Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (192) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: MainiacJoe Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196020  
Subject: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 12:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I'm asking this knowing I'm going to get flamed and likely P-Boxed and knowing that only 10% at most of the very long thread that will result is going to be worthwhile. And I've already had some on this board disagree with me on my premise. Nevertheless, I am truly mystified and curious, so I'll ask it anyway.

Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119741 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???>>

I do not get worked up about homosexuality! What makes you think that I do?



Print the post Back To Top
Author: MainiacJoe Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119742 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???>>

I do not get worked up about homosexuality! What makes you think that I do?


Who said it was about you? Man, you're touchy! What did I do to you?

There are lots of Christians, yourself apparently not incuded, who do consider it an issue of critical importance and I'm curious why.

- Joe

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119743 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 1:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???

Charitable answer: The gay marriage debate has prompted a lot of it. Many Christians don't hate gays, but still don't think of "marriage" as something between same-sex people.

Cynical answer: Gays are an easy target for preachers who want to rant about something without stepping on too many toes. Divorce used to be such a target, but now that about half the congregation is affected by divorce, preachers had to find a new outlet for their outrage.

My take: The level of attention paid to this particular sin is totally out of proportion both to the number of people involved and to its effect on the church. Yes, sexual sins are still sins. But let's get real here. God accepts everyone who surrenders to his love--and he doesn't insist on them acknowledging and fixing every sinful behavior all at once.

Thankfully, more and more churches are starting to realize this, and are treating their brothers and sisters with a little more grace and a little less condemnation. It isn't as though people don't know about the relevant scriptures, so how about backing off a bit? People need Jesus. They need to know they are loved and accepted before we can even begin to talk about sin, and that means ANY sin.

At this point, I think everyone in America knows that the Bible calls homosexual sex a sin. What they DON'T know is that Jesus loves gays and lesbians just as much as he loves anyone else, and doesn't think they are worse (or better) people than anyone else. They are sinners, and so am I, and so are all of you. Welcome to the club.

Andrea

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119748 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 2:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<Who said it was about you? Man, you're touchy! What did I do to you?

There are lots of Christians, yourself apparently not incuded, who do consider it an issue of critical importance and I'm curious why.
>>

Ok so you are changing the question to:

Why do "some" Christians get so worked up about homsexuality?

Fair enough! :-)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119749 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 2:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Ok so you are changing the question to:

Why do "some" Christians get so worked up about homsexuality?


I will answer this from my perspective. The reason it concerns many Christians more than other sins is that it is the only sexual sin that we are being told we must accept as normal and that if we do not we are somehow bigots and haters. Adultery still has some stigma attached to it although that is being eroded, but I doubt we will see ever see it attempted to be made normal if you will or born that way. Fornication is openly accepted and in some cases encouraged sadly enough but I do not see the law being used to say we must offer different sex benefits to couples who are living together.

They are all sexual sins to be sure, but only one of them has gone from being a psychological problem and immoral to openly accepted and endorsed and encouraged in about 30 years.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119750 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The reason it concerns many Christians more than other sins is that it is the only sexual sin that we are being told we must accept as normal and that if we do not we are somehow bigots and haters. Adultery still has some stigma attached to it although that is being eroded, but I doubt we will see ever see it attempted to be made normal if you will or born that way. Fornication is openly accepted and in some cases encouraged sadly enough but I do not see the law being used to say we must offer different sex benefits to couples who are living together.


How about divorce?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Fly2Retire Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119751 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 2:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
God accepts everyone who surrenders to his love--and he doesn't insist on them acknowledging and fixing every sinful behavior all at once.

Hi Andrea; I don't understand where, in the Bible, you get this part from.

Respectfully,

Fly2Retire

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119752 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 4:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Hi Andrea; I don't understand where, in the Bible, you get this part from.

I guess I don't understand your question. Do you think that God expects Christians to be perfect from Day One? I know that I personally am a work in progress. There are many scriptures about spiritual growth, both in knowledge and in action.

"Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. " 1 Cor 7:1

"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. " 2 Peter 3:18

"And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God." Col 1:10

I'm sure there are others like this. In fact, if there were no sin and no problems in the early church, and all the people were perfect and had nothing that needed changing, most of our New Testament would never have been written! Doesn't that indicate to you that serving God is a learning/growing process?

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheMoonglade Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119753 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 6:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???

I do not get worked up about homosexuality! What makes you think that I do?


The use of exclamation points, perhaps. :)

Moonglade
(teasing)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119754 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 6:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How about divorce?


This is not a sexual sin, so what is it you would like to know about it? You know that barring infidelity, and even that is not enough for some Christians, it is wrong and sinful according to Christianity.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Fly2Retire Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119756 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/24/2005 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3


Hi Andrea, I guess my reply was unclear. Yes, indeed, I do believe we are works being perfected in progress. However, God expects us to acknowledge the sin and repent as it happens. Not to wait and, for lack of a better term, "blow Him off", until we're ready to aknowledge and repent of our sins. Tomorrow is promised to no one, to be able to repent. So, even though we sin again, and repent again; we're expected not to wait for the timing of our choice to come to Him for forgiveness!

Is this more clear?

Fly2Retire

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mdhirz Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119763 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Stock
How about divorce?
This is not a sexual sin, so what is it you would like to know about it?


very interesting-yet in the light of Paul -break one law,break 'em all.

I'd like to know how this 'sin' affects our world more than Divorce?
For cryin' out loud, look at the children!

Why have a 'preference' about sin?

Divorce and 'remembering the Sabbath' are big 10 stoning offenses-
so's homosexual 'whatever'....

tell me about separating the 'sheep from the goats'?

talk about being "openly accepted"......
where's a Constitutional Ammendent against Divorce!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119765 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 1:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
"Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???"

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=12819965

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13075099

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18191730

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18979090

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119766 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 1:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
"However, God expects us to acknowledge the sin and repent as it happens. "

In addition, God expects us to accept and acknowledge that it is He that determines what sin is, not us.

God bless,

Rich (expanding on your point, not disagreeing)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119778 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 58
I think everyone in America knows that the Bible calls homosexual sex a sin.

Mostly in the same book in which it calls eating shellfish a sin:
Leviticus 11:12: "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

www.godhatesshrimp.com

Look on Red Lobster, ye Mighty, and despair.

--Callisto2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119779 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Mostly in the same book in which it calls eating shellfish a sin:


Since I am a Christian, as opposed to a Hebrew in ancient Israel, I tend to give priority to the New Testament.

But that's just me.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119780 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
"Mostly in the same book in which it calls eating shellfish a sin:
Leviticus 11:12: "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

www.godhatesshrimp.com

Look on Red Lobster, ye Mighty, and despair"

The levitical dietary laws were specifically given to the nation of Israel and were part of God's symbolism of Israel as a people consecrated, or separated, unto Himself, which is what the Old Testament chronicles.

The New Testament, or Covenant, changed that because this covenant was not exclusive to a particular people, and hence did not require distinctives such as dietary laws to keep them separate from other peoples. The New Covenant was open to all who believe in Christ Jesus.

This was made explicit in the story of Peter on the roof in Acts 10. God gave Peter a vision telling him that all food was clean -- a horrifying thought for an observant Jew. Yet Peter understood that this not only pertained to food but meant that the gospel was not to be restricted to Jews but was to be preached to all, including Gentiles such as Cornelius. This whole epiode was necessary because the disciples had misunderstood Jesus, as always, when He told them, in Matthew 28, to make disciples of all nations. Peter now understood that the gospel was now to be preached to everyone and that the dietary laws were no longer necessary since their symbolism no longer applied.

Now, you may ask, doesn't that same reasoning also apply to homosexuality? And the answer is no, because the prohibition of homosexuality had nothing to do with the symbolic aspects of the OT law but rather was part of the moral law part of the OT law. This is confirmed and made clear in the NT in Romans 1:22-27 by the Apostle Paul.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119781 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Since I am a Christian, as opposed to a Hebrew in ancient Israel, I tend to give priority to the New Testament.

If it's all from God, why make one a priority over the other?

Zee

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crobinso Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119782 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Since I am a Christian, as opposed to a Hebrew in ancient Israel, I tend to give priority to the New Testament.

But that's just me.

Andrea


See Andrea, that's the problem with people who have just "a little" knowledge of the Bible. While I am far from being a Bible scholar myself, (and I embolden that so no one can miss), I know that God imposed all of those restrictions on His chosen people only (the Hebrews). After the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the old rules and restrictions were dropped, and He orders Christians to "walk with the Lord" through Jesus Christ the Savior. Those who do will be hard pressed to sin.

Of course, the problem with "walking with the Lord" is that it is not an automatic response for a person. It is a conscious thing that must be adhered to 24/7. It's impossible to achieve, but a person must condition himself to improve throughout his life. (I'm not explaining this well enough for the savvy unbeliever, who will use attorney-like techniques to blow my testimony out of the water [and thus generate millions of recs in his favor], but I know that you, Andrea, know what I'm talking about.)

I didn't post this message to rub it into anyone's face, Callisto2, so please don't take it that way.

Thanks,
Charles

Print the post Back To Top
Author: crobinso Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119783 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The levitical dietary laws were specifically given to the nation of Israel and were part of God's symbolism of Israel as a people consecrated, or separated, unto Himself, which is what the Old Testament chronicles.

The New Testament, or Covenant, changed that because this covenant was not exclusive to a particular people, and hence did not require distinctives such as dietary laws to keep them separate from other peoples. The New Covenant was open to all who believe in Christ Jesus.


I KNEW someone would be able to explain it better than I.

Charles



Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119784 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
(I'm not explaining this well enough for the savvy unbeliever, who will use attorney-like techniques to blow my testimony out of the water [and thus generate millions of recs in his favor], but I know that you, Andrea, know what I'm talking about.)

Yes, I absolutely positively know EXACTLY what you are talking about.

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" Romans 3: 21-24

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119785 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And what Rich said, too.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapletree7 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119786 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 2:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Now, you may ask, doesn't that same reasoning also apply to homosexuality? And the answer is no, because the prohibition of homosexuality had nothing to do with the symbolic aspects of the OT law but rather was part of the moral law part of the OT law. This is confirmed and made clear in the NT in Romans 1:22-27 by the Apostle Paul.


Can you give another example of prohibitions in the OT that are still applicable to Christians?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119787 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"Can you give another example of prohibitions in the OT that are still applicable to Christians? "

Adultery, not honoring Mom and Dad, lying, killing, fornication, etc. Basically the moral law.

