Sorry. Fact is, the Bible states early and often that the physical world we see around us is less important and real than the spiritual one behind it. "God is spirit, and desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth."

Ok, so the spiritual world is more important, fine, Gays and Lesbians can believe this way if they see fit, no argument here.

The Bible details who God is, and just as importantly what God's relationship is to be with us (of our own choice), and how we are to be obediant to God's plan. The Bible is under the guidance and witness of God's presence on earth today, His Holy Spirit. You can find certain factual errors in certain verses (devil's myth about the horns comes from the horn representing political power on earth.) But the overall thread of the Bible will always remain consistant and without error. (New International Version is actually a more accurate translation than the King James, from what I understand.)

Yes, the Bible is the human interpretation of god's will, wishes, and works, sure, I can accept that too. Your reference to the obvious errors and fallacies within it provide more than enough support for that stance.

Homosexuality is always pointed out in the Bible as a consequence of individuals or even nations turning their backs on God and the consequence of their sin. History shows us that when homosexuality becomes an accepted norm in society then that society is nearer its end than its beginning. "God is not mocked."

Now here you're stretching it a bit. There are references to homosexuality throughout the bible, however neither do all of them call it a consequence of disbelief in god, NOR is there any proof what so ever that acceptance of it indicates a decline in society. Sorry bubba, your halo gets tarnished here, no facts, no validity.

The Bible also shows those who care to learn from it that homosexuality is actually spiritual in nature, and it results from the presence and even pocession of a person by unclean spirits. These spirits, like all other anti-Judeo-Christian forces in the world since ancient times seeks to raise the physical over the spiritual. But as God clearly tells us "There is a way seems right unto a man, but the ways therein are the ways of death." God refers to not only physical death but spiritual death as well.

Here you bring up my original point. There are untold numbers of divisions within the christian belief system. Not all Christians believe the same things you might for example. Not everyone will believe that homosexuality is spiritual in nature, many infact believe it may be a genetic tendancy, or even a learned behaviour. So this validates my point Christianity is a personal belief system, no matter what denomination you belong to, or if you simply follow it in your own way (GASP) it is not based on the bible, to be christian you could read martha stewarts cooking books if you wished, as long as you believe in the deification of christ. THAT is the basis of christianity. The bible is just the tool used to support that belief.

Now no where in any of this have you shown anything that says a gay or lesbian person could not believe in the crucifiction and martyrdom of christ. IF they believe in that, they are as christian as you or the next person. Wether YOU as a christian of another denomination or belief system accept that ir irrelevent, you don't have a right to tell them how to believe in god, now do you? ;)

dola...

I've never been able to figure out why Xians are so willing to give murderers and child molesters a pass on sin because they repent, but seem to view homosexuality as an unforgiveable offense. Look, I don't have a problem with people who choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, though I myself find the evidence something less than convincing. In any event, I don't know about you, but the God my parents taught me about said that sin is sin. There is no hierarchy, so I don't see any reason to condemn homosexuality more than something "minor" like treating my wife disrespectfully or provoking my children to wrath.

If it's a sin, let God sort it out, just like he'll sort out all the foul language users and the uncircumcised and any Canaanites that happen to still be lurking about after the Hebrew genocide program. And if it isn't a sin, aren't you going to look like a dumbass when you try to explain to God that you persecuted fellow believers because you thought that was what He wanted?

Bottom line is that God is either sovereign or He isn't. He's omnipotent and can take care of His own business, or He's a pussy and He needs the help of flunkies to strong arm pagans into submission. And frankly, if that's God, He's just a bully and doesn't really deserve our adoration in the first place.

Well said Drake.

I will not further engage in a battle over this. But as one last response to your posts, you ask why christians give murders a pass when they repent but not gays. You answered your own question. The murderer repented, while the gay continues to live a homosexual life. Had the murderer not repented he would not go to heaven either. I know anyone can twist anything into whatever they want, as evidenced by the fact that a teenage girl tries to help push waiting on sex and homosexuals turn into an anti gay movement.Say what you will, believe whatever you wish. If you think that you will be rewarded one day for the life you live so be it.I really dont care how you interpret things. Everyone on here post evidence from other sites. Some because it supports what they want to believe, others taht dont support your thoughts you attack their credibility. I choose to cut out the middleman and read the scripture. If you can read the verse about homosexuality is an abomination and still twist it so you believe its ok by God to be gay then its pointless to continue this banter, which is why I am quitting now.

Noble, the only thing I'd like to say to that is this:

The Bible is only as good as your own interpretation of it. What I would hope all people would come to realize is that whatever your beliefs, they are yours and yours alone, and you have no right or priviledge to foist them on another person.

The beginning of the thread developed into a reaction to what some people Interpreted as another way that Christianity is attempting to persecute Homosexuals because of the difference in their beliefs. Wether that was the intent (which I doubt it was by the girl) or not, the fact remains that homosexuals ARE persecuted. I fail to understand or accept anyone's religion trying to tell me that that is acceptable behaviour.

I accept that I am not going to sway christians in this because they are told to believe what they believe and are threatened with "hell" if they go against it. They choose to follow that faith for whatever personal reasons. What I will never accept is the outright discrimination of a group of people for their beliefs. Christians ought to have a clue about that, but sometimes I think they've forgotten.

