On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, 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 intended to set aside the Jewish nation, which were superceded by the 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.) > >The only serious injunction against homosexual behavior (if it is one; >interpretations of the original Hebrew differ) in Leviticus names it as a >ritually unclean act rather than a moral sin. If you decide to throw out >the ritual uncleanliness laws, you need to throw out all of them. The >prohibition against homosexual sex isn't a commandment in the same sense >that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is; it's part of the set of laws specifically >given to the Isrealites and no other people. it's actually mentioned in the new testament - i'm afb, i wish i could give you book, chapter and verse. i remember being very surprised because i had always heard the argument to which i think you are referring - that these were laws from the old testament that only applied to those of the hebrew faith. i was also surprised it was so precise. it doesn't use whatever the then modern-day term was for homosexual or anything that might be misinterpreted, it described the act of a man with a man. >@> >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. > >Sure, one can take that approach. But if one does, then one must advocate >stoning, polygamy, slavery, and also one must abide by all the kosher >laws, etc. Then that person will have a consistent world-view. If you're >>not doing that, though, you are interpreting the Bible and removing >certain things that you think don't apply. are you sure not over-emphasizing the old testament? didn't jesus kind of bring in a new law? do unto others, love your nieghbor as yourself, let he who is without blame cast the first stone - that kind of stuff. >Also: If God has the power to do X, that does not mean that God is >obligated to do X. In fact, saying that one understands the mind of God is >a bit prideful, wouldn't you think? Perhaps God put those things into the >Bible for inscrutable reasons that have nothing to do with the commands >actually being obeyed; God might want everyone to be atheists, for >instance. You never know. God's plan is not for mortals to understand. i don't claim to know the mind of god. i do think it would be strange that god would want people to be atheists, not when he created them for companionship (thinking of genesis, adam and eve talking with him in the garden). to be honest, i believe this whole life is an exercise in choice. you can choose to believe >@> >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. > >Well, sort of for the Old Testament, see above. The New Testament contains >no such thing, although it does have prohibitions against rape and >beastiality (Jude 1), pederasty (Matthew 8), fertility cults (Romans 1), >and temple prostitution (1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) which are >frequently (and, probably, deliberately) mistranslated or misconstrued as >specific prohibitions of homosexuality by people with an agenda to push. see above comment, i'm fairly certain it's in the new testament. >@> 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. > >So... it's your interpretation that that's the case? Even though the Bible >contains evidence to the contrary? Interesting. easy, this is just a discussion. it is my interpretation but i'm not so arrogant as to believe i can't be wrong. instead of belittling my view, challenge it. what evidence are you talking about?