Uploaded by illuminati
554x448 PNG 357 kBInterested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Tags
+-SH safe2164514 +-SH edit172152 +-SH edited screencap89955 +-SH screencap294903 +-SH aunt holiday407 +-SH auntie lofty363 +-SH granny smith6089 +-SH earth pony442069 +-SH pegasus492414 +-SH pony1592400 +-SH g42016741 +-SH the last crusade923 +-SH bible verse97 +-SH caption25936 +-SH clothes630133 +-SH cropped61034 +-SH discussion in the comments817 +-SH downvote bait1174 +-SH female1791919 +-SH forced meme1361 +-SH homophobia148 +-SH image macro40168 +-SH mare734496 +-SH meme93556 +-SH obligatory pony6408 +-SH op is a duck4861 +-SH op is trying to start shit3088 +-SH religion752 +-SH scarf32009 +-SH shitposting2155 +-SH sweater19449 +-SH text88694
Source
not provided yet
Loading...
Loading...
Man, I lost my crown– you have by far the best Duck Badge alt text.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The “context” is “anyone who tries to use the Bible to justify their own personal bigotry is an antichrist and will burn in Hell for eternity”.
Go read Luke 22:20 and then stop trying to make nonsensical arguments about the Old Testament still being relevant.
Good, you understand those verses. As solid as those are, are you not considering them without all of their context? See this:
Matthew 5:17 - 20:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
The “Law and the Prophets” is the “Old” Testament Section. Modern “Christianity” loves to say “The old testament was fine back in its day, but it’s not relevant now.” Well, as shown above, Christ called that out even before it started; he’d not be happy with that “Christian” saying. He quoted the “Old” Testament Section (The Law and the Prophets) a lot, he KNEW the scriptures. He wouldn’t obliterate his father’s teaching for the “great god of money” that cannot save a person from many diseases that we don’t even know about.
Since Christ didn’t come to obliterate the “Old” Testament, Homosexuality never got an A-OK from Christ. He healed a “centurion’s servant,” (Luke 7:1-10, Matthew 8:5-13, ) but if that servant was really a homosexual lover (as it has been suggested,) Jesus did heal him, but it’s not “because he did it to ‘OK’ homosexuality.” He said to pray for those who hate/abuse you (Luke 6:28, ) and love your enemies (Luke 6:35 .) Considering this, the “Old Testament” Teaching to not be a homosexual (Leviticus 20:13 ) is still valid, as is the New Testament teaching in Romans 1:26 above,) Then again, I’m slightly scared at saying that “the Old Testament is still valid,” because there are many Teachings in the Bible that I’ve not been following. However, this brings me to the next paragraph, in regards to interpretation (which I’m not to “act as king” over, to interpret to my own liking, against the text’s intent. That’s not how it works.)
The Bible in its entirety was originally supposed to be read in Hebrew from a Hebraic Perspective, which is quite alien to our “Modern” Western Greek and Roman based thinking. If you read it in English, you might get some of the perspective, but there’s a lot that’s underground to you which is not evident. For one, Words in Hebrew often are similar to each other if they have something in common, and this can lead to thinking in ways that are otherwise obscured. For example: what does Milk have in common with both a Bag, and Shaking? Cheese. The Hebraic words for Milk, a Bag, Shaking, and Cheese are linked. I’ve also heard (though not quite confirmed) that Hebrews thought in “Block Logic” (grouping thoughts together) instead of “Step Logic” (told in order of how things happened.) The Gospels do appear to be in “Block Logic,” not 100% in the order of when things happened. This changes a lot of interpretation.
With all of that said, I know that there may be people who will bring up things in the “Old Testament” which would often be highly frowned upon today, and they’ll ask “Are you doing all of these?” Well, no; I’m far from the most brushed up on this, but I at least recognize and admit it (which doesn’t fulfill the whole, though I’m also not 100% certain of how to interpret everything in the Bible.) One of the things that people might bring up is Leviticus 20, particularly verses 10-21, “Punishments for Sexual Immorality.” For example, stoning to death an unfaithful and promiscuous daughter. TBH, this is not something I’m ready to comment on reliably, though I remember John 8, which speaks of Jesus sparing the adulterous woman from a stoning. “He who is sinless, let him cast the first stone.” Well, does that imply that the whole lot of those who were accusing her *had sex with her?* Maybe they didn’t, and they were just lying about it; I’m not certain. I wonder, is there more to Leviticus 20 in its original Hebraic form that I’m not aware of?
Edited
You need to Adam and Leave.
The problem with basing your argument on truthiness rather than any real familiarity with the actual source material is that you often end up looking foolish when it turns out that the source material doesn’t actually agree with you.
[A textual reference for this claim is necessary]
Strange He would canonically bless a gay-ass union, then.
Edited
No, you were banned for being an obnoxious arse to anyone who dared hold even a slightly divergent opinion to your own. None of us agreed with the people you were rule 0ing at, you just managed to make them look half-way sympathetic by comparison.
:)
Edited because: oopsie
Eh.
If you’re worried we might ban too many racists and bigots, don’t be. We have plenty of those here, but they’re generally smart enough to take their muddy shoes off at the door.
It’s the ones who insist on stomping around on our clean carpets in their muddy shoes even after being asked not to who get shown the door.
While what you’re saying is technically true, I like to think that at a certain point if they keep banning people simply for not liking them, due to both banning people and because other users will not want to be around them anymore, they’ll start losing users faster than they gain them and then start to change their ways, and acknowledge limits to their power.
LOL just LOL if you think someone with my ban history and well-established disdain for registered users hiding behind the ☑ Anonymous button is defending anything here; I’ve been banned more times for yelling at racist and sexist assholes that certain mods agreed with than most people own pairs of socks. It is what it is, acknowledging the reality of a situation does not imply agreement with it. We’re in somebody else’s house here, and whether we agree with how they run it or not is irrelevant to the fact that they can kick any one of us out at any time for any reason, or even no reason at all. Complain about it if you want, but get used to it or go somewhere else.
HA, I’ve read the same lines in defense of facebook/google censoring their platforms.
Good to see that people see through this kind of bullshit and “private is holy” behaviour is under attack.
Well, at least then you’re not a hypocrite, assuming this is true.
A powerful political group in steep decline that is desperately trying to cling to power mainly through fear and unfair legal tactics.
Well, you see, folks like you are trying to deny them basic civil rights. Like the right to adopt a child, to serve in the military, to get married, or to patronize the business of their choice. Some people have a problem with this.
My attention span with this conversation has just about run out.
The people who were going to stone the adulterous women would’ve given similar drivel about “not hating women, just this one’s sin” as an excuse for why they need to kill her. And if you don’t already know how that story ends, you’re no Christian.
alleging ‘‘discrimination’’ and ‘‘hate crimes’’
Are you even trying anymore?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lgbt+hate+crimes
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lgbt+discrimination
Yeah, no, that’s still nonsense; you can’t claim to love someone while simultaneously hating their existence, that makes as much sense as “hate the Black, not the Black person”.
Jesus washed the feet of whores and tax collectors, go start your own religion if you want one where it’s cool to hate people in the name of its central figure.