Here is a link to a message I wrote a while back talking about my understanding the effect of the various parts of the OT law on Christians.

http://fireboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14504247&sort=username

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119788 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 3:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
rbednarski: "Now, you may ask, doesn't that same reasoning also apply to homosexuality? And the answer is no, because the prohibition of homosexuality had nothing to do with the symbolic aspects of the OT law but rather was part of the moral law part of the OT law. This is confirmed and made clear in the NT in Romans 1:22-27 by the Apostle Paul."

Ok - the Ceremonial Law and the Civil Law are not applicable, I understand.

But people still pick and choose among the moral laws, too:

Leviticus 18 - Unlawful Sexual Relations

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

29 " 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&version=31

It seems to me that 19 is as much part of the moral law as 22, but I never hear much about it.

Regards, JAFO


Print the post Back To Top
Author: crobinso Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119789 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 3:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
It seems to me that 19 is as much part of the moral law as 22, but I never hear much about it.

Regards, JAFO


Number 19 is LAW in MY house! Thus saith my DW!

Charles




Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119790 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"It seems to me that 19 is as much part of the moral law as 22, but I never hear much about it."

Maybe because no one is claiming it as a basis for special rights or having "Out Loud and Proud" parades about it?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119791 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 4:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
Maybe because no one is claiming it as a basis for special rights or having "Out Loud and Proud" parades about it?

There has never been a law in Texas that says that it's a crime to have intercourse during a woman's period, even if it's between two consenting adults behind closed doors.

The same cannot be said about sex between two same-sex partners.

I'm also unaware of laws against lust, envy, covetousness, sloth, avarice, disobeying one's parents, lying (except under oath), gluttony, or any of the other various and sundry things mentioned in the Old and New Testaments.

And I still can't find a law against shellfish, even though the shrimp at Red Lobster is an absolute crime.

--Callisto2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1Apocalypse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119792 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 5:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yet Peter understood that this not only pertained to food ...and that the dietary laws were no longer necessary since their symbolism no longer applied.

After the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the old rules and restrictions were dropped... -Crobinso

OTOH...

The ceremonial law had a positive effect on both individual and collective health. Washings, isolation for various rashes, going outside the camp with a shovel to dig and bury your poop. To toss all that out might suggest that God is somehow arbitrary.

Peter's interpretation of the dream: Acts 10:19 "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee." then in vs 28: "...God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. "

I find no mention of Peter understanding it to mean food. Surely as Creator, God knows what type of a diet is best... and applicable to all despite belief system.

Loma Linda University has ongoing studies on a group of people whose diets approximate Levitical instruction. Lower mortality, lower cancer rates...

http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/previous.html

Food for thought <vbg>

-1A
May the Lord
bless your worship
this weekend.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PWT58 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119793 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Now, you may ask, doesn't that same reasoning also apply to homosexuality? And the answer is no, because the prohibition of homosexuality had nothing to do with the symbolic aspects of the OT law but rather was part of the moral law part of the OT law. This is confirmed and made clear in the NT in Romans 1:22-27 by the Apostle Paul.



If that is the basis on which you are making decisions, then I assume you place sleeping with your wife within 7 days of her period in the same category as homosexuality. After all the prohibition against sleeping with your wife within 7 days of her period (Lev 18:19) is listed in the same chapter of Leviticus as homosexuality (Lev 18:22) with the same penalty applied to both (Lev 18:29). Both are clearly sexual sins here, and there is nothing in the NT that removes the prohibition against either.

Or lets take divorce. Both the OT and the NT contain divergent positions on both divorce and remarriage. Paul clearly and unequivocally says that if a Christian believer is married to a non-believer and that non-believer is content to remain married, the Christian should remain married, but if the non-believer is not content to remain married the believer is released from the marital obligations and may remarry (I Cor 7:12-15). This contradicts both Jesus teaching (which forbade both divorce and remarriage for ANY reason except for adultery) and Ezra 9&10 where God commanded that the Israelites divorce foreign non-believing spouses and send both the unbelieving spouse AND their children away.

As Jesus noted, the Mosaic law was not only lax but patriarchal in marriage laws in general and divorce laws in particular. Jesus did not come and create a new law that overrode a previous law, but started his discourse with “Have you not read…” It is clear that he expected the Hebrews to have engaged the law on their own and realized both its cultural and moral limitations.

I maintain that God did not create us to follow some preordained law, but created us for relationship, and that the law is a tool that helps (or hinders) us in achieving this purpose rather than a purpose in itself.

Thanks

Paul


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PWT58 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119794 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 5:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Adultery, not honoring Mom and Dad, lying, killing, fornication, etc. Basically the moral law.

Here is a link to a message I wrote a while back talking about my understanding the effect of the various parts of the OT law on Christians.

http://fireboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14504247&sort=username



Rich

Adultery then and adultery now are two completely different things. Adultery has been condemned throughout the scriptures, but for most of the Old Testament it was considered a property crime. In the Mosaic law, adultery was defined by the marital status of the woman, not the man and was considered an offense against either her father in the case of an unengaged virgin or the husband in the case of a married or engaged woman.(Duet 22:22-24). There is not prohibition against a man (married or otherwise having sex with a non married non virgin woman. When Nathan brought God's complaint against David, the charge was not that he had lusted after a beautiful woman or had broken a covenant with any of his wives, or that he in fact had done anything wrong to either Bathsheba or any of his wives. Rather, God's anger was centered on the fact that David had stolen the property of a poor man. One of the most publicized cases of adultery in biblical history was portrayed not as a violation of trust and commitment, but as a property crime with the words being spoken directly out of God's mouth. In fact, God said that he would have given David more wives if that was what he (David) had desired. The sin was taking one that belonged to someone else. (2 Sam 12:1-15) Abraham slept with Hagar, his wife's slave. Not even a mention of the word adultery.

In the OT, rape was also defined as a crime on basis of the marital status of the woman. If the woman was married, the man was to be executed. If she was a non-engaged virgin, the man was to pay a fine to the girl's father, and then marry her and never be allowed to divorce her. Nothing is said about the rape of a non-virgin, or the marital status of the man. If a married man raped a non-engaged virgin, she would just become another wife. Rape, as the ultimate form of adultery, was only a sin if it affected some other man's property. (Duet. 22:25-30) How many rape victims in our world would consider marrying the offender justice?

Show me where fornication is listed as a sin in the OT. It clearly is for non married virgin women, but as the passages above attest, it was no big deal for a man, married or otherwise UNLESS the woman was either already married (adultery not fornication) or a non-married virgin (property theft not fornication). When Judah had sex with Tamar, his sin was not having sex with someone he thought was a prostitute, but rather that he had not fulfilled his obligations to her. (Gen 38:12-19). Or look at the numerous examples of keeping women captured in battle as sexual playmates (2 Sam 5:13, Judges 19, Num 31:18)

Or what about lying. Rahab the harlot is listed as a hero of faith in Hebrews 11 specifically because she lie and bore false witness against her own people.

And to suggest that killing was against the OT law… well I must be reading a different version of the Bible than you are. Even if we want to make it murder rather than killing, this is a law that every society has and also a law that by definition requires a situational context. It is the context of the specific killing that will determine whether it is self-defense, and accident, manslaughter or murder.

Morality is far far more complex than following a law.

Thanks

Paul


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicity Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119795 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 6:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Look on Red Lobster, ye Mighty, and despair.

You shellfish hedonist, you.

-synchronicity Keyes


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119796 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 6:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Maybe because no one is claiming it as a basis for special rights or having "Out Loud and Proud" parades about it?




Someone's just jealous because we have better parades.

:-)Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jrdown Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119797 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 6:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Charlie ~

I bust out laughing at your comment. Your sense of humor is very intact!

Unfortunately, the parades I have seen on TV have shown the "over-the-top" hedonistic displays that would embarrass most everyone except for the very carnal.


Robyn


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119803 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 10:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Joe,

Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???

Homosexual acts are contrary to natural law (and therefore immoral), degrading to those who practice them, and, for Christians, forbidden and resoundingly condemned by the Word of God and antisacramental.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119804 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 11:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Unfortunately, the parades I have seen on TV have shown the "over-the-top" hedonistic displays that would embarrass most everyone except for the very carnal.



Robyn,

The media loves the odd. It would make poor TV if they showed the PFLAG, church groups, and countless other "dull" groups who march in the parades. FYI - the biggest round of applause is always for PFLAG(Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119806 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 11:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Unfortunately, the parades I have seen on TV have shown the "over-the-top" hedonistic displays that would embarrass most everyone except for the very carnal.

I would recommend you avoid Brazil in February. And New Orleans and Las Vegas just about any time!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119808 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 11:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"The media loves the odd. It would make poor TV if they showed the PFLAG, church groups, and countless other "dull" groups who march in the parades. FYI - the biggest round of applause is always for PFLAG(Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)."

I happened to be in Washington DC during the 1987 gay march on the mall and no matter where the media turned their cameras that day they would have gotten "over the top" hedonistic displays.

God bless,

Rich


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbclarke Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119809 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/25/2005 11:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Homosexual acts are contrary to natural law (and therefore immoral), degrading to those who practice them...

Norm,

Can you elaborate? I don't understand this statement, especially the connection between natural law and morality.

RBC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119815 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 1:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I happened to be in Washington DC during the 1987 gay march on the mall and no matter where the media turned their cameras that day they would have gotten "over the top" hedonistic displays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt a fun time was had by all, no different than Carnivale, or Mardi Gras. If you come to Chicago, you will see some drag queens, a few go-go boys, and the rest is groups and politicans.

Charlie
...loves the pride parades...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119819 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
JavaTraveler wrote:

The media loves the odd. It would make poor TV if they showed the PFLAG, church groups, and countless other "dull" groups who march in the parades. FYI - the biggest round of applause is always for PFLAG(Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

Castro Street is anything but "dull". During an errand to that area, it took less than two minutes for someone to proposition my brother right in front of me. We got back in the car and left.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119821 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 11:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
During an errand to that area, it took less than two minutes for someone to proposition my brother right in front of me. We got back in the car and left.



And he wasn't flattered?

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolferd1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119822 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 11:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
it took less than two minutes for someone to proposition my brother right in front of me.

And he wasn't flattered?

I hope that is a poor attempt at humor.

Are women flattered when some uknown guy walks up along side them and propositions them?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119823 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Can you give another example of prohibitions in the OT that are still applicable to Christians? "

"Adultery, not honoring Mom and Dad, lying, killing, fornication, etc. Basically the moral law."

So would you agree that President Bush should be condemned for the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq due to the invasion he ordered?

For some reason, the people who seem to be the loudest, most stauchest opponents of homosexual marriage seem to be some of President Bush's loudest and staunchest supporters. Even though he is violating God's moral law.

