arktiger'-

hawkeye007 isn't asking a question to seek an answer. He's looking for a "gotcha" and he has no interest in a legitimate and clear answer. I think this is one of those instances where we're told not to "cast our pearls before swine."

Your response is clear, concise, well-reasoned, and accurate. I doubt, though, that he'll even click the link. The soil is hard there. Go ahead and cast the seed that direction, but don't expect it to do anything more than provide food for the birds.

quote:

---

You Adventist?

---

Nope, just a believer in Jesus who woke up to incorrect doctrine interpreted by western understanding instead of a hebraic one.

I think it is fairly clear from the Pauline epistles that he cared very little about dietary laws. But he talks a lot about sexual purity.

So, it would seem that if the guy who wrote half the NT books cared little about dietary laws and a lot about sexual purity, then we should as well.

quote:

---

hawkeye007

---

So are you saying if I/we give up pork, you and your ilk will stop being homo-children groomers? Cause if that stops the debate I would be willing. And I probably love eating pork, as much as, you love back alley crack deals on your knees.

You’re weird.

Goes to show you that you are clueless about the Bible. The Lord removed the old dietary laws in Acts 10…go read and get informed.

I’m assuming you’re gay and that you are trying to validate your gayness. Unfortunately, you failed miserably.

quote:

---

Christians love to point out that homosexuality is a sin. The bible says the same thing about eating pork. So when are christians going to speak out against pork like the do when it comes to homosexuality?

---

Then the flood happened and Noah's ark. From my understanding, all animals were cleaned from that day going forward.

Nature itself is the best witness to the truth—as in the physiological traits of man and woman point to procreation. The parts fit. Whether an individual so chooses to ignore the normal, natural use of sex in procreation or the marital act is a choice. Across creation history, including in the animal world we see this male-female interaction leading to new life.

Gays can have sex, but they can't conceive life. Transvestites can slice and dice their bodies, but a male is still a male, a female still a female. Furthermore, the female with manufactured male genitalia cannot create sperm, let alone deposit it in a functioning receptacle (vagina), whence it fuses into life. Choosing a gender pronoun does not a gender make.

By golly, we'll just have to accept the reality that this male-female thing was decided a gazillion years ago, by someone much smarter than us.

So leave the Bible or religion out of this discussion. Can we at least acknowledge that someone (or something) assembled the first male and first female long ago. And presumably they were assembled sometime after the first day. Fair enough?

In the meantime. Vive la différence.

quote:

---

Absolutely. If the church had taken good care of the sacrament of marriage, the argument against homosexual marriage would be much clearer and more obvious. It’s only the watered down version of a temporary, convenience marriage for fulfillment’s sake that homosexual marriage can compare to with any sort of favor.

---

All part of their evil plan. Add the internet "ordaining" and watering down the idea of proper religious marriage has been attacked for a reason.

Context is key.

WHO was God directing the command of not eating pork to?

Was this under the old law or the new covenant?

Homosexuality is mentioned as a sin in the New Testament. There’s no mention of pork and the old law was fulfilled when Christ sacrificed himself.