, he eliminated all Levitical laws. It’s been explained to you by others and myself that Jesus eliminated all of Leviticus through multiple sayings, including but not limited to “on these two laws (love god and neighbor) hang all the law and the prophets.” And as we’ve also explained to you multiple times, Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules, for example Christians don’t follow Levitical rules about ritual purification or fabrics or offerings (Jesus is the offering). For someone with a Christian mother, you really know very little about it.

You and the homophobes therefore seem to be on the same page about one thing: none of you thinks Leviticus needs to be followed. For different reasons: the homophobes think Jesus replaced it (“fulfilled” it) and you’re an atheist. And there’s where you can find the hypocrisy—they don’t think Leviticus is still God’s law except for that single passage on homosexuality.

Wrong. No interlocutor of mine implied that Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely. If Jesus eliminated Leviticus entirely, why would he tell lepers to go to a priest as commanded in Leviticus chapter 13? Luke 17:14. Why would Jesus tell a recently healed leper to go to a priest and make the sacrifice commanded by Leviticus chapter 14? Mark 1:44. Luke 5:14. Matthew 8:4.

Shall we state the obvious? Your “interlocutors” weren’t Christian. And I doubt you got into these subtleties with your mom.

I’m convinced that all my interlocutors on this thread have been Christian. Either way, you have failed to answer my question as to why Jesus would tell people to follow the law of Leviticus if he eliminated Leviticus. Since you can’t answer my question, you go after my interlocutors. For some weird reason, you get personal and bring my mother into it. Obviously you have no answer to my question.

I have family visiting, sorry I’m not here 24/7 like you.

It’s very well known that Jesus radicalized as he went on. You didn’t know this? Oh right, you know almost nothing about Christianity besides what you read on atheist, Jewish or fringy sites.

But how like you to try to declare “victory” when people get sick of you—I’ve seen this happen so often on DCUM, as if wearing people out with dumb arguments and repetition somehow constitutes “victory.” You’re s
sad.

I don’t see this as as “victory/loss” situation. If I did I would declare victory because since you can’t answer my arguments, you have lowered yourself to ad hominem attack. But this is not about winning and losing. It’s about how to get people to relegate Leviticus 18:22 to the trash bin of history so we don’t have posters telling OP that her child must live a celibate life. That issue obviously doesn’t bother you.