I promised myself that I wouldn't step into this muck, but here I am, breaking my promise to myself (and thereby making myself an abomination - see below). My intent here is to establish a line of reasoning, using direct Biblical quotations, that suggest a serious flaw in the literal Biblical proclomation that homosexuality is an "abomination" and those who practice it cannot be Christian, which seems to serve as the basis for the anti-gay marriage movement. At the very least I hope to provide a serious conundrum to those making the argument.

Let's start! The Bible is, for many, the definitive resource for determining how God wants his followers to live their lives. And it is easy to see how...

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she [is] thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's nakedness.

18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be] born at home, or born abroad, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, [even] their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs [is] thine own nakedness.

18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she [is] thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she [is] thy father's near kinswoman.

18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she [is] thy mother's near kinswoman.

18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she [is] thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.

18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; [for] they [are] her near kinswomen: it [is] wickedness.

18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

...all make some general sense. If we assume that the "uncovering of nakedness" is a euphemism for "having sex with" then these are more or less reasonable restrictions. Making hearty, healthy babies is the name of the game here - ensuring that a wide variety of folks contribute to the gene pool and prohibiting incest seems like downright good ideas, especially given the times in which these were written. People weren't as healthy back then, living conditions were harsh, and survival was by no means guaranteed. These rules help to ensure successful procreation, allowing the clan and its culture to continue. Thus, violating any of these orders reduces the chances of clan survival, which makes that behavior abominable and results in doom (though I confess to not understanding why having sex with a menstruating woman is an abomination of this order). Okay.

It is within this context that the next listed prohibition:

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination

...needs to be interpreted. A man cannot fertilize another man - and wasting time on this effort reduces the overall survivability of the clan to some degree. This is, in my opinion, the real reason why the Bible forbade homosexuality - it posed a potential complication to procreation at a time when survival was much harder. Reading Lev 18:22 out of context can lead some to conclude that homosexuality is an abomination in its own right and automatically eliminates one from consideration as a member in good standing of the Christian faith. But such an unsophisticated reading of that individual passage misses the point: these rules are intended to ensure the survival of the group via procreation!

Now, given that the Christian sect is in no imminent danger of failing to produce lots of babies or having its culture fade into obscurity anytime soon it seems difficult to argue that there is a pressing need to ensure frequent fertilization of females (indeed, given the world's current population we could probably use a lot fewer people of every denomination). Thus, it would make sense to revisit some of these "abominations" and consider easing up a bit on the now-harmless abominations (like sex during her period or homosexual behavior) while retaining the clearly harmful prohibitions (incest, primarily).

Of course, there are those who would disagree with this logic, or even the whole premise of "reinterpretation grounded within a reasonable context" and argue that "if the Bible says its an abomination, then its an abomination, period." To them I'd say - hold onto your hat, for if you have:

- eaten clams ( Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you);

- worn polyblend fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together);

- told a lie of any kind (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips [are] abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly [are] his delight);

- committed adultery (Leviticus 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her);

- trimmed your beard (Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.);

- gotten a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD);

- charged interest on a loan (Psalms 15:5 [He that] putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these [things] shall never be moved);

- or paid interest on a loan (Jeremian 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; [yet] every one of them doth curse me)

...then you have committed an abominable act in God's eyes. If you have done any of these things you are in the same class of doomed souls as homosexuals, and are thus just as unviable a candidate for Christianity as they. Indeed, perhaps we should begin erecting laws to defend the pure morality of the non-polyblend-fabric-wearers from the encroachments of the heathen polyblend-fabricians. Unless, of course, it might just be worthwhile to revisit and reassess the utility of reinterpreting the intent of these behaviors prohibited by the Bible.

And one final thought - Jesus had this to say which might be relevant to this discussion, given the high probability that abomination-committers are among the those railing against the "abomination" of homosexuality:

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Just one thing. Every source should have its credibility questioned. If the source is not credible, then the information from that source is completely useless. If you want to post sources after sources but never have their credibility questioned, then you obviously should not get into discussions about anything with anyone. The credibility of a source is one of the, is not the, most important factor in considering the information from that source.

Which is why you'll never see me take seriously a political source from Cam. :D

WTF? Milford HS in Michigan? That's the fourth instance of Milford I've heard of now..

In the quiet words of the virgin mary, come again?

We've lost..Gorgeous George.

I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but based on what passes for "logic' amongst those that insist on attacking my position, I am not alone in that. RendeR fails in insisting that the Bible can be interpreted any way you want. It cannot be. The Bible interprets itself. There is much latitude given to different styles (such as contemporary or traditional-style worship service) but the substance always remains the same (Jesus Christ is God, He died for our sins, and you MUST receive His forgiveness thru confession and repentace to be "born-again."

Homosexual behavior is sin in the Bible, same as sex outside of marriage, adultery, ect...this is irrefutable. But it is not up to me to be some kind of 'cop.' Do what you want. All I have attempted to do is to put forth the Point-of-View as stated in the Bible and that guides the vast majority of Judeo-Christian believers. All I have stated is that if you want your point of view respected, then you must respect the same from others even if you don't like it. There has to be some boundries, and one simple boundry that applies here is to realize that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to Christians and so don't try to push it on them in public forums, like schools, under names like 'equality' or 'tolerance.' Keep your own lifestyle to yourself exactly as you would loudly (see all the above) would insist that Christians keep their convictions to themselves if you don't want to hear it. That is fair. I'm done.

Or not. Name examples. How about all the societies that fervently repressed homosexuality before their collapse (ie Victorian England).