Odd.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119824 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Since I am a Christian, as opposed to a Hebrew in ancient Israel, I tend to give priority to the New Testament.

If it's all from God, why make one a priority over the other?

Zee


Excellent question. We shouldnt just ignore the OT. We however must realize that God works thorughout history and he has the right and the ability to reveal how he wants his people to act at various points in history under the various circumstances. The working assumption is that we are to do as God has revealed until he has revealed for us to act differently. Sometimes this is not a simple question but it is definitely answerable.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119825 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Now, you may ask, doesn't that same reasoning also apply to homosexuality? And the answer is no, because the prohibition of homosexuality had nothing to do with the symbolic aspects of the OT law but rather was part of the moral law part of the OT law. This is confirmed and made clear in the NT in Romans 1:22-27 by the Apostle Paul.

Can you give another example of prohibitions in the OT that are still applicable to Christians?

Beastiality, adultery, rape, etc. How many do you want.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119826 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 2:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yet Peter understood that this not only pertained to food ...and that the dietary laws were no longer necessary since their symbolism no longer applied.

After the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the old rules and restrictions were dropped... -Crobinso


The ceremonial law had a positive effect on both individual and collective health. Washings, isolation for various rashes, going outside the camp with a shovel to dig and bury your poop. To toss all that out might suggest that God is somehow arbitrary.

Or that the rules had served their symbolic purpose.

Peter's interpretation of the dream: Acts 10:19 "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee." then in vs 28: "...God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. "

I find no mention of Peter understanding it to mean food. Surely as Creator, God knows what type of a diet is best... and applicable to all despite belief system.


In Mark 7, Jesus applies it to food.

Loma Linda University has ongoing studies on a group of people whose diets approximate Levitical instruction. Lower mortality, lower cancer rates...

http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/previous.html

Food for thought <vbg>

-1A
May the Lord
bless your worship
this weekend.


If you wish to follow certain diets for health reasons, then that is great, the issue is does that make you more holy or less sinful, then the answer to that is no.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119827 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 2:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Can you give another example of prohibitions in the OT that are still applicable to Christians? "

"Adultery, not honoring Mom and Dad, lying, killing, fornication, etc. Basically the moral law."


So would you agree that President Bush should be condemned for the killing of thousands of innocent people in Iraq due to the invasion he ordered?

I think you are mixing two issues together that need to be separate. There is nothing inherently in the moral law against a nation going to war. A nations leaders have authority to do things that a regular citizen does not. (Romans 13) This does not mean that the leaders can do whatever they want and then call it right. They do have guidelines on what they are to do, Some of those guidlines are in Deut. 20.

So one can agree or disagree about a particular war or battle without saying that the leaders do not have that bullet in their gun.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119828 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
"So would you agree that . . ."

No message that begins "So would you agree that" and then proceeds to either miss the point or distort what was said can be taken seriously. It is one of the lamest debating tricks in the book.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119829 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
"There has never been a law in Texas that says that it's a crime to have intercourse during a woman's period, even if it's between two consenting adults behind closed doors.

The same cannot be said about sex between two same-sex partners.

I'm also unaware of laws against lust, envy, covetousness, sloth, avarice, disobeying one's parents, lying (except under oath), gluttony, or any of the other various and sundry things mentioned in the Old and New Testaments."

Interesting how you shift ground here. First you want to know why Christians speak out about something. Then you make this subtle little shift to what is or is not illegal, as if this is the same as Christians speaking out. If Christians had the political power to decide what is and is not legal, Terri would still have her feeding tube, abortion would be illegal, and contraception would not be taught in schools, among other things. No, we have our secular society and you really have to go and check out kids and their situations to see how healthy and happy it has made them. As a middle school teacher I see it every day.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119830 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
And he wasn't flattered?

I hope that is a poor attempt at humor.

Are women flattered when some uknown guy walks up along side them and propositions them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few things - 1) It was humor(which I know is not big here). 2) What exactly is meant by proposition. To many people it means many things. I have a female friend, who feels it is nothing to go up to a guy and tell him he's hot, and would he like to go out. To me that is a propostion. 3) They were in the Castro, evidently on a parade day. I would expect a guy to get hit on that day. 4) Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone came up to me, told me I was attractive, and would I like to go out.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119831 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"No message that begins "So would you agree that" and then proceeds to either miss the point or distort what was said can be taken seriously."

Pure evasion.

I didn't miss the point or distort what you said. I quoted you exactly. Since you tried to evade on a technicality of not liking the wording, I will ask another way.

In the bible it states "Thou shalt not kill". Not, "Thou shalt not kill (except when removing evil dictators)", or "Thou shalt not kill (except when one makes a mistake about WMD)". Just "Thous shalt not kill". Period.

In light of this and the general words and teachings of Jesus, how can a Christian justify supporting President Bush after his decision to invade Iraq knowing that thousands of innocent people were going to die because of the violence of the invasion?

I think the gist of my question is pretty clear to any reasonable person, so word the question any way you want while keeping to its spirit. The wording of the question doesn't matter, it is the answer it brings that does.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PWT58 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119834 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 6:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Interesting how you shift ground here. First you want to know why Christians speak out about something. Then you make this subtle little shift to what is or is not illegal, as if this is the same as Christians speaking out. If Christians had the political power to decide what is and is not legal, Terri would still have her feeding tube, abortion would be illegal, and contraception would not be taught in schools, among other things. No, we have our secular society and you really have to go and check out kids and their situations to see how healthy and happy it has made them. As a middle school teacher I see it every day.

Is it your position that any of the things the Callisto mentioned as not being legislated would be legislated if Christians had political power? Instead of addressing Callisto's points, you bring up 3 issues not even remotely related to this thread. It is you who is shifting the argument. I also find it interesting how you become the official spokesperson for Christianity. There is plenty of debate within the Christian community on at least two of the three things you list as being made illegal if Christians had political power.

As the multitude of viewpoints on this board attests there is not, and in fact historically there has never been, consensus in the Christian community (apart from that obtained at the end of the sword). According to Eastern Orthodox tradition, John was the first gospel and the most accurate historically, yet western tradition asserts that it was the last of the gospels. Ignatius of Antioch only included Matthew and Luke in his canon, while Polycarp of Smyrna included all 3 synoptic gospels but not John. http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml As I have noted previously the early church was uniformly pacifist, with Augustine first proposing a just war theory, and the debate over pacifism has existed within the church ever since. Many of the early church fathers supported a literal reading of the OT, yet according the Origen, the true reading of the OT was primarily symbolic. From the very beginning, there has been a wide diversity of views concerning the atonement, with the currently popular view of the satisfaction or substitution theory of atonement first proposed by St Anslem around 1000 CE* and then expanded upon by John Calvin. Long before there were Anabaptists, there were the Waldensians http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Waldensians.html. Look at the difference between Erasmus and Luther in how they approached problems within the Roman Catholic Church. Each of them recognized huge problems within the RC Church, both theologically and morally. Yet one chose to leave the church, and one chose to work within the church. Along with a diverse reading of theology comes a diverse reading of how to live out that theology. I hold all traditions with great respect, I do not consider any of them infallible, and recognize that many competing traditions that disagree with each other have helped people in their faith.

The biggest issue I have with your presentations of truth is not your perspective, but the absolute frame you place around them and the apparent disdain you have for those who disagree with you.

Thanks

Paul



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119835 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Interesting how you shift ground here. First you want to know why Christians speak out about something.

Let's review:

You complained about what people speak up about (gays' "having 'Out Loud and Proud' parades about it"), and that's the reason I responded.

You claimed that gays were seeking "special rights".

I merely responded to your notion that these rights for gays are "special" rights. I pointed out that while plenty of biblically-prohibited heterosexual sex (and sundry other activites) are not illegal and have never been illegal, gay sex, marriage, adoption, etc., are still illegal in places. And you call gays' attempts to lift these bans "special" rights.

I would imagine that if there were indeed a law against shrimp, and you wanted it lifted, you wouldn't expect people to accuse you of "seeking special rights" because you're a "immoral shrimp-lover".

--Callisto2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119836 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 6:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"In the bible it states "Thou shalt not kill". "

The word translated kill actually means murder.

"In light of this and the general words and teachings of Jesus, how can a Christian justify supporting President Bush after his decision to invade Iraq knowing that thousands of innocent people were going to die because of the violence of the invasion?"

"So would you agree that" Christians should not have supported the defeat of Nazi Germany, knowing it would entail the death of thousands of innocent people?

"So would you agree that" Christians should not have supported Israel in defending itself against the Arab nations in 1948 and 1967, knowing the defence would entail the death of thousands of innocents?

See, two can play that particular rhetorical game.

"So would you agree that" Christians should not have supported leaving Saddam Hussein in power knowing that his regime had already resulted in the death of thousands of innocents and would result in the death of thousands more innocents?

Clearly in the OT God ordered the Israelites to war and innocents died. The criteria is not whether innocents die but, rather, was every effort made to minimize the deaths of innocents, and on that basis I think this is a moral war. As was WW2.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119837 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 6:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Is it your position that any of the things the Callisto mentioned as not being legislated would be legislated if Christians had political power?"

I don't recall saying any such thing. My point is that looking at what is legal and not legal has nothing to do with a discussion of why Christians speak out against homosexuality.

"I also find it interesting how you become the official spokesperson for Christianity. "

??? I expplicitly said in one of my messages that this was my understanding of the relationship of OT law and Christianity. Having an opinion makes me the official spokesperson?

"There is plenty of debate within the Christian community on at least two of the three things you list as being made illegal if Christians had political power."

There is debate about a lot of things. I stand by my opinion that given the power Christians, as a group, with some dissenting, would make those things illegal. This is an opinion. I'm allowed to have one and so are you, without either of us being labelled as becoming "the official spokesperson for Christianity".

I have no clue what the rest of your message has to do with the discussion at hand.

"The biggest issue I have with your presentations of truth is not your perspective, but the absolute frame you place around them . . "

I know. Astonishing that I should actually believe the things I believe.

". . . apparent disdain you have for those who disagree with you. "

You read into my comments something that is not there. What I disdain is people who come here as provocateurs (not you) that think they are so darned clever and won't it be cool to poke fun at the poor dumb Christians. Or did you somehow think that callisto's inquiry was sincere? Yet I gave him a sincere answer -- but he then showed his true colors with his shift of ground.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119841 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 9:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Maybe because no one is claiming it as a basis for special rights or having "Out Loud and Proud" parades about it?

There has never been a law in Texas that says that it's a crime to have intercourse during a woman's period, even if it's between two consenting adults behind closed doors.

This is correct, and there should not have been one. This is a simple issue of the set of uncleanness laws. For sex during the majority of the month, one was unclean one day, but if one has sex during the woman's uncleanness period, then one is unclean for a week.

