James Griffin wrote: > Warning: Discussion of religious viewpoints here. If such is > unpleasant, don't read further > > > * > > > > * > > > > > * > > > > > * > > > > > * > > > > > * > > > > > Hopefully this is enough. > > My comments interspersed. > > ; and C), an undue emphasis on the legalisms and > >> bloodthirstiness of the Old Testament, as applied literalistically >> and with preference for texts that support certain prejudices and >> phobias. The folks that condemn homosexuality are perfectly willing >> to eat lobster or wear blended fibers, even though those are both >> condemned with equal harshness. >> > > Wrong. There is a clear and distinct difference drawn especially in > the New Testament between the Levitical proscriptions that were > intended to set aside the Jewish nation, which were superceded by the > actions of Jesus and his disciples (Gospels), and specifically deemed > un-necessary for Gentile believers (book of Acts and following), and > the specific sins that were explicitly proclaimed wrong in both Old > and New Testaments, (sexual immorality being the one referred in this > thread.) > People pick and choose which commandments apply. What we like to do are those we select as no longer applicable. Stuff which is not nearly so clear - but which disgust us, condemn the practitioners to being tortured beyond all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole. > E.G.: Stoning was the punishment for sexual immorality, but not for > eating of shellfish. (Old Testament) All foods are lawful (though not > profitable- paraphrase for purpose of discussion), however, the > sexually immoral will not see the kingdom of heaven. (New Testament) > The level of punishment is not and indicator of whether the crime is still on the books. > If you don't agree, I willingly accept references to the Scriptures > for further examination and discussion. What are the lines in the Bible which say homosexuals are damned? A line that refers to homosexuals and sinners actually implies that these two types of people are different. Divorce is IMHO, much more deserving of condemnation than homosexuality is, and abandonment even more. But I do believe that churches should be in charge of marriage, not the state. With palimony and child support not depending upon marriage, the only reason the state is concerned with marriage is to decide who gets insurance benefits. But why should I have to screw someone for them to get my social security? Why can't I have my brother, mother, or neighbor as my beneficiary?