Again, millions of Christians interpret the Bible differently than you and you don't "respect their view." And until "straights" keep their lifestyle private by not getting married it is hypocritical to ask gays to stay in the closet.

I assumed this was pure sarcasm. If not, it's quite amusing.

Or all of the societies that accepted homosexuality from day 1...

But like yabanci, I thought he was being sarcastic, so I didn't reply.

When I first read your post I thought the wise Matthew 7:6 verse your were referring to was "Touch my pussy and die", then I realized that was your sig:). It is your sig right? That would be a kick ass Bible verse though...

Sorry - I assumed because you pulled out one sentence, you agreed with Bubba. Otherwise, I thought you would have applied your response to his whole nonsense message.

Who here thinks the Bible is nothing but a collection of stories meant to teach various lessons?

*raises hand*

Seriously, I don't think this book was meant to be taken literally.

I agree with you - and that's one of the points I was trying to make with my long-winded diatribe above. But some "literalists" refuse to reinterpret the Bible's laws in a modern context (which is their right), but what they fail to realize is that they are implicity reinterpreting the Bible's laws by picking and choosing which ones to make a big stink about. Railing about homosexuality while ignoring the above-described prohibition on clam-eating or the charging of interest is just one example.

Dola-

yabanci, I didn't see your post when I submitted mine (I was working on it for a while), so I apologize for the redundancy!

First off, teaching abstinence doesn't work... what they should do instead is have a box of condoms for kids. They should teach kids that sex is a thing that a couple should enjoy together when they're ready.


First and foremost, sex should not be a Taboo subject. Kids should be able to go to their parents about sex, without feeling embarrassed or judged.

VERY well said RendeR

Sex is natural, sex is good...
Not everybody does it, but everybody should.

Sex is natural, sex is fun....
Sex is best when it's one - on - one.

actually, I always thought it was best two - on - one but whatever floats yer boat.

I don't know if this has been brought up in the 130 posts here, but gay and lesbians can get married in plenty of churches. This isn't a government program, it's a spiritual program. Therefore, I fail to see how it's bigoted to suggest people wait until they get married until they have sex. Gay and lesbian teens could simply wait until they're an adult and then get married in a church that will marry them.

This is a couple of days late, but I have kind of avoided this thread. The basic reason why christians are willing to forgive murderers etc. is that there is a change that is exspected of the person. Sure We will forgive a murder, but we then exspet them to no longer kill people. And (conservative) Christians will forgive homosexuals if they are willing to give up their homosexual lifestyle.

ROFL! :p

Abstinence works great in theory but isn't practical. I'm sure we'd all love to think our kids are saving themselves for marriage but we were all young dumb and full of you know what at one time and know how it goes.

Really? Care to explain why this isn't practical?

Because plenty of kids are going to have sex in high school and junior high regardless of how many lectures or rallies they go to promoting abstinence or how many times they tell mom and dad they're virgins. I know what happened when I was growing up, I assume it hasn't changed.

Not all kids are going to practice it because it's taught, but that's how it is for most things. We tell kids that things like murder and rape are wrong, but some people still do these things. Obviously premarital sex is not on the same level as these things, but the fact that not everyone will listen to the message (and certianly some do listen) doesn't mean that it's not practical to teach to kids.

I don't think that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught, and kids should be told that if they do have sex to do so in a safer method, but I don't think it is pointless to teach abstinence.

I have no problem with a section on abstinence during a safe sex course. I guess to me, abstinence is the obvious solution and really shouldn't even need to be taught. Everyone has the common sense to say no. Maybe abstinence needs to be taught because some kids feel that none of their peers practice it and it helps them feel like they fit in by saving it for marriage. I just hope our nation's educators are realistic about the effectiveness of telling some kid, "Don't do it!" It's awfully hard for a hormone crazy teenager to refrain from participating in a god-given pleasure, especially when a lot of their peers already seem to be experimenting with it.

I just don't see all the "hidden agenda" crap. Some kids opinions are that there is too much talk of casual sex and they want to abstain and tell others. Big deal. Do you agree there is too much sex by our children or not enough? So they wear their t-shirts. Of all the high school kids there are in this country, what percentage wore these shirts? I highly doubt this is going to catch fire and everyone is doing it, especially if they tag this topic to anything religious, because we all know that any religious topic will offend someone, and we can't have that in this PC environment. Besides, there isn't one horny teenage guy that isn't going to wear this shirt. They will just see the girls to avoid or try to get in their pants because it is a challenge.

Although I don't have the answer, I disagree that throwing condoms at our youth and saying "well, if you're going to do it, at least be safe." To me that is an invitation. Not the same, but if a store owner in the inner city says "I'm going to get robbed, I might as well leave the door unlocked so they don't break the window" sounds just as absurd to me.

I really did enjoy the conversations regarding everyone trying to interpret the Bible to fit their own agenda, even though I did get pissed once in a while. Oh well, that is why I come here to read about your opinions. Thanks for the enjoyable thread.

tabucko

I think the point of discrimination here is that gays and lesbins can't be legally married anywhere in this country (I could be wrong, MA is actually wasting eons of time debating it even now)

If you don't have a marriage license, you can't be married even in a church/religious setting or program, this I think is what set the whole topic off to begin with, gays and lesbians are denied the right to legal protection through marriage for their significant others, children and loved ones. When they used the terminolgy "until marriage" the gay and lesbian community was being indirectly at least, put upon.