One thing that sometimes throws people off is that they somehow expect the laws to be written with Ceremonial over here and Moral laws over there. God didnt give them out in that fashion. One interesting thing about Ch. 18 and Ch. 20 of Leviticus, is that certain laws got the death penalty and other ones just made one unclean. Do you know which one homosexuality was under?

The same cannot be said about sex between two same-sex partners.

Yep, and your point?


I'm also unaware of laws against lust, envy, covetousness, sloth, avarice,


Can you show me a law anywhere in the Bible where these the civil magistrate is told to punish these things and what the punishment should be? One must remember that not all sin is a crime.

disobeying one's parents,

There wasnt a law on this either. (The only issue was when the child grew up in age and was uncontrollable.) The usual solution was the parents were allowed to use the rod. Now we are moving away from that unfortunately.

lying (except under oath)

Wrong, there are laws against fraud. Which is just lying not under oath.

gluttony,

There has never been a law against this. It however was and remains a sin.

or any of the other various and sundry things mentioned in the Old and New Testaments.

Mentioning and justifying that it should be outlawed are two different games.

And I still can't find a law against shellfish, even though the shrimp at Red Lobster is an absolute crime.

--Callisto2


Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7. So why should there be a law against shellfish or whatever?

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119843 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 10:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
JavaTraveler wrote:

And he wasn't flattered?

No. There was no reason that he should be.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119844 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 10:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
wolferd1 wrote:

Are women flattered when some uknown guy walks up along side them and propositions them?

That's exactly what crossed my mind when I read Charlie's poor attempt at a response. FWIW, I've rarely had that problem in a pub or elsewhere, but it took less than two minutes for it to happen to my brother at Castro Street.

That's also exactly what's wrong with so many homosexually oriented people - they're exhibitionists who think everyone else is on display for the taking just like they are.

Frankly, that attitude towards one's own body or anyone else's is just not Christian.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119845 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 10:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
JavaTraveler wrote:

They were in the Castro, evidently on a parade day.

No. It wasn't parade day. It was just an ordinary day.

Why you think that parade day is an excuse to hit on someone is beyond me.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119846 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/26/2005 10:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why you think that parade day is an excuse to hit on someone is beyond me.



I don't. We were talking about pride parades in this thread. You jumped in, and I assumed because I was respodning about parades, your "incident" happened on such a day.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119848 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 12:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 45
Yet I gave him [that's me] a sincere answer -- but he then showed his true colors with his shift of ground.

My true colors are that there are a lot of things the Bible prohibits, but many Christians seem unhealthily focused on the ones that they themselves happen to despise.

I know all about how various prohibitions in the OT were lifted--according to certain NT books and not others--but homosexuality is mentioned much more prominently in the OT (Leviticus) than in the NT (not much).

As for things which are clearly prohibited in the NT, my recent KJV reading says that divorce is one of them (except in certain circumstances, and again depending on the book). Perhaps other translations are less clear on the issue, but I haven't yet seen any.

There is one set of Christians obviously dead-set against divorce, at least in its hierarchy, and that's Catholics. But mainsteam American Protestantism? Sure, divorce isn't encouraged, but to get divorced today has all the stigma of swiping the last Marshmallow Peep from the basket.

So where's the outrage? "Bible Belt" states have the highest divorce rates in the country. Any impartial reader of the Bible would conclude that, well, if "gay" urban centers are Sodom, then Divorce Central in the heartland is Hell itself. A gay Christian could very easily claim that the laws against his behavior were wiped off the books along with the shellfish ones by the New Covenant, but that divorce(!!), now there's a sin that Jesus Himself inveighed against quite clearly!

So no, I don't get the outrage about this one sin among so very, very many. I am sincere in my continued belief that many folks are cherry-picking the Bible to support their own beliefs.

--Callisto2

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119851 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 4:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Callisto2 wrote:

So where's the outrage?

I don't need outrage.

I just need to keep my commitments and stay married to my husband. It's that simple.

This means I - and others - need to make good decisions about people - BEFORE getting married.

Outrage isn't part of that equation.

Lately, what I feel isn't outrage. It's sadness. Just tremendous sadness. All I hear on the news these days is about the Terri Schiavo case. And all I can think about is the parable of the prodigal son.

We all think it's a story about the son. But it isn't. It's a story about the faithful father... and the jealous brother and how he doesn't love his prodigal brother or his faithful father.

CCSand

and, yes, I'm a Roman Catholic and I told my husband BEFORE we got married that divorce was not an option. He agreed.

FWIW, when we initially married, we didn't get married in the Roman Catholic Church. That was nearly 7 years ago now. Two weeks ago, we took our vows in the Roman Catholic Church. Our gospel reading was Matthew 19:3-12.

Speaking as a former divorce attorney, well, you don't need to tell me the damage it does to children. I've seen it. It does damage to the adults too. They often never learn to resolve their problems short of walking away from them. And in doing so, they damage their children further by teaching them that walking away from their problems is a "solution". And then when they find someone new, some of them do it all over again so that it's the same old story, just a different face.

You don't have to be a Catholic to be against divorce.

But if American Protestant denominations aren't - and "aren't" on a lot of other things- maybe that's one reason why we have four former-Protestants-about-to-become Catholics in my parish. One of them did so tonight at Easter Vigil.

Happy Easter everyone.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119859 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 9:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Now, you may ask, doesn't that same reasoning also apply to homosexuality? And the answer is no, because the prohibition of homosexuality had nothing to do with the symbolic aspects of the OT law but rather was part of the moral law part of the OT law. This is confirmed and made clear in the NT in Romans 1:22-27 by the Apostle Paul.


If that is the basis on which you are making decisions, then I assume you place sleeping with your wife within 7 days of her period in the same category as homosexuality. After all the prohibition against sleeping with your wife within 7 days of her period (Lev 18:19) is listed in the same chapter of Leviticus as homosexuality (Lev 18:22) with the same penalty applied to both (Lev 18:29). Both are clearly sexual sins here, and there is nothing in the NT that removes the prohibition against either.


A couple points. Because things appear in the same chapter, does not mean that all of that chapter would belong to the ceremonial law, which was fulfilled at the death of Christ or that the entire chapter belongs solely to the moral law, which is binding today in the same way that it was binding on Israel.

Second point, The punishments for the two crimes are different. In chapter 18, we see a generic "cutting off from his people". However move over to Ch. 20 and we see explicitly the punishments. Homosexuality receives the death penalty, while sex with a woman during menstrual period does not. It is interesting that everything that the standard Christian position rails against receives the death penalty while stuff that is of no concern, does not. Really interesting.


Or lets take divorce. Both the OT and the NT contain divergent positions on both divorce and remarriage. Paul clearly and unequivocally says that if a Christian believer is married to a non-believer and that non-believer is content to remain married, the Christian should remain married, but if the non-believer is not content to remain married the believer is released from the marital obligations and may remarry (I Cor 7:12-15).


I agree whole heartedly about Paul, but lets talk about Jesus:-)

This contradicts both Jesus teaching (which forbade both divorce and remarriage for ANY reason except for adultery)

This just aint true. Jesus forbade divorce for anything outside of fornication (Greek word: porneia). The act of remarriage outside of this situation would be considered adultery. Fornication is a very broad term which includes adultery and desertion as well as other situations.

An interesting paper on this issue is found here:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm

and Ezra 9&10 where God commanded that the Israelites divorce foreign non-believing spouses and send both the unbelieving spouse AND their children away.

Actually I dont think one can make a contradiction here. In same way you couldnt make a contradiction, when a country goes to war and does not wipe out every living person and animal. God has the right to have his specific people (Israel) do specific things in specific occasions.
We are limited to what his law says on how to interact with others.


As Jesus noted, the Mosaic law was not only lax but patriarchal in marriage laws in general and divorce laws in particular. Jesus did not come and create a new law that overrode a previous law, but started his discourse with “Have you not read…” It is clear that he expected the Hebrews to have engaged the law on their own and realized both its cultural and moral limitations.


If you look closely at the "You have heard it said..." you would see that each one was a distortion of the OT law. So Jesus was not attacking to OT law but instead the distortion of it.

I maintain that God did not create us to follow some preordained law, but created us for relationship, and that the law is a tool that helps (or hinders) us in achieving this purpose rather than a purpose in itself.

Thanks

Paul


I disagree, the law is there to show us how God wants us to live. It is a mirror to check ourselves by. We should be as David, and say "Oh How I love thy law".

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: PWT58 Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119861 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 11:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
This is correct, and there should not have been one. This is a simple issue of the set of uncleanness laws. For sex during the majority of the month, one was unclean one day, but if one has sex during the woman's uncleanness period, then one is unclean for a week.



CT

You might want to read those passages again.

verses Lev 18:1-18 ... long list of prohibited sexual and idolatrous practices

verse 19 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

verses 20 -21 more prohibited sexual practices

verse 22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

verse 23-28 more restricted sexual practices

verse 29& 30 Everyone who does any of these detestable things-such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.'

It is beyond dispute that the same punishment was to apply to someone who slept with their spouse within the time she was declared menstrually unclean as to a man who had sex with another man (no prohibition on lesbians though).

Lev 20:18 If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

In both chapters if a man sleeps with a woman during her menstrual cycle both are to be “cut off”. Scholars across the the theological and denominational spectrum have uniformly translated this as execution.

Strong's defines the Hebrew word karath which is translated as cut off thus:

to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1111939280-7324.html

There is not even a hint of a temporary period of uncleanness. I never cease to be amazed at the how those who claim to follow a literal interpretation of scripture twist and pervert the plain meaning of words when the literal meaning does not suit their purpose.

Thanks

Paul



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119864 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
So no, I don't get the outrage about this one sin among so very, very many. I am sincere in my continued belief that many folks are cherry-picking the Bible to support their own beliefs.

--Callisto2


So is the solution your supporting, to go after homosexuality and then go after adultery, divorce and the rest, which we should have done before, or is it to just let everything go?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119865 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 12:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
""So would you agree that" Christians should not have supported the defeat of Nazi Germany, knowing it would entail the death of thousands of innocent people?

"So would you agree that" Christians should not have supported Israel in defending itself against the Arab nations in 1948 and 1967, knowing the defence would entail the death of thousands of innocents?"


Although there is clearly ample support in the bible to hold the positions you stated, I would have to say No, I would not agree with those positions.

"See, two can play that particular rhetorical game."

It wasn't a rhetorical game on my part. It was a genuine question (and a legitimate one at that). I think I made that quite clear with my follow up post. Continuing to posit it as such is rather silly.

