Any other United Methodists here?

No. I’m not claiming that.

I’m claiming the verses exist - which they do - and seem pretty clear to me on what they say, and the existence and clarity of them renders the reliance on Leviticus unnecessary.

The “picking and choosing” projection is your own thing and a cheap parlor trick. You’re either a bad arguer or insincere.

 

There is nothing cheap about it. That is exactly what it seems like you and others are doing. Now perhaps it is just how you were taught the faith, not your own choice, but it was done at some point.

You just said that they verses render the reliance on Leviticus unnecessary. Why does that apply to some parts of Leviticus and not others?

My point still stands. You cited the verses, but you didn't explain how they support your claim. You just listed them. You are like a student turning in a sources cited list without the essay and somehow thinking you deserve an A.

 

My claim is the verses exists and seem pretty clear.

Your point is about Leviticus.

Enough. You win. You remain undefeated. Goodbye.

 

Listing the verses without explaining how they serve your point is meaningless, which brings us back to me justifiably saying that you can't do it. If you could, you would have done it already rather than find one way or another to avoid doing so.

I am far from undefeated, but you took the forfeit on this one. I can only assume you chose that route to avoid taking the loss.

 

Vocaroo | Online voice recorder

 

Oop, if it helps, I saw a friend address you question this way:

"The Bible makes it clear that New Testament (new covenant) believers are no longer under the civil and ceremonial laws of the old covenant (Romans 7:4-6; Galatians 3:24-26). A majority of the moral laws of the Old Testament are repeated in the New Testament, and the Bible calls new covenant believers to follow these commandments.

Romans 7:4-6 English Standard Version (ESV)

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Galatians 3:24-26 English Standard Version (ESV)

24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
----------------
Does this apply to you, as a non-believer? Nope. You can carry on with whatever you want to think and do. Believers in Christ, on the other hand, have pretty clear direction about the laws of the OT being superseded by the atoning sacrifice of Christ."

Does that answer your question? If not, why?

 

It doesn't explain why Christians trying to justify discrimination against homosexuals cite Leviticus given that based on your explanation, they no longer have to follow that part of the Bible. I know there are parts of the New Testament that have been interpreted as opposing homosexuality, but are they as clear? Or is it just some people's interpretation of words written by human beings well after the death of Christ, then translated by more human beings even longer after his death and then interpreted by even more human beings even more removed from the time they were written?

I do appreciate that your friend offered a genuine explanation rather than sarcasm, personal attacks, ridiculous questions and, finally, a sourced-cited list with no actual content. In case you missed it, that is a fair summary of how Alma failed to support his claim.

 

In other words, upon further review, the ruling on the field was overturned?

 

You’re not going to answer the question.

It’s a waste to even engage it.

 

He made a legitimate effort that is worthy of further discussion. You ran and hid and you continue to do so. Once again, you demonstrate that you are interested in trolling, not legitimate discussion.

 

John The Baptist did indeed have two feet in the river.