Wow, I can't believe I bothered to post something when I'm this tired and its this lat...err early in the morning....

night folks!

A co-worker of mine that went to my former church was gay. I saw him struggle with it day by day, he prayed for relief from it, we prayed for him in bible studies and in church, he asked advice of the pastor and the church elders, and it was never enough. He would always "fall back" into the homosexual lifestyle for a while, and then be too ashamed to come back to church for a while because people would make comments about it. It really shook me, I am telling you I've never seen a guy try harder to "not be gay" than he did, he just couldn't do it. He did everything possible but he always fell back into the same sin. I know many other people in churches that struggle with other sins like lust, greed, etc to the same degree. I would hope that they all would be able to go to heaven, assuming they have truly asked Jesus to be their savior.

That's the only problem I have with the "homosexuality as abomination" school of thought, I'd hate to see someone like my friend condemned to Hell for something he struggled so mightily against. Some of my Christian friends believe that he would be damned but those who fall in and out of "mere" lust, drunkenness or greed would be spared.

I don't think "legal marriage" has a place in this debate. This is one religious group advocating abstinence until marriage, and religious marriage is already available to gays and lesbians. To put this into the debate over state-sanctioned marriage is wrong, IMO.

Great post, Peregrine. I think the reason most Xians are so willing to condemn homosexuality out of hand is simply because most Xians don't struggle with it. Because they can't understand it, it makes it easier to judge and condemn people who do. It seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I'm sure we've all got our blind spots.

You're right, stkelly. I picked a couple of poor examples. Please substitute: "alcoholics" and "fornicators". I made the point earlier, but I'll make it again here: people in churches are more willing to give people struggling with these issues (also identified as sin) a pass because we understand the temptations. Homosexuality "tempts" a smaller segment of the population (and, I'd be almost certain, statistically an even smaller set of the self-selected religious population), and isn't as readily sympathized with because it is a cultural other.

My point all along has been: I don't know how God feels about homosexuality. I just don't see any reason why Xians should treat it any differently than any of the other "struggles" of the Christian walk. If it is a sin, it's neither better nor worse than any other one. And even if it is a sin, the church's approach to it is flat out bigotry, and will continue to be bigotry until the church stops allowing alcoholics, pornographers, fornicators or other varieties of the sinful to attend church until they "get themselves cleaned up".

I don't know what kind of church most people go to, but the ones I was raised in preached that the Xians job was just to get people to the Cross and let God do the cleaning up, not to force people to clean themselves up first before they were worthy to approach the Cross.

and dola again...

I don't want to suggest that most of the points in the message above were in any way direct responses to stkelly52's stated or implied theology. I started with his point and went off on my own tangent.

I'm so glad someone finally said what I've been thinking. Oh, except I would have actually typed out the word, "christian."

:)

Sorry. I started abbreviating "Xian" when I was taking notes in college, and the habit stuck.

Outside of wackos like Fred Phelps (who don't represent the views of mainstream Christians), I think you'd find that the vast majority of churches wouldn't condone ANY celebratory and continual acts of sin. It's kind of funny that you say that churches are more forgiving of fornication, considering the original subject of this thread was abstinence. :)

How and where are you seeing religious marriage for gays and lesbians? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a church or religious organization that will marry anyone without a state certified marriage license. Can you enlighten me a bit here Cam? While I understand that any organization, church or otherwise has the right to deny holding a marriage service if they so choose, I've never heard of one holding a service without "the power vested in me by the state of XX"

I'm intrigued to know where this might happen. It would offer some friends of mine an excellent repreive from the stodginess of MA.

Render,

Tell them to come to Oklahoma. There are many churches in this state that will hold marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. The one that comes to mind immediately is the Church of the Open Arms in Oklahoma City. They're a congregation of the United Church of Christ. The Unitarian Universalist churches might also marry same sex couples, but I can't be sure.

Again, it's a religious ceremony only: no civil benefits, but for the purposes of talking about abstinence, it's much more valid than a civil ceremony.

I'm not asking the church to celebrate something they think is sinful. I'm just asking them to be consistent and bar the doors to, say, children who are not completely obedient to their parents or people who have gambling or substance addictions or any other sin the way they bar entrance to people who are both homosexual and long for a committed relationship to God. I don't particularly care of the church wants to define homosexuality as sin. I'm just saying that they need to be consistent in their exclusion of sinners, otherwise they're merely being bigoted.

Drake,

I imagine if a homosexual went to a church and said "I know it's a sinful act and I'm struggling with homosexuality, please help me", they wouldn't be turned away. That's far different than those who would say "this is who I am and I'm not changing, so you better accept me."

I don't know how often you go to church, but in my experience those who are openly and willfully sinning without any remorse or repentence are probably going to get talked to by other members of the congregation and/or the clergy.

Yes, I speak from experience. No, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Rende, your self-absorbed arrogance needs a response. It is NOT up to YOU, Mr. Nazi, to determine WHO should believe in WHAT! (Among others that would agree with YOUR point of view, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, just to name a few!)
When you state that the church can believe in whatever they want, as long as they don't discriminate against YOUR particular Sin-of-Choice, what your really saying is that you can believe anything you want as long as YOU YOURSELF are not offended by it.