""So would you agree that" Christians should not have supported leaving Saddam Hussein in power knowing that his regime had already resulted in the death of thousands of innocents and would result in the death of thousands more innocents?"

It is not an either or. Your reply is making the assumption that there are only two solutions, leaving Saddam in power or going to war. Clearly there are many other possible solutions short of war.

"Clearly in the OT God ordered the Israelites to war and innocents died."

Yes He did. So what? Clearly there is a big difference between God ordering a war and having innocents die, and George Bush ordering a war and having innocents die.

"The criteria is not whether innocents die but, rather, was every effort made to minimize the deaths of innocents, and on that basis I think this is a moral war."

Hmm, I would like to see some biblical citations supporting your premise that the criteria is effort made to minimize the death of innocents. My version of the bibal doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill (unless minimizing the death of innocents)".

I see you claiming a moral war but offering no biblical support (the point of this thread) for your claim.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119872 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
So is the solution your supporting, to go after homosexuality and then go after adultery, divorce and the rest, which we should have done before, or is it to just let everything go?

I'm saying not to go after homosexuality and not to go after divorce. Murder? Fraud? Theft? Swiping the last Peep? Sure, throw the book at 'em.

My main point is that when a group of people who engage frequently in Biblically prohibited activities (divorce, covetousness, not stoning disobedient children to death, Red Lobster) are constantly shocked, shocked! that there are others in our midst who engage in a different Biblically prohibited activity (homosexuality), and then the first group claims that they're just.following.the.word.of.God in hounding this second group, it brings to mind the point about casting the first stone, don't it?

Some things should be legal, and some things should be illegal. But if you're going to claim the Bible as your sole source for choosing which is which, you don't get to conveniently claim that you're simply going after homosexuality first...<decades-long pause>...and then working on divorce later.

The Bible's pretty clear on certain death penalties, and if you're going to take the ones about homosexuality literally, you have to include this one:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Put that one into the law books along with the ones about homosexuality, and you'll finally be consistent. But that one will never be a law because, as I said before, the Bible is cherry-picked for the laws people like.

--Callisto2

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119875 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 2:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
So is the solution your supporting, to go after homosexuality and then go after adultery, divorce and the rest, which we should have done before, or is it to just let everything go?

I'm saying not to go after homosexuality and not to go after divorce. Murder? Fraud? Theft? Swiping the last Peep? Sure, throw the book at 'em.

Since you are obviously not taking a Christian stance, why are you here? And since you are not taking the Christian stance, I would love to see how you stance does not break down to, "I like it this way".

My main point is that when a group of people who engage frequently in Biblically prohibited activities (divorce, covetousness, not stoning disobedient children to death, Red Lobster)

Do you actually read my posts. I have dealt with this list of things before. Divorce is not prohited, It is prohitted without cause. And Christians are to be held to a higher standard than the population at large. There was never any civil law against covetousness (as I have state d previously not all sin is a crime). The vast majority of children do not qualify for stoning http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/stndisre.html . However I have no problem adding it to the books (in its proper capacity)
And shellfish is not against God's law as seen in Mark 7.

are constantly shocked, shocked! that there are others in our midst who engage in a different Biblically prohibited activity (homosexuality), and then the first group claims that they're just.following.the.word.of.God in hounding this second group, it brings to mind the point about casting the first stone, don't it?

What about casting the first stone? (Not only are you attempting to pull this passage out of context, to be consistent you would use it when someone defrauds you and the like)

Some things should be legal, and some things should be illegal. But if you're going to claim the Bible as your sole source for choosing which is which, you don't get to conveniently claim that you're simply going after homosexuality first...<decades-long pause>...and then working on divorce later.

If you remember the post that you are attempting to reply to, I said openly that we should have dealt with divorce and the like long ago. However it makes no sense to ignore what people are trying to slide by us now because we didnt do what we should have done long before.

It would be analogous to this: Everyday a group drives by your house and shoots at your windows etc, making you unsafe in your own home. This occurs for 20 years. Then one day another group shows up at a different time. You decide to put your foot down and return fire. They start to complain that you hadnt returned fire on the other group, for the past twenty years. You retort, I will deal with them when they come back, but right now you are in my face firing at my windows. They dont get out of it because I havent dealt with the other group.

The Bible's pretty clear on certain death penalties, and if you're going to take the ones about homosexuality literally, you have to include this one:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Put that one into the law books along with the ones about homosexuality, and you'll finally be consistent. But that one will never be a law because, as I said before, the Bible is cherry-picked for the laws people like.

--Callisto2


If you read my link, you will know that I dont have a problem with such laws (As long as you understand the entire situation and context for enforcement)

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119876 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well really get into this when I have more time. Right now i am about to be off to Easter Dinner over a friends house.

It is beyond dispute that the same punishment was to apply to someone who slept with their spouse within the time she was declared menstrually unclean as to a man who had sex with another man (no prohibition on lesbians though).

Lev 20:18 If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.

In both chapters if a man sleeps with a woman during her menstrual cycle both are to be “cut off”. Scholars across the the theological and denominational spectrum have uniformly translated this as execution.


Lets go to the first half of the punishment of Ch. 20.

10"If a man commits adultery with the wife of[a] his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. 13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; <bthey shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

You see anything interesting there? Now lets see if this interesting thing occurs in the second half.

17"If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. 18If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. 19You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity. 20If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. 21If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity.[b] He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Nope it doesnt occur. So you just lost the prima facia case. Why exactly would the same punishment be described in different fashion within the same chapter?

Strong's defines the Hebrew word karath which is translated as cut off thus:

to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1111939280-7324.html

There is not even a hint of a temporary period of uncleanness. I never cease to be amazed at the how those who claim to follow a literal interpretation of scripture twist and pervert the plain meaning of words when the literal meaning does not suit their purpose.

Thanks

Paul


So it is interesting that the term that is sometimes translated to kill, is not translated as such in this passage? Humm, I guess somebody thought it wasnt the proper translation. So I guess someone disagrees with this great consensus that our term is question always means to kill.

But to end all discussion.

http://snipurl.com/dj6t

Lev. 15:24

24And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

So we see our temporary right here. Remember a passage can be unqualified if another passage qualifies it.

You can check out all of Ch. 15, to make sure I am not trying to cheat you.

Lastly since you didnt say anything, I guess you are okay with the divorce question. If not just holla and we can discuss that as well.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119886 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 8:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
>> I would not go after divorce.

Since you are obviously not taking a Christian stance....

You are aware that many Christians don't think that divorce is the slightest bit wrong? I'm sure for the purposes of this discussion they're "not really Christians" but for the next discussion we'll have "a Christian nation"?

[Note to CT: some things I say do not apply directly to you, since I don't follow this board closely enough to know exactly who says what. I am in many cases responding to things heard from other people on other boards multiple times]

You decide to put your foot down and return fire. They start to complain that you hadnt returned fire on the other group, for the past twenty years. You retort, I will deal with them when they come back, but right now you are in my face firing at my windows.

So let's see. By Kinsey's count, maybe 10% of the population is gay. From Christians, I hear much lower numbers, maybe 2%. So let's say 2% of the population is gay.

Now bear with me: about 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and let's say 90% of people get married in the first place. Some don't remarry, so they aren't committing "adultery." Put that all together and I bet maybe 30% of people over 50--having divorced and remarried--are "adulterers."

But this 2% is "in your face", and the 30% is not (at the moment)? Why not? Every day, thousands of people are thumbing their noses at you, getting [re-]married, with the approval of the state and the church!, and you're worried about the 2%.

If you read my link, you will know that I dont have a problem with such laws....

I read your link, and I'll quote from it:
First, Jesus Christ made it clear that the purpose of His ministry and teaching was not to nullify the authority, teaching, or applicability of the law or the prophets (Matt 5:17-19). He specifically stated that His disciples are responsible to do and to teach even the least of the commandments in the Law (Matt. 5:19). Now it is certain that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is one of the commandments of the law. Therefore, Christians are commanded by their Lord to do and to teach Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

But when I mention the kashruth laws in Leviticus, you tell me that they ain't relevant anymore. People quote Matthew when there are things in the OT that they like and people quote Luke or Paul when there are things in the OT that they don't like. Show me an OT law and I can respond either "Matthew showed that that law still applies" or "Paul showed that that law no longer applies." It's a very very flexible system.

[S]ince you are not taking the Christian stance, I would love to see how you stance does not break down to, "I like it this way".

This amuses me. No two Christian sects agree on the same "Christian stance," and my main thrust in this thread has been to say that you are doing precisely what you accuse me of: making it up as you go along. I freely admit it; I think humans should get together and openly discuss what's healthy or not healthy for individuals and for society as a whole. Call me a dreamer. But to take a book that--whether divinely inspired or not!--has yielded inconceivably different interpretations from hundreds of different groups each completely devoted to interpreting it correctly, well, then that's a book seems to me to be uninterpretable, and you can't amend it with a 2/3 vote.

It all comes around to the original post (not mine, BTW) in this thread:
"Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???"

I still think I know the answer, and I still think it has very, very little to do with what's actually written in the Bible.

--Callisto2

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119888 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 9:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>> I would not go after divorce.

Since you are obviously not taking a Christian stance....


You are aware that many Christians don't think that divorce is the slightest bit wrong? I'm sure for the purposes of this discussion they're "not really Christians" but for the next discussion we'll have "a Christian nation"?

I said that such a position is not a Christian stance, not that the person that is taking it is not a Christian. They could perhaps have been taught horribly wrong.

[Note to CT: some things I say do not apply directly to you, since I don't follow this board closely enough to know exactly who says what. I am in many cases responding to things heard from other people on other boards multiple times]


Okay.

You decide to put your foot down and return fire. They start to complain that you hadnt returned fire on the other group, for the past twenty years. You retort, I will deal with them when they come back, but right now you are in my face firing at my windows.

So let's see. By Kinsey's count, maybe 10% of the population is gay. From Christians, I hear much lower numbers, maybe 2%. So let's say 2% of the population is gay.

Now bear with me: about 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and let's say 90% of people get married in the first place. Some don't remarry, so they aren't committing "adultery." Put that all together and I bet maybe 30% of people over 50--having divorced and remarried--are "adulterers."

But this 2% is "in your face", and the 30% is not (at the moment)? Why not? Every day, thousands of people are thumbing their noses at you, getting [re-]married, with the approval of the state and the church!, and you're worried about the 2%.


The 30% arent out trying to get laws changed currently. They have already done their dastardly deeds. They may come back in a bit to get laws to worsen further. The 2% is in my face trying to get laws changed now. Trying to change definitions of marriage now. As I have repeated, we must go back after the bad laws concerning divorce. However I dont have to get those laws changed before I prevent you from worsing the situation. (Also to be fair, why must I accomplish the more difficult feat before I accomplish the easier feat? To make you feel better?)

