longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

Oh...so only you are allowed to jump in and grab a section and think you know it all?

First you told us that:
Jesus said that He absolutely supported the law and the Prophets which both unequivocally condemned homosexuality

Now you tell us:
those old testament laws do not apply any more

Which is it Longy?

And where did Jesus or any of the Gospels say any thing about "...oh, you know that bit about loving one another and treating people as you would have them treat you - that doesn't apply to homosexuals". Where does it say that?




Tell us.  Did you write this letter?:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Good stuff, Comrades. Keep the fight up against Christianity. Only when Islam grows strong and Christianity is wiped out will there be world peace. Islam loves homosexuals.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:


The Bible is the Bible. It is open to interpretation. Just because someone has a different interpretation to you doesn't mean he's bending the Bible. I take it you believe in the Five Solas.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:


Guess what? Mainstream Christianity goes against the majority of the world's rabbis when it comes to the question of whether Jesus is the messiah, and whether we have a triune God or not, and early Christianity arose from a Jewish context. Many of the things Jesus said (in the Synoptic Gospels) had a basis in Pharisaic and later, Rabbinical Judaism.

Just because a view is or becomes mainstream doesn't mean it's right. The reason why we support the mainstream is not because a concept is right, but because avoiding disunity is more important than being right.

Have you ever heard of the Jewish teaching that "the Torah is not in heaven?"

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:


No, I don't think Rudd missed what the gospel was about and it isn't about being anti-homosexual.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:


I think Kevin's change of heart toward homosexuals was personal, just like it was for me.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:


If Christians lose confidence in Kevin then so be it. I commend him for having the courage to "come out of the closet," going against the beliefs of the majority of Christians. Didn't Jesus say, "judge not and you will not be judged?"

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:


You've got a good point there about Rudd

Australians generally respect a difference of opinion (unless you are a Greens they just call you a denier)

But the are unforgiving with people who backstab and flip-flop

In saying that - they don't mind if you change your mind but Rudd's changed his mind to suit the polls

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:


I doubt that you follow the Law and the Prophets, because I'm pretty sure you're not a Jew. Having said that, if homosexuality was wrong for Jesus and his followers, then it was a Jewish matter. Because it is a Jewish matter, whether or not homosexuality is wrong for us Gentiles depends on what the majority of the world's rabbis think. That's because like Jesus said, "the Pharisees (and now, the rabbis) sit in Moses' seat."

Because the question of whether homosexuality is wrong is a matter for rabbis, it does not determine whether a person is a follower of the Gospel. The Gospel means "good news." It is not about exposing people to the harshness of the Law, but about God offering his love outside of it.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:


I think the changes in Rudd's views have a lot more to do with naivety than to do with dishonesty.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:


Apart from the obvious objection from the majority of rabbis, there is a verse in the NT itself that suggests that the Law hasn't been fulfilled.

In Luke 21:24 Jesus says, "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." As a biblical scholar, you would know a lot about prophecies and eschatology. You would know what the "Times of the Gentiles" are and that Jesus was talking about the "present age." If the present age is the "Times of the Gentiles," then it means that not even Jesus expected the promises God made to the Jewish people to be fulfilled in the first century.

Saying the present age is the "Times of the Gentiles" means that "this isn't the time for the Jews."

It wouldn't make sense for the Law to be fulfilled and then for Jesus to say, these are the "Times of the Gentiles." Fulfillment of the Law had no benefit to the Jewish people back then. It makes little sense to be "let off the hook" and then to be kicked out of your homeland shortly after. That's like someone saying "happy birthday" and your favourite pet dying five seconds later. I think it is more likely that Jesus meant something else when he talked about fulfilling the Law. I could elaborate, but for now I'll just leave it at that.

In 1 John 5:3 it says that God's commandments are "not too hard," and Judaism is about commandments (called mitzvehs). If following the commandments was no longer necessary, 1 John wouldn't be talking about the commandments as if they were still important and therefore the Law wasn't abolished.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:


The OT laws apply to Jews, not to us Gentiles and even then, not without reconciling it with oral tradition.

You guys still banging on about this tripe.

Bottom line is the church guy was stupid and Rudd kicked his arse.

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:


I do remember him saying it was personal.