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 intended to set aside the Jewish nation, which were superceded by the 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are those we select as no longer applicable.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. ahhhh, but if the bible is truly the inspired word of god, then i'm betting god meant for all those commandments to apply, not for people to pick and choose. really how you look at a religious text depends on your world view - as in whether or not you believe in god as real entity or you believe that religion is some kind of cultural or societal (is that even a real word?) construct that ancient peoples (and some not so ancient) use to explain the unexplainable around them. looking at it from the first point of view, if god was powerful enough create the world in all it's glory (as stated in the bible), then surely god was powerful enough to make sure that the correct message remained intact in the text. in that case, why would you pick and choose what to believe and follow? just a thought. >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. both the old testament and new testament state it's wrong (read: a sin) for a man to sleep with a man and a woman to sleep with a woman. it's no better or worse than another sin since a sin is a sin is a sin. there were different punishments for different sins, but i think that may have been more deterrent than a measure of how bad they were. >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? i totally agree with you there.