If you read my link, you will know that I dont have a problem with such laws....

I read your link, and I'll quote from it:
First, Jesus Christ made it clear that the purpose of His ministry and teaching was not to nullify the authority, teaching, or applicability of the law or the prophets (Matt 5:17-19). He specifically stated that His disciples are responsible to do and to teach even the least of the commandments in the Law (Matt. 5:19). Now it is certain that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is one of the commandments of the law. Therefore, Christians are commanded by their Lord to do and to teach Deuteronomy 21:18-21.


But when I mention the kashruth laws in Leviticus, you tell me that they ain't relevant anymore. People quote Matthew when there are things in the OT that they like and people quote Luke or Paul when there are things in the OT that they don't like. Show me an OT law and I can respond either "Matthew showed that that law still applies" or "Paul showed that that law no longer applies." It's a very very flexible system.

Paul didnt oppose Matthew or Luke. To even imply such suggests Unbiblical presuppositions. If you have something specific to complain about please do so.

[S]ince you are not taking the Christian stance, I would love to see how you stance does not break down to, "I like it this way".

This amuses me. No two Christian sects agree on the same "Christian stance," and my main thrust in this thread has been to say that you are doing precisely what you accuse me of: making it up as you go along. I freely admit it;

The problem is that you dont believe that false positions can be shown to be false. Because someone holds a contrary position does not mean that they are justified in doing so.

I think humans should get together and openly discuss what's healthy or not healthy for individuals and for society as a whole. Call me a dreamer.

So we can decide together what we like or dont like? You have not answered anything, you have just pushed it back a step.

But to take a book that--whether divinely inspired or not!--has yielded inconceivably different interpretations from hundreds of different groups each completely devoted to interpreting it correctly, well, then that's a book seems to me to be uninterpretable, and you can't amend it with a 2/3 vote.

Again you still seem to believe that all positions are equally valid, you cannot justify such a stance.

It all comes around to the original post (not mine, BTW) in this thread:
"Why is the world do Christians get so worked up about homosexuality? What is the big deal, anyway???"

I still think I know the answer, and I still think it has very, very little to do with what's actually written in the Bible.

--Callisto2


The only issue that you can object to, is if you believe the Bible is not as hard on homosexuality as the Religious Right is. And the answer is the Bible is much tougher. According to it, homosexuals should be executed.

CT



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: callisto2 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119890 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/27/2005 11:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
And the answer is the Bible is much tougher. According to it, homosexuals should be executed.

From this, I must come to only one of two conclusions:

EITHER--

1) You believe that the Bible is the authority for morals and laws, and if you had your way, you would follow the Bible and have homosexuals executed.

--OR--

2) You believe that the Bible, despite calling for executions, should not be followed. In this case, you'd be saying that Bible prescriptions should sometimes not be followed, according to some non-Biblical principle you are applying.

If 1), then we'll agree to disagree (to put it mildly) and if 2), then how are you deciding which Biblical laws to follow and which to avoid?

I generally don't like either/or propositions like this, but I fail to see any position of yours that doesn't fall into exactly one of the categories above. If you have a third way, then please tell me how it (1) follows the Bible and (2) doesn't call for the execution of homosexuals. Please exclude any discussion of how you'd be "limited" given today's world and the secular forces opposing you, etc., etc.; I'm interested in what you'd have the law say if you could have your way.

Thanks,
--Callisto2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119891 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 12:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm a number 1.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wpdolan One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119892 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 12:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

>The 30% arent out trying to get laws changed currently. They have >already done their dastardly deeds. They may come back in a bit to get >laws to worsen further. The 2% is in my face trying to get laws >changed now. Trying to change definitions of marriage now. As I have >repeated, we must go back after the bad laws concerning divorce. >However I dont have to get those laws changed before I prevent you >from worsing the situation. (Also to be fair, why must I accomplish >the more difficult feat before I accomplish the easier feat? To make >you feel better?)

Here's a seemingly obvious question: do you believe that we should change all marriage laws to reflect Christian law?

I don't understand how changes in civil law affect the sanctity of Christian institutions. The fact that the state of California grants remarriages doesn't mean that the Catholic Church will, so I don't consider state law relevant to the state of my upcoming wedding. Frankly, I prefer to keep the state out of the church given the historical record of theocracies. I don't want the "lesser of two evils" philosophy to enter my faith, where I prefer to keep as few evils as possible.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119893 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 12:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
wpdolan wrote:

Frankly, I prefer to keep the state out of the church given the historical record of theocracies.

And what about the historical record of atheist statism? Do you really think that is better? I don't. In point of fact, it's been far worse given the hundreds of millions of people murdered by communist governments in the last century.

I do believe in separation of church and state. I don't believe in the suppression of religion by the state, and that includes laws passed by majority rule.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119894 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 12:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
No, we have our secular society and you really have to go and check out kids and their situations to see how healthy and happy it has made them. As a middle school teacher I see it every day.

A late ditto here.

Zee
junior high teacher

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1Apocalypse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119897 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 9:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
the issue is does that make you more holy or less sinful, then the answer to that is no.

There is only One
to whom I cling
for righteousness.

-1A
deepest apologies
if I seemed to suggest
otherwise.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wpdolan One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119909 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I think you've extended the implications of my statement far past my intent. I didn't state a preference for atheist statism by any means, and I don't understand how anyone could infer that from what I wrote. I don't believe in theist statism, either; I do not consider using Christian dogma as the basis of civil law consistent with the framers' intent.

To return to the point being discussed: the bulk of the rhetoric I've heard opposing gay marriage stems from the expression of religious beliefs (and most generally from the portions of Leviticus discussed earlier in great detail). That isn't consistent with the notion of the separation of church and state. Separation of the church and state (which most of us agree is good and necessary) by its definition implies that the two have different standards and rules for their sacraments and ceremonies. Marriage is just one of many such examples.

Christians do deserve protection from the tyranny of the majority. We deserve the right to worship and assemble freely so long as that does not impinge on the basic civil rights of others. My assertion is that everybody else deserves the same protections too, including homosexuals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: jrsmith13 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119912 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I told my husband TWICE that I wanted a divorce.

The first time, it was to cure him of hiccups. It worked.

The second time was for the same reason. It didn't work that time, as he was wise to my trick...

Julie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119920 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I told my husband TWICE that I wanted a divorce.

The first time, it was to cure him of hiccups. It worked.

The second time was for the same reason. It didn't work that time, as he was wise to my trick...

Julie


Thats horrible. But very effective, nifty thinking.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119922 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>The 30% arent out trying to get laws changed currently. They have >already done their dastardly deeds. They may come back in a bit to get >laws to worsen further. The 2% is in my face trying to get laws >changed now. Trying to change definitions of marriage now. As I have >repeated, we must go back after the bad laws concerning divorce. >However I dont have to get those laws changed before I prevent you >from worsing the situation. (Also to be fair, why must I accomplish >the more difficult feat before I accomplish the easier feat? To make >you feel better?)


Here's a seemingly obvious question: do you believe that we should change all marriage laws to reflect Christian law?

Yep. What other standard is just? The answer is none.

I don't understand how changes in civil law affect the sanctity of Christian institutions.

The discussion is easier to have if it is framed as to how we decide what is just and why.

The next question is what institutions should not be Christian? Will they somehow operate better. If Congress disregards the Bible, will they write better laws? Will the courts operate better if they disregard what the Bible says?

The fact that the state of California grants remarriages doesn't mean that the Catholic Church will, so I don't consider state law relevant to the state of my upcoming wedding.

How should we decide whether or not the grant remarriages? Let the majority just come up with whatever standard?

Frankly, I prefer to keep the state out of the church given the historical record of theocracies.

Oh I agree to a certain point. The church and state should be separate just just as they were in Israel. The King could not sacrifice etc. while the priests could not dictate laws. But the standards must remain the same. Each should look to what hte Bible has to say for their role.

I don't want the "lesser of two evils" philosophy to enter my faith, where I prefer to keep as few evils as possible.

I dont want it to enter my faith as well. I am not sure how it would though.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119927 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 4:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
RBC,

Me: Homosexual acts are contrary to natural law (and therefore immoral), degrading to those who practice them...

You: Can you elaborate? I don't understand this statement, especially the connection between natural law and morality.

I presume that you want me to elaborate on the two points that you extracted from my earlier post rather than on the two that you did not extract. The first point requires familarity with the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who laid the foundation of universal morality based upon the natural law. If you want to explore that, I recommend taking a couple courses at a nearby college or university that has a reputable philosophy department. The bottom line, though, is that the natural law -- which implies a moral order -- is deduced entirely by reason and does not depend upon the tenets of any religion.

The degrading aspect of homosexual acts, especially among men, seems pretty obvious. You probably would find it degrading to smear human excrement over any part of your body, let alone the most private and most intimate parts, yet that is precisely what happens to a part of the body that penetrates the rectum because the walls of the colon are coated with it.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119929 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The degrading aspect of homosexual acts, especially among men, seems pretty obvious. You probably would find it degrading to smear human excrement over any part of your body, let alone the most private and most intimate parts, yet that is precisely what happens to a part of the body that penetrates the rectum because the walls of the colon are coated with it.

A lot of people think homosexuality is normal and natural.

Would you say you respect that idea?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Hubris Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119931 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 4:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
...the Bible is much tougher. According to it, homosexuals should be executed.

This really troubles me. I apologize for intruding on your board again, but I just can't (or won't) let this pass.

It scares me not only that there are people out there who honestly advocate death to homosexuals. But more importantly, the fact that 'saner' people are apparently willing to let this just go. Maybe as a non-Christian, my view of morality doesn't count here, and I'm not trying to troll up an angry retort, although I realize that may well be the ultimate effect of posting this. What I'm trying to point out are two things: (1) this kind of thing scares the crap out of me (and I'd bet many non-Christians at least) and (2) it's things like this that make me think Christianity is not the 'right answer' if it allows for such as this.

If you want to know why so many people seem 'anti-Christian', here is at least a part of your answer.

I'll take my flaming now,

Hubris

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Bonhoeffer Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119932 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 4:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
It scares me not only that there are people out there who honestly advocate death to homosexuals. But more importantly, the fact that 'saner' people are apparently willing to let this just go.

"Saner people" are not simply "letting this just go," it's just that everyone here knows CT advocates the death penalty for any sin for which the OT advocates the death penalty, it's already been scaring the crap out of us since he first mentioned it a year or two ago, but there's nothing we can do about it. Every once in a while it pops back out, scares us again, but there's still nothing we can do to argue with him. CT isn't persuaded by reasoning, ever.