Fact is, they very nature of the church IS TO (listen carefully here) DISCRIMNATE against SIN, but in the process offer a way OUT of sin thru Christ (Love the sinner, Hate the sin), really could not be much simpler, but really does show the depth of your own personal intolerance and bigotry towards people practicing their faith.

Hey, Bubba, WHY don't YOU give it a REST?

I actually find this sort of debate to be interesting. I find that when both sides know their stuff and stick to relevant arguments, I can learn a lot even though I may not agree with everything that's said. On that note... man, this has been a disappointing thread.

Two questions, one for each side:

To the relgious: could you go into more detail about how you'd answer the claim that Christians are selective in their interpretation of the bible, condeming homesexuality at every opportunity but ignoring other "sins"?

To Render and those who support his views: do you really believe (as you seem to be saying) in moral relativity, that there is no right and wrong except as defined by the individual? Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, can there really be no such thing as absolute right and wrong?

I'd agree with that assessment, Cam, and would also go so far as to say that this would apply to any sin in any church.


Agree here also, at least if the church is doing their job. :)

My concern is that when the church decides to be so vocally anti-homosexual that they practice an intimidating exclusion that doesn't even let people in the doors. That's the part that seems wrong to me. By today's church logic, Jesus should have excluded Matthew the Tax Collector from his circle of disciples -- and I fully suspect that Tax Collectors (as agents of Rome, essentially) were just as reviled in first century Palestine as homosexuals are by right-wing Xians today. Notice that the Bible doesn't state Tax Collecting was a sin, but I'm positive that most of the Jews would have told you that it was. :)

I think Jesus picked Matthew specifically as an argument for inclusion. The fact of the matter is that no one is worthy of salvation. I spend every day of my life screwing up and living within myself and generally doing things that God doesn't want me to do. I'm a sinner, and no matter how hard I try not to be, I still sin. I'm terribly thankful that even though I'm weak, Grace still abounds. It just sort of makes me feel foolish that I should ever attempt to deny that Grace to anyone else because I dare to deem them unworthy.

LOL, is my excersize of free speech making lil Butter-boy unhappy? Poor lil Butter-boy, go see momma and she make it all better fo you :(

and yet another dola...

Cam -

As a side point, I would like to point out that I think a great number of individual Xians and even churches have the right approach to this issue. It's the vocal, bigoted minority who are more concerned about politics than saving souls who muck things up.

Not especially, but that spelling of "Exercise" is. Yikes.

I'll tackle this one.

I believe there is an absolute moral standard, and that God is that standard...but that with some issues (like homosexuality), God was less explicit than He might have been. I think God intentionally left those issues obscure as Exercises for the Reader.

Canadians in this thread should start identifying themselves, since as I understand it quoting the Bible in Canada may soon be illegal and interpreted as "hate speech', like spanking your kids is now child abuse.

Yes, thankyou for being the spelling police! ;)

I'm glad we agree. :)

I think ultimately where the two sides diverge is in the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Those that believe it is should still love the person and work with them to lead a life that is as "godly" as possible.

Those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin aren't under that same obligation, but I would think that those same people would also have no religious objections to gay marriage, and would therefore still want homosexuals to have sex within the bounds of a religious marriage.

And then, of course, if you have religious people that don't believe pre-marital sex is a sin that's an entirely different argument. :)

I don't think the option is an either or choice. I do not believe in absolutes and I don't believe in moral relativity either. One can always approach a situation with tolerance and understanding while still rendering judgment and opinion. I believe both extremes are horrible choices, so I choose to try to understand the "other" while reaching my own value determinations.

well, people do all kinds of things in the name of religion. I'd say anybody who says "God Hates Fags" a la Fred Phelps needs to go back and read the Bible. I don't believe God hates anyone, although He certainly frowns on bad behavior.

Well, thank you for being the thought police. :rolleyes:

Am I missing something here? I thought I read that spanking your kid was allowed?

Salvation makes you a child of God, a member of the family. Sin then will break your fellowship with God (thru the presence of His Holy Spirit) but will not get you cast out of the family. And not being saved by grace thru Christ at all means your out of the Kingdom regardless of how 'moral' a life you lead on your own. Isaiah 64.6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags;

Big court case in Toronto last year to determine this, missed the outcome. It is in Norway though, and Canada fancies itself as the North American Scandinavian Socialist Model.

Yes, BW, that supports what you said before. Spanking being outlawed in Norway! They might as well write it in our Constitution.

BTW, here's a little-known passage from The Book of Numbers:
"And they who bait without mercy on internet message boards will surely not be permitted entrance to the Kingdom of God."

hxxp://www.canadianlawnews.com/news4.htm

Ok Butter, I'm not going to continue answering someone like you that just flies up with feelings and emotions. Its a losing cause, I spend time coming up with Biblical sources to support my statements and you respond with a little 2 liner about your 'feelings' on the issue. Shame is, most reading this wouldn't see the difference. Opinions are like toenails, everyone has them, those that would like to learn a little should look at those with some basis in some sort of source (like the Bible).

And in closing Butter, read what the Bible says in Revelation about adding to or subtracting from the Bible in general. ( I know, you 'feel' different.)

Just to clarify this point: So, anyone who accepts the gift of salvation--whether a practicing homosexual or not--is saved. The only issue after that is the quality of their walk with God, not their salvation. Homosexuality (if a sin) is only a barrier to a fully realized Xian walk.

You're not saying that gays can't be saved.

