Okay then. Let’s go through a couple of them. Although I would like to say that your post is really unclear, you don’t use punctucation very well or quote marks so its difficult to read but I’ll try my best.
I asked for a plain answer to a plain question. Not only does your question use the word pertain incorrectly, but it doesn’t make sense so I can’t answer it.
**per·tain/pərˈtān/Verb
- Be appropriate, related, or applicable Understand now?
How does that law “pertain” to society today?
I apologise for my misspelled words incorrect grammer and lack of punctuation I didnt know this was English class**
Whether it’s against the will of God for homosexuality to exist is a bit odd. God created everyone therefore why would he create homosexuals if he didn’t want them? Different debate altogether though.
**For one God created man It was man who chooses the act or to sin
By that reasoning you could say why did God create sin which he do not we choose to sin **
Okay, we no longer burn bulls because Jesus told us it was unnessary. So the reason why we no longer kill homosexuals is… it’s unncessary. Therefore, if the punishment no longer counts… why does the crime still count?
I have been speaking on the laws not the punishments.
That passage means absolutely no contact whatsoever, not just sexual contact. In Biblical times, when people were more nomadic, it was custom for them to stop and raise a tent in which the women would stay until their menstral period was over.
**Its common knowledge its a reference for sexual intercourse with women while on their cycle perhaps gathering them in the tent was away to keep them away from the men much like the idea for ortho Muslims keep heir women clothed from head to toe for temptation reasons thats the bottom line. You try to keep everything in a nice neat package when you have to see the whole picture. Do a little research you will understand it was for sexual contact.
Were they just stupid back then? lol **
Really? Where in Church doctrine does it say this? And what health reasons? There isn’t any. You’re more likely to get HIV from the woman if she’s on her period, but thats kinda obvious and you shouldn’t been having sex with her anyway.
**Its called blood borne pathogens I could go into detail about this I just finished last semester on how micororganisms are transmitted It does actually increase your risk of spreading this disease to your sexual partner. **…
Woah, woah, since when did state law dictate doctrine of the Church? Some states in America, no wait, all, legalise homosexuality! Therefore according to your legal argument homosexuals should be allowed to have sex with each other, because, afterall, in Canada the Lev homosexual law would not apply because the country’s own law overrides it! Sorry, but if in the Bible it says slavery=legal and homosexuality=wrong, since when did the law in neighbouring countries influence what is right and wrong as stated in the Bible? If you’re saying that slavery=wrong because of law, surely then homosexuality=right also because of law?
Its called an ANALOGY or do you need the correct definition for that too?
Again, what health risks? Do we still obey that law?
No I mentioned nothing on legalities of slavery but the lack of. Secondly The Lev law
on homosexuality still pertains “appropriate or relates” to today because people are still commiting this sinful act. < There is a period for you Hope you fell better now
EXACTLY. Lev is just as much societal law as it is biblical. Lev law was made for a society which numbered much smaller than today, and literally depended on each other for survival. A disobedient teenager could literally be life and death. Hence the law for killing teenagers if they disobey their parents, why isn’t that one honoured?
**Yes however there are still laws that are apprpriate today such as against homosexuality
is as much a mortal sin as it was back then.
The church states its a mortal sin perhaps you can check the vatican arichives online
Just to break it down for you since there are no slaves then that law is on the shelf.**
I get what you’re trying to say but don’t understand the relevance to my question.
Yeah, I’m not arguing against that.
Can’t remember the verse.
Because you’re not answering my question directly. Why is the Lev law different to the others?
**Your asking why would one agree to Leviticus law 20 13 a man should not lay with a man etc… and then why not follow the other laws
I get your question
And my answer was and is it pertains or applies then yes it should be followed
Again I didnt write it. Besides sexual orientaion is a choice like anything else you do
If you pick up a pen instead of a pencil its a choice.
I find brunettes more attractvie than blondes is that from my genetic script or from conditioning? Regaurdless its still a choice**
Yeah, alongside other laws which we don’t pay attention to any more.
Yes I know that, thank you.