IMNSHO, Christianity does not "allow for such as this." I've never met or even heard of a single other Christian in modern times who has advocated for stoning like CT.

Bon

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119933 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 4:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
And the answer is the Bible is much tougher. According to it, homosexuals should be executed.

NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!!

You used the present tense "should be." The Bible does not say homosexuals "should be" executed. It says that in the days of Moses, God gave the Israelites a set of laws for governing the nation of Israel. MANY of those laws, including homosexuality, carried the death penalty.

You are horribly wrong in your continued attempt to apply Mosaic law to 21st Century America. Do you think that Jesus came so his people could have political power? Then why did he say "My kingdom is not of this world?"

I recently got a rude awakening about Dominion Theology, aka theonomy. You know those terms? I suspect that you do. I have notified my pastor and other officials in my denomination about this movement, becuase I only realized recently that there WAS a movement--a small but very ugly movement.

You have been deceived, CT, if you think this is what Jesus wants from you. It is not.

Andrea





Print the post Back To Top
Author: silverwing008 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119935 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 5:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I recently got a rude awakening about Dominion Theology, aka theonomy

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
For those of us who don't know...

<snip>
The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been specifically rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures. "Only if we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law." 3 This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:

"Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV)

Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.

The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic theory are those derived from the Bible
</snip>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119936 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.


This is just wrong. There are quite a few sins in the Bible that are not supposed to be punished by the civil magistrate. Gluttony is just one.


The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic theory are those derived from the Bible


Amen.

CT


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119938 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 5:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It scares me not only that there are people out there who honestly advocate death to homosexuals. But more importantly, the fact that 'saner' people are apparently willing to let this just go.

"Saner people" are not simply "letting this just go," it's just that everyone here knows CT advocates the death penalty for any sin for which the OT advocates the death penalty,

It is not that simple, it is for any sin that the OT advocatees the death penalty and the NT does not show us that we are supposed to change how we observe that law.

it's already been scaring the crap out of us since he first mentioned it a year or two ago, but there's nothing we can do about it.

Not true, you could always attempt to refute it.

Every once in a while it pops back out, scares us again, but there's still nothing we can do to argue with him. CT isn't persuaded by reasoning, ever.


That is not true as well. I am persuaded with good reasoning. The problem is that all I see is: "I dont like that". "Modern folks are not supposed to act like that", "Are you serious", "Most Christians dont write like you do". See nothing impressive.

IMNSHO, Christianity does not "allow for such as this." I've never met or even heard of a single other Christian in modern times who has advocated for stoning like CT.

Bon


I guess you have met many Christians who are wrong in this area of their faith.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119941 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
wpdolan wrote:

To return to the point being discussed: the bulk of the rhetoric I've heard opposing gay marriage stems from the expression of religious beliefs (and most generally from the portions of Leviticus discussed earlier in great detail). That isn't consistent with the notion of the separation of church and state.

The problem that you have with such an argument is that marriage predates the Christian Church - and most other organized religions as well. Given it's importantance as a cultural and biological institution, you don't need a religious reason to prohibit the extension of marriage to homosexual individuals.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119943 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 5:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
wpdolan wrote:

Christians do deserve protection from the tyranny of the majority. We deserve the right to worship and assemble freely so long as that does not impinge on the basic civil rights of others. My assertion is that everybody else deserves the same protections too, including homosexuals.

The equal protection clause is not implicated in the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, in this regard. Gay men are as equally allowed to marry a woman as a heterosexual man is. In point of fact, they don't wish to. This does not mean that the state has to legitmate such behavior.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119946 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 7:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
alchook,

A lot of people think homosexuality is normal and natural.

Would you say you respect that idea?


I actually tossed that idea in the trash can a long time ago because it's indefensible on rational grounds.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119947 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 7:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I actually tossed that idea in the trash can a long time ago because it's indefensible on rational grounds.


So that means no?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119948 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 9:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
andryia:

<<<<And the answer is the Bible is much tougher. According to it, homosexuals should be executed.>>>>

"NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!!

You used the present tense "should be." The Bible does not say homosexuals "should be" executed. It says that in the days of Moses, God gave the Israelites a set of laws for governing the nation of Israel. MANY of those laws, including homosexuality, carried the death penalty.

You are horribly wrong in your continued attempt to apply Mosaic law to 21st Century America. Do you think that Jesus came so his people could have political power? Then why did he say "My kingdom is not of this world?""


That may be your interpretation, but there appear to be alot ot others who argue that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, that the civil law was limitd to Israel, but that the moral law still applies and that the condemnation of homosexuality is still prescribed by the moral law.

Regards, JAFO



Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119949 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 10:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
". . . but that the moral law still applies and that the condemnation of homosexuality is still prescribed by the moral law."

My position is that the moral law does not include the penalties, which are part of the civil law.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119950 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 10:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I actually tossed that idea in the trash can a long time ago because it's indefensible on rational grounds.


So that means no?


I think so.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119951 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 10:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
". . . but that the moral law still applies and that the condemnation of homosexuality is still prescribed by the moral law."


My position is that the moral law does not include the penalties, which are part of the civil law.

God bless,

Rich


Well actually the position is that the general equity of the civil laws is still supposed to be applied. Meaning the modern equivalent. If the law said something about not being negligent, then being negligent today still has severe consequences.

Also if you reject the Bible telling you what penalties to impose, how do you decides what penalties should be impossed on your society? And how do you refute those who propose bad penalties (too low or too high)?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119952 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 10:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Gay men are as equally allowed to marry a woman as a heterosexual man is.



No matter how many times I see that "line of reasoning," it always cracks me up.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119954 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/28/2005 11:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Gay men are as equally allowed to marry a woman as a heterosexual man is.

No matter how many times I see that "line of reasoning," it always cracks me up.

Charlie


I did think that was a line of reasoning, it is just a bare fact.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbclarke Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119957 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
1) You believe that the Bible is the authority for morals and laws, and if you had your way, you would follow the Bible and have homosexuals executed.

----------

I'm a number 1.

CT


----------

Whoa! What happened to the sanctity of life, the current battle-cry of fundamental Christians? First, members of that crowd make death threats to judges and other public figures; and now you're talking about executing homosexuals!? That is gravely unwholesome.

CT, have you discussed this with your pastor/minister/priest? Seriously, friend.

RBC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbclarke Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119959 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 1:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Hi Norm,

I presume that you want me to elaborate on the two points that you extracted from my earlier post rather than on the two that you did not extract.

That is correct. The others were perfectly clear.

The first point requires familarity with the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who laid the foundation of universal morality based upon the natural law. If you want to explore that, I recommend taking a couple courses at a nearby college or university that has a reputable philosophy department. The bottom line, though, is that the natural law -- which implies a moral order -- is deduced entirely by reason and does not depend upon the tenets of any religion.

Okay, but I shouldn't think I would need the collected works of those men to understand your point of view. I don't have a PhD in philosophy, but neither does the average Christian. I'm sure there are some succinct points to be made. Can you give me just a few of the highlights?

The degrading aspect of homosexual acts, especially among men, seems pretty obvious. You probably would find it degrading to smear human excrement over any part of your body, let alone the most private and most intimate parts, yet that is precisely what happens to a part of the body that penetrates the rectum because the walls of the colon are coated with it.

Thanks for that rather graphic explanation. Yes, I would find it personally degrading, but I am just one person, and that is my own opinion. I can't speak for others. Just because you would feel degraded, and I would feel degraded, it doesn't follow that everyone would feel degraded. I think “degradation” is something one inflicts upon oneself. I'm not sure you can project it on others, but I'm willing to listen to other opinions.

You've given me some food for thought. Thanks so far.

RBC


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119965 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 9:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
Thanks for that rather graphic explanation. Yes, I would find it personally degrading, but I am just one person, and that is my own opinion. I can't speak for others. Just because you would feel degraded, and I would feel degraded, it doesn't follow that everyone would feel degraded. I think “degradation” is something one inflicts upon oneself. I'm not sure you can project it on others, but I'm willing to listen to other opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering there are many heterosexual people who also participate in similar acts, I would think there is a good portion of people out there who do not find it degrading, regardless of sexual orientation.

I agree with your statement on this.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119970 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
That is not true as well. I am persuaded with good reasoning.

OK. My reasoning is that if Jesus had wanted to set up a theocracy, he would have done so. He didn't.

He didn't instruct his followers to set up a theocracy, either.

He didn't go to the Roman officials to teach them how to set up a better government.

Basically, he just told his disciples to deal with the government they already had.

In our case, that would be a Constitutional Representative Democracy, in which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered unalienable rights. You want to get rid of this form of government. But out of all the reasons Jesus came, the one reason he did NOT come was to overthrow the government.

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20: 25-28

Andrea


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119971 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 11:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
RBC,

Okay, but I shouldn't think I would need the collected works of those men to understand your point of view. I don't have a PhD in philosophy, but neither does the average Christian. I'm sure there are some succinct points to be made. Can you give me just a few of the highlights?

I don't mean to imply that one must acquire a PhD in philosophy, but any sort of rigorous development is about a semester's course and thus beyond the scope of a post. Also, there are several lines of reasoning that lead to the same place and you don't have the complete picture unless you examine all of them. Rather than do a subject the sort of injustice that any attempt to explain it here would do, I think it's better to suggest a course offered by a college or university with a competent philosophy department.

Thanks for that rather graphic explanation.

Actually, I did not elaborate initially because I was trying to avoid the graphic details.

... it doesn't follow that everyone would feel degraded.

Do you actually know anybody who would not feel degraded if somebody smeared excrement over any part of his or her body?

If so, I would suspect that such a person has a horrible self-image and might even have suicidal tendencies. Get such an individual to a psychologist immediately!

You've given me some food for thought. Thanks so far.

You're welcome!

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119973 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 11:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
JavaTraveler wrote:

No matter how many times I see that "line of reasoning," it always cracks me up.

I'm sure it does. It is, nevertheless, true.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119978 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
That is not true as well. I am persuaded with good reasoning.

OK. My reasoning is that if Jesus had wanted to set up a theocracy, he would have done so. He didn't.

A couple issues. Dont let your dispensational glasses blind you to what I actually saying.

Remember Jesus spoke and acted against the backdrop of the OT. Something did not need to be repeated in order for it to be maintained.

Next, the question was what I believe should be done in various situations. That is a different question than how I believe we should get to the point of implementing what I believe the Bible says.

