Regarding shellfish...they aren't healthy, but if you want me to justify eating lobster through the Bible scriptures, ok 9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of he earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.********** Acts 10:9-16 NKJV Matthew 15:11 New International Version What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'" 1Tim.4:1*Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2*through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3*who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4*For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5*for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. The game winner... 1Co.10:25*Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26*For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” Etc, etc, etc. Any further questions, I will be glad to answer. My view on homosexual activity wasn't based on Biblical scriptures, but rather from my personal preference.
The trick is to read the whole Bible and not cherry pick, that's what makes Christians seem like hypocrites, or lost sheep. Peter said to always have an answer in 1 Peter 3:15 ...always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.
All due respect, but just to clarify, the Quran isn't an Abrahamic book, Islam is not an Abrahamic faith. The Quran is Mohammad's book, Islam is Mohammad's religion.
Are Christians of the Abrahamic faths? Or is the bible Jesus' book, and Christianity isn't an Abrahamic faith. The Quran is a book that has Abraham in it, and the story of Noah, and of Jesus Christ. In fact it has more about some parts of Jesus' life than the bible does. The fact of the matter is that there are three Abrahamic faiths. They are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You don't have to agree with Islam, but it is a good idea to understand where its roots lay.
The question is do you realise where islams roots lay? The Jesus of the Bible and Quran are totally different, polar opposites in fact. The name that Muslims use for Jesus Issa is translated to Esau, the true pronunciation would be Yeshu. The Islamic rituals all come from the pagan practices of the quraysh tribe. Whilst Abraham is mentioned in the Quran, the historical inaccuracies leads one to believe that the Abraham mentioned is not the Abraham mentioned in the Bible. The Muslims claim to be descendants of Ishmail, hence the name ishmalites. He was the b*stard son of a slave girl. I could go on, but this is the wrong forum/thread. The satanic literature also mentions Christ and his descendants, would satanism also be classed as an Abrahamic religion?
I neither support nor oppose. Issuses of morality should never be legislated. At the end of the day it is none of mine or the governments business if someone is married to a same sex partner of not. But I personally dobn't want anything to do with it.
What one man thinks is moral, another will think is immoral. There has to be guides put in place that regulate immoral behaviour, or it will lead to the collapse of society.
Are you saying that you believe the government should legislate morality? Because it kind of really seems like you're saying that.
I think it follows that if you allow the gays to get married, then some people who aren't sure will admit to being a gay, then everyone will consider being a gay because more and more people are admitting it, then some of those undecided will choose to be a gay, then it will be accepted more than not being a gay and more and more people will choose to be a gay to be the new normal or the newly cool or whatever, then eventually everyone will convince themselves that they are a gay, until finally it is unacceptable to choose to not be a gay, and that would lead to destruction of society because their will be no more people reproducing since society would have convinced themselves that the opposite sex is disgusting. It probably won't follow that exact order, but you get the picture, and what a terrible picture it is, no?
That's not how sexuality and sexual preferences work. You aren't attracted to a certain gender based on how hip and cool society thinks it is.
There are quite a few countries out there that would consider this a blessing---in fact, one that comes close to mandating it. High-quality children as an economic concept (look it up) would tend towards this being a good thing. Well, unless 100% of society turn out to be homosexuals. In which case, promoting pansexualism ftw. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-999X.00177/abstract Mortality, the Trade-off between Child Quality and Quantity, and Demo-economic Development
I'm not saying that high-quality children is a bad thing, but I would think your population needs to at least replace itself if you want to keep social security programs alive and go even beyond that if the new generations are not as productive as the older generations, re: Europe's current demographics and economies. My prior post was sarcastic and trolly. I'll go back to lurking.
Haha, I was going to say the same about this one: Religious texts are much more fun when read as euphemisms.
Pay-as-you-go systems are just a terrible thing, but maintenance rates should be maintained. Fair enough on the sarcasm, it's just that so many people think that way, it wouldn't surprised me if you weren't being sarcastic. ...case in point, how is Santorum still a viable candidate?
Not at all, but there has to be a certain standard that people adhere to, a code of ethics if you will. You can never regulate morality, as we all have free will and have a different set of morals. But you can outlaw and punish certain immoral behaviour that can be a threat to the safety or well being of fellow citizens or society in general. Agree?