I'm just trying to get a handle on your position here, because if what I've just said is your belief, I think some people--myself included--have made incorrect assumptions about your underlying arguments.

Ahh, thank you for the clarification. I still feel the major initial response from the pro-gay was reacting from a legitimate marriage standpoint. Honestly, if religious ceremonies were worth anything without a legal recognition and documentation, I doubt we'd hear about this at all.

I know our local UU churches will not perform ceremonies without license, but perhaps the ones farther west will.

How is Oklahoma BTW? I haven't been there in over 20 years. I used to visit family out in the panhandle (Tyrone, OK and up into Liberal KS)

Good discussion though! keep up the good work.

Ren

Yes, anyone can receive the gift of salvation, but you won't receive it unless you first repent of a sinful lifestyle. If you sin after receiving salvation (and we all do) you have an advocate in Christ for forgiveness when you confess it to Him. But if you do receive salvation and sin habitually afterwards, you run many risks. As far as losing one's salvation, though, is a point of difference within the Christian community.

Some say 'once saved, always saved', some say habitual sin is a sign that initial salvation never really took place, some say you can turn your back on God and walk out on salvation...I would say better safe than sorry. The Bible does teach us as Christians that sin in unacceptable in any form and that we are Christians are tasked to call it for what it is, sin. And the Bible does categorize homosexual behavior as sin. Hope this helped, but I know it will still offend some.

I see what you're saying here, though I'd question the use of the term "sinful lifestyle". Most of us, when we repented and turned to God, didn't particularly understand the depths of our sin nature or what a sinful lifestyle fully entailed. We just knew something was wrong with our lives that only God could fix, received Grace and hammered out the details later. :)

I appreciate your clarifications. I may have unfairly characterized your position (in thought, if not in deed/writing), and I apologize for that.


I take it you're not Baptist, eh? ;)

(I say this with great respect and affection for Baptists. I went to a Baptist high school for a couple of years, though my church background was Charismatic/Evangelical in the early to mid '80's...which meant all sorts of things that make even modern Evangelicals tend to get all squinchy. I make no excuse for that. The movement was young and excited and just wanted to get as close to God as possible, as well as combine their excitement about God with an agenda for social change. Mistakes were made, but I think their hearts were in the right place. On the other hand, it's the children of that movement that concern me. Organized religion has an obligation to be conservative in some ways, and to teach people who have a vibrant connection to the Ineffable how to live in a society of human relationships that are decidedly secular. When churches fail to address that issue, children develop a warped consciousness of what it means to be a Xian in the world, or a Stranger in a Strange Land. But that's completely a tangent.)


I don't think you should worry so much about offending people with your opinions. I've known too many Christians who were excited about offending people and reaping the subsequent "persecution" because they were determined to practice an aggressive or toxic faith. (I assume you recognize those buzzwords). Unfortunately, my experience has been that people craved the persecution because they needed the validation for their own walk, and really weren't attempting to reach others with the Gospel at all. In fact, if they'd taken a moment to practice some discernment (perhaps the most underused term in the modern Xian's lectionary) about their audience and presented the Gospel in love, they would do a better job of touching lives than merely exposing sin. I'm not saying that Xians should hide their beliefs, just that they should avoid getting caught up in an all too typically American apocalyptic, persecutorial fervor for their own self-gratification and try to remember that they're supposed to be the light in a darkling land.

I personally am considered a "seeker". I do not currently hold to any religious dogma, however I am intriguied by all of them. I feel, at this point in time, that all religions were spawned by a desire for a morally higher ground for all people. I also believe that if one studies all religions and takes the best and most acceptable items for yourself from each of them, you can create a most outstanding moral structure for yourself.

Above all else I believe that spirituality is the single more intimate, personal thing to a human being. Its your soul we're talking about. No matter how many preachers thump their pulpits, or how many other leaders promulgate their views, it always comes back down to wether you choose to believe the way they believe. That being the case I cannot sit back and take the bible or the Qur'an or any other text as a hard and firm way that I must achieve spiritual contentment/salvation, whatever term you wish to choose. Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.

As for your specific question regarding right and wrong, I'm not convinced one way or the other yet. Sometimes I want to believe the universe is a battle between good and evil and that right and wrong are the battlefields we face daily. Other times I tend to feel that what is right and wrong to one person isn't necessarily the same as for the next. I don't think anyone else has the right to make that decision for me, so I have to keep traveling along the path I feel is best and right for me.

[quote=RendeR]Books are written by men, and men are fallable. texts must be interpreted and thereby are of questionable value at the best of times, let alone when distinguishing right and wrong.
That was my point, men ARE fallable. Thats why all of the web links where this guy thinks that and this guy thinks this is unimportant. The only man that should be listened to is the one who actually wrote the book, and was inspired by God. I am not willing to base my faith or fate on some guy who interprets the bible as to not offend anyone or to coincide with the lifestyle they want to live. As smart as some people on here claim to be it seems they need someone else to tell them what the bible means, and cant read the scripture and decide for themselves what it means.

Bubba, without getting this discussion too far off track, you should really stick to areas that you feel you have some expertise in. If the above is any indication of your knowledge of Canadian laws, you're out of your element.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the existing spanking laws just two weeks ago. Parents are legally allowed to use reasonable force to discipline their children.

As far as the hate speech issue, the idea of those laws being used against people quoting the bible is fairly transparent fear-mongering by those who are opposed to homosexuals being considered a protected group. I'm not a fan of hate speech laws, but the chances of seeing someone thrown in jail for reading the bible in Canada is essentially zero.