The first is just a question of what is the just punishment for certain actions. The second is whether or not we will ever see such a just punishment implemented. The second is accomplished by preaching the Gospel to all and as God brings the increase, those people will increasing vote and act in a Christian fashion. These Christians should look to what God has to say concerning their living and what government should do or not do.

If God does not in fact bring this increase then, a theonomic soceity will not be implemented.

He didn't instruct his followers to set up a theocracy, either.

Okay lets say your dispensationalism was correct. What does Jesus have to say about how government is run. I mean concerning what to make law or to ignore and what the punishments should be?

If nothing, then if I was pro abortion, then when someone tried to present some sort of Biblical reason against abortion, I would just say, "Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world." So dont worry about the laws concerning abortion, gay marriage etc.

Just so you think I am ignoring you, Jesus saying his kingdom is not of this world, does not imply that he does not reign supreme overall creation and over how creation should live. It just is stating that his kingdom does not derive its power from this world or certain locations of this world (Like all earthly kings). He derives his power from Heaven, so his power cannot be abridged by anyone or even by death. (Like all earthly kings).

He didn't go to the Roman officials to teach them how to set up a better government.

A problem for you here, is that this in no way invalidates my thesis. The point is regeneration. The question is how does a regernerate person, supposed to look at the world? A non regenerated person does not want to here one word about how God wants them to act.

Basically, he just told his disciples to deal with the government they already had.

Basically, yes, as we are as well. This however does not mean that government can do no evil or that we are not supposed to disobey or overthrow the government under certain conditions.

In our case, that would be a Constitutional Representative Democracy, in which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered unalienable rights. You want to get rid of this form of government. But out of all the reasons Jesus came, the one reason he did NOT come was to overthrow the government.


I can get rid of a certain government without overthrowing it. If I was able to lead a fight to amend the constition to make it say different things. I would have not overthrown the government. I would have changed it drastically (within its own rules)

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20: 25-28

Andrea


So is this an indictment on bad leaders or is this an indictment against Christians being involved in goverment?

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119981 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
1) You believe that the Bible is the authority for morals and laws, and if you had your way, you would follow the Bible and have homosexuals executed.

----------

I'm a number 1.

CT

----------


Whoa! What happened to the sanctity of life, the current battle-cry of fundamental Christians?

I would say that I, as well as many fundamentalist Christians (I dont consider myself one) do not consider all life equally sacred. And that one can forfeit the right to life. So this issue becomes a fight over when this should occur.

First, members of that crowd make death threats to judges and other public figures; and now you're talking about executing homosexuals!? That is gravely unwholesome.

I do not support Death Threats against judges and the like, howCT, have you discussed this with your pastor/minister/priest? Seriously, friend.

RBCever I do support law changes in most areas. I do also reject vigilante justice based on Roman 13. It is the civil magistrates job to weld the sword and execute justice, not mine as an individual citizens.

But it also says that the civil magistrate is God's minister. That means that God is to call the shots in how his minister acts.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wpdolan One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119982 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The problem that you have with such an argument is that marriage predates the Christian Church - and most other organized religions as well. Given it's importantance as a cultural and biological institution, you don't need a religious reason to prohibit the extension of marriage to homosexual individuals.

With the system of government we have, the burden of proof is on the party trying to deny a privilege or right to another adult. I have yet to see any convincing proof on how gay marriage would be a detriment to society.

You cite culture, but I don't see how much importance a culture with a 50% divorce rate places on marriage. I suggest that the increased stability of family units caused by gay marriage might be a boon for society.

You cite biology, but I can as well: homosexuality exists in species as divergent as fruit flies, suggesting that it is a natural act and not necessarily a choice.

Without further evidence, the cultural and biological arguments as presented aren't sufficient to deny marriage to gay couples. That leaves only religious objections, which are not a sufficient reason for changing laws under our system of government.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: wolferd1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119983 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
RBC,

Natural law asserts that there are certain social organizations or norms which are essential for human existence. Aristotle said that the natural law was grounded in our human nature and biology. It is an idea which has been written on extensively by both philosophers and theologians. The Apostle Paul also appeals to the notion. Check out a local library.

If one is not careful, natual law can become merely a justification for the status quo. Aristotle believed that certain individuals were created for the sole purpose of serving others as slaves or servants. Most would not call this an paritcularly enlightened view.

The Catholic Church looks towards natural law for her position that all all sexual acts should be open to procreation. By definition, that excludes any homosexual acts. (Some might say that it also limits the significance of sexual activities within the bonds of marriage, but that is another issue.) In some sense, natuaral law encourages those behaviors which are good for society at large, but takes little account of the individual.

As for this whole thread, I think it is a bit of a problem when the gay community is summarized by "the act." It seems to be an unfortunate obsession on the part of the straight community.

Robert

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119984 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The point is regeneration. The question is how does a regernerate person, supposed to look at the world? A non regenerated person does not want to here one word about how God wants them to act.

I think that is a very good question, CT. How do YOU think a re-made person would act?

Andrea


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MainiacJoe Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119985 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would say that I, as well as many fundamentalist Christians (I dont consider myself one) . . .

This is difficult to understand. You certainly appear to most of us as a fundamentalist! Exhibit A: You believe that the Sun orbits the Earth instead of the other way around, and why do you beleive this? Because the Bible says so, and that trumps all evidence to the contrary. Yet would not call yourself a fundamentalist. What then is a fundamentalist???

- Joe

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119986 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Silverwing,

The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been specifically rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures. "Only if we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law." 3 This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:

How sad.

Anybody who holds this viewpoint clearly does not understand the Book of Hebrews.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119987 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The point is regeneration. The question is how does a regernerate person, supposed to look at the world? A non regenerated person does not want to here one word about how God wants them to act.

I think that is a very good question, CT. How do YOU think a re-made person would act?

Andrea


The way that God has revealed for them to act. Aka what I say :-)

Also for any dispensationists out there, this passage should help them come over to my side.

1 Timothy 1:8-11


8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.


What law is Paul talking about? Anything at all that the leaders or the people want?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MainiacJoe Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119988 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Again I don't understand you, CT.

Also for any dispensationists out there, this passage should help them come over to my side.

What will you win if this happens?

- Joe

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119989 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Also for any dispensationists out there, this passage should help them come over to my side.

What will you win if this happens?

- Joe


A just society?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119990 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The way that God has revealed for them to act. Aka what I say :-)

Thanks, but I prefer the way Jesus told us to act.

"As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Love is only love if it's obvious to an outsider. And most outsiders don't see much love when we talk about how we wish the government would start stoning gays, adulterers, and heretics.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119991 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I'm sure it does. It is, nevertheless, true.



It is in fact very false. But you keep on going.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119992 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 2:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The way that God has revealed for them to act. Aka what I say :-)

Thanks, but I prefer the way Jesus told us to act.

"As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Love is only love if it's obvious to an outsider. And most outsiders don't see much love when we talk about how we wish the government would start stoning gays, adulterers, and heretics.

Andrea


Um so your depending on your definition of love, you will then decide if you believe God has said something or not?

One problem is that you seem to believe that the OT and its laws were unloving.

You were required to love:

LEVITICUS 19:18 NKJ
18 `You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

In this context, God still told the civil magistrate to "remove the evil from among you"

So somehow God did not see His Laws as unloving. Why do you believe otherwise?

Or you believe he called for us to contradict ourselves (which I hope you dont believe).

Lastly, what an outsider sees or does not see, is not my problem. I am to listen to God and how he defines love.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119993 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 3:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Also andrea, I asked you several questions in my previous posts. I have not received any answers. Could you help me out in understanding your position?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119994 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 3:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm sure it does. It is, nevertheless, true.

It is in fact very false. But you keep on going.

Charlie


How is it false?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: khalou Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119995 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
How is it false?

CT


How about, "Black people can marry anyone within their race- just like white people. We don't allow white people any more rights than black people."

k


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119996 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 3:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How is it false?

CT


How about, "Black people can marry anyone within their race- just like white people. We don't allow white people any more rights than black people."

k


Are you implying that White people would be allowed to marry beyond their race? Or that they would not?

If not, then I dont see the problem. If so, then I dont see the analogy.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1Apocalypse Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 119997 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 5:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I cannot address the OT God vs NT Jesus
except to recall that in John 10 Jesus said "I and the Father are one."
Jesus came in human form, in part, to reveal the Father more fully.

Lastly, what an outsider sees or does not see, is not my problem.

I must take issue with this.
.
Anyone claiming the title Christian
by definition, represents God to others.

What an "outsider" sees in us,
by our own declaration
is what he sees of God.

-1A
who prays that he never
bears false witness

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 120005 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 8:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
wpdolan wrote:

With the system of government we have, the burden of proof is on the party trying to deny a privilege or right to another adult.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the party trying to change things. That burden is usually expressed via the legislature in the form of a constitutional amendment.

I suggest that the increased stability of family units caused by gay marriage might be a boon for society.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

You cite biology, but I can as well: homosexuality exists in species as divergent as fruit flies, suggesting that it is a natural act and not necessarily a choice.

Well, it suggests that there may be some kind of pathophysiological process working. When things go wrong with the body, that's natural too, but we don't treat that as the normal state of things.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 120006 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 8:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
JavaTraveler wrote:

It is in fact very false.

No, it is true. Gay men are not legally prohibited from marrying women.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 120007 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 8:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
khalou wrote:

How about, "Black people can marry anyone within their race- just like white people. We don't allow white people any more rights than black people."

Sorry, that one doesn't fly as an example because it's not what we're talking about. You've now given us an example of a law that classifies on the basis of race, which IS constitutionally prohibitted. Discrimination on the basis of gender orientation is NOT constitutionally prohibitted, just as many other forms of discrimination - such as whether to buy the more/less expensive product or choose vanilla over chocolate - are not.

The marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender - NOT sexual orientation. The courts have ruled in the past that such discrimination in the marriage laws is legitimate. It's also useful to note that gender discrimination doesn't receive the same kind of scrutiny that laws regarding race do. Because men and women are physically different, some differences in laws that classify on the basis of gender are allowed.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Bonhoeffer Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 120008 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 9:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
No, it is true. Gay men are not legally prohibited from marrying women.

Yep. You win that one.

I'm sure it's a source of tremendous comfort to every gay man who's ever watched a man he loves suffer and die from a terminal illness without having any legal standing during treatment or in the aftermath.

Bon

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 120009 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 9:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I'm sure it's a source of tremendous comfort to every gay man who's ever watched a man he loves suffer and die from a terminal illness without having any legal standing during treatment or in the aftermath.

Power of Attorney.

Will.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: whyohwhyoh Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 120010 of 196020
Subject: Re: What's the Big Deal? Date: 3/29/2005 9:41 PM