Drake, I appreciate your input. Reading your early-mid 80's experience with the Charismatics, you basically just described my own path to salvation. I can appreciate the 'cringe' element to the word 'Charismatic' today, but I think your right on target about the sincere desire to get close to God and feel His presence. I would call myself a 'conservative Christian' today, and while I believe in the gifts of the spirit, I think the past movement put too much emphasis on them to the expense of the underlying message.

Again, the reason I got involved in this thread (and others like them) is I did not see anyone really putting forth a calm, rational (Maybe I fall short, but I try) Bible-based point of view to these subjects. The fact that we now live in a post-modernist society where the faith-based and the secular are diverging into extreme opposite courses shows that if we are to really get along then both sides will need to be respected ( and I mean not having sin legislated or enacted by activist judges into the lives of Christians under the guise of 'tolerance', ect...).

Again, its the double standards I'm going after, like the ones in public schools that allow teachers/administrators to push things like 'safe sex' onto kids under the justification that 'they all do it', and then ridicule the abstinence position as 'unrealistic'. I mean, just who in the firey inferno do they think they are to make those kind of judgements on kids from all walks/backgrounds/religious beliefs? Its just social engineering with a secular world view run amock. But glad to see your involvement.

Oddly enough, Maple Leafs, this is the third time the pending illegality of reading the Bible out loud in Canada has flashed across my radar in the last month (and in a widely, widely disparate variety of environments). It's creating that much of a ripple down here, even if none of us bother to read Canadian newspapers to get the real scoop. Americans aren't particularly interested in Canadian news in general, I think, or at least not enough to properly educate ourselves on your political issues. Most of us just assume we'll get those things straightened out when you folks are invaded as part of the Axis of Ice Cream.

[quote=Noble_Platypus]
But my point is noble, that the bible and all holy tomes were and are written by men. God never lifted pen to parchment, jesus, depending on your belief, barely knew how to write at all. It was the followers and believers who wrote what "God spoke" and "God intended" and thus it is not God's will, but those men's perception and interpretation of those things that you are reading in the bible, making the bible as fallable and untrustworthy as any other tome. This in and of itself is why I believe that each person must take what works for them from that collection of stories and fables.

I guess this is the part I don't like. I can understand the argument that men are fallible, but that doesn't mean there is no right answer. It might mean that there's no easy answer, but I'm not comfortable with having everyone just choose whichever interpretation "works for them".

RendeR continues to insult those who believe that the creator of heaven and earth cannot through devine inspiration through men get written down what He actually means to say. Not to mention what RendeR must think of such a limited God Himself.

Maple, read the Bible for yourself, get a good concordanance to help you tie the threads together. You'll see that despite being written over thousands of years through many different men of faith that there really are no contridictions in the Bible (this canard is always brought up by those looking for loopholes to justify a sin-loving lifestyle).

Matter-of-fact, computer programs today are amazing scientist with the mathmatical extactide in which the Books of the Bible are showing. But again, don't take my word for it, because unlike my critics here my opinions are based on multiple other sources including the Bible, not just my 'feelings'. :)

Bubba, in deference to your obvious devotion to your faith, I am not going to retaliate. If you find my statements insulting, I'm sorry. My comments were, to myself, stating the obvious, men are fallable and simply not qualified, in MY opinion, to be trusted with translating "God's will" onto paper.

I would list off the thousands of times "God's will" have been revised, edited, changed, and completely redone to suit the needs of men in power(aka the King James bible and others) but the point is, you choose to ignore those things, and for you, that is fine.

I am not convinced there is a devine creator at this point, so my words and thoughts will probably continue to insult you. I in turn am insulted by your complete lack of interest in having an open mind to any other possibilities. There are no proof or facts either way that are conclusive.

I'm sorry you are insulted by my words, since they are simply another man's opinion they shouldn't be too damaging to you. I can only hope you elarn some day to have as open a mind about your world as I and others do, that is where you learn the most about yourself, by listening and accepting those arguements from others that make your blood boil. wether or not you choose to believe them and take them to heart. Acceptance of a view, and Faith in that view are two entirely different things.

This is what I mean when I say that Xians need to learn better how to practice discernment. You can't insult people into heaven, BW. To the extent that you characterize all non-Xians as "sin-lov(ers)", they can fairly characterize Xians as close-minded, right-wing, irrational blowhards.

The Bible being quoted as a source of fact is laughable. It is a source of fact insomuch as you believe in it. Many people do not believe in it. So, they'll burn for it (says you). Why not just let 'em go and STFU?


I would read the Bible more carefully, but I pretty much can just get the gist of it from all of your rambling posts in this forum. Besides, you know exactly what God is trying to tell everyone at all times right? Why waste my energy when I can just ask you?

Hey Bubba, how long are you going to ignore the posts pointing out all the other things in the bible that seem to prohibit many actions that nearly everyone today finds acceptable and others that, while not acceptable, are fairly common? To refresh your memory:


Well?

Not what I was doing, Drake, simply pointing out that those who are quick to call the Bible 'fables' and 'fairy tales' almost always then go on to charactize believers in like-minded statements. To those I address the comments.

I think Butter did another 2 line drive-by about his feelings, maybe I just heard my dog passing gas.

And my point is that Jesus went 33 years without bludgeoning anyone into believing anything or attacking those He was trying to save. I suspect He did that for a good reason.

I'm also beginning to suspect that you have less interest in reaching people for God than you do in reaching people for the Church.

RendeR, I appreciate your comments. Again, just asking for the same respect for Bible-based folks as you would expect for any others. May go a little overboard to make the point some times, don't think I have engaged in any outright personal attacks on anyone (unlike my critics) but that's for others to decide.

There will be conflict between those with a secular humanist view of the world and people of faith. The Bible says this will always be the case before Christ returns. There is a very self-righteous tone and attitude that these secularists use in addressing Christians like myself. Ironic, since this is what they most often accuse Christians of being, self-righteous I mean.

dawgfan, I am not going to give an in-depth Bible class here, but many are available so if you don't get the answer from me feel free to investigate on your own. By the way, God says concerning the Bible, there Will be a test! Happy investigating!

Why stop here? I'll grant you that the tone of these questions have been in the form of a challenge, but they appear like legitimate questions. If you can ignore the tone and provide a well-thought out answer supported by facts and logic, you will strengthen your position in the eyes of those who are open minded. You will also take the opportunity to spread God's word a little farther.

I can certainly understand stopping a debate when it becomes apparent that no one is listening. In this case, however, you continue to defend your position, but do not attempt to answer questions raised by that position.

Could you at least point someone who is interested in the proper direction?

Drake, do you go to church? If not, your disobeying God's will for your life.

I'll give you the best Bible teacher's name I ever heard, he studied under an associate of Smith Wigglesworth and is the Pastor of one of the largest churches in Tulsa. Check out his website, read his articles, if I can get a link I will. Google it, Bob Yandian

Isn't that for God to decide?

I imagine your dog's gas is more coherent than you tend to be.

No, God delegated that power to Bubba last week. Didn't you get the memo?

Son of a bitch! My fax was down Friday. I knew I'd miss something!

Damn, you're always missing the important stuff.

Nice way to dodge the question. And please, don't worry yourself on my account about me, God and the bible - that's for me to deal with.

Check out the above and investigate to your heart's content! Even saw a "Ask the Pastor ANY question about the Bible!!!! I couldn't attempt to carry a glass of water to this man's Bible knowledge.

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

Church attendance is not a salvation level issue, anymore than homosexuality is a salvation level issue. Paul said "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" as an encouragement to believers--a reminder that it's difficult to maintain your faith on your own, not as a precept that required observance. It's that guideline leeway that allows the Church to not disinherit the homebound, aged and ill. Once again, we see the value of not taking Scripture literally in all cases.

And yes, by the way, I do go to church. I was actually in the ministry when I was younger, though it was youth ministry (which is why I have so much respect for SkyDog. I know how hard it is to handle even Xian teens), and it was before I had children of my own to manage.

*sigh*

In the interest of at least putting an answer out there for discussion, here's the theology in a nutshell (at least as I learned it):

Old Testament = Old Covenant
New Testament = New Covenant

New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. Christian theologians have historically taught that anything having to do with the observance of Jewish Law (i.e. most of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, plus swaths of Exodus) was superceded by the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the Old Covenant, the only way to get to God and make repayment for human sin was through strict observance of the Law. Under the New Covenant, Jesus's death was the ultimate sacrifice that invalidated the Law and allowed all believers ready access to God. Most Xian theologians will tell you that it was actually impossible to observe the Law properly, and that God was using the Law as an extended metaphor to explain that without Jesus, there was no reconciliation possible between God and Man. (On the other hand, the Apostle Paul claims that he had blamelessly observed the Law his entire life and theoretically, at least, didn't need Jesus to save him...but theologians tend to treat that bit of scripture as hyperbole for the most part.)

Needless to say, this is part of what bugs the Jewish community. ("Oh, we're co-opting your history and your religious traditions and saying that you've had it wrong for the last two thousand years...and if you don't believe us, we'll kill you.) Anyway, the fallout is that the Church kept the bits that they wanted from the OT (stuff that seemed like good guidelines for buildng a Xian society) and tossed out all the rest. The bits that get reclaimed in various historic periods have to do with recursive theological justifications of current positions. I'm not saying this is good or bad--it's the same thing we do the the Constitution, part of the great niftiness of a Living Document.

Again, my argument is that it's tough to say on the one hand that the Divine Sacrifice obliterated the OT, and then on the other to say, "oh, except for the bits that we want to keep to bludgeon folks with". Either Jesus Saves, or Jesus Saves with Provisions. You can't have it both ways.

There are no easy answers here. This debate has been going on for a couple thousand years. The Apostles Peter and Paul actually squabbled over it for a good long time because Peter and the Church at Jerusalem wanted to make all Gentile converts also practice Judaism (because to them, early Christianity was Judaism). Paul, being shrewd, realized that most Gentiles were not going to go in for all the dietary restrictions, let alone the circumcision bit, and ultimately successfully argued that the Old Covenant (and Judaism) had been replaced by the message Jesus brought. The argument hasn't really ever gone away, though.

Please note, however, that one of the clever things Paul did was to actively amend early Christian theology to account for the culture and the mores of the society in which he lived. Since the Pauline letters made it into the Scriptures (i.e. God's Word) and the Scriptures are infallible, then we must assume (a posteriori, granted) that God that mandated scriptural interpretation should keep in step with social changes.

QED

Interesting, Drake